User talk:Smatprt/Archive 6

copy of Theory article

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship proposes that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. While a large majority of scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues to grow,[1] particularly among independent scholars and theatre professionals. Since the 1920s, Oxford has been the most widely accepted anti-Stratfordian candidate.[2][3][4] The case for Oxford's authorship is based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon;[5] and underlined passages in Oxford's Bible that may correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays.[6] Oxfordians point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, the theory that he was a concealed poet, and his connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his long term relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his private tutors and education, his academic and cultural patronage and his wide-ranging travels through the locations of Shakespeare's plays in France and Italy. Though Oxford died in 1604 before 10 of the plays were performed or published according to the generally accepted chronology, Oxfordians point to 1604 as the year regular publication of Shakespeare's plays stopped for four years until three new plays were issued in 1608 and 1609, the last ones until 18 plays made their publication debut in the First Folio of 1623, and argue that some literary allusions to Shakespeare imply that the writer died before 1609. They also date some works earlier and suggest that unfinished works were completed by other playwrights and released after his death. The convergence of documentary evidence of the type used by academics for authorial attribution—title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records—sufficiently establishes Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship for the overwhelming majority of Shakespeare scholars and literary historians,[7] and no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works. Oxfordians, however, reject the apparent historical record as falsified to protect the identity of the real author, and interpret the plays and poems as autobiographical. They use the plays and poems to construct a hypothetical author, from which they deduce that the author must have been an aristocrat of great formal learning, intimate with the Elizabethan court and widely travelled through the countries and cities mentioned in the plays. They say that this inferred profile fits the biography of the Earl of Oxford better than the documented biography of William Shakespeare. Contents [hide] 1 History of the Oxfordian theory 1.1 Prince Tudor theory 1.2 Decline and revival 2 Biographical Evidence for Oxford's authorship 2.1 Theatre connections 2.2 Family connections 2.3 Oxford's Bible 2.4 Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde 2.5 Stratford connections 2.6 Oxford's Italian travels and the settings of Shakespeare's plays 3 Literary connections 3.1 Oxford as a poet and playwright 3.2 Oxford's lyric poetry 3.3 Perceived allusions to Oxford as a concealed writer 4 Composition dates of the plays/Oxford's 1604 death 4.1 Dates of composition 4.2 The 1604 issue 4.2.1 Publication 4.2.2 Composition 4.2.3 Science 4.2.4 Notable silences 5 Parallels with the plays 6 Parallels with the sonnets and poems 6.1 Age 6.2 Lameness 6.3 Law 6.4 Southampton – The Fair Youth 6.5 Public disgrace 6.6 Lost fame 7 Case against Oxfordian theory 7.1 Oxford's death 7.2 Additional objections 8 References in popular culture 9 See also 10 Footnotes 11 References 12 Bibliography 13 External links 13.1 Sites promoting the Oxfordian Theory 13.2 Sites opposing the Oxfordian Theory [edit]History of the Oxfordian theory

Looney's Shakespeare Identified (1920) began the modern Oxfordian movement and made Oxford the most widely accepted anti-Stratfordian candidate. The claim that the works of Shakespeare were in fact written by someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon dates back to the mid-nineteenth century. Skeptics claimed that Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the education and sensibility to have written the plays. The original principal alternative candidate was Francis Bacon, but by the beginning of the twentieth century other candidates, typically aristocrats, were put forward.[8] The Oxford theory was first proposed by J. Thomas Looney in his 1920 book Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford[9] Following earlier anti-Stratfordians, Looney argued that the known facts of Shakespeare's life did not fit the personality he ascribed to the author of the plays. Shakespeare of Stratford had a petty "acquisitive disposition", he said, while the plays made heroes of free-spending figures.[10] They also portrayed middle and lower class people negatively, while Shakespearean heroes were typically aristocratic. Looney considered that Oxford's personality fitted that he deduced from the plays, and also identified characters in the plays as detailed portraits of Oxford's family and personal contacts. Oxford's death in 1604 was linked to a drop-off in the publication of Shakespeare plays. Looney declared that the late play The Tempest was not written by Oxford, and that others performed or published after Oxford's death were most probably left incomplete and finished by other writers, thus explaining the apparent idiosyncrasies of style found in the late Shakespeare plays. Looney also introduced the argument that the reference to the "ever living poet" in the 1609 dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets implied that the author was dead at the time of publication.[11]

The Ashbourne portrait of William Shakespeare, which hangs in the Folger Shakespeare Library was analyzed by Charles Wisner Barrell, director of Photography at Bell, who concluded it was an overpainting of the Earl of Oxford, though more recent research identifies it as a portrait of Hugh Hamersley.[12][13] Sigmund Freud, the gothic horror novelist Marjorie Bowen, and several early 20th-century celebrities found the thesis persuasive,[14] and Oxford soon overtook Bacon as the favoured alternative candidate to Shakespeare of Stratford, though academic Shakespeareans mostly ridiculed or ignored the claims. Looney's theory attracted a number of activist followers who published books supplementing his own and added new arguments, most notably Percy Allen, Bernard M. Ward, Louis P. Bénézet and Charles Wisner Barrell. In 1921, Sir George Greenwood, Looney, and others founded The Shakespeare Fellowship, an organization originally dedicated to the discussion and promotion of ecumenical anti-Stratfordian views, but which later became devoted to promoting Oxford as the true Shakespeare. [edit]Prince Tudor theory Main article: Prince Tudor theory In a letter written by Looney in 1933, he mentions that Allen and Ward were "advancing certain views respecting Oxford and Queen Eliz. which appear to me extravagant & improbable, in no way strengthen Oxford’s Shakespeare claims, and are likely to bring the whole cause into ridicule."[15][8] Allen and Ward claimed that they had discovered that Elizabeth and Oxford were lovers and had conceived a child. Allen developed the theory in his 1934 book Anne Cecil, Elizabeth & Oxford. He argued that the child was given the name William Hughes, who became an actor under the stage-name "William Shakespeare". He adopted the name because his father, Oxford, was already using it as a pen-name for his plays. Oxford had borrowed the name from a third Shakespeare, the man of that name from Stratford-upon-Avon, who was a law student at the time, but who was never an actor or a writer.[16] Allen later changed his mind about Hughes and decided that the concealed child was the Earl of Southampton, the dedicatee of Shakespeare's narrative poems. This secret drama, which has become known as the Prince Tudor theory, was covertly represented in Oxford's plays and poems and remained hidden until Allen and Ward's discoveries. The narrative poems and sonnets had been written by Oxford for his son. This Star of England (1952) by Charlton and Dorothy Ogburn included arguments in support of this version of the theory. Their son, Charlton Ogburn junior, agreed with Looney that the theory was an impediment to the Oxfordian movement and omitted all discussion about it in his own Oxfordian works. However, the theory was revived and expanded by Elisabeth Sears in Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose (2002), and Hank Whittemore in The Monument (2005), an analysis of Shakespeare's Sonnets which interprets the poems as a poetic history of Queen Elizabeth, Oxford, and Southampton. Paul Streitz's Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (2001) advances a variation on the theory: that Oxford himself was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth by her stepfather, Thomas Seymour. Oxford was thus the half-brother of his own son by the queen. The book also claims that the queen had children by the Earl of Leicester, Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury, Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, Mary Sidney and Elizabeth Leighton. [edit]Decline and revival After a period of decline of the Oxfordian theory beginning with World War II, in 1952 Charlton Ogburn and his wife Dorothy published the 1,300-page This Star of England, including the Prince Tudor theory, which briefly revived Oxfordism. A series of critical academic books and articles, however, held in check any appreciable growth of anti-Stratfordism and Oxfordism, most notably The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined (1957), by William and Elizebeth Friedman, The Poacher from Stratford (1958), by Frank Wadsworth, Shakespeare and His Betters (1958), by Reginald Churchill, The Shakespeare Claimants (1962), by H. N. Gibson, and Shakespeare and His Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy (1962), by George L. McMichael and Edgar M. Glenn. By 1968 the newsletter of The Shakespeare Oxford Society reported that "the missionary or evangelical spirit of most of our members seems to be at a low ebb, dormant, or non-existent".[17] In 1974, membership in the society stood at 80.[18] In 1979, the publication of an analysis of The Ashbourne portrait dealt a further blow to the movement. The painting, long claimed to be one of the portraits of Shakespeare, but considered by Barrell to be an overpaint of a portrait of the Earl of Oxford, turned out to represent neither, but rather depicted Hugh Hamersley. Charlton Ogburn, Jr. was elected president of The Shakespeare Oxford Society in 1976 and kick-started the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement by seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia, methods which became standard policy for Oxfordian and anti-Stratfordian promoters because of their success in recruiting members of the lay public.[19] He portrayed academic scholars as self-interested members of an "entrenched authority" that aimed to "outlaw and silence dissent in a supposedly free society", and proposed to counter their influence by portraying Oxford as a candidate on equal footing with Shakespeare.[20] In 1985 he published his 900-page The Mysterious William Shakespeare: the Myth and the Reality, and by framing the issue as one of fairness in the atmosphere of conspiracy that permeated America after Watergate, he used the media to circumnavigate academia and appeal directly to the public.[21] Ogburn's efforts secured Oxford the place as the most popular alternative candidate.[22] Although Shakespearean experts disparaged Ogburn's methodology and his conclusions, one reviewer, Richmond Crinkley, the Folger Shakespeare Library's former director of educational programs, acknowledged the appeal of Ogburn's approach, writing that the doubts over Shakespeare, "arising early and growing rapidly", have a "simple, direct plausibility", and the dismissive attitude of established scholars only worked to encourage such doubts. Though Crinkley rejected Ogburn's thesis, he believed that one merit of the book lay in the way it focused attention on what is not known of Shakespeare.[23] Spurred by Ogburn's book, '[i]n the last decade of the twentieth century members of the Oxfordian camp gathered strength and made a fresh assault on the Shakespearean citadel, hoping finally to unseat the man from Stratford and install de Vere in his place.'[24] The Oxfordian theory returned to wide public attention in anticipation of the late October 2011 release of Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous. Its distributor, Sony Pictures, advertised that the film "presents a compelling portrait of Edward de Vere as the true author of Shakespeare's plays," and commissioned high school and college-level lesson plans to promote the authorship question to history and literature teachers across the United States.[25] According to Sony Pictures, "The objective for our Anonymous program, as stated in the classroom literature, is ‘to encourage critical thinking by challenging students to examine the theories about the authorship of Shakespeare’s works and to formulate their own opinions.’ The study guide does not state that Edward de Vere is the writer of Shakespeare’s work, but it does pose the authorship question which has been debated by scholars for decades".[26] [edit]Biographical Evidence for Oxford's authorship

While there is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate) to the plays of Shakespeare, Oxfordian researchers, including Mark Anderson and Charlton Ogburn believe the connection is provided by considerable circumstantial evidence, including: Oxford's connections to the Elizabethan theatre and poetry scene; the participation of his family in the printing and publication of the First Folio; his relationship with the Earl of Southampton (believed by most mainstream scholars to be "Shakespeare's patron"); as well as a number of specific circumstances from Oxford's life that Oxfordians believe are depicted in the plays themselves. [edit]Theatre connections Oxford was a leaseholder of the first Blackfriars Theatre; He produced entertainments on tour and at court; He was the patron of two acting companies – Oxford's Boys and Oxford's Men Oxford maintained a company of musicians He was a patron of writers, poets, playwrights and musicians. [edit]Family connections He was the son-in-law of Lord Burghley, who is often regarded as the model for Polonius; His daughter was engaged to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton (many scholars believe Southampton to have been the Fair Youth of the Sonnets); His mother, Margory Golding, was the sister of the Ovidtranslator Arthur Golding; His uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was the inventor of the English orShakespearean sonnetform.[27] The three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton,Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere. Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece were dedicated to Southampton, and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere) and Pembroke (who was once engaged toBridget de Vere). [edit]Oxford's Bible In the late 1990's Edward deVere's bible was found at the Folger Shakespeare Library by Dr. Roger A. Strettmatter, PhD. The bible included underlined passages that Strittmatter believed corresponded to quotations in Shakespeare's plays.[28] [edit]Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde In 1588, due to ongoing financial problems, Oxford sold his house, Fisher's Folly, to William Cornwallis. In 1852, James Halliwell-Phillipps discovered a volume, "Anne Cornwaleys her booke," apparently the day book of Cornwallis’ daughter Anne, which Halliwell-Phillipps believed was written sometime in 1595. Anne's handwritten book contains "Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde," "Anne Vavasour's Echo" (Anne Vavasour was Oxford's mistress 1579–1581, by whom he fathered an illegitimate child), and also a poem ascribed in 1599 to "Shakespeare" by William Jaggard in The Passionate Pilgrim. According to Charles Wisner Barrell, Anne's version was superior textually to the one published by Jaggard, and is the first handwritten example we have of a poem ascribed to Shakespeare.[29] [edit]Stratford connections While Oxfordians concede the names Avon and Stratford have become irrevocably linked to Shakespeare with the 1623 publication of the First Folio, they also note Edward de Vere once owned an estate in the River Avon valley[30] near the Forest of Arden,[31] and the nearest town to the parish of Hackney, where de Vere later lived and was buried, was also named Stratford.[32]Oxfordians also regard Dr. John Ward's 1662 statement, that Shakespeare spent at a rate of £1,000 a year, as a critical piece of evidence given that, in an oft-noted parallel, Oxford received an unexplained annuity from the notoriously thrifty Queen Elizabeth Iof exactly £1,000 a year.[33] [edit]Oxford's Italian travels and the settings of Shakespeare's plays Shakespeare placed many of his plays in Italy and sprinkled them with detailed descriptions of Italian life. Though there are no records Shakespeare of Stratford ever visited mainland Europe, historical documents confirm Oxford lived in Venice, and traveled for over a year through Italy.[34] According to Anderson, the Italian cities Oxford definitely visited in 1575–1576 were Venice, Padua, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Florence, Siena and Naples and he probably also passed through Messina, Mantua and Verona — all cities "Shakespeare" later wrote into the plays, while (except for Rome) the Italian cities Oxford bypassed are the same cities Shakespeare ignored.[35]

[edit]Literary connections

[edit]Oxford as a poet and playwright There are three principal pieces of evidence praising Oxford as a poet and a playwright: (1) The anonymous 1589 Arte of English Poesie, usually attributed to George Puttenham, contains a chapter describing the practice of concealed publication by court figures, which includes a passage listing Oxford as the finest writer of comedy: for Tragedie, the Lord of Buckhurst, & Maister Edward Ferrys for such doings as I haue sene of theirs do deserue the hyest price:Th'Earle of Oxford and Maister Edwardes of her Maiesties Chappell for Comedy and Enterlude. (2) Francis Meres' 1598 Palladis Tamia, which refers to him as Earle of Oxenford, lists him among the "best for comedy". Shakespeare's name appears further down the same list. so the best for comedy amongst us bee, Edward Earle of Oxenforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Maister Rowley once a rare Scholar of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes one of her Majesty's Chapel, eloquent and witty John Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene,Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Munday our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathway, and Henry Chettle.[36] Stratfordians believe Shakespeare's appearance on the same list proves Oxford and Shakespeare were different writers. For an Oxfordian discussion of this topic, see the wiki references in the entry on Francis Meres. (3) Henry Peacham's 1622 The Compleat Gentleman omits Shakespeare's name and praises Oxford as one of the leading poets of the Elizabethan era,[37] saying: In the time of our late Queene Elizabeth, which was truly a golden Age (for such a world of refined wits, and excellent spirits it produced, whose like are hardly to be hoped for, in any succeeding Age) above others, who honoured Poesie with their pennes and practise (to omit her Maiestie, who had a singular gift herein) were Edward Earle of Oxford, the Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget; our Phoenix, the noble Sir Philip Sidney, M. Edward Dyer, M. Edmund Spencer, M. Samuel Daniel, with sundry others; whom (together with those admirable wits, yet liuing, and so well knowne) not out of Ennuie but to auoid tediousnesse, I overpasse. Thus much of Poetrie. Stratfordians disagree with this interpretation of Peacham, asserting that Peacham copied large parts of Puttenham's work but only used the names of those writers he considered "gentlemen", a title Peacham felt did not apply to actors. They further argue his list is of poets only and he did not include playwrights, neglecting for example Christopher Marlow.[citation needed] Alan Nelson, de Vere's only biographer who does not advocate the Oxfordian Theory, believes that "(c)ontemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham and Meres clearly exaggerated Oxford's talent in deference to his rank."[38] Although not strictly a report on Oxford's ability as a playwright, there is also a description of the esteem to which he was held as a writer in The Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois, a 1613 play by George Chapman, who has been suggested as the Rival Poet of Shake-speares Sonnets: I overtook, coming from Italy In Germany, a great and famous Earl Of England; the most goodly fashion’d man I ever saw: from head to foot in form Rare and most absolute; he had a face Like one of the most ancient honour’d Romans From whence his noblest family was deriv’d; He was besides of spirit passing great Valiant and learn’d, and liberal as the sun, Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects, Or of the discipline of public weals: And ‘twas the Earl of Oxford.[39][40] [edit]Oxford's lyric poetry Much of Oxford's early lyric poetry survives under his own name.[41] In the opinion of J. Thomas Looney, as "far as forms of versification are concerned De Vere presents just that rich variety which is so noticeable in Shakespeare; and almost all the forms he employs we find reproduced in the Shakespeare work...." "So far as the natural disposition of the writer is concerned...(t)he personality they reflect is perfectly in harmony with that which peer through the writings of Shakespeare. There are traces undoubtedly of those defects which the sonnets disclose in "Shakespeare," but through it all there shines the spirit of an intensely affectionate nature, highly sensitive, and craving for tenderness and sympathy. He is a man with faults, but stamped with reality and truth; honest even in his errors, making no pretence of being better than he was, and recalling frequently to our minds the lines in one of Shakespeare's sonnets:" I am that I am, and they that level At my abuses reckon up their own.[42] As far as the quality of Edward de Vere's known verse is concerned, Oxfordians respond to the charge that it is not at the level one would expect of a "Shakespeare" in two ways. First, Oxford's known works are those of a young man and as such should be consideredjuvenilia.[43][44] And second, neither is Titus Andronicus, and whoever wrote that play eventually wrote Hamlet. As Joseph Sobran observed, "The objection may be still made that…Oxford's poetry remains far inferior to Shakespeare's. But even granting the point for the sake of argument, ascribing authorship on the basis of quality is an uncertain business. Early in the (20th) century some scholars sought to exclude such plays as Titus Andronicus … on the grounds that they were unworthy of Shakespeare. Today their place is secure…. The poet who wrote King Lear was at some time also capable of writing Titus Andronicus." [45] [edit]Perceived allusions to Oxford as a concealed writer Before the advent of copyright, anonymous and pseudonymous publication was a common practice in the sixteenth century publishing world, and a passage in the Arte of English Poesie (1589), the leading work of literary criticism of the Elizabethan period and an anonymously published work itself, mentions in passing that literary figures in the court who wrote "commendably well" suppressed their productions, or allowed (suffered) them to see print without their names attached, "as if it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem learned" (Book 1, Chapter 8). In another passage 23 chapters later, the author (probably George Puttenham) speaks of aristocratic writers who, if their writings could be "found out", would appear to be excellent. In this passage Oxford is mentioned as a poet: And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong up an other crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties owne seruaunts, who haue written excellently well as it would appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford, Thomas Lord of Bukhurst, when he was young, Henry Lord Paget, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir Walter Rawleigh, Master Edward Dyar, Maister Fulke Grevell, Gascon, Britton, Turberuille and a great many other learned Gentlemen, whose names I do not omit for enuie, but to auoyde tediousnesse, and who have deserued no little commendation. But of them all particularly this is myne opinion, that Chaucer, with Gower, Lidgat and Harding for their antiquitie ought to have the first place, and Chaucer as the most renowmed of them all, for the much learning appeareth to be in him aboue any of the rest (Book 1, Chapter 31). Oxfordians believe these two passages, when linked, support their claim that Oxford was one of the most prominent "suppressed" writers of the day. Critics of his view argue that Oxford nor any other writer is not here identified as a concealed writer, but as the first in a list ofknown modern writers whose works have already been "made public", "of which number is first" Oxford, adding to the publicly acknowledged literary tradition dating back to Geoffrey Chaucer.[46][47] Other critics interpret the passage to mean that the courtly writers and their works are known within courtly circles, but not to the general public.[citation needed] In either case, Oxford nor anyone is identified as a hidden writer or one that used a pseudonym. Oxfordians argue that at the time of the passage's composition (pre-1589), the writers referenced were not in print, and interpret Puttenham's passage (that the noblemen preferred to 'suppress' their work to avoid the discredit of appearing learned) to mean that they were 'concealed'. They cite Sir Philip Sydney, none of whose poetry was published until after his premature death, as an example. Similarly, by 1589 nothing by Greville was in print, and only one of Walter Raleigh's works had been published.[48] However, unlike the cited examples, a number of Oxford's poems did appear in printed miscellanies in his lifetime,[49] and the first poem published under Oxford's name was printed in 1572, 17 years before Puttenham's book was published.[50] Several other contemporary authors refer to Oxford as an openly acknowledged poet, and Puttenham himself quotes one of Oxford's verses elsewhere in the book, referring to him by name as the author:[51] Edward Earle of Oxford a most noble and learned Gentleman made in this figure of responce an emble of desire otherwise called "Cupide" which from his excellencie and wit, I set down some part of the verses, for example. When wert thou borne desire? In pompe and prime of May, By whom sweete boy wert thou begot? By good conceit men say, Tell me who was thy nurse? Fresh youth in sugred joy. What was thy meate and dayly food? Sad sighes with great annoy. What hadst thou then to drinke? Unfayned lovers tears. What cradle wert thou rocked in? In hope devoyd of feares (Book 3, Chapter 19). Oxfordians also believe other texts refer to the Edward de Vere as a concealed writer. They argue that satirist John Marston's Scourge of Villanie (1598) contains further cryptic allusions to Oxford: .......Far fly thy fame, Most, most of me beloved, whose silent name One letter bounds. Thy true judicial style I ever honour, and if my love beguile Not much my hopes, then thy unvalu'd worth Shall mount fair place when Apes are turned forth. The word Ape means pretender or mimic, and Oxfordians maintain the writer whose silent name is bound by one letter is Edward de VerE,[52] although Marston calls the passage an example of "hotchpodge giberdige" written by bad poets, and nowhere does Marston mention Oxford explicitly as a poet, bad or otherwise. Joseph Sobran, in Alias Shakespeare, argues that in 1607 William Barksted, a minor poet and playwright, implies in his poem "Mirrha the Mother of Adonis" that Shakespeare was already deceased. His Song was worthy merit (Shakespeare he) sung the fair blossom, thou the withered tree Laurel is due him, his art and wit hath purchased it, Cypress thy brow will fit. Sobran notes that the cypress tree was a symbol of mourning, and believes Barksted was specifically writing of Shakespeare in the past tense ("His song was worthy") — after Oxford's death in 1604, but prior to Shakespeare of Stratford's death in 1616.[53]Mainstream scholar Scott McCrea argues that this interpretation only works because the previous lines of the poem have been left out. The poem, which is about the mother of Adonis, is about to end and Barksted addresses his own muse. He tells his muse to "rest and sleep" because otherwise the poem will stray into territory already written about by Shakespeare in Venus and Adonis. Shakespeare wrote about "the fair blossom", young Adonis, "thou" (his own muse) the "withered tree", the aging Mirrha, who was transformed into a Myrrh tree. "His song" (Shakespeare's) was worthy merit, and he will get a laurel, but "thy brow" (Barksted's muse) will wear a cypress. Though Shakespeare's poem, published 14 years earlier, is referred to in the past tense, Shakespeare himself is "due" to get the laurel, implying he is still alive.[54] There is a description of the figure of Oxford in The Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois, a 1613 play by George Chapman, who has been suggested as the Rival Poet of Shakespeare's Sonnets. Chapman describes Oxford as "Rare and most absolute" in form and says he was "of spirit passing great / Valiant and learn’d, and liberal as the sun". He adds that he "spoke and writ sweetly" of both learned subjects and matters of state ("public weal").[55][56]

[edit]Composition dates of the plays/Oxford's 1604 death

[edit]Dates of composition The exact dates of the composition of Shakespeare's plays are unknown. According to Charlton Ogburn, orthodox scholars presumed that the plays would have to fit within the lifetime of Shakespeare of Stratford, thus guessing to make the chronology conform to the years of 1564–1616.[57] But absolutely no evidence exists that any plays were written after 1604.[58] except for such details as the fact that Cardenio was based upon an episode in Cervantes'Don Quixote and Thomas Shelton's translation of the First Part of Don Quixote was not published until 1612. Addressing the plays' dates of composition, Oxfordians note the following: In 1756, in Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ben Jonson, W. R. Chetwood concludes on the basis of performance records "at the end of the year of [1603], or the beginning of the next, 'tis supposed that [Shakespeare] took his farewell of the stage, both as author and actor.".[59] In 1874, German literary historian Karl Elze dated both The Tempest and Henry VIII — traditionally labeled as Shakespeare's last plays — to the years 1603–04.[60] In addition, the majority of 18th and 19th century scholars, including notables such as Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmond Malone, and James Halliwell-Phillipps, placed the composition of Henry VIII prior to 1604.[61] And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare's plays, Alfred Harbage showed the composition of Macbeth, Timon of Athens,Pericles, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra — all traditionally regarded as "late plays" —likely did not occur after 1604.[62] [edit]The 1604 issue

Title page from SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS (1609).

Dedication page from The Sonnets. Both the hyphenated name and the words "ever-living poet", have helped fuel the authorship debate The publication of SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS in 1609 has provided numerous debating points for authorship proponents on both sides of the question. The hyphenated name also appears on 15 plays published prior to the First Folio[63] For mainstream critics, the most compelling evidence against Oxford is that he died in 1604, whereas they contend that a number of plays by Shakespeare were written after that date. These critics most often cite The Tempest, Henry VIII andMacbeth as almost certainly having been written after 1604. Oxfordian scholars, on the other hand, have cited examples they say imply the writer of the plays and poems died prior to 1609, whenShake-Speares Sonnets appeared with the enigmatic words "our ever-living poet" on its title page. These researchers claim the words "ever-living" rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is alive, but instead refers to the eternal soul of the deceased.[64] Additionally, they assert 1604 is the year "Shakespeare" stopped writing.[65] If these claims were true, it would give a boost to the Oxfordian candidacy, as Bacon, Derby, Neville, and Shakespeare of Stratford[66]all lived well past the 1609 publication of the Sonnets. [edit]Publication Regarding dates of publication, Mark Anderson, in Shakespeare by Another Name, stresses that from 1593 through 1603 the publication of new Shake-speare’s plays "appeared at the rate of 2 per year". Then, in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent" and stopped (new play) publication for almost 5 years. Anderson further states "the early history of reprints ... also point to 1604 as a watershed year", and notes that during the years of 1593–1604, whenever an inferior or pirated text was published, it was then typically followed by a genuine text that was "newly augmented" or "corrected". Anderson summarizes, "After 1604, the 'newly correct[ing]' and 'augment[ing]' stops. Once again, the Shake-speare enterprise appears to have shut down".[65] [edit]Composition Addressing the plays' dates of composition, Oxfordians note the following: In 1756, in Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ben Jonson, W. R. Chetwood concludes on the basis of performance records "at the end of the year of [1603], or the beginning of the next, 'tis supposed that [Shakespeare] took his farewell of the stage, both as author and actor." [67] In 1874, German literary historianKarl Elze dated both The Tempest and Henry VIII — traditionally labeled as Shakespeare’s last plays — to the years 1603–04.[68] In addition, the majority of 18th and 19th century scholars, including notables such as Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmond Malone, and James Halliwell-Phillipps, placed the composition ofHenry VIII prior to 1604.[69] And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare’s plays,Alfred Harbage showed the composition of Macbeth, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra — all traditionally regarded as "late plays" — likely did not occur after 1604.[70] [edit]Science Anderson also observes that while Shakespeare refers to the latest scientific discoveries and events right through the end of the 16th century, "Shakespeare is mute about science after de Vere’s [Oxford’s] death in 1604".[71]Anderson especially notes Shakespeare never mentioned the spectacular supernova of October 1604 or Kepler’s revolutionary 1609 study of planetary orbits.[71] [edit]Notable silences Because Shakespeare of Stratford lived until 1616, Oxfordians question why, if he were the author, did he not eulogize Queen Elizabeth at her death in 1603 or Henry, Prince of Wales, at his in 1612. They believe Oxford's 1604 death provides the explanation.[72] In an age when such actions were expected, Shakespeare also failed to memorialize the coronation of James I in 1604, the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1612, and the investiture of Prince Charles as the new Prince of Wales in 1613.[73] Similarly, when Shakespeare of Stratford died, he was not publicly mourned.[74] As Mark Twain wrote, in Is Shakespeare Dead?, "When Shakespeare died in Stratford it was not an event. It made no more stir in England than the death of any other forgotten theater-actor would have made. Nobody came down from London; there were no lamenting poems, no eulogies, no national tears —there was merely silence, and nothing more. A striking contrast with what happened when Ben Jonson, and Francis Bacon, and Spenser, and Raleigh, and the other literary folk of Shakespeare’s time passed from life! No praiseful voice was lifted for the lost Bard of Avon; even Ben Jonson waited seven years before he lifted his."[75] Diana Price, in Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography, notes that for a professional author, Shakespeare of Stratford seems to have been entirely uninterested in protecting his work. Price explains that while he had a well documented habit of going to court over relatively small sums, he never sued any of the publishers pirating his plays and sonnets, or took any legal action regarding their practice of attaching his name to the inferior output of others. Price also notes there is no evidence Shakespeare of Stratford was ever paid for writing and his detailed will failed to mention any of Shakespeare's unpublished plays or poems or any of the source books Shakespeare was known to have read.[76][77] Oxfordians also note Shakespeare of Stratford's relatives and neighbors never mentioned he was famous or a writer, nor are there any indications his heirs demanded or received payments for his supposed investments in the theatre or for any of the more than 16 masterwork plays unpublished at the time of his death.[78] Mark Twain, commenting on the subject, said, "Many poets die poor, but this is the only one in history that has died THIS poor; the others all left literary remains behind. Also a book. Maybe two."[75] [edit]Parallels with the plays

Oxfordian researchers note numerous instances where Oxford's personal and court biographies parallel the plots and subplots of many of the Shakespeare plays. Most notable among these are similarities between Oxford's biography and the actions depicted in Hamlet, The Merchant of Venice and The Taming of the Shrew, both of which contain a number of local details that, Oxfordians believe, could only have been obtained by personal experiences; Henry V and Henry VI, Part 3, where the Earls of Oxford are given much more prominent roles than their limited involvement in the actual history of the times would allow;[33]The Life and Death of King John, where Shakespeare felt it necessary to air-brush out of existence the traitorous Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford.[79] and Henry IV, Part 1, which includes a well-known robbery scene with uncanny parallels to a real-life incident involving Oxford.[80] Oxfordians have also claimed many parallels between Oxford's relationship with his wife, Anne Cecil, and incidences in such plays as Othello, Cymbeline, The Winter's Taleand Measure for Measure, as well as the primary plot of All's Well That Ends Well.

William Cecil (Lord Burghley), Oxford's guardian and father-in-law, and Queen Elizabeth's most trusted advisor. Scholars on both sides of the question have believed Polonius is based on Lord Burghley. Numerous Oxfordian researchers, including Charlton Ogburn, claim that Hamlet is the play most easily seen as portraying Oxford's life story. Traditional scholars say that the biographies of other contemporary figures, such as King James or the Earl of Essex, fit the play just as closely if not more so.[81] Hamlet's father was murdered unexpectedly and his mother remarried shortly thereafter, less than two months after his death.[82] Oxfordians see a parallel with Oxford's life, as his father died at the age of 46 on 3 August 1662, although not before making a will six days earlier, and his stepmother remarried within 15 months, although exactly when is unknown.[83] At 15, Oxford was made a royal ward and placed in the household of Lord Burghley, who was the Lord High Treasurer and Queen Elizabeth I's closest and most trusted advisor. Burghley is regarded by some mainstream scholars as the prototype for the character of chief minister Polonius. Oxfordians point out that in the First Quarto the character was not named Polonius, but Corambis. Oxfordian Charleton Ogburn asserts that Cor ambis means "two-hearted" (a view not independently supported by Latinists). He believes that the name is a swipe "at Burghley’s motto, Cor unum, via una, or 'one heart, one way.'" Mainstream scholars suggest that it derives from the Latin phrase "crambe repetita" meaning "reheated cabbage", which was expanded in Elizabethan usage to "Crambe bis posita mors est" ("twice served cabbage is deadly").[84] This implies "a boring old man" who spouts trite rehashed ideas.[85][86] Similar variants such as "Crambo" and "Corabme" appear in Latin-English dictionaries at the time.[87] Hamlet was engaged to marry Ophelia, daughter to Polonius, who went mad and committed suicide by drowning, while Edward de Vere was engaged to marry Anne Cecil, daughter to Burghley, and he did marry her. Like Laertes, who received the famous list of maxims from his father Polonius, Robert Cecil received a similarly famous list from his father Burghley — a list the Shakespearean scholar E. K. Chambers suggested was the author's likely source. One of Hamlet’s chief opponents at court was Laertes, the son of Polonius, while Oxford continually sought the help of Robert Cecil, the son of Lord Burghley, to seek the queen's favour, with no results. Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school, and for similar reasons Burghley sent a spy to watch his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris. The ruler of Mantua in 1575, when Oxford traveled through the area, was Duke Guglielmo Gonzaga, who happened to be a member of the same Gonzaga family of the wife of the Duke of Urbino, who was killed in 1538 by a poisoned lotion rubbed into his ears by his barber. Some scholars think that The Murder of Gonzago, the unknown play which was reworked by Hamlet into The Mousetrap (the play within the play) that reenacted Hamlet's father being killed by having poison poured into his ear, may have been a popular theatrical reenactment of Urbino's assassination. Mark Anderson says it is the same story, and that Oxford having passed through the area that Gonzaga ruled was in some way responsible for Hamlet's play-within-the-play.[88] While returning from Italy in 1576 Edward de Vere first encountered a cavalry division outside of Paris that was being led by a German duke and then pirates in the English Channel. As Anderson stated: “Just as Hamlet’s review of Fortinbras’ troops leads directly to an ocean voyage overtaken by pirates, de Vere’s meeting with Duke Casimir’s army was soon followed by a Channel crossing intercepted by pirates." In Act IV, Hamlet describes himself as "set naked" in "the kingdom" and later reveals he was taken captive by pirates. In a striking parallel, on Oxford's return from Europe across the Channel in April 1576, his ship was hijacked by pirates who robbed him and left him stripped to his shirt, and who might have murdered him had not one of them recognized him.[89] Anderson notes that "[n]either the encounter with Fortinbras’ army nor Hamlet’s brush with buccaneers appears in any of the play's sources – to the puzzlement of numerous literary critics.”[90] [edit]Parallels with the sonnets and poems

In 1609, a volume of 154 linked poems was published under the title SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS. Most historians believe that the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, wrote its dedication. The focus of the series appears to follow the author's relationships with three characters, whose identities remain controversial: the Fair Youth, the Dark Lady or Mistress and the Rival Poet. The Fair Youth is generally, but far from universally, thought by mainstream scholars to be Southhampton. The Dark Lady is believed by some Oxfordians to be Anne Vavasour (or Vasasor), who bore the Earl of Oxford a son out of wedlock, whom she named Edward Vere. While there is no consensus candidate for the Rival Poet, some suppose he could have been Christopher Marlowe or George Chapman, although a strong case was made by the Oxfordian Peter R. Moore for Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex.[91] Oxfordians assert that the inclusion of "by our ever-living poet" in its dedication implies the author was dead, "ever-living" being generally understood to mean the person in question was deceased. Oxfordians assert that not one researcher has been able to provide an example where the term "ever-living" referred to an individual who was alive at the time. Nevertheless, it remains debatable whether the phrase, in this context, refers to Shakespeare or to God.[92] Oxfordians also believe the title (Shake-Speares Sonnets) suggests a finality indicating that it was a completed body of work with no further sonnets expected. They also consider the differences of opinion among Shakespearean scholars as to whether the Sonnets are fictional or autobiographical to be a serious problem facing Stratfordians. Joseph Sobran questions why, if the sonnets were fiction, did Shakespeare of Stratford — who lived until 1616 — fail to publish a corrected and authorized edition? If, on the other hand, they are autobiographic, why did they fail to match the Stratford man's life story?[93] According to Sobran and other researchers, the themes and personal circumstances expounded by the author of the Sonnets are remarkably similar to Oxford's biography. In The De Vere Code,[94] a recently published book by English actor Jonathan Bond, the author claims that the 30-word dedication to the original publication of Shakespeare's Sonnets contains six simple encryptions which conclusively establish Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as the author of the poems. The encryptions also settle the question of the identity of "the Fair Youth" as Henry Wriothesley and contain striking references to the sonnets themselves and de Vere's relationship to Sir Philip Sidney and Ben Jonson. [edit]Age Oxford was born in 1550, and was between 40 and 53 years old when he presumably wrote the sonnets. Shakespeare of Stratford was born in 1564. Even though the average life expectancy of Elizabethans was short, being between 26 and 39 was not considered old. In spite of this, age and growing older are recurring themes in the Sonnets: Sonnet 138 ... vainly thinking that she thinks me young, Although she knows my days are past the best. Shakespeare also described his relationship with the Fair Youth as like "a decrepit father." However, Shakespeare of Stratford was only 9 years older than Southampton, while Oxford was 23 years older.[95] Sonnet 37 As a decrepit father takes delight To see his active child do deeds of youth, So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite, Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth.... [edit]Lameness In his later years, Oxford described himself as "lame". On several occasions, the author of the sonnets also described himself as lame: Sonnet 37 I, made lame by fortune's dearest spite... Sonnet 89 Speak of my lameness, and I straight will halt... Edward de Vere's letter of March 25, 1595 to Lord Burghley "When Your Lordship shall have best time and leisure if I may know it, I will attend Your Lordship as well as a lame man may at your house."[96] [edit]Law Sobran maintains the Sonnets "abound not only in legal terms — more than 200 — but also in elaborate legal conceits." These terms include: allege, auditor, defects, exchequer, forfeit, heirs, impeach, lease, moiety, recompense, render, sureties, and usage. Shakespeare also uses the then newly minted legal term, "quietus" (final settlement), in the last Fair Youth sonnet. Sonnet 134 So now I have confessed that he is thine, And I myself am mortgaged to thy will, Myself I’ll forfeit, so that other mine Thou wilt restore to be my comfort still. But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free, For thou art covetous, and he is kind: He learned but surety-like to write for me, Under that bond that him as fast doth bind. The statute of thy beauty thou wilt take, Thou usurer that put'st forth all to use, And sue a friend came debtor for my sake; So him I lose through my unkind abuse.... Oxford was trained in the law and, in 1567, was admitted to Gray's Inn, one of the Inns of Court which Justice Shallow reminisces about in Henry IV, Part 2."[97] [edit]Southampton – The Fair Youth

Southampton, Oxford's peer and one-time prospective son-in-law, and the often-purported "fair youth" of the early sonnets. Beginning with Looney, Oxfordians have almost always asserted that Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, Oxford's peer and hoped-for son-in-law, is the "fair youth" referred to in the early sonnets (exceptions are Percy Allen and Louis Benezit[98]). Mainstream Stratfordian writers have also often taken this view, but there have also been several other candidates, including William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke. Sobran argues that the first seventeen sonnets, on the procreation theme, give indications of belonging to Burghley's campaign to make [Southampton] marry his granddaughter, [who was] Oxford's daughter Elizabeth Vere, and concludes that, '(o)bviously, Oxford would have known all three parties.... It is hard to imagine how Mr. Shaksper (of Stratford) could have known any of them. Let alone have been invited to participate in the effort to encourage the match.'[99] Sobran also observes that in 16th-century England, actors and playwrights did not presume to give advice to the nobility, and asserts "It is clear, too, that the poet is of the same rank as the youth. He praises, scolds, admonishes, teases, and woos him with the liberty of a social equal who does not have to worry about seeming insolent.... 'Make thee another self, for love of me' (Sonnet 10), is impossible to conceive as a request from a poor poet to his patron: it expresses the hope of a father — or a father-in-law. And Oxford was, precisely, Southampton's prospective father-in-law."[95] Oxfordians also cite Sonnet 91, contending the lines imply that the author is in a position to make such comparisons, and the 'high birth' he refers to is his own:[95] Thy love is better than high birth to me, Richer than wealth, prouder than garments’ cost, Of more delight than hawks or horses be. Oxfordian author William Farina notes as well that in Sonnets 40–42 the "fair youth" seems to have gone on to steal the "dark lady" from Shakespeare; however in Sonnet 42 Shakespeare enjoins the youth with "we must not be foes." Farina notes the "idea of Will Shakespere (of Stratford) offering such assurance to the Earl of Southampton is truly a smiler."[100] [edit]Public disgrace Sobran also believes "scholars have largely ignored one of the chief themes of the Sonnets: the poet's sense of disgrace.... [T]here can be no doubt that the poet is referring to something real that he expects his friends to know about; in fact, he makes clear that a wide public knows about it... Once again the poet's situation matches Oxford's.... He has been a topic of scandal on several occasions. And his contemporaries saw the course of his life as one of decline from great wealth, honor, and promise to disgrace and ruin. This perception was underlined by enemies who accused him of every imaginable offense and perversion, charges he was apparently unable to rebut."[101] Sonnet 29 When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state, And trouble deaf heav’n with my bootless cries, And look upon myself and curse my fate, Wishing me like to one more rich in hope.... Sonnet 112 Your love and pity doth th' impression fill Which vulgar scandal stamped upon my brow, For what care I who calls me well or ill, So you o'er-green my bad, my good allow? As early as 1576 Edward de Vere was writing about this subject in his poem Loss of Good Name,[2] which Professor Steven W. May described as "a defiant lyric without precedent in English Renaissance verse."[102] [edit]Lost fame The poems Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, first published in 1593 and 1594 under the name "William Shakespeare", proved highly popular for several decades – with Venus and Adonis published six more times before 1616, while Lucrece required four additional printings during this same period.[103] By 1598, they were so famous, London poet and sonneteer Richard Barnefield wrote: Shakespeare..... Whose Venus and whose Lucrece (sweet and chaste) Thy name in fame's immortal Book have plac't Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever: Well may the Body die, but Fame dies never.[104] Despite such publicity, Sobran observed, "[t]he author of the Sonnets expects and hopes to be forgotten. While he is confident that his poetry will outlast marble and monument, it will immortalize his young friend, not himself. He says that his style is so distinctive and unchanging that ‘every word doth almost tell my name,’ implying that his name is otherwise concealed – at a time when he is publishing long poems under the name William Shakespeare. This seems to mean that he is not writing these Sonnets under that (hidden) name."[105] Stratfordians respond that several sonnets literally do tell his name, containing numerous puns on the name Will[iam]; in sonnet 136 the poet directly says "thou lov'st me for my name is Will."[106] Sonnet 81 ...Or you survive, when I in earth am rotten; From hence your memory death cannot take’ Although in me each part will be forgotten. Your name from hence immortal life shall have Though I, once gone, to all the world must die; The earth can yield me but a common grave’ When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie. Your monument shall be my gentle verse’ Which eyes not yet created shall o’ver-read, And tongues to be your being shall rehearse… Sonnet 72 My name be buried where my body is, And live no more to shame nor me, nor you… Based on these sonnets, and others, Oxfordians assert that if the author expected his "name" to be "forgotten" and "buried", it would not have been the name that permanently adorned the published works themselves. [edit]Case against Oxfordian theory

[edit]Oxford's death A primary objection to the Oxfordian theory is Edward de Vere's 1604 death, after which a number of Shakespeare's plays are conventionally believed to have been written, according to 300 years of orthodox scholarship. Oxfordians respond that as the conventional dates for the plays were developed by Stratfordian scholars to fit within the Stratfordian theory, they remain conjectural and self-serving. Oxfordians also note a number of the so-called "later plays", such as Henry VIII, Macbeth, Timon of Athens and Pericles have been described as incomplete or collaborative, whereas under the Oxfordian theory these plays were either drafted earlier than conventionally believed, or were simply revised/completed by others after Oxford's death.[107] Mainstream scholars reject these explanations and cite examples incongruous to the Oxfordian scenario: Shakespearean scholar David Haley notes that in order to have written Coriolanus, Edward de Vere "must have foreseen the Midland Revolt grain riots [of 1607] reported in Coriolanus", a view most Shakespeareans accept.[108] However, Nate Eastman surmises that the opening scenes were more likely written in response to London's 1595 Tower Hill riot,[109] a date more in agreement with the Oxfordian view. The Tempest is considered by most Shakespearean scholars to have been written in 1610–11 and inspired by published and unpublished contemporary descriptions of the 1609 Sea Venture shipwreck on the island of Bermuda, and most especially William Strachey's eyewitness report, A True Reportory of the Wracke and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight because of certain verbal, plot and thematic similarities.[110] Kenneth Muir, however, thought that "the extent of verbal echoes of the [Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated."[111] Oxfordians have dealt with this problem in several ways. Looney rejected the play altogether, arguing that its style and the "dreary negativism" it promoted were inconsistent with Shakespeare's "essentially positivist" soul, and so could not have been written by Oxford. Later Oxfordians have generally abandoned this argument. They either argue that it was left unfinished or say that earlier sources, such as Richard Eden's The Decades of the New Worlde Or West India (1555) and Desiderius Erasmus's Naufragium/The Shipwreck (1523), sufficiently account for some of the phrasing and images in The Tempest.[112] Both sources have been acknowledged by previous scholars as possible influences.[113][114] Henry VIII was described as a new play in 1613. Oxfordians argue that this refers to the fact it was new on stage, having its first production in that year. Also, many 18th- and 19th-century scholars, including Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmond Malone, and James Halliwell-Phillipps, placed the composition of Henry VIII prior to 1604, as they believed Elizabeth's execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (the then king James I's mother) made any vigorous defence of the Tudors politically inappropriate in the England of James I.[115] Stratfordians contend that Macbeth represents the most overwhelming single piece of evidence against the Oxfordian position, asserting the play was written in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot,[116] which was discovered on 5 November 1605, a year after Oxford died. In particular, Stratfordians claim the porter's lines about "equivocation" may allude to the trial of Father Garnet in 1606.[117] Oxfordians respond that the concept of "equivocation" was the subject of a 1583 tract by Queen Elizabeth's chief councillor (and Oxford's father-in-law) Lord Burghley, as well as of the 1584 Doctrine of Equivocation by the Spanish prelate Martín de Azpilcueta, which was disseminated across Europe and into England in the 1590s.[118] In addition, A. R. Braunmuller, in the New Cambridge edition, finds the post-1605 arguments inconclusive, and argues only for an earliest date of 1603.[119] [edit]Additional objections Mainstream scholarship notes that extravagant praise for de Vere's poetry was a convention of flattery;[120] that he was a mediocre poet; that he was patron for an acting company from 1580 to 1602 which did not produce Shakespeare's plays; that there is no significant statistical correlation between the annotations in the Geneva Bible and biblical references in Shakespeare;[121][122] that the styles of Shakespeare and Oxford, under the most thorough recent computer analysis, are "light years apart";[123] and that, while the First Folio shows traces of a dialect identical to Shakespeare's, the Earl of Oxford, raised in Essex, spoke an East Anglian dialect.[124] Steven May, the reigning authority on de Vere's poetry, argues that Oxfordian attempts to relate the Earl's poetry to Shakespeare are based on 'a hopelessly flawed methodology', in that Looney assigned to de Vere poems he had not written.[125] Contemporary writers exaggerated de Vere's poetic accomplishments in deference to his rank, and the testimony of Meres that de Vere was 'best for comedy' is followed by a further comment naming Shakespeare, which shows Meres knew that Oxford and Shakespeare were not the same man.[126] Further, attribution studies,[127] which have shown certain plays in the canon were written by two or three hands, are a 'nightmare' for Oxfordians, implying a 'jumble sale scenario' for his literary remains long after his death.[128] It is, according to David Bevington, a 'virtually unanimous' opinion among teachers and scholars of Shakespeare that the canon of late plays depicts an artistic journey that extends well beyond 1604, the date of de Vere's death.[129] Also, catalogues of similarities between incidents in the plays and the life of an aristocrat are flawed as arguments because similar lists of parallels have been drawn for many candidates, from Bacon to William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby.[130] In addition to the problem of Edward de Vere's 1604 death, supporters of the orthodox view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. In The Shakespeare Claimants, a 1962 examination of the authorship question, H. N. Gibson concluded that "... on analysis the Oxfordian case appears to me a very weak one".[131] Mainstream critics also assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. More specifically, Professor Jonathan Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare (1997) stated that Oxfordians cannot "provide any explanation for …technical changes attendant on the King's Men's move to the Blackfriars theatre four years after their candidate's death.... Unlike the Globe, the Blackfriars was an indoor playhouse" and so required plays with frequent breaks in order to replace the candles it used for lighting. "The plays written after Shakespeare's company began using the Blackfriars in 1608, Cymbeline and The Winter's Tale for instance, have what most ... of the earlier plays do not have: a carefully planned five-act structure". If new Shakespearean plays were being written especially for presentation at the Blackfriars' theatre after 1608, they could not have been written by Edward de Vere.[132] Stratfordians also stress that any supposedly special knowledge of the aristocracy appearing in the plays can be more easily explained by Shakespeare of Stratford's life-time of performances before nobility and royalty,[133][134] and possibly, as Gibson theorizes, "by visits to his patron's house, as Marlowe visited Walsingham."[135] In addition, Stratfordian scholars point to a poem written circa 1620 by a student at Oxford, William Basse, that mentioned the author Shakespeare died in 1616, which is the year Shakespeare of Stratford deceased and not Edward de Vere.[136] Mainstream critics further claim that if William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays and poems, the number of people needed to suppress this information would have made their attempts highly unlikely to succeed.[137] And John Michell, in Who Wrote Shakespeare, noted that "[a]gainst the Oxford theory are several references to Shakespeare, later than 1604, which imply that the author was then still alive".[138] Also, a method of computerized textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic compared the styles of Oxford with Shakespeare and found the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare as "lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning".[139] Some Stratfordian academics also argue the Oxford theory is based on simple snobbishness: that anti-Stratfordians reject the idea that the son of a mere tradesman could write the plays and poems of Shakespeare.[140] An equally simple argument is made by Columbia University professor James S. Shapiro, author of the book Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?: namely, the tautology in any theory that "there must have been a conspiracy to suppress the truth of de Vere’s authorship" just because "the very absence of surviving evidence proves the case." He cites, by contrast, "testimony of contemporary writers, court records and much else" supporting Shakespeare's authorship.[141] [edit]References in popular culture

Leslie Howard's 1943 anti-Nazi film, "Pimpernel" Smith, features dialogue by the protagonist Horatio Smith, a professor of archaeology at Cambridge, endorsing the Oxfordian theory.[142] Oxfordian theory is the basis of Amy Freed's 2001 play The Beard of Avon. Oxfordian theory is central to the plot of Sarah Smith's 2003 novel Chasing Shakespeares, which she also adapted into a play.[143] The 2005 YA novel Shakespeare's Secret by Elise Broach is centered on Oxfordian theory. The Oxfordian theory, among others, is discussed in Jennifer Lee Carrell's 2007 thriller Interred With Their Bones. The 2011 film Anonymous, directed by Roland Emmerich and based on a screenplay by John Orloff, stars Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave. The film posits in cinematic terms how Edward de Vere's writings came to be attributed to William Shakespere of Stratford and portrays the Prince Tudor theory.[144][145][146][147] [edit]See also

List of Oxfordian theory supporters Shakespeare authorship question Baconian theory Derbyite theory of Shakespearean authorship

copy of Parallels article

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship, which holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), wrote the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, is based, in part, on perceived parallels with Shakespeare's plays, including similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays and sonnets; and parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon;[1] Mainstream scholarship rejects Oxfordian and all alternative candidates for Shakespeare authorship, dismissing than as fringe theories with no evidence, but various alternative Shakespeare authorship theories continue to gain attention and adherents.[2] Since the 1920s, Oxford has been the most popular anti-Stratfordian candidate.[3][4][5] Oxfordians point to biographical evidence such as Oxford's long term relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his extensive education, his contemporary academic and cultural acclaim, and his wide-ranging travels through the cities of France and Italy which would become the locations for many of the plays. Additionally, Oxfordians say that both known and probable sources of and minor details in numerous Shakespeare plays match up with specific documents to which the highly educated, multilingual, and well-traveled Oxford—and very few, if any, other Elizabethans—had access.[citation needed] Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to Oxfordian or any other anti-Stratfordian theories, and say that deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy. They also say that the purported parallels between Oxford's life and the works of Shakespeare are exaggerated and tenuous at best, and mostly based on distorted or interpretations of the historical record or outright fabrications. Contents [hide] 1 Overview 1.1 Minority View 1.2 Mainstream view 2 Oxford's biographical connections 3 Parallels with the plays 3.1 Hamlet 3.2 The Merchant of Venice 3.3 The Taming of the Shrew 3.4 The Tempest 3.5 As You Like It 3.6 The Life and Death of King John 3.7 Henry IV, Part 1 3.8 Henry V 3.9 Henry VI, Part 3 3.10 The Merry Wives of Windsor 3.11 All's Well That Ends Well 3.12 Measure for Measure 3.13 Romeo and Juliet 3.14 Much Ado About Nothing 3.15 Othello, Cymbeline, and The Winter’s Tale 3.16 Timon of Athens 3.17 The Comedy of Errors 3.18 Twelfth Night 4 Further reading 5 References 6 External links 6.1 General Non-Stratfordian 6.2 Oxfordian 6.3 Stratfordian [edit]Overview

For the purposes of this article the term “Shakespeare” is taken to mean the poet and playwright who wrote the plays and poems in question; and the term “Shakespeare of Stratford” is taken to mean the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to whom authorship is credited.

Anti-Stratfordian Mark Twain, wrote "Is Shakespeare Dead?" shortly before his death in 1910. [edit]Minority View Main article: Shakespeare authorship question A common principle held by many of those who question Shakespeare’s authorship is that most authors reveal themselves in their work, and that the personality of an author can generally be discerned from his or her writings.[6] With this principle in mind, authorship doubters find parallels in the fictional characters or events in the Shakespearean works and in the life experiences of their preferred candidate. The disjunction between the biography of Shakespeare of Stratford and the content of Shakespeare's works has raised doubts about whether the author and the Stratford businessman are the same person.[7][8][9] [edit]Mainstream view Main article: William Shakespeare Some mainstream scholars, including Jonathan Bate, assert that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is a Romantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers.[10] When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’[11] Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period.[12] This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day.[13] Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory—the issue of Oxford's early death—they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. Terence Schoone-Jongen, writing in Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577–1594, asserts that biographical interpretations of literature are invalid for attributing authorship.[14] [edit]Oxford's biographical connections

While there is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate) to the plays of Shakespeare, Oxfordian researchers, including Mark Anderson and Charlton Ogburn, maintain Oxford's connections to the First Folio, the earl of Southampton, and to the Elizabethan theatre and poetry scene, as well as the numerous parallels between Oxford's life and events depicted in the plays, provide such a connection: The three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere. Venus and Adonisand The Rape of Lucrece were dedicated to Southampton, and theFirst Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere) and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget de Vere). Oxford was a leaseholder of the first Blackfriars Theatre; Oxford was the son-in-law of Lord Burghley, who is often regarded as the model for Polonius; his daughter was engaged to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, (many scholars believe Southampton to have been the Fair Youth of theSonnets); Oxford's mother, Margory Golding, was the sister of the Ovid translator Arthur Golding; Oxford's uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was the inventor of the Shakespearean Sonnet (or English Sonnet) form.[15] Shakespeare placed many of his plays in Italy and sprinkled them with detailed descriptions of Italian life. Though there are no records Shakespeare of Stratford ever visited Europe, historical documents confirm Oxford lived in Venice, and traveled for over a year through Italy.[16] According to Anderson, the cities Oxford visited in 1575–1576 were Venice, Padua, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Florence, Siena and Naples — all cities Shakespeare wrote into the plays, while (except for Rome) the Italian cities Oxford bypassed are the same cities Shakespeare ignored.[17] In 1588, due to ongoing financial problems, Oxford sold his house, Fisher’s Folly, to William Cornwallis. In 1852, James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps discovered a volume, “Anne Cornwaleys her booke,” apparently the day book of Cornwallis’ daughter Anne, which Halliwell-Phillipps believed was written sometime in 1595. Anne’s handwritten book contains “Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde,” “Anne Vavasour’s Echo” (Anne Vavasour was Oxford's mistress 1579–1581, by whom he fathered an illegitimate child), and also a poem ascribed in 1599 to "Shakespeare" by William Jaggard in The Passionate Pilgrim. According to Charles Wisner Barrell, Anne’s version was superior textually to the one published by Jaggard, and is the first handwritten example we have of a poem ascribed to Shakespeare.[18] While Oxfordians concede the names Avon and Stratford became irrevocably linked to Shakespeare with the 1623 publication of his First Folio, they also note Edward de Vere once owned an estate in the River Avon valley[19] near the Forest of Arden,[20] and the nearest town to the parish of Hackney, where de Vere later lived and was buried, was also named Stratford.[21] Oxfordians regard Dr. John Ward 1662 statement that Shakespeare spent at a rate of £1,000 a year—a huge sum by today's standards—as a critical piece of evidence given that in an oft-noted parallel Oxford received an annuity of £1,000 a year from Queen Elizabeth after he had sold off most of his estate to pay debts.[16] [edit]Parallels with the plays

[edit]Hamlet

William Cecil(Lord Burghley), Oxford's guardian and father-in-law, and Queen Elizabeth's most trusted advisor. Oxfordians believe Polonius is based on Burghley. Numerous Oxfordian researchers, including Charlton Ogburn, claim that Hamlet is the play most easily seen as portraying Oxford's life story. Traditional scholars say that other contemporary figures, such as King James or the Earl of Essex. Hamlet's father was murdered unexpectedly and his mother remarried shortly thereafter. Oxfordians see a parallel with Oxford's life, as his father died unexpectedly at the age of 46, although not before making a will, and his stepmother remarried, although it is unknown how soon after her husband's death. At 15, Oxford was made a royal ward and placed in the household of Lord Burghley, who was the Lord High Treasurer and Queen Elizabeth I's closest and most trusted advisor. Burghley is regarded by mainstream scholars as the prototype for the character of chief minister Polonius. Oxfordians point out that in the First Quarto the character was not named Polonius, but Corambis (Cor ambis means "two-hearted", according to Oxfordians, but no Latinists) — a swipe, as Charlton Ogburn said, "at Burghley’s motto, Cor unum, via una, or 'one heart, one way.'" Other scholars suggest that it derives from a Latin phrase meaning "reheated cabbage", implying "a boring old man" who spouts trite rehashed ideas.[22][23] Hamlet was engaged to marry Ophelia, daughter to Polonius, who went mad and committed suicide by drowning, while Edward de Vere was engaged to marry Anne Cecil, daughter to Burghley, and he did marry her. Like Laertes, who received the famous list of maxims from his father Polonius, Robert Cecil received a similarly famous list from his father Burghley — a list the Shakespearean scholar E. K. Chambers suggested was the author's likely source. One of Hamlet’s chief opponents at court was Laertes, the son of Polonius, while Oxford continually sought the help of Robert Cecil, the son of Lord Burghley, to seek the queen's favour, with no results. Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school, and for similar reasons Burghley sent a spy to watch his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris. The ruler of Mantua in 1575, when Oxford traveled through the area, was Duke Guglielmo Gonzaga, who happened to be a member of the same Gonzaga family of the wife of the Duke of Urbino, who was killed in 1538 by a poisoned lotion rubbed into his ears by his barber. Some scholars think that The Murder of Gonzago, the unknown play which was reworked by Hamlet into The Mousetrap (the play within the play) that reenacted Hamlet's father being killed by having poison poured into his ear, may have been a popular theatrical reenactment of Urbino's assassination. Mark Anderson says it is the same story, and that Oxford having passed through the area that Gonzaga ruled was in some way responsible for Hamlet's play-within-the-play.[24] While returning from Italy in 1576 Edward de Vere first encountered a cavalry division outside of Paris that was being led by a German duke and then pirates in the English Channel. As Anderson stated: “Just as Hamlet’s review of Fortinbras’ troops leads directly to an ocean voyage overtaken by pirates, de Vere’s meeting with Duke Casimir’s army was soon followed by a Channel crossing intercepted by pirates." In Act IV, Hamlet describes himself as "set naked" in "the kingdom" and later reveals he was taken captive by pirates. In a striking parallel, on Oxford's return from Europe across the Channel in April 1576, his ship was hijacked by pirates who robbed him and left him stripped to his shirt, and who might have murdered him had not one of them recognized him.[25] Anderson notes that "[n]either the encounter with Fortinbras’ army nor Hamlet’s brush with buccaneers appears in any of the play's sources – to the puzzlement of numerous literary critics.”[26] [edit]The Merchant of Venice In 1577 the Company of Cathay was formed to support Martin Frobisher’s hunt for the Northwest Passage, although Frobisher and his investors quickly became distracted by reports of gold at Hall’s Island. With thoughts of an impending Canadian gold-rush filling Oxford's head, and trusting in the financial advice of a Michael Lok or Lock, de Vere finally went in bond for £3,000, "just as Antonio in The Merchant of Venice is in bond for 3,000 ducats against the successful return of his vessels, with rich cargoes."[27] Although £3,000 was a large enough sum to ruin financially any man, Edward de Vere went on to support equally unsuccessful Northwest Passage expeditions in 1584 and again in 1585. An Oxfordian might say Edward de Vere, like Hamlet, was "but mad north-northwest."[28] Oxfordians also observe that Shakespeare set almost half of his plays in Italy and filled them with local details that were not widely known. These details, Oxfordians believe, could only have been obtained by personal experiences. According to Mark Anderson "Shakespeare's works also convey a ... well-traveled world citizen.... Shakespeare knew that Florence's citizens were recognized for their arithmetic and bookkeeping (Othello).... He knew that a dish of baked doves was a time-honored northern Italian gift (The Merchant of Venice). He knew Venice in particular, like nowhere else in the world, save for London itself. Picayune Venetian matters scarcely escaped his grasp: the Duke of Venice's two votes in the city council, for example, or the special nighttime police force—the Signori di Notte—peculiar to Venice, or the foreign city where Venice’s Jews did most of their business, Frankfurt."[29] Or, as William Farina noted, "the notorious Alien Statue of Venice, which provided the exact same penalty (as used in The Merchant of Venice): forfeiture of half an estate to the Republic and half to the wronged party, plus a discretionary death penalty, to any foreigner (including Jews) who attempted to take the life of a Venetian citizen.”[30] [edit]The Taming of the Shrew In 1577 the hard-drinking, straight-talking Peregrine Bertie successfully courted Oxford's sister, Mary de Vere, a lady known, in the words of Mark Anderson, “for her quick temper and harsh tongue.” Though the unlikely couple met the resistance of Oxford and others, they were married within a year. Oxfordians, such as Anderson, believe there is little doubt Bertie, his mother, Kate Willoughby and Mary de Vere, were variously lampooned, in The Taming of the Shrew, The Winter's Taleand Twelfth Night.[31] Oxfordians also note that when Edward de Vere travelled through Venice, he borrowed 500 crowns from a Baptista Nigrone. In Padua, he borrowed from a man named Pasquino Spinola. In The Taming of the Shrew, Kate's father is described as a man "rich in crowns." He, too, is from Padua, and his name is Baptista Minola — a conflation of Baptista Nigrone and Pasquino Spinola.[32] Oxfordians believe their position is further strengthened by the observations of the mainstream scholar Ernesto Grillo (1876–1946), of the University of Glasgow, who stated in Shakespeare and Italy, "the local colour ofThe Taming of the Shrew displays such an intimate acquaintance not only with the manners and customs of Italy but also with the minutest details of domestic life that it cannot have been gleaned from books or acquired in the course of conversations with travellers returned from Padua. The form of marriage between Petruchio and Katharine ... was Italian and not English.... The description of Gremio's house and furnishings is striking because it represents an Italian villa of the sixteenth century with all its comforts and noble luxury." The play also shows Shakespeare using Italian with its banter between Lucentio and Tranio and in the greetings between Petruchio and Hortensio in its first act. As noted by Professor Grillo these exchanges are “pure Italian.” While in testimony before the Inquisition it was said Edward de Vere was fluent in Italian,[33] as far as is known, Shakespeare of Stratford never left England or showed any interest in Italy or Italian culture.[34] [edit]The Tempest Although traditionally The Tempest was considered to have had no specific source, the play’s basic structure also reflects the Italian Commedia dell'Arte. In 1913, a Commedia manuscript was discovered calledArcadia Incantata (The Enchanted Arcadia) and has been accepted by several scholars, including Kathleen Marguerite Lea in her Italian Popular Comedy: A study in the commedia dell'arte, 1560–1620 and Allardyce Nicoll, as a source for the play. In addition, Oxfordian researcher, Kevin Gilvary, has called Arcadia Incantata “an exact scenario for the story” of The Tempest."[35] As described by Gilvary, the main scenario of Arcadia Incantata revolves around ship-wrecked survivors and “a magician who controls the island through spirits, which offer and then remove food from the starving companions. Various lovers among the shepherds and nymphs are confused. Eventually, the magician is able to right old wrongs, lead the survivors away from the island and abandon his art.”[36] [edit]As You Like It As You Like It features the former libertine Lord Jaques — who, like Oxford, "sold his lands to see other men’s". Much of the play takes place in the Forest of Arden, which was the name of the forest that stretched from Stratford-upon-Avon to Tamworth, near Oxford’s old country estate, Bilton.[37] Mark Anderson notes "local oral tradition holds that As You Like It was actually written at Billesley, an estate just outside Stratford-upon-Avon owned by the family of de Vere’s grandmother, Elizabeth Trussell."[38] One of the sights Oxford may have taken in on his 1575–76 Christmas season visit to Siena, Italy was its cathedral, whose artwork includes a mosaic of the Seven Ages of Man. According to the art historian Samuel C. Chew, this artwork should be "familiar to Shakespearean scholars because it has been cited as a parallel to Jaques’ lines.... The Ages (in Siena) are represented thus: Infantia rides upon a hobbyhorse, Pueritia is a schoolboy, Adolescentia is an older scholar garbed in a long cloak, Juventus has a falcon on his wrist, Virilitas is robed in dignified fashion and carries a book, Senectus, leaning upon his staff, holds a rosary, Decrepitas, leaning upon two staves, looks into his tomb."[39] Act V, scene 1, has often been cited by both sides of the authorship question.Here the court jester Touchstone and the country wench Audrey are about to get married. They meet William, a local bumpkin of the forest of Arden (which includes Stratford), who appears only in this one scene. These three people and their actions are absent from the likely source, Thomas Lodge’s novelRosalynde: Euphues Golden Legacie, which otherwise has the same storyline and characters (though it takes place in the Belgian Ardennes forests). Scholars on both sides have recognized the character of William as a reference to William Shakespeare of Stratford. Anti-Stratfordians believe the real author used the scene to lampoon the front-man of Shakespeare of Stratford.[40][41][42][43][44] A Stratfordian interpretation is that the scene satirizes false learning and allowed the actor Shakespeare to appear in a cameo role, making fun of his own rural origins.[45] [edit]The Life and Death of King John In the inflated importance and superb speeches given to the character Philip Faulconbridge ("The Bastard") in The Life and Death of King John, Oxfordians see a reflection of Edward de Vere’s own military fantasies and his long-running legal argument with his half-sister over his legitimacy. They also find it intriguing the play’s author felt it necessary to air-brush out of existence the traitorous Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford.[46] [edit]Henry IV, Part 1 In May 1573, in a letter to Lord Burghley, two of Oxford's former employees accused three of Oxford's friends of attacking them on "the highway from Gravesend to Rochester." In Shakespeare'sHenry IV, Part 1, Falstaff and three roguish friends of Prince Hal also waylay unwary travellers — on the highway from Gravesend to Rochester. This scene was also present in the earlier work, The Famous Victories of Henry the Fift — which Oxfordians believe was another Edward de Vere play, based on the exaggerated importance it bestowed on the 11th Earl of Oxford. In that version of the play even the correct month of the crime, May, was mentioned.[47] [edit]Henry V A number of observers, including the mainstream Shakespearean scholar Dover Wilson, believe the character of Fluellen was modelled after the Welsh soldier of fortune Sir Roger Williams.[48] Charles Wisner Barrell wrote, "Many of the speeches that the author ofHenry the Fifth puts in the mouth of the argumentative Fluellen are merely poetical paraphrases of Sir Roger’s own arguments and 'instances' in his posthumous book, The Actions of the Lowe Countries", which was not published until 1618 — and therefore the play's author could only have known of them through private manuscripts or personal observations. Sir Roger was a follower of Oxford, and served with "the fighting Veres” (Oxford’s cousins, Francis and Horatio) in the Dutch Republic.[49] He had no known connection to Shakespeare of Stratford.[50] Oxfordians also note that in the play the character of the 12th Earl of Oxford is given a much more prominent role than his limited involvement in the actual history of the times would allow.[16] [edit]Henry VI, Part 3 This play deals mainly with the temporary restoration of Henry VI and includes the great Lancastrian defeat at Tewkesbury. Interestingly, Shakespeare makes the same mistakes regarding the thirteenth earl's involvement as he did with the prior earls: throughout the play John de Vere, the thirteenth earl of Oxford is in the words of J. Thomas Looney, “hardly mentioned except to be praised:” Then in the last act, after the battle is lost and Oxford is captured, his place of imprisonment is mentioned: “Away with Oxford to Hames Castle straight.” – Act V, scene v, line 2 However, as Isaac Asimov observed “This is strange. Opposition leaders, if taken alive, were generally executed as traitors after battle. Why was this not the case with Oxford?” "Actually, it was because Oxford was not at Tewkesbury. He fought well at Barnet but then went to France. It was not till 1473, two years after Tewkesbury, which had been fought without him, that he attempted a reinvasion of England and a revival of the ruined Lancastrian cause. He was besieged in Cornwall and, after four and a half months, was forced to surrender.” It was only at this point, and only after everyone’s tempers had cooled, that he was sent to Hames castle.[51] Oxfordians, such as Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, in their This Star of England, believe the reason Shakespeare went to the trouble of creating an ahistorical place for Oxford in the climatic battle was because it was the easiest way Edward de Vere could "advertised his loyalty to (Queen Elizabeth)" and remind her of "the historic part borne by the Earls of Oxford in defeating the usurpers and restoring the Lancastrians to power.”[52] [edit]The Merry Wives of Windsor From an Oxfordian point of view, Shakespeare again used the life story of Edward de Vere in his plot for The Merry Wives of Windsor: Anne is Anne Cecil, the lovely, intelligent commoner and single woman who happens to have a rich father; Fenton is Oxford, the charming, clever, broke, verse-writing ne'er-do-well nobleman who is looking for a wife; and Anne’s father is William Cecil, the suspicious but rich potential father-in-law. Oxfordians hear the voice of de Vere, commenting on how his father-in-law Cecil views him, in the following passage spoken by Fenton: I am too great of birth, And that my state being gall’d with my expense, I seek to heal it only by his wealth. Besides these, other bars he lays before me, My riots past, my wild societies; And tells me ‘tis a thing impossible I should love thee but as a property. [edit]All's Well That Ends Well On 19 December 1571, in an arranged wedding, Oxford married Lord Burghley's 15-year-old daughter, Anne Cecil — an equally surprising choice as that in All's Well That Ends Well, as Oxford was of the oldest nobility in the kingdom whereas Anne was not of noble birth, her father having only been raised to the peerage the same year by Queen Elizabeth to enable this marriage of social inequals. J. Thomas Looney believed these events reveal striking parallels between Edward de Vere and Bertam: Bertram, a young lord of ancient lineage, of which he is himself proud, having lost a father for whom he entertained a strong affection, is brought to court by his mother and left as a royal ward, to be brought up under royal supervision. As he grows up he asks for military service and to be allowed to travel, but is repeatedly refused or put off. At last he goes away without permission. Before leaving he had been married to a young woman with whom he had been brought up, and who had herself been most active in bringing about the marriage. Matrimonial troubles, of which the outstanding feature is a refusal of cohabitation, are associated with both his stay abroad and his return home. Such a summary of a story we have been told in fragments elsewhere, and is as near to biography or autobiography if our theory be accepted, as a dramatist ever permitted himself to go.[53] Also, in 1658, Francis Osborne (1593–1659) included a bed-trick anecdote about Oxford, himself, in hisTraditional Memoirs of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I. According to Osborne (who had been a servant to the Herberts), Philip Herbert, then earl of Montgomery (and later Pembroke), was struck in the face by a Scottish courtier named Ramsay at a horse race at Croydon. Herbert, who did not strike back, was left "nothing to testify his manhood but a beard and children, by that daughter of the last great Earl of Oxford, whose lady was brought to his bed under the notion of his mistress, and from such a virtuous deceit she (the Countess of Montgomery) is said to proceed." Although the bed-trick can be found in literature throughout history, in everything from King Arthur to Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron (where it appears eight times), Ogburn believed de Vere was drawn to the story “because it paralleled his own.”[54][55] [edit]Measure for Measure From an Oxfordian perspective, Measure for Measure contains numerous autobiographical allusions to Edward de Vere. Besides another use of the bed trick, there is the Anne Cecil-like Isabella, plus the Oxford-like Duke of Vienna, working to save a prisoner from the death penalty — just as Edward de Vere tried but failed to save his cousin, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk.[56][57] The generally accepted source of the play was a supposedly true incident that occurred in 1547, near Milan, a city Oxford visited in 1576.[58][59] However, the play itself differs from these sources in a number of ways:[60] First, the Duke's hidden manipulations were added; second, Claudio’s crime was changed from murder to seduction of a maiden — the same crime that sent Oxford to the Tower of London.[61] And finally, Isabella did not marry Angelo but, following Anne Cecil’s life story, married the Duke (Oxford). Oxfordians also note that in the play the Duke of Vienna preferred dealing with his problems through the use of a front, although he could have rescued Claudio at any time by dropping his disguise and stepping forward as himself. In addition, Oxfordians see similarities between Edward de Vere's writings and the following Shakespearean passage: Isabella: It is not truer he is Angelo Than this is all as true as it is strange. Nay, it is ten times true. For truth is truth To th’end of reckoning. Oxford Letter to William Cecil, Lord Burghley: Truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that false which was once true.[62] [edit]Romeo and Juliet

Anne Vavasour, with whom Oxford had a tempestuous extramarital affair from 1579–81. Oxford's illicit congress with Anne Vavasour resulted in an intermittent series of street battles between the Knyvet clan, led by Anne's uncle, Sir Thomas Knyvet, and Oxford’s men. As in Romeo and Juliet, this imbroglio produced three deaths and several other injuries. The feud was finally put to an end only by the intervention of the Queen,[63] although not before Oxford himself was lamed in one of its duels. Oxfordians note that the theme of "lameness" is evident in many of Shake-speares Sonnets. [edit]Much Ado About Nothing From an Oxfordian standpoint, Much Ado About Nothing is an autobiography of Edward de Vere, starting with an apology to Anne Cecil for ever thinking she was unfaithful (as Claudio thinks Hero), to the Dogberry sub-plot as a parody of the Arundell-Howard Libel case, to a defense of his affair with Anne Vavasour. Sir Thomas Knyvet, Anne Vavasour’s enraged uncle, even makes an appearance as Beatrice’s enraged uncle with the lines "Sir boy, I’ll whip you from your foining fence, nay, as I am a gentleman, I will."[64] [edit]Othello, Cymbeline, and The Winter’s Tale All three plays make use of the same Shakespearean plot Oxfordians believe closely follow Edward de Vere’s treatment of his long-suffering wife, Anne Cecil. According to Charlton Ogburn, in these "three plays the male protagonist conceives a murderous animosity toward a loving wife by imagining her unfaithful to him on the flimsiest of grounds, only to be later overwhelmed by remorse; and these three brutally condemned wives—Imogen in Cymbeline, Hermione in The Winter's Tale and Desdemona in Othello—are generally adjudged the most saintly and faultless of Shakespeare's heroines."[65] [edit]Timon of Athens According to Joseph Sobran, Timon, "a rich and generous patron suddenly finds that his munificence has left him ruined and friendless. He bitterly denounces the human race, with one interesting exception: his steward. Timon’s praise of his steward, in the midst of his railing against mankind, suggests Oxford’s own praise of Robert Christmas, a faithful servant who apparently stayed with him during the hardship he inflicted on himself through his legendary prodigality."[66] Mark Anderson, an Oxfordian researcher, wrote Timon of Athens"is Shakespeare's self-portrait as a downwardly mobile aristocrat."[67] [edit]The Comedy of Errors When the character of Antipholus of Ephesus tells his servant to go out and buy some rope, the servant (Dromio) replies with a non sequitur that critics have scratched their heads over for centuries: ‘I buy a thousand pounds a year!’ the servant says, ‘I buy a rope!'” (Act 4, scene 1).[68] As the mainstreamFolger Shakespeare Library edition of the play states, "Dromio’s indignant exit line has not been satisfactorily explained."[69] In a coincidence often noted by Oxfordians, Edward de Vere received an annuity from the Queen, and later King James, of exactly £1,000 per year. Anderson surmises that "Annual grants of £1,000, one learns, come with some very large strings attached." In The Comedy of Errors, Oxfordians believe that de Vere speaks of his regrets over the power his £1,000 per year pension gave to those in authority over him. To support this view they also point to Sonnet 111: Sonnet 111 O for my sake do you wish fortune chide, The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds’ That did not better for my life provide Than public means which public manners breeds. Kathleen Marguerite Lea also believed the Italian form Commedia dell'Arte was the main influence on The Comedy of Errors.[70] While Oxford lived in Venice and northern Italy for almost a year, Shakespeare of Stratford had no known opportunity to view Italian street theater.[71] [edit]Twelfth Night Oxfordians believe this play relentlessly mocks de Vere’s court rival of the 1570s, Sir Christopher Hatton as Malvolio. For example, in the play Malvolio discovers a prank letter signed “The Fortunate Unhappy,” which Oxfordians contend is a play on Hatton’s pen name “The Unhappy Unfortunate.” In 1732, the antiquarian Francis Peck published in Desiderata Curiosa a list of documents in his possession that he intended to print someday. They included “a pleasant conceit of Vere, earl of Oxford, discontented at the rising of a mean gentleman in the English court, circa 1580.” Oxfordian researcher Mark Anderson, contends this conceit is “arguably an early draft of Twelfth Night.” Unfortunately for the Oxfordian movement, Peck never published his archives, which are now lost.[72] [edit]Further reading

Anderson, Mark. "Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, The Man Who Was Shakespeare. Gotham, 2005 (expanded paperback edition 2006). Verily Anderson, The De Veres of Castle Hedingham, published 1993 Austin, Al, and Judy Woodruff. The Shakespeare Mystery. 1989. Frontlinedocumentary film about the Oxford case. Farrand, Michael J. The Man Who Wrote Shakespeare, narrative poem based on Charlton Ogburn, Jr.'s The Mysterious William Shakespeare: the Myth and the Reality (Dodd, Mead, 1984) that lays out biographical parallels between Edward de Vere's life and the story in Hamlet; 2000. Fowler, William Plumer. Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Peter E. Randall, 1986. Hope, Warren, and Kim Holston. The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Claimants to Authorship, and their Champions and Detractors. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland and Co., 1992. Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. London: Cecil Palmer, 1920. (The first book to promote the Oxford theory.) Malim, Richard, ed. Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550–1604.London: Parapress, 2004. Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1984. (Influential book that criticises orthodox scholarship and promotes the Oxford theory.) Price, Diana. Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem. Westport, Ct: Greenwood, 2001. (Introduction to the evidentiary problems of the orthodox tradition.) Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time. Free Press, 1997. Stritmatter, Roger. The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence. 2001 University of Massachusetts Ph.D. dissertation. Ward, B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1550–1604) From Contemporary Documents. London: John Murray, 1928. Whalen, Richard. Shakespeare: Who Was He? The Oxford Challenge to the Bard of Avon. Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1994. [edit]

Copy of Oxfordian Article

This page is about the authorship of works attributed to Shakespeare. For the geological theory, see Oxfordian stage.

Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford - from an engraving by J. Brown. Oxford is the leading alternative candidate for the author behind the alleged pseudonym, Shakespeare.

For the purposes of this article the term "Shakespeare" is taken to mean the poet and playwright who wrote the plays and poems in question; and the term "Shakespeare of Stratford" is taken to mean the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to whom authorship is generally credited.

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William ShakespeareofStratford-upon-Avon. While a large majority of scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, there is increased interest in various authorship theories. Since the 1920s, Oxford has been the most widely accepted anti-Stratfordian candidate.

Oxfordians point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his reputation as a concealed poet, and his personal connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his long term relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his extensive education, his academic and cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through France and Italy to what would later become the locations of many of Shakespeare's plays.

The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's personal letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which Oxfordians believe correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays.Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, Oxfordian researchers cite examples they say imply the writer known as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" died before 1609, and point to 1604 as the year regular publication of "new" or "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped.

Supporters of the standard view, often referred to as "Stratfordian" or "mainstream", dispute all Oxfordian contentions. Aside from their main argument against the theory — the issue of Oxford's 1604 death — they assert that connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural or coincidental.

Mainstream view

Supporters of the mainstream view believe the author known as "Shakespeare" was the same William Shakespeare who was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564, moved to London and became an actor and "sharer" (part-owner) of the acting company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, owners of the Globe Theatre and the Blackfriars Theatre. He divided his time between London and Stratford, retiring to Stratford in approximately 1613. In 1623, seven years after his death (and after the death of most of the proposed authorship candidates), his plays were collected for publication in the First Folio edition.

Shakespeare of Stratford is further identified by the following evidence: He left gifts to actors from the London company in his will; the man from Stratford and the author of the works share a common name; and commendatory poems in the 1623 First Folio of Shakespeare's works refer to the "Swan of Avon" and his "Stratford monument". Mainstream scholars believe the latter phrase refers to the funerary monument in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford, which implies Shakespeare of Stratford was a writer (comparing him to Virgil and calling his writing a "living art"), and was described as such by visitors to Stratford as far back as the 1630s.

Several pieces of circumstantial evidence support the Stratfordian view: In a 1592 pamphlet by the playwright Robert Greene called "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit", Greene chastises a playwright whom he calls "Shake-scene", calling him "an upstart crow" and a "Johannes factotum" (a "Jack-of-all-trades", a man able to feign skill), thus suggesting people were aware of a writer named Shakespeare. Also, poet John Davies once referred to Shakespeare as "our English Terence" (Terence being a writer of comedies during the Roman Republic, who started life as a slave). Additionally, Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford, built within a decade of his death, currently features him with a pen in hand, suggesting he was known as a writer.

Criticism of the mainstream view

thumb|Shakespeare's Stratford Bust, as shown in Dugdale's Warwickshire in 1656. Authorship doubters note the absence of pen and paper.

Critics of the mainstream view, known as anti-Stratfordians, have challenged most if not all of the above assertions, claiming there is no direct evidence clearly identifying Shakespeare of Stratford as a playwright. These critics also maintain that Shakespeare of Stratford and the author do not share a common name, pointing out that according to Stratfordian scholar Sir Edmund K. Chambers, not one of Shakespeare of Stratford's six known signatures was spelled "Shakespeare" (i.e., Shaksp, Shakspe, Shakspe, Shakspere, Shakspere and Shakspeare) Anti-Stratfordians further note the only theatrical reference in Shakespeare of Stratford's will (the gifts to fellow actors) was interlined – i.e., inserted between previously written lines – and thus subject to doubt.

Oxfordian researchers also believe the term "Swan of Avon" can be interpreted in numerous ways. According to the DeVere Society of England, the term would be applicable to the silent front man of a hidden author, as the distinguishing characteristic of the common swan was its silence — hence its name 'Mute Swan'. Also, Charles Wisner Barrell published an extensive report establishing numerous ties between Oxford, the river Avon, and the Avon Valley, where Oxford once owned an estate.

Authorship researcher Mark Anderson believes "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit" implied Shakespeare of Stratford was being given credit for the work of other writers, and that Davies' mention of "our English Terence" was a mixed reference, as many contemporary Elizabethan scholars considered Terence merely a servant/actor who was being used as a front man by several aristocratic playwrights. Anti-Stratfordians also assert Shakespeare's grave monument was clearly altered sometime after the mid-1600s, as Sir William Dugdale's 1656 engraving of the original simply portrays a man holding a wool sack.

Notable anti-Stratfordians

On 8 September 2007, acclaimed British actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance unveiled a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" on the authorship of Shakespeare's work, after the final matinee of "I Am Shakespeare", a play investigating the bard's identity, performed in Chichester, England. The Declaration named 20 prominent doubters of the past, including Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud and Charlie Chaplin. The document was sponsored by the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition and has been signed by over 1,500 people, including 275 academics, to encourage new research into the question. Jacobi, who endorsed a group theory led by the Earl of Oxford, and Rylance, who was featured in the authorship play, presented a copy of the Declaration to William Leahy, head of English at Brunel University, London.

Mark Twain: "All the rest of [Shakespeare's] vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures — an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts"

Orson Welles: "I think Oxford wrote Shakespeare. If you don’t agree, there are some awfully funny coincidences to explain away".

Charlie Chaplin: "In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare.... Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude".

Sigmund Freud: "I no longer believe that ... the actor from Stratford was the author of the works that have been ascribed to him".

Harry A. Blackmun (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1970 to 1994): "The Oxfordians have presented a very strong—almost fully convincing — case for their point of view. If I had to rule on the evidence presented, it would be in favor of the Oxfordians".

Charles Dickens: "It is a great comfort, to my way of thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. The life of Shakespeare is a fine mystery and I tremble every day lest something turn up".

Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Other admirable men had led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought, but this man in wide contrast".

Walt Whitman: "Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism — only one of the 'wolfish earls' so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works".

John Paul Stevens (The senior Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1975–present): "He never had any correspondence with his contemporaries, he never was shown to be present at any major event -- the coronation of James or any of that stuff. I think the evidence that he was not the author is beyond a reasonable doubt."

Antonin Gregory Scalia (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1986–present): "My wife, who is a much better expert in literature than I am, has berated me. She thinks we Oxfordians are motivated by the fact that we can't believe that a commoner could have done something like this, you know, it's an aristocratic tendency... It is probably more likely that the pro-Shakespearean people are affected by a democratic bias than the Oxfordians are affected by an aristocratic bias." "

History of the Oxfordian theory

The Oxford theory was first proposed by J. Thomas Looney in his 1920 work Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, subsequently persuading Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, Marjorie Bowen, and many early 20th-century intellectuals of the case for Oxford's authorship. Oxford rapidly became the favoured alternative to the orthodox view. In 1921, Sir George Greenwood, Looney, and other proponents of the anti-Stratfordian perspective joined to found The Shakespeare Fellowship, an organization dedicated to the discussion of alternative views of authorship.

Leslie Howard's classic 1943 anti-Nazi film, Pimpernel Smith, features several speeches by the protagonist "Horatio" Smith, a professor of archaeology at Cambridge, endorsing the Oxfordian theory.

In 1984, Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare renewed the case for Oxford's authorship with an abundance of new research, and engaged in a critique of the standards and methods used by the orthodox school. In his Shakespeare Quarterly review of Ogburn's book, Richmond Crinkley, former Director of Educational Programs at the Folger Shakespeare Library, acknowledged the appeal of Ogburn's approach: "Doubts about Shakespeare came early and grew rapidly. They have a simple and direct plausibility", and the dismissive approach of conventional scholarship encouraged such doubts: "The plausibility has been reinforced by the tone and methods by which traditional scholarship has responded to the doubts." Although Crinkley rejected Ogburn's thesis, believing the "case made for Oxford leaves one unconvinced", he also concluded "a particular achievement of ... Ogburn is that he focused our attention so effectively on what we do not know about Shakespeare.

Oxford as a concealed writer

The Ashbourne portrait of William Shakespeare, which hangs in theFolger Shakespeare Library was analyzed by Charles Wisner Barrell, an expert in infra-red photography, who determined it was an overpainting of the Earl of Oxford, though this is disputed.

Oxford was known as a dramatist and court poet of considerable merit, but not one example of his plays survives under his name. A major question in Oxfordian theory is whether his works were published anonymously or pseudonymously. Anonymousandpseudonymous publication was a common practice in the sixteenth century publishing world, and a passage in the Arte of English Poesie (1589), the leading work of literary criticism of the Elizabethan period and an anonymously published work itself, alludes to the practice of concealed publication by literary figures in the court. Oxfordian researchers believe these passages support their claim that Oxford was one of the most prominent "suppressed" writers of the day:

In Queenes Maries time florished above any other Doctout Phaer one that was well learned & excellently well translated into English verse Heroicall certaine bookes of Virgils Aeneidos. Since him followed Maister Arthure Golding, who with no lesse commendation turned into English meetre the Metamorphosis of Ouide, and that other Doctour, who made the supplement to those bookes of Virgils Aeneidos, which Maister Phaer left undone. And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong up another crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties owne servaunts, who have written excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be foundout and made publicke with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford, Thomas Lord of Bukhurst, when he was young, Henry Lord Paget, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir Walter Rawleigh Master Edward Dyar, Maister Fulke Grevell, Gascon, Britton, Turberuille and a great many other learned Gentlemen, whose names I do not omit for envie, but to avoyde tediousneffe, and who have deserved no little commendation. But of them all particularly this is myne opinion, that Chaucer, with Gower, Lidgat and Harding for their antiquitie oughte to have the first place, and Chaucer as the most renowmed of them all, for the much learning appeareth to be in him aboue any of the rest.

Andrew Hannas, in an article titled "On Grammar and Oxford in The Art of English Poesie", paraphrased the passage: "In earlier days these writers’ poetry found their way into print, and now we have many in our own Queen's time whose poetry would be much admired if the extent of their works could be known and put into print as with those poets I have just named ["made publicke with the rest"], poets from Chaucer up through Golding and Phaer-Twinne, translators of Ovid and Virgil. And here are the NAMES of the poets [Oxford, Buckhurst, Sidney, et al.] of our Queen's time who deserve such favorable comparison "with the rest" [the Chaucer et al. list] But still, "of them all" [Chaucer through the Oxford–Sidney list], I would give highest honours to Chaucer because of the learning in his works that seems better than any of all of the aforementioned names ["aboue any of the rest"], and special merit to the other poets in their respective genres."

Oxfordians note that at the time of the passage's composition (pre-1589), the writers referenced were themselves concealed writers. First and foremost Sir Philip Sydney, none of whose poetry was published until after his death. Similarly, by 1589 nothing by Greville was in print and none of Walter Raleigh's works had been published (except one commendatory poem 12 years earlier in 1576).

Oxfordians also believe the satirist John Marston's 1598 publication of his Scourge of Villanie contains further indications Edward de Vere was a concealed writer:

.......Far fly thy fame,

Most, most of me beloved, whose silent name
One letter bounds. Thy true judicial style
I ever honour, and if my love beguile
Not much my hopes, then thy unvalu'd worth

Shall mount fair place when Apes are turned forth.

The word Ape means pretender or mimic, and Oxfordians maintain the writer whose silent name is bound by one letter is Edward de VerE.

Oxford as a poet and playwright

There are three principal pieces of evidence praising Oxford as a poet and a playwright:

(1) The anonymous 1589 Arte of English Poesie, usually attributed to George Puttenham, contains a chapter describing the practice of concealed publication by court figures, which includes a passage listing Oxford as the finest writer of comedy:

for Tragedie, the Lord of Buckhurst, & Maister Edward Ferrys for such doings as I haue sene of theirs do deserue the hyest price: Th'Earle of Oxford and Maister Edwardes of her Maiesties Chappell for Comedy and Enterlude.

(2) Francis Meres' 1598 Palladis Tamia, which refers to him as Earle of Oxenford, lists him among the "best for comedy". Shakespeare's name appears further down the same list.

so the best for comedy amongst us bee, Edward Earle of Oxenforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Maister Rowley once a rare Scholar of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes one of her Majesty's Chapel, eloquent and witty John Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Munday our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathway, and Henry Chettle.

Stratfordians believe Shakespeare's appearance on the same list proves Oxford and Shakespeare were different writers. For an Oxfordian discussion of this topic, see the wiki references in the entry on Francis Meres.

(3) Henry Peacham's 1622 The Compleat Gentleman omits Shakespeare's name and praises Oxford as one of the leading poets of the Elizabethan era, saying:

In the time of our late Queene Elizabeth, which was truly a golden Age (for such a world of refined wits, and excellent spirits it produced, whose like are hardly to be hoped for, in any succeeding Age) above others, who honoured Poesie with their pennes and practise (to omit her Maiestie, who had a singular gift herein) were Edward Earle of Oxford, the Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget; our Phoenix, the noble Sir Philip Sidney, M. Edward Dyer, M. Edmund Spencer, M. Samuel Daniel, with sundry others; whom (together with those admirable wits, yet liuing, and so well knowne) not out of Ennuie but to auoid tediousnesse, I overpasse. Thus much of Poetrie.

Stratfordians disagree with this interpretation of Peacham, asserting that Peacham copied large parts of Puttenham's work but only used the names of those writers he considered "gentlemen", a title Peacham felt did not apply to actors. They further argue his list is of poets only and he did not include playwrights, neglecting for example Christopher Marlow.

Although not strictly a report on Oxford's ability as a playwright, there is also a description of the esteem to which he was held as a writer in The Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois, a 1613 play by George Chapman, who has been suggested as the Rival Poet of Shake-speares Sonnets:

I overtook, coming from Italy

In Germany, a great and famous Earl
Of England; the most goodly fashion’d man
I ever saw: from head to foot in form
Rare and most absolute; he had a face
Like one of the most ancient honour’d Romans
From whence his noblest family was deriv’d;
He was besides of spirit passing great
Valiant and learn’d, and liberal as the sun,
Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects,
Or of the discipline of public weals:

And ‘twas the Earl of Oxford.

Oxford's lyric poetry

Much of Oxford's early lyric poetry survives under his own name. In the opinion of J. Thomas Looney, as "far as forms of versification are concerned De Vere presents just that rich variety which is so noticeable in Shakespeare; and almost all the forms he employs we find reproduced in the Shakespeare work...."

"So far as the natural disposition of the writer is concerned...(t)he personality they reflect is perfectly in harmony with that which peer through the writings of Shakespeare. There are traces undoubtedly of those defects which the sonnets disclose in "Shakespeare," but through it all there shines the spirit of an intensely affectionate nature, highly sensitive, and craving for tenderness and sympathy. He is a man with faults, but stamped with reality and truth; honest even in his errors, making no pretence of being better than he was, and recalling frequently to our minds the lines in one of Shakespeare's sonnets:"

I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own.

As far as the quality of Edward de Vere's known verse is concerned, Oxfordians respond to the charge that it is not at the level one would expect of a "Shakespeare" in two ways. First, Oxford's known works are those of a young man and as such should be considerjuvenilia. And second, neither is Titus Andronicus, and whoever wrote that play eventually wrote Hamlet. As Joseph Sobran observed, "The objection may be still made that…Oxford's poetry remains far inferior to Shakespeare's. But even granting the point for the sake of argument, ascribing authorship on the basis of quality is an uncertain business. Early in the (20th) century some scholars sought to exclude such plays as Titus Andronicus … on the grounds that they were unworthy of Shakespeare. Today their place is secure…. The poet who wrote King Lear was at some time also capable of writing Titus Andronicus."

The 1604 issue

Title page from SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS (1609).

Dedication page from The Sonnets. Both the hyphenated name and the words "ever-living poet", have helped fuel the authorship debate

The publication of SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS in 1609 has provided numerous debating points for authorship proponents on both sides of the question. The hyphenated name also appears on 15 plays published prior to the First Folio

For mainstream critics, the most compelling evidence against Oxford is that he died in 1604, whereas they contend that a number of plays by Shakespeare were written after that date. These critics most often cite The Tempest, Henry VIIIandMacbeth as almost certainly having been written after 1604.

Oxfordian scholars, on the other hand, have cited examples they say imply the writer of the plays and poems died prior to 1609, whenShake-Speares Sonnets appeared with the enigmatic words "our ever-living poet" on its title page. These researchers claim the words "ever-living" rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is alive, but instead refers to the eternal soul of the deceased. Additionally, they assert 1604 is the year "Shakespeare" stopped writing. If these claims were true, it would give a boost to the Oxfordian candidacy, as Bacon, Derby, Neville, andShakespeare of Stratford all lived well past the 1609 publication of the Sonnets.

Moreover, significant and unresolved debate persists over the question of whether many of the so-called "late plays" were actually written, as is generally alleged by orthodox scholars, during the Jacobean period. Andrew Cairncross, for example, argued persuasively as early as 1936, in an argument less refuted than ignored since then, that Hamlet was written as early as 1588-89. For one reason or another, evidence exists that all the allegedly Jacobean plays may actually have been written several years earlier than is customarily believed, and all of them before 1604.

Publication

The speculation that the existing chronology is significantly too late is strongly supported, Oxfordians argue, by the publication pattern of Shakespeare's plays. Updating the argument to this effect originated by John Thomas Looney, Mark Anderson stresses that from 1593 through 1603 the publication of new Shake-speare's plays "appeared in print, on average, twice per year." Then, in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent" and stopped (new play) publication for almost 5 years. Anderson further states "the early history of reprints ... also point to 1604 as a watershed year", and notes that during the years of 1593–1604, whenever an inferior or pirated text was published, it was then typically followed by a genuine text that was "newly augmented" or "corrected": "After 1604, the 'newly correct[ing]' and 'augment[ing]' stops. Once again, the Shake-speare enterprise appears to have shut down".

Composition

Addressing the plays' dates of composition, Oxfordians note the following: In 1756, in Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ben Jonson, W. R. Chetwood concludes on the basis of performance records "at the end of the year of [1603], or the beginning of the next, 'tis supposed that [Shakespeare] took his farewell of the stage, both as author and actor." In 1874, German literary historian Karl Elze dated both The Tempest and Henry VIII — traditionally labeled as Shakespeare's last plays — to the years 1603-04. In addition, the majority of 18th and 19th century scholars, including notables such as Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens,Edmond Malone, and James Halliwell-Phillipps, placed the composition of Henry VIII prior to 1604. And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare's plays, Alfred Harbage showed the composition ofMacbeth, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra —all traditionally regarded as "late plays" — likely did not occur after 1604.

Science

Anderson also observes that while Shakespeare refers to the latest scientific discoveries and events right through the end of the 16th century, "Shakespeare is mute about science after de Vere's [Oxford's] death in 1604". Anderson especially notes Shakespeare never mentioned the spectacular supernova of October 1604 or Kepler's revolutionary 1609 study of planetary orbits.

Notable silences

Because Shakespeare of Stratford lived until 1616, Oxfordians question why, if he were the author, did he not eulogize Queen Elizabeth at her death in 1603 or Henry, Prince of Wales, at his in 1612. They believe Oxford's 1604 death provides the explanation. In an age when such actions were expected, Shakespeare also failed to memorialize the coronation of James I in 1604, the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1612, and the investiture of Prince Charles as the new Prince of Wales in 1613.

Similarly, when Shakespeare of Stratford died, he was not publicly mourned. As Mark Twain wrote, in Is Shakespeare Dead?, "When Shakespeare died in Stratford it was not an event. It made no more stir in England than the death of any other forgotten theatre-actor would have made. Nobody came down from London; there were no lamenting poems, no eulogies, no national tears — there was merely silence, and nothing more. A striking contrast with what happened when Ben Jonson, and Francis Bacon, and Spenser, and Raleigh, and the other literary folk of Shakespeare's time passed from life! No praiseful voice was lifted for the lost Bard of Avon; even Ben Jonson waited seven years before he lifted his."

Diana Price, in Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography, notes that for a professional author, Shakespeare of Stratford seems to have been entirely uninterested in protecting his work. Price explains that while he had a well documented habit of going to court over relatively small sums, he never sued any of the publishers pirating his plays and sonnets, or took any legal action regarding their practice of attaching his name to the inferior output of others. Price also notes there is no evidence Shakespeare of Stratford was ever paid for writing and his detailed will failed to mention any of Shakespeare's unpublished plays or poems or any of the source books Shakespeare was known to have read. Oxfordians also note Shakespeare of Stratford's relatives and neighbors never mentioned he was famous or a writer, nor are there any indications his heirs demanded or received payments for his supposed investments in the theatre or for any of the more than 16 masterwork plays unpublished at the time of his death. Mark Twain, commenting on the subject, said, "Many poets die poor, but this is the only one in history that has died THIS poor; the others all left literary remains behind. Also a book. Maybe two."

Contemporary statements

In 1607 William Barkstead (or Barksted), a minor poet and playwright, appeared to state in his poem "Mirrha the Mother of Adonis" that Shakespeare was already deceased.

His Song was worthy merit (Shakespeare he)

sung the fair blossom, thou the withered tree
Laurel is due him, his art and wit

hath purchased it, Cypress thy brow will fit.

Joseph Sobran, in Alias Shakespeare, notes the cypress tree was a symbol of mourning, and believes Barkstead was specifically writing of Shakespeare in the past tense ("His song was worthy") — after Oxford's death in 1604, but prior to Shakespeare of Stratford's death in 1616.

Biographical evidence

While there is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate) to the plays of Shakespeare, Oxfordian researchers, including Mark Anderson and Charlton Ogburn believe the connection is provided by considerable circumstantial evidence, including: Oxford's connections to the Elizabethan theatre and poetry scene; the participation of his family in the printing and publication of the First Folio; his relationship with the Earl of Southampton (believed my most mainstream scholars to be "Shakespeare's patron"); as well as a number of specific circumstances from Oxford's life that Oxfordians believe are depicted in the plays themselves.

Oxford was a leaseholder of the first Blackfriars Theatre and produced grand entertainments at court; he was the son-in-law ofLord Burghley, who is often regarded as the model for Polonius; his daughter was engaged toHenry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton (many scholars believe Southampton to have been theFair Youth of the Sonnets); his mother, Margory Golding, was the sister of the Ovid translator Arthur Golding; and Oxford's uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was the inventor of the English or Shakespearean sonnet form. The three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere. Venus and AdonisandThe Rape of Lucrece were dedicated to Southampton, and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere) and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget de Vere). Shakespeare placed many of his plays in Italy and sprinkled them with detailed descriptions of Italian life. Though there are no records Shakespeare of Stratford ever visited Europe, historical documents confirm Oxford lived in Venice, and traveled for over a year through Italy. According to Anderson, the Italian cities Oxford definitely visited in 1575-1576 were Venice, Padua, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Florence, Siena and Naples and he probably also passed through Messina, Mantua and Verona — all cities "Shakespeare" later wrote into the plays, while (except for Rome) the Italian cities Oxford bypassed are the same cities Shakespeare ignored.

In 1588, due to ongoing financial problems, Oxford sold his house, Fisher's Folly, to William Cornwallis. In 1852, James Halliwell-Phillipps discovered a volume, "Anne Cornwaleys her booke," apparently the day book of Cornwallis’ daughter Anne, which Halliwell-Phillipps believed was written sometime in 1595. Anne's handwritten book contains "Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde," "Anne Vavasour's Echo" (Anne Vavasour was Oxford's mistress 1579–1581, by whom he fathered an illegitimate child), and also a poem ascribed in 1599 to "Shakespeare" by William Jaggard in The Passionate Pilgrim. According to Charles Wisner Barrell, Anne's version was superior textually to the one published by Jaggard, and is the first handwritten example we have of a poem ascribed to Shakespeare.

While Oxfordians concede the names Avon and Stratford have become irrevocably linked to Shakespeare with the 1623 publication of theFirst Folio, they also note Edward de Vere once owned an estate in the River Avon valley near the Forest of Arden, and the nearest town to the parish of Hackney, where de Vere later lived and was buried, was also named Stratford. Oxfordians also regard Dr. John Ward's 1662 statement, that Shakespeare spent at a rate of £1,000 a year, as a critical piece of evidence given that, in an oft-noted parallel, Oxford received an unexplained annuity from the notoriously thrifty Queen Elizabeth I of exactly £1,000 a year.

Parallels with Hamlet

William Cecil(Lord Burghley), Oxford's guardian and father-in-law, and Queen Elizabeth's most trusted advisor. Oxfordians believe Polonius is based on Burghley.

Numerous Oxfordian researchers, including Ogburn and Anderson, point to Hamlet as the play most easily seen as portraying Oxford's life story.

• As in Hamlet, Oxford's father died suddenly (in 1562) and his mother remarried shortly thereafter.

• At 12, Oxford was made a royal ward and placed in the household of Lord Burghley, who was theLord High Treasurer and Queen Elizabeth's closest and most trusted advisor. Burghley is regarded by mainstream scholars as the prototype for the character of chief minister Polonius. Oxfordians point out that in the First Quarto the character was not named Polonius, but Corambis (Cor ambis means "two-hearted") — a swipe, as Charlton Ogburn said, "at Burghley's motto, Cor unum, via una, or 'one heart, one way.'"

• Hamlet was engaged to marry Ophelia, daughter to Polonius, while Edward de Vere was engaged to marry (and did marry) Anne Cecil, daughter to Burghley.

• One of Hamlet's chief opponents at court was Laertes, the son of Polonius, while one of Oxford's chief opponents at court was Robert Cecil, the son of Lord Burghley. Like Laertes, who received the famous list of maxims from his father Polonius, Thomas Cecil received a similarly famous list from his father Burghley — a list the mainstream scholar E. K. Chambers acknowledged was the author's likely source.

• In the play, Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school — and for similar reasons, Lord Burghley sent a spy to watch his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris.

• Hamlet was a member of the higher nobility, supported an acting company and had trusted companions named Horatioand Francisco. Likewise, Oxford was a member of the higher nobility, supported several acting companies, and had two famous cousins namedHorace (or Horatio) Vere and Francis Vere. Both Sir Horatio Vere (as he was also known) and Hamlet's friend Horatio had the same personality, being known for their ability to remain calm under all conditions.

• While returning from Italy in 1576 Oxford met a cavalry division outside of Paris that was being led by a German duke. He then encountered pirates in the English Channel. As Anderson stated: "Just as Hamlet's review of Fortinbras’ troops leads directly to an ocean voyage overtaken by pirates, de Vere's meeting with Duke Casimir's army was soon followed by a Channel crossing intercepted by pirates." In Act IV, Hamlet describes himself as "set naked" in "the kingdom". In a parallel which Oxfordians consider striking, after Oxford's real-life abduction, the Channel pirates left him stripped naked on the Danish shore, recalling Hamlet's line "I am set naked on your shore...". Anderson notes, "Neither the encounter with Fortinbras’ army nor Hamlet's brush with buccaneers appears in any of the play's sources – to the puzzlement of numerous literary critics.)"

Parallels with the plays

Main article: Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays

In addition to Hamlet, Oxfordian researchers note numerous instances where Oxford's personal and court biographies parallel the plots and subplots of many of the Shakespeare plays. Most notable among these are similarities between Oxford's biography and the actions depicted in The Merchant of Venice and The Taming of the Shrew, both of which contain a number of local details that, Oxfordians believe, could only have been obtained by personal experiences; Henry V and Henry VI, Part 3, where the Earls of Oxford are given much more prominent roles than their limited involvement in the actual history of the times would allow; The Life and Death of King John, where Shakespeare felt it necessary to air-brush out of existence the traitorous Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford. and Henry IV, Part 1, which includes a well-known robbery scene with uncanny parallels to a real-life incident involving Oxford.

Oxfordians have also claimed many parallels between Oxford's relationship with his wife, Anne Cecil, and incidences in such plays asOthello, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale and Measure for Measure, as well as the primary plot of All's Well That Ends Well, upon which J. Thomas Looney noted:

Bertram, a young lord of ancient lineage, of which he is himself proud, having lost a father for whom he entertained a strong affection, is brought to court by his mother and left as a royal ward, to be brought up under royal supervision. As he grows up he asks for military service and to be allowed to travel, but is repeatedly refused or put off. At last he goes away without permission. Before leaving he had been married to a young woman with whom he had been brought up, and who had herself been most active in bringing about the marriage. Matrimonial troubles, of which the outstanding feature is a refusal of cohabitation, are associated with both his stay abroad and his return home. Such a summary of a story we have been told in fragments elsewhere, and is as near to biography or autobiography if our theory be accepted, as a dramatist ever permitted himself to go.

Oxfordians note repeatedly that both known and probable sources of, and minor details in, numerous Shakespeare plays match up with specific documents to which the highly educated, multilingual, extensively libraried, and well-traveled Oxford had access.

Parallels with the sonnets and poems

In 1609, a volume of 154 linked poems was published under the title SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS, apparently without the participation of its author. Most historians believe someone other than Shakespeare also wrote its dedication. The focus of the series appears to follow the author's relationships with three characters, whose identities remain controversial: the Fair Youth, the Dark Lady or Mistress and the Rival Poet. The Fair Youth is generally, but far from universally, thought by mainstream scholars to be Southhampton. The Dark Lady is believed by some Oxfordians to be Anne Vavasour (or Vasasor), who bore the Earl of Oxford a son out of wedlock, whom she named Edward Vere. While there is no consensus candidate for the Rival Poet, some suppose he could have been Christopher Marlowe or George Chapman, although a strong case was made by the Oxfordian Peter R. Moore for Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex.

Oxfordians assert that the inclusion of "by our ever-living poet" in its dedication implies the author was dead, "ever-living" being generally understood to mean the person in question was deceased. Oxfordians assert that not one researcher has been able to provide an example where the term "ever-living" referred to an individual who was alive at the time. Nevertheless, it remains debatable whether the phrase, in this context, refers to Shakespeare or to God.

Oxfordians also believe the finality of the title (Shake-Speares Sonnets) suggests it was a completed body of work, with no further sonnets expected. They also consider the Sonnets one of the more serious problems facing Stratfordians, who differ among themselves as to whether the Sonnets are fictional or autobiographical. Joseph Sobran questions why, if the sonnets were fiction, did Shakespeare of Stratford — who lived until 1616 — fail to publish a corrected and authorized edition? If, on the other hand, they are autobiographic, why did they fail to match the Stratford man's life story? According to Sobran and other researchers, the themes and personal circumstances expounded by the author of the Sonnets are remarkably similar to Oxford's biography.

In The De Vere Code, a recently published book by English actor Jonathan Bond, the author claims that the 30-word dedication to the original publication of Shakespeare's Sonnets contains six simple encryptions which conclusively establishEdward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as the author of the poems. The encryptions also settle the question of the identity of "the Fair Youth" as Henry Wriothesley and contain striking references to the sonnets themselves and de Vere's relationship to Sir Philip Sidney and Ben Jonson.

Age

Oxford was born in 1550, and was between 40 and 53 years old when he presumably wrote the sonnets. Shakespeare of Stratford was born in 1564. Even though the average life expectancy of Elizabethans was short, being between 26 and 39 was not considered old. In spite of this, age and growing older are recurring themes in the Sonnets:

Sonnet 138

... vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best.

Shakespeare also described his relationship with the Fair Youth as like "a decrepit father." However, Shakespeare of Stratford was only 9 years older than Southampton, while Oxford was 23 years older.

Sonnet 37

As a decrepit father takes delight
To see his active child do deeds of youth,
So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth....

Lameness

In his later years, Oxford described himself as "lame". On several occasions, the author of the sonnets also described himself as lame:

Sonnet 37

I, made lame by fortune's dearest spite...

Sonnet 89

Speak of my lameness, and I straight will halt...

Edward de Vere's letter of March 25, 1595 to Lord Burghley

"When Your Lordship shall have best time and leisure if I may know it, I will attend Your Lordship as well as a lame man may at your house."

Law

Sobran maintains the Sonnets "abound not only in legal terms — more than 200 — but also in elaborate legal conceits." These terms include: allege, auditor, defects, exchequer, forfeit, heirs, impeach, lease, moiety, recompense, render, sureties, and usage. Shakespeare also uses the then newly-minted legal term, "quietus" (final settlement), in the last Fair Youth sonnet.

Sonnet 134

So now I have confessed that he is thine,

And I myself am mortgaged to thy will,

Myself I’ll forfeit, so that other mine

Thou wilt restore to be my comfort still.

But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free,

For thou art covetous, and he is kind:

He learned but surety-like to write for me,

Under that bond that him as fast doth bind.

The statute of thy beauty thou wilt take,

Thou usurer that put'st forth all to use,

And sue a friend came debtor for my sake;

So him I lose through my unkind abuse....

Oxford was trained in the law and, in 1567, was admitted to Gray's Inn, one of the Inns of Court which Justice Shallow reminisces about in Henry IV, Part 2."

Southampton – The Fair Youth

Southhampton, Oxford's friend and prospective son-in-law, and the likely "fair youth" of the early sonnets.

Oxfordians, along with many mainstream scholars, believe Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, Oxford's associate and hoped-for son-in-law, is the "fair youth" referred to in the early sonnets. Sobran notes "the first seventeen sonnets, the procreation poems, give every indication of belonging to Burghley's campaign to make [Southampton] marry his granddaughter, [who was] Oxford's daughter Elizabeth Vere. Obviously, Oxford would have known all three parties.... It is hard to imagine how Mr. Shaksper (of Stratford) could have known any of them. Let alone have been invited to participate in the effort to encourage the match." Sobran also observes that in 16th-century England, actors and playwrights did not presume to give advice to the nobility, and believes "It is clear, too, that the poet is of the same rank as the youth. He praises, scolds, admonishes, teases, and woos him with the liberty of a social equal who does not have to worry about seeming insolent.... 'Make thee another self, for love of me' (Sonnet 10), is impossible to conceive as a request from a poor poet to his patron: it expresses the hope of a father — or a father-in-law. And Oxford was, precisely, Southampton's prospective father-in-law."

Sobran also cites Sonnet 91, contending the "lines imply that he (the author) is in a position to make such comparisons, and the 'high birth' he refers to is his own":

Thy love is better than high birth to me,

Richer than wealth, prouder than garments’ cost,

Of more delight than hawks or horses be.

Oxfordian author William Farina notes as well that in Sonnets 40–42 the Fair Youth seems to have gone on to steal the Dark Lady from Shakespeare; however in Sonnet 42 he is forgiven with the words "we must not be foes." As Farina wrote, the "idea of Will Shakespere (of Stratford) offering such assurance to the Earl of Southampton is truly a smiler."

Public disgrace

Sobran also believes "scholars have largely ignored one of the chief themes of the Sonnets: the poet's sense of disgrace.... [T]here can be no doubt that the poet is referring to something real that he expects his friends to know about; in fact, he makes clear that a wide public knows about it... Once again the poet's situation matches Oxford's.... He has been a topic of scandal on several occasions. And his contemporaries saw the course of his life as one of decline from great wealth, honor, and promise to disgrace and ruin. This perception was underlined by enemies who accused him of every imaginable offense and perversion, charges he was apparently unable to rebut."

Sonnet 29

When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,

I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heav’n with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself and curse my fate,

Wishing me like to one more rich in hope....

Sonnet 112

Your love and pity doth th' impression fill

Which vulgar scandal stamped upon my brow,
For what care I who calls me well or ill,

So you o'er-green my bad, my good allow?

As early as 1576 Edward de Vere was writing about this subject in his poem Loss of Good Name,[7] which Professor Steven W. May described as "a defiant lyric without precedent in English Renaissance verse."

Lost fame

The poems Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, first published in 1593 and 1594 under the name "William Shakespeare", proved highly popular for several decades - with Venus and Adonis published 6 more times before 1616, while Lucrece required 4 additional printings during this same period. By 1598, they were so famous, London poet and sonneteer Richard Barnefield wrote:

Shakespeare.....

Whose Venus and whose Lucrece (sweet and chaste)
Thy name in fame's immortal Book have plac't
Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever:

Well may the Body die, but Fame dies never.

Despite such publicity, Sobran observed, "[t]he author of the Sonnets expects and hopes to be forgotten. While he is confident that his poetry will outlast marble and monument, it will immortalize his young friend, not himself. He says that his style is so distinctive and unchanging that ‘every word doth almost tell my name,’ implying that his name is otherwise concealed – at a time when he is publishing long poems under the name William Shakespeare. This seems to mean that he is not writing these Sonnets under that (hidden) name."

Sonnet 81

...Or you survive, when I in earth am rotten;

From hence your memory death cannot take’
Although in me each part will be forgotten.
Your name from hence immortal life shall have’ ''
Though I, once gone, to all the world must die;
The earth can yield me but a common grave’
When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie.
Your monument shall be my gentle verse’
Which eyes not yet created shall o’ver-read,

And tongues to be your being shall rehearse…

Sonnet 72

My name be buried where my body is, ''
And live no more to shame nor me, nor you…

Based on these sonnets, and others, Oxfordians assert that if the author expected his "name" to be "forgotten" and "buried", it would not have been the name that permanently adorned the published works themselves.

Prince Tudor theory

Main article: Prince Tudor theory

In a letter in 1933, J. Thomas Looney mentions in a postscript that Percy Allen and Captain Ward were advancing views in regard to Oxford and Queen Elizabeth that were extravagant and improbable. The ideas Ward and Allen developed have become known as the PrinceTudor or PT Theory. The PT Theory has split the Oxfordian movement into the orthodox Oxfordians, who regard the theory as an impediment to Oxford's recognition as Shakespeare, and the PT Theorists, who maintain their theory better explains Oxford's life and authorship.

The PT Theory advances the belief that Oxford and Queen Elizabeth had a child who was raised as Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. It is to this young Earl that Shakespeare dedicated Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. This Star of England by Charlton and Dorothy Ogburn devoted space to facts supporting this theory, which was expanded by Elisabeth Sears' Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose, and Hank Whittemore in The Monument, an analysis of Shakespeare's Sonnets which interprets the poems as a poetic history of Queen Elizabeth, Oxford, and Southampton. Paul Streitz's Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth Iadvances a variation on the theory: that Oxford himself was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth.

Stratfordian objections

Oxford's death

The primary objection to the Oxfordian theory is Edward de Vere's 1604 death, after which, according to Stratfordians, a number of Shakespeare's plays are conventionally believed to have been written.

Oxfordians respond that as the conventional dates for the plays were developed by Stratfordian scholars to fit within the Stratfordian theory, they remain conjectural and self-serving. Oxfordians also note a number of the so-called "later plays", such as Henry VIII, Macbeth, Timon of Athens and Pericles have been described as incomplete or collaborative, whereas under the Oxfordian theory these plays were either drafted earlier than conventionally believed, or were simply revised/completed by others after Oxford's death.

Stratfordians reject these arguments and cite examples to support their point:

• Shakespearian scholar David Haley notes that in order to have written Coriolanus, Edward de Vere "must have foreseen the [1607 Midlands] grain riots reported in Coriolanus."

• The Tempest is considered by most mainstream scholars to have been inspired by William Strachey's description of a 1609 Bermuda shipwreck. However, mainstream literary scholar Kenneth Muir noted "the extent of verbal echoes of the [Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated." Oxfordians point to previously acknowledged sources that show some of the words and images in The Tempest may actually derive from Richard Eden's "The Decades of the New Worlde Or West India" (1555) and Desiderius Erasmus's "Naufragium"/"The Shipwreck" (1523). Both sources are mentioned by previous scholars as influencing the composition of The Tempest, and Oxfordians point to new research by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter they believe confirms this. Alden T. Vaughan, however, has challenged the conclusions of Kositsky and Stritmatter in his 2008 paper "A Closer Look at the Evidence". In 2009, Stritmatter and Kositsky further developed the arguments against Strachey's influence in aCritical Survey article demonstrating the pervasive influence on The Tempest of the much earlier travel narrative, Richard Eden's 1555 Decades of the New World. CS editor William Leahy, describing the article as a "devastating critique", concluded that "the authors show that the continued support of Strachey as Shakespeare's source is, at the very least, highly questionable."

• Henry VIII was described as a new play in 1613. Oxfordians believe this distinction may simply be the result of Elizabethan marketing, as London diarist Samuel Pepys also referred to Henry VIII as being "new" in 1663, when the play was over 50 years old. Also, many 18th- and 19th-century scholars, includingSamuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmond Malone, and James Halliwell-Phillipps, placed the composition of Henry VIII prior to 1604, as they believed Elizabeth's execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (the then king James I's mother) made any vigorous defence of the Tudors politically inappropriate in the England of James I.

• Stratfordians contend that Macbeth represents the most overwhelming single piece of evidence against the Oxfordian position, asserting the play was written in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot, which was discovered on 5 November 1605, a year after Oxford died. In particular, Stratfordians claim the porter's lines about "equivocation" may allude to the trial of Father Garnet in 1606. Oxfordians respond that the concept of "equivocation" was the subject of a 1583 tract by Queen Elizabeth's chief councillor (and Oxford's father-in-law) Lord Burghley, as well as of the 1584 Doctrine of Equivocation by the Spanishprelate Martín de Azpilcueta, which was disseminated across Europe and into England in the 1590s. In addition, A. R. Braunmuller, in the New Cambridge edition, finds the post-1605 arguments inconclusive, and argues only for an earliest date of 1603.

Additional objections

In addition to the problem of Edward de Vere's 1604 death, supporters of the orthodox view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. In The Shakespeare Claimants, a 1962 examination of the authorship question, H. N. Gibson concluded that "... on analysis the Oxfordian case appears to me a very weak one". Mainstream critics also assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural.

More specifically, Professor Jonathan Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare (1997) stated that Oxfordians can not "provide any explanation for …technical changes attendant on the King's Men's move to the Blackfriars theatre four years after their candidate's death.... Unlike the Globe, the Blackfriars was an indoor playhouse" and so required plays with frequent breaks in order to replace the candles it used for lighting. "The plays written after Shakespeare's company began using the Blackfriars in 1608, CymbelineandThe Winter's Tale for instance, have what most ... of the earlier plays do not have: a carefully planned five-act structure". If new Shakespearean plays were being written especially for presentation at the Blackfriars' theatre after 1608, they could not have been written by Edward de Vere..

Stratfordians also stress that any supposedly special knowledge of the aristocracy appearing in the plays can be more easily explained by Shakespeare of Stratford's life-time of performances before nobility and royalty, and possibly, as Gibson theorizes, "by visits to his patron's house, as Marlowe visited Walsingham."

In addition, Stratfordian scholars point to a poem written circa 1620 by a student at Oxford, William Basse, that mentioned the author Shakespeare died in 1616, which is the year Shakespeare of Stratford deceased and not Edward de Vere. Mainstream critics further claim that if William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays and poems, the number of people needed to suppress this information would have made their attempts highly unlikely to succeed. And John Michell, in Who Wrote Shakespeare, noted that "[a]gainst the Oxford theory are several references to Shakespeare, later than 1604, which imply that the author was then still alive". Also, a method of computerized textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic compared the styles of Oxford with Shakespeare and found the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare as "lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning".

Some Stratfordian academics also argue the Oxford theory is based on simple snobbishness: that anti-Stratfordians reject the idea that the son of a mere tradesman could write the plays and poems of Shakespeare.

Oxfordian responses

Addressing Professor Bate's Blackfriars theory, Oxfordians, such as Richard Malim, point to Allardyce Nicoll's 1958 essayShakespeare and the Court Masque in which the promenient mainstream critic discussed the assumption that The Winter's Tale,The Tempest, Cymbeline and Pericles "were written for the indoor Blackfriars Theatre at which Shakespeare's Company began to act in 1610. Since the assumption has a good deal of scholarly support, perhaps it may prove salutary ... to stress that all available evidence is either completely negative or else runs directly counter to such a supposition". He concluded that "except for the apocryphalThe Two Noble Kinsmen, issued 18 years after Shakespeare's death ... we have ... absolutely no justification whatsoever for associating Shakespeare with the Blackfriars at all".

In respect to the mainstream supposition that Shakespeare of Stratford was a full-time actor, J. Thomas Looney stated that, "Although the company with which his name is associated toured frequently and widely in the provinces, and much has been recorded of their doings, no municipal archive, so far as is known, contains a single reference to him." Regarding the Stratfordian claims concerning Shakespeare's many "patrons", Oxfordians point out there is little or no evidence they actually existed, the only indications being the dedications to Southhamptonin Lucrece and Venus and Adonis. As mentioned by Gerald E. Bentley in Shakespeare: A Biographical Handbook, "in spite of the thousands of pages that have been written on the Earl of Southampton as the poet's patron, the only facts so far established are Shakespeare's dedication of the two long poem's to him in 1593 and 1594". Furthermore, no record of any payment to Shakespeare from a potential patron has ever been discovered, nor was Charlotte C. Stopes, the author of Southampton's standard biography, able to uncover any evidence of a Southampton–Shakespeare connection beyond the dedications, despite an extensive five-year search.

While disputing how few people were needed to suppress information in Elizabethan England, Oxfordians, such as Price and Anderson, have also noted that by the mid-1590s there appeared in print a series of statements indicating a prominent poet was not who he said he was. These include Ben Jonson's circa 1599 poem "On Poet-Ape" concerning the "poet-ape, that would be thought our chief;" Thomas Bastard's 1598 epigram, concerning a widely admired author who "concealest his name;" Thomas Edwardes' epilogue to his 1595Narcissus,concerning a disgraced nobleman with a ‘bewitching pen,’ which appeared immediately after his tribute to Venus and Adonis and the 1597-1598 Joseph Hall – John Marston "Labeo" controversy, which called Shakespeare a front man.

In response to John Michell's assertion concerning "several" post-1604 references, Oxfordians note that Michell cites only two: John Davies of Hereford's 1610 "Terence" epigram and the anonymous preface to the 1609 edition of Troilus and Cressida, both of which Ogburn believed generally supported the Oxfordian position, asserting Davies' epigram can be taken to mean "Shake-speare was a nobleman who lost caste by appearing on the stage". Michell acknowledged "No one knows quite what to make of these lines." Regarding the undated and unsigned preface to Troilus and Cressida, its heading contains the words "A never writer to an ever reader. Newes", which Oxfordians interpret as, "A writer who never was to a constant reader" or even "An E.Ver writer to an E.Ver reader." Diana Price believed this phrase also "brought to mind the earl of Oxford's probable posie, ‘Ever or Never.’"

Addressing the various computer comparisons, Oxfordians counter that Shakespearean computer studies are subject to interpretation and have proved inaccurate. For example, the findings of one such study supported the belief "A Funeral Elegy" was written by Shakespeare, with only 3 chances out of 1,000 it was written by someone else. However, its author is now widely believed to have been John Ford. Addressing the issue of style comparison, Oxfordians note that according to Shakespeare scholar Walter Klier, in a recent study published in November 2009 researcher Kurt Kreiler demonstrates that Oxford's juvenilia "represent the path to Shakespeare and already foreshadow the sedulous stylist that Shakespeare was to become."

Contrasting accusations of "snobbishness", Oxfordians note the statement of Canon Professor Vigo Auguste Demant, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, who stated: "This was not a matter of social class, or education or even of ideas. It concerned the unconscious attitudes of the world and life. Quite early on Looney had to meet the criticism that his was a 'snob' view, holding that a man who had not been to a university and was of bourgeois origin could not be a literary giant. Looney somewhat resented the stupidity of this criticism. Certainly, he maintained, genius arises in any social milieu and is quite independent of formal education (witness Burns). But some background and peculiar personal attitudes indeliberately colour a man's work, and another man without them cannot produce counterfeits." Oxfordians note that figures such as Mark Twain,Walt Whitman, Charlie Chaplin, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, andMalcolm X , none of whom are obvious candidates for snobbery, have all expressed anti-Stratfordian views.

References in popular culture

The Oxfordian theory is the basis of Amy Freed's 2001 play The Beard of Avon.

The Oxfordian theory is also central to the plot of Sarah Smith's 2003 novel Chasing Shakespeares, which she also adapted into a play.

The book Shakespeare's Secret by Elise Broach is centered on the Oxfordian theory.

The Oxfordian theory is also present in Jennifer Lee Carrell's Interred With Their Bones.

Roland Emmerich is currently working on a film project, to be called Anonymous, which will posit in cinematic terms how Edward de Vere's writings came to be attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford.

See also

• Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays
• Shakespeare authorship question
• Baconian theory

Further reading

• Anderson, Mark. "Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, The Man Who Was Shakespeare. Gotham, 2005 (expanded paperback edition 2006).
• Verily Anderson, The De Veres of Castle Hedingham, published 1993
• Austin, Al, and Judy Woodruff. The Shakespeare Mystery. 1989. Frontline documentary film about the Oxford case.
• Farina, William. De Vere as Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2006.
• Fowler, William Plumer. Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Peter E. Randall, 1986.
• Hope, Warren, and Kim Holston. The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories (2nd Edition) (Jefferson, N.C. and London: McFarland and Co., 2009). ISBN 0-786-43917-3
• Kreiler, Kurt. Der Mann, der Shakespeare Erfand: Edward de Vere Earl of Oxford (The Man Who Invented Shakespeare). Frankfurt: Insel, 2009. ISBN 978-3-458-17452-3
• Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. London: Cecil Palmer, 1920. (The first book to promote the Oxford theory.)
• Malim, Richard, ed. Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604. London: Parapress, 2004.
• Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1984. (Influential book that criticises orthodox scholarship and promotes the Oxford theory.)
• Price, Diana. Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem. Westport, Ct: Greenwood, 2001. (Introduction to the evidentiary problems of the orthodox tradition.)
• Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time. Free Press, 1997.
• Stritmatter, Roger. The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence. 2001 University of Massachusetts Ph.D. dissertation.
• Ward, B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1550–1604) From Contemporary Documents. London: John Murray, 1928.
• Whalen, Richard. Shakespeare: Who Was He? The Oxford Challenge to the Bard of Avon. Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1994.

External links

General Non-Stratfordian

• The Shakespeare Authorship Trust, survey of all the authorship candidates, a site patronised by the acclaimed actor Mark Rylance and Dr William Leahy of Brunel University, UK

Oxfordian

• The Shakespeare Fellowship current research on the Oxfordian theory
  • Brief Chronicles, The Shakespeare Fellowship's online peer reviewed journal of authorship studies
  • Articles by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter, challenging the methods and conclusions of Stratfordian David Kathman
  • State of the Debate - Oxfordian vs. Stratfordian
  • A Beginner's Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Problem
  • Shakespeare's Knowledge of Law: A Journey through the History of the Argument
  • Oxfordian reviews of Alan H. Nelson's orthodox biography of Oxford, Monstrous Adversary (2001)
• response to David Kathman's "historical record" by Joseph Sobran
• Facts, Interpretations, and Controversy on the De Vere Geneva Bible
• Shakespeare Oxford Society
• The Case for Oxford in the Atlantic Monthly, 1991 (subscription required).
• The Shakespeare Mystery (Website for a PBS Frontline documentary; includes several articles andtranscript)
• Joseph Sobran, The Shakespeare Library (collection of Joseph Sobran's Oxfordian columns. Sobran's Alias Shakespeare is mentioned here, also.)
• The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference A yearly academic conference at Concordia University in Portland, Oregon on Oxfordian theory
• The De Vere Society of Great Britain
• Dr. Michael Delahoyde's summary of Oxfordian theory
• Elizabethan Authors Shakespeare: The Authorship Controversy
• Shakespeare Authorship Sourcebook by Mark Alexander
• Background and regular blog on the Edward de Vere Geneva Bible Research Project

Stratfordian

• The Shakespeare Authorship Page — Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare
• Arguments against Oxford's Authorship by Irvin Leigh Matus
• Original-spelling transcripts of Edward de Vere's letters prepared by Dr. Alan H. Nelson (an Oxford biographer not supportive of Oxfordian Theory)
• William Shakespeare: The Complete Works 978-0199267187

Category:William Shakespeare Category:Shakespeare articles with comments Category:Historical controversies Category:Literature Category:Literature about literature Category:Shakespearean scholarship Category:Theories of history Category:Shakespearean authorship

de:Edward de Vere, 17. Earl of Oxford#Überblick über die Oxford-Theorie

Copy of Oxfordian Parallels article

Main article: Oxfordian theory

Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford - from an engraving by J. Brown. Oxford is the leading alternative candidate for the author behind the alleged pseudonym, Shakespeare.

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), wrote the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. The theory is partly based on perceived parallels with Shakespeare's plays, including similarities between Oxford's biography, and events in Shakespeare's plays and sonnets; and parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon; While a large majority of scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars and theatre professionals. Since the 1920s, Oxford has been the most widely accepted anti-Stratfordian candidate.

Oxfordians point to biographical evidence such as Oxford's long term relationships with Queen Elizabeth Iand the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his extensive education, his academic and cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through the cities of France and Italy which would become the locations for many of the plays. Additionally, Oxfordians note repeatedly that both known and probable sources of, and minor details in, numerous Shakespeare plays match up with specific documents to which the highly educated, multilingual, extensively libraried, and well-traveled Oxford — and very few, if any, other Elizabethans — had access.

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories,[10] noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare;[11] that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu;[12] and that deducing a writer's identity from his works may constitute a biographical fallacy. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.

Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory, the issue of Oxford's early death, they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural.

Despite the lack of mainstream support, interest in the authorship debate continues, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics."

Overview

For the purposes of this article the term “Shakespeare” is taken to mean the poet and playwright who wrote the plays and poems in question; and the term “Shakespeare of Stratford” is taken to mean the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to whom authorship is credited.

Anti-Stratfordian Mark Twain, wrote "Is Shakespeare Dead?" shortly before his death in 1910.

Authorship doubters

A fundamental principle of many of those who question Shakespeare’s authorship is that most authors reveal themselves in their work, and that the personality of an author can generally be discerned from his or her writings. With this principle in mind, authorship doubters find parallels in the fictional characters or events in the Shakespearean works and in the life experiences of their preferred candidate. The disjunction between the biography of Shakespeare of Stratford and the content of Shakespeare's works has raised doubts about whether the author and the Stratford businessman are the same person.

This perceived dissonance, first expressed in the first half of the 19th century, has led many authorship doubters to look for alternative explanations and has received support from individuals such as Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Friedrich Nietzsche,Sigmund Freud, Mortimer J. Adler, John Galsworthy, and Tyrone Guthrie. More recently, Supreme Court Justices Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Conner, and prominent Shakespearean actors John Gielgud, Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance have all expressed their skepticism. In September 2007, the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition sponsored a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" to encourage new research into the question of Shakespeare's authorship, which has been signed by more than 1,700 people, including 295 academics.

While the great majority of the academic community continues to endorse the traditional attribution, the authorship question has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic. In late 2007, Brunel University of London began offering a one-year MA program on the Shakespeare authorship question,and in 2010, Concordia University (Portland, Oregon) opened a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre, under the direction of authorship doubter Daniel Wright, a Shakespeare scholar and Concordia's professor of English.

Mainstream view

Main article: William Shakespeare

In contrast to the methods used by anti-Stratfordians to identify the poet and playwright William Shakespeare, orthodox scholars employ the same type of evidence used to identify other writers of the period: the historical record, and maintain that the methods commonly used by anti-Stratfordians to identify alternate candidates—reading the work as autobiography—are unreliable and unscholarly, and explain why so many candidates, calculated as high as 56, have been nominated as the true author. They say that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is aRomantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers. When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’

The mainstream view, overwhelming supported by academic Shakespeareans, is that the author known as "Shakespeare" was the same William Shakespeare who was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564, moved to London and became an actor and sharer (part-owner) of the Lord Chamberlain's Men acting company (later the King's Men) that owned theGlobe Theatre and the Blackfriars Theatre in London and owned exclusive rights to produce Shakespeare's plays from 1594 on, and who became entitled to use the honourific of gentleman when his father, John Shakespeare, was granted a coat of arms in 1596.

Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period. This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day..

Oxford's biographical parallels

While there is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate) to the plays of Shakespeare, Oxfordian researchers, including Mark Anderson and Charlton Ogburn, maintain Oxford's connections to the First Folio, the earl of Southampton, and to the Elizabethan theatre and poetry scene, as well as the numerous parallels between Oxford's life and events depicted in the plays, provide such a connection.

For example, the three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton,Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere. Venus and Adonisand The Rape of Lucrece were dedicated to Southampton, and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere) and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget de Vere). Oxford was a leaseholder of the firstBlackfriars Theatre and produced grand entertainments at court; he was the son-in-law of Lord Burghley, who is often regarded as the model for Polonius; his daughter was engaged toHenry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, (many scholars believe Southampton to have been the Fair Youth of theSonnets); his mother, Margory Golding, was the sister of the Ovid translator Arthur Golding; and Oxford's uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was the inventor of the Shakespearean Sonnet (or English Sonnet) form.

In addition, Shakespeare placed many of his plays in Italy and sprinkled them with detailed descriptions of Italian life. Though there are no records Shakespeare of Stratford ever visited Europe, historical documents confirm Oxford lived in Venice, and traveled for over a year through Italy. According to Anderson, the cities Oxford visited in 1575-1576 were Venice, Padua, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Florence, Siena and Naples — all cities Shakespeare wrote into the plays, while (except for Rome) the Italian cities Oxford bypassed are the same cities Shakespeare ignored.

Further, in 1588, due to ongoing financial problems, Oxford sold his house, Fisher’s Folly, to William Cornwallis. In 1852,James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps discovered a volume, “Anne Cornwaleys her booke,” apparently the day book of Cornwallis’ daughter Anne, which Halliwell-Phillipps believed was written sometime in 1595. Anne’s handwritten book contains “Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde,” “Anne Vavasour’s Echo” (Anne Vavasour was Oxford's mistress 1579–1581, by whom he fathered an illegitimate child), and also a poem ascribed in 1599 to "Shakespeare" by William Jaggard in The Passionate Pilgrim. According to Charles Wisner Barrell, Anne’s version was superior textually to the one published by Jaggard, and is the first handwritten example we have of a poem ascribed to Shakespeare.

While Oxfordians concede the names Avon and Stratford became irrevocably linked to Shakespeare with the 1623 publication of his First Folio, they also note Edward de Vere once owned an estate in the River Avon valley near the Forest of Arden, and the nearest town to the parish of Hackney, where de Vere later lived and was buried, was also named Stratford.

Additionally, they regard Dr. John Ward 1662 statement that Shakespeare spent at a rate of £1,000 a year - a huge sum by today's standards - as a critical piece of evidence given that in an oft-noted parallel Oxford received an unexplained annuity from the notoriously thrifty Queen Elizabeth of exactly £1,000 a year.

Parallels with the plays

Hamlet

William Cecil(Lord Burghley), Oxford's guardian and father-in-law, and Queen Elizabeth's most trusted advisor. Oxfordians believe Polonius is based on Burghley.

Numerous Oxfordian researchers, including Charlton Ogburn, point to Hamlet as the play most easily seen as portraying Oxford's life story.

• As in Hamlet, Oxford's father died suddenly (in 1562) and his mother remarried shortly thereafter.

• At 15, Oxford was made a royal ward and placed in the household of Lord Burghley, who was theLord High Treasurer and Queen Elizabeth I's closest and most trusted advisor. Burghley is regarded by mainstream scholars as the prototype for the character of chief minister Polonius. Oxfordians point out that in the First Quarto the character was not named Polonius, but Corambis (Cor ambis means "two-hearted") — a swipe, as Charlton Ogburn said, "at Burghley’s motto, Cor unum, via una, or 'one heart, one way.'"

• Hamlet was engaged to marry Ophelia, daughter to Polonius, while Edward de Vere was engaged to marry (and did marry) Anne Cecil, daughter to Burghley.

• Like Laertes, who received the famous list of maxims from his father Polonius, Robert Cecil received a similarly famous list from his father Burghley — a list the mainstream scholar E. K. Chambers acknowledged was the author's likely source.

• One of Hamlet’s chief opponents at court was Laertes, the son of Polonius, while one of Oxford’s chief opponents at court was Robert Cecil, the son of Lord Burghley.

• Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school — and for similar reasons, Burghley sent a spy to watch his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris.

• Hamlet was a member of the higher nobility, supported an acting company and had trusted friends named Horatioand Francisco. Likewise, Oxford was a member of the higher nobility, supported several acting companies, and had two famous cousins named Horace (or Horatio) Vere and Francis Vere. Horatio and Francisco are Italian forms of the "Fighting Veres" first names.

• Both Sir Horatio Vere (as he was also known) and Hamlet's friend Horatio had the same personality, being known for their ability to remain calm under all conditions.

• The ruler of Mantua in 1575, when Oxford traveled through the area, was Duke Guglielmo Gonzaga, who happened to be a member of the same Gonzaga family accused of assassinating the duke of Urbino by pouring poison down his ear. As Mark Anderson pointed out, “This is the same story Hamlet tells in his play-within-the-play, The Mousetrap”

• While returning from Italy in 1576 Edward de Vere first encountered a cavalry division outside of Paris that was being led by a German duke and then pirates in the English Channel. As Anderson stated: “Just as Hamlet’s review of Fortinbras’ troops leads directly to an ocean voyage overtaken by pirates, de Vere’s meeting with Duke Casimir’s army was soon followed by a Channel crossing intercepted by pirates."

• In Act IV, Hamlet describes himself as "set naked" in "the kingdom". In a striking parallel, after Oxford's real-life abduction, the Channel pirates left him stripped naked on the Danish shore. Anderson notes, "Neither the encounter with Fortinbras’ army nor Hamlet’s brush with buccaneers appears in any of the play's sources – to the puzzlement of numerous literary critics.)”

The Merchant of Venice

In 1577 the Company of Cathay was formed to support Martin Frobisher’s hunt for the Northwest Passage, although Frobisher — and his investors — quickly became distracted by reports of gold at Hall’s Island. With thoughts of an impending Canadian gold-rush filling Oxford's head, and trusting in the financial advice of a Michael Lok or Lock, de Vere finally went in bond for £3,000, "just as Antonio in The Merchant of Venice is in bond for 3,000 ducats against the successful return of his vessels, with rich cargoes." Although £3,000 was a large enough sum to ruin financially any man, Edward de Vere went on to support equally unsuccessful Northwest Passage expeditions in 1584 and again in 1585. An Oxfordian might say Edward de Vere, like Hamlet, was "but mad north-northwest."

Oxfordians also observe that Shakespeare set almost half of his plays in France and Italy and filled them with local details that were not strictly necessary. These details, Oxfordians believe, could only have been obtained by personal experiences. According to Mark Anderson "Shakespeare's works also convey a ... well-traveled world citizen.... Shakespeare knew that Florence's citizens were recognized for their arithmetic and bookkeeping (Othello).... He knew that a dish of baked doves was a time-honored northern Italian gift (The Merchant of Venice). He knew Venice in particular, like nowhere else in the world, save for London itself. Picayune Venetian matters scarcely escaped his grasp: the Duke of Venice's two votes in the city council, for example, or the special nighttime police force — the Signori di Notte— peculiar to Venice, or the foreign city where Venice’s Jews did most of their business,Frankfurt." Or, as the oxfordian William Farina noted, "the notorious Alien Statue of Venice, which provided the exact same penalty (as used in The Merchant of Venice): forfeiture of half an estate to the Republic and half to the wronged party, plus a discretionary death penalty, to any foreigner (including Jews) who attempted to take the life of a Venetian citizen.”

Oxford's extended tour of France and Italy from early 1575 through early 1576 included long-term lodgings near St. Mark’s Square in Venice. And according to the oxfordian William Farina "shy", when used as a prefix, also means “disreputable”.

The Taming of the Shrew

In 1577 the hard-drinking, straight-talking Peregrine Bertie successfully courted Oxford's sister, Mary de Vere, a lady known, in the words of Mark Anderson, “for her quick temper and harsh tongue.” Though the unlikely couple met the resistance of Oxford and others, they were married within a year. Oxfordians, such as Anderson, believe there is little doubt Bertie, his mother, Kate Willoughby and Mary de Vere, were variously lampooned, in The Taming of the Shrew, The Winter's Tale and Twelfth Night.

Oxfordians also note that when Edward de Vere travelled through Venice, he borrowed 500 crowns from a Baptista Nigrone. In Padua, he borrowed from a man named Pasquino Spinola. In The Taming of the Shrew, Kate's father is described as a man "rich in crowns." He, too, is from Padua, and his name is Baptista Minola — a conflation of Baptista Nigrone and Pasquino Spinola.

Oxfordians believe their position is further strengthened by the observations of the mainstream scholar Ernesto Grillo (1876-1946), of the University of Glasgow, who stated in Shakespeare and Italy, "the local colour of The Taming of the Shrew displays such an intimate acquaintance not only with the manners and customs of Italy but also with the minutest details of domestic life that it cannot have been gleaned from books or acquired in the course of conversations with travellers returned from Padua. The form of marriage between Petruchio and Katharine ... was Italian and not English.... The description ofGremio's house and furnishings is striking because it represents an Italian villa of the sixteenth century with all its comforts and noble luxury."

The play also shows Shakespeare using Italian with its banter between Lucentio and Tranio and in the greetings between Petruchio and Hortensio in its first act. As noted by Professor Grillo these exchanges are “pure Italian.” While in testimony before the Inquisition it was said Edward de Vere was fluent in Italian, as far as known, Shakespeare of Stratford never left England or showed any interest in Italy or Italian culture.

The Tempest

Although traditionally The Tempest was considered to have had no specific source, the play’s basic structure does reflect the ItalianCommedia dell'Arte, and, in a general way, a series of scenarios appearing in Flaminio Scala's "The Theatre of Stage Plots", which was first published in Venice in 1611. However, a Commedia dell'Arte scenario, whose manuscript was discovered in 1913, calledArcadia Incantata (The Enchanted Arcadia) has been accepted by several scholars, including Kathleen Marguerite Lea in her Italian Popular Comedy: A study in the commedia dell'arte, 1560-1620 and Allardyce Nicoll, as a source for the play. In addition, Oxfordian researcher, Kevin Gilvary, has called Arcadia Incantata “an exact scenario for the story” of The Tempest." As described by Gilvary, the main scenario of Arcadia Incantata revolves around ship-wrecked survivors and “a magician who controls the island through spirits, which offer and then remove food from the starving companions. Various lovers among the shepherds and nymphs are confused. Eventually, the magician is able to right old wrongs, lead the survivors away from the island and abandon his art.”

Kathleen Marguerite Lea also believed Commedia dell'Arte was the main influence on The Comedy of Errors and The Merry Wives of Windsor.

While Oxford lived in Venice and northern Italy for almost a year, Shakespeare of Stratford had no known opportunity to view Italian street theater.

As You Like It

As You Like It features the former libertine Lord Jaques — who, like Oxford, "sold his lands to see other men’s". Much of the play takes place in the Forest of Arden, which was the name of the forest that stretched from Stratford-upon-Avon toTamworth, near Oxford’s old country estate, Bilton. Mark Anderson notes "local oral tradition holds that As You Like It was actually written at Billesley, an estate just outsideStratford-upon-Avon owned by the family of de Vere’s grandmother, Elizabeth Trussell."

One of the sights Oxford may have taken in on his 1575–76 Christmas season visit to Siena, Italy was its cathedral, whose artwork includes a mosaic of the Seven Ages of Man. According to the art historian Samuel C. Chew, this artwork should be "familiar to Shakespearean scholars because it has been cited as a parallel to Jaques’ lines.... The Ages (in Siena) are represented thus: Infantia rides upon a hobbyhorse, Pueritia is a schoolboy, Adolescentia is an older scholar garbed in a long cloak, Juventus has a falcon on his wrist, Virilitas is robed in dignified fashion and carries a book, Senectus, leaning upon his staff, holds a rosary, Decrepitas, leaning upon two staves, looks into his tomb."

Act V, scene 1, has often been cited as cryptically denying Shakespeare of Stratford’s authorship. Here the court jester Touchstone and the country wench Audrey are about to get married. They meet William, a local bumpkin of the forest of Arden (which includes Stratford), who appears only in this scene. These three people and their actions are absent from the likely source,Thomas Lodge’s novel Rosalynde: Euphues Golden Legacie, which otherwise has the same storyline and characters (though it takes place in the Belgian Ardennes forests). Touchstone understands that William lays claim to Audrey, but Audrey says that William has no "interest in" (meaning "right to") her, and Touchstone berates William in an uncharacteristically caustic fashion, after which William meekly withdraws. Scholars on both sides recognize the character William as a reference to William Shakespeare of Stratford, while anti-Stratfordians find evidence throughout the play that Touchstone represents the author and Audrey either the author’s works or his muse. A Stratfordian interpretation is that the scene satirizes false learning and allowed the actor Shakespeare to appear in a cameo role, making fun of his own rural origins.Touchstone’s tirade to William includes:

“To have is to have. For it is a figure in rhetoric that drink, being powr’d out of a cup into a glass, by filling the one, doth empty the other. For all your writers doth consent that ipse [he himself] is he. Now, you [William of Arden] are not ipse — for I am he.”

Anti-Stratfordians here read the author proclaiming that William of Stratford “is not he” and cannot lay claim to the author’s muse or works. Oxfordians like to point out that "to have is to have" in Italian reads "avere é avere", suggesting "a Vere is a Vere".

The Life and Death of King John

In the inflated importance and superb speeches given to the character Philip Faulconbridge ("The Bastard") in The Life and Death of King John, Oxfordians see a reflection of Edward de Vere’s own military fantasies and his long-running legal argument with his half-sister over his legitimacy. They also find it intriguing the play’s author felt it necessary to air-brush out of existence the traitorous Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford.

Henry IV, Part 1

In May 1573, in a letter to Lord Burghley, two of Oxford's former employees accused three of Oxford's friends of attacking them on "the highway from Gravesend to Rochester." In Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, Falstaff and three roguish friends of Prince Hal also waylay unwary travellers — on the highway from Gravesend to Rochester.

This scene was also present in the earlier work, The Famous Victories of Henry the Fift — which Oxfordians believe was another Edward de Vere play, based on the exaggerated importance it bestowed on the 11th Earl of Oxford. In that version of the play even the correct month of the crime, May, was mentioned.

Henry V

A number of observers, including the mainstream Shakespearean scholar Dover Wilson, believe the character of Fluellen was modelled after the Welsh soldier of fortune Sir Roger Williams. Charles Wisner Barrell wrote, "Many of the speeches that the author of Henry the Fifth puts in the mouth of the argumentative Fluellen are merely poetical paraphrases of Sir Roger’s own arguments and 'instances' in his posthumous book, The Actions of the Lowe Countries", which was not published until 1618 — and therefore the play's author could only have known of them through private manuscripts or personal observations. Sir Roger was a follower of Oxford, and served with "the fighting Veres” (Oxford’s cousins, Francis and Horatio) in the Dutch Republic. He had no known connection to Shakespeare of Stratford.

Also, in the play the character of the 12th Earl of Oxford is given a much more prominent role than his limited involvement in the actual history of the times would allow.

Henry VI, Part 3

This play deals mainly with the temporary restoration of Henry VI and includes the great Lancastrian defeat at Tewkesbury. Interestingly, Shakespeare makes the same mistakes regarding the thirteenth earl's involvement as he did with the prior earls.

First, throughout the play John de Vere, the thirteenth earl of Oxford is in the words of J. Thomas Looney, “hardly mentioned except to be praised:” Then in the last act, after the battle is lost and Oxford is captured, his place of imprisonment is mentioned:

“Away with Oxford to Hames Castle straight.” - Act V, scene v, line 2

However, as Isaac Asimov observed “This is strange. Opposition leaders, if taken alive, were generally executed as traitors after battle. Why was this not the case with Oxford?”

"Actually, it was because Oxford was not a Tewkesbury. He fought well at Barnet but then went to France. It was not till 1473, two years after Tewkesbury, which had been fought without him, that he attempted a reinvasion of England and a revival of the ruined Lancastrian cause. He was besieged in Cornwall and, after four and a half months, was forced to surrender.” It was only at this point, and only after everyone’s tempers had cooled, that he was sent to Hames castle..

Oxfordians, such as Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, in their This Star of England, believe the reason Shakespeare went to the trouble of creating an ahistorical place for Oxford in the climatic battle was because it was the easiest way Edward de Vere could "advertised his loyalty to (Queen Elizabeth)" and remind her of "the historic part borne by the Earls of Oxford in defeating the usurpers and restoring the Lancastrians to power.”

The Merry Wives of Windsor

From an Oxfordian point of view, Shakespeare again used the life story of Edward de Vere in his plot for The Merry Wives of Windsor: Anne is Anne Cecil, the lovely, intelligent commoner and single woman who happens to have a rich father; Fenton is Oxford, the charming, clever, broke, verse-writing ne'er-do-well nobleman who is looking for a wife; and Anne’s father is William Cecil, the suspicious but rich potential father-in-law. Oxfordians hear the voice of de Vere, commenting on how his father-in-law Cecil views him, in the following passage spoken by Fenton:

I am too great of birth,
And that my state being gall’d with my expense,
I seek to heal it only by his wealth.
Besides these, other bars he lays before me,
My riots past, my wild societies;
And tells me ‘tis a thing impossible
I should love thee but as a property.

All's Well That Ends Well

On 19 December 1571, in an arranged wedding, Oxford married Lord Burghley's 15-year-old daughter, Anne Cecil — an equally surprising choice as that in All's Well That Ends Well, as Oxford was of the oldest nobility in the kingdom whereas Anne was not of noble birth, her father having only been raised to the peerage the same year by Queen Elizabeth to enable this marriage of social inequals.

J. Thomas Looney believed these events reveal striking parallels between Edward de Vere and Bertam:

Bertram, a young lord of ancient lineage, of which he is himself proud, having lost a father for whom he entertained a strong affection, is brought to court by his mother and left as a royal ward, to be brought up under royal supervision. As he grows up he asks for military service and to be allowed to travel, but is repeatedly refused or put off. At last he goes away without permission. Before leaving he had been married to a young woman with whom he had been brought up, and who had herself been most active in bringing about the marriage. Matrimonial troubles, of which the outstanding feature is a refusal of cohabitation, are associated with both his stay abroad and his return home. Such a summary of a story we have been told in fragments elsewhere, and is as near to biography or autobiography if our theory be accepted, as a dramatist ever permitted himself to go.

Also, in 1658, Francis Osborne (1593–1659) included a bed-trick anecdote about Oxford, himself, in hisTraditional Memoirs of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I. According to Osborne (who had been a servant to the Herberts),Philip Herbert, then earl of Montgomery (and later Pembroke), was struck in the face by a Scottish courtier named Ramsay at a horse race at Croydon. Herbert, who did not strike back, was left "nothing to testify his manhood but a beard and children, by that daughter of the last great Earl of Oxford, whose lady was brought to his bed under the notion of his mistress, and from such a virtuous deceit she [the Countess og Montgomery) is said to proceed." Although the bed-trick can be found in literature throughout history, in everything from King Arthur to Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron (where it appears eight times), Ogburn believed de Vere was drawn to the story “because it paralleled his own.”

Measure for Measure

From an Oxfordian perspective, Measure for Measure contains numerous autobiographical allusions to Edward de Vere. Besides another use of the bed trick, there is the Anne Cecil-like Isabella, plus the Oxford-like Duke of Vienna, working to save a prisoner from the death penalty — just as Edward de Vere tried but failed to save his cousin, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk.

The generally accepted source of the play was a supposedly true incident that occurred in 1547, near Milan, a city Oxford visited in 1576. However, the play itself differs from these sources in a number of ways: First, the Duke's hidden manipulations were added; second, Claudio’s crime was changed from murder to seduction of a maiden — the same crime that sent Oxford to the Tower of London. And finally, Isabella did not marry Angelo but, following Anne Cecil’s life story, married the Duke (Oxford).

Oxfordians also note that in the play the Duke of Vienna preferred dealing with his problems through the use of a front, although he could have rescued Claudio at any time by dropping his disguise and stepping forward as himself.

In addition, Oxfordians see similarities between Edward de Vere's writings and the following Shakespearean passage:

Isabella:

It is not truer he is Angelo
Than this is all as true as it is strange.
Nay, it is ten times true. For truth is truth
To th’end of reckoning.

Oxford Letter to William Cecil, Lord Burghley:

Truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that false which was once true.

Romeo and Juliet

Anne Vavasour, with whom Oxford had a tempestuous extramarital affair from 1579–81.

Oxford's illicit congress with Anne Vavasour resulted in an intermittent series of street battles between the Knyvet clan, led by Anne's uncle, Sir Thomas Knyvet, and Oxford’s men. As in Romeo and Juliet, this imbroglio produced three deaths and several other injuries. The feud was finally put to an end only by the intervention of the Queen, although not before Oxford himself was lamed in one of its duels. Oxfordians note that the theme of "lameness" is evident in many of Shake-speares Sonnets.

Much Ado About Nothing

From an Oxfordian standpoint, Much Ado About Nothing is an autobiography of Edward de Vere, starting with an apology to Anne Cecil for ever thinking she was unfaithful (as Claudio thinks Hero), to the Dogberry sub-plot as a parody of the Arundell-Howard Libel case, to a defense of his affair with Anne Vavasour. Sir Thomas Knyvet, Anne Vavasour’s enraged uncle, even makes an appearance as Beatrice’s enraged uncle with the lines "Sir boy, I’ll whip you from your foining fence, nay, as I am a gentleman, I will."

Othello, Cymbeline, and The Winter’s Tale

All three plays make use of the same Shakespearean plot Oxfordians believe closely follow Edward de Vere’s treatment of his long-suffering wife, Anne Cecil. According to Charlton Ogburn, in these "three plays the male protagonist conceives a murderous animosity toward a loving wife by imagining her unfaithful to him on the flimsiest of grounds, only to be later overwhelmed by remorse; and these three brutally condemned wives — Imogen in Cymbeline, Hermione in The Winter's Tale and Desdemona in Othello — are generally adjudged the most saintly and faultless of Shakespeare's heroines."

Timon of Athens

According to Joseph Sobran, Timon, "a rich and generous patron suddenly finds that his munificence has left him ruined and friendless. He bitterly denounces the human race, with one interesting exception: his steward. Timon’s praise of his steward, in the midst of his railing against mankind, suggests Oxford’s own praise of Robert Christmas, a faithful servant who apparently stayed with him during the hardship he inflicted on himself through his legendary prodigality." Mark Anderson, an Oxfordian researcher, wrote Timon of Athens "is Shakespeare's self-portrait as a downwardly mobile aristocrat."

The Comedy of Errors

When the character of Antipholus of Ephesus tells his servant to go out and buy some rope, the servant (Dromio) replies with a non sequitur that critics have scratched their heads over for centuries: ‘I buy a thousand pounds a year!’ the servant says, ‘I buy a rope!'” (Act 4, scene 1). As the mainstream Folger Shakespeare Library edition of the play states, "Dromio’s indignant exit line has not been satisfactorily explained."

In a coincidence often noted by Oxfordians, Edward de Vere received an annuity from the Queen, and later King James, of exactly £1,000 per year. Anderson surmises that "Annual grants of £1,000, one learns, come with some very large strings attached." In The Comedy of Errors, Oxfordians believe that de Vere speaks of his regrets over the power his £1,000 per year pension gave to those in authority over him. To support this view they also point to Sonnet 111:

Sonnet 111

O for my sake do you wish fortune chide,
The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds’
That did not better for my life provide
Than public means which public manners breeds.

Twelfth Night

Oxfordians believe this play relentlessly mocks de Vere’s court rival of the 1570s, Sir Christopher Hatton as Malvolio. For example, in the play Malvolio discovers a prank letter signed “The Fortunate Unhappy,” which Oxfordians content is a play on Hatton’s pen name “The Unhappy Unfortunate.”

In 1732, the antiquarian Francis Peck published in Desiderata Curiosa a list of documents in his possession that he intended to print someday. They included “a pleasant conceit of Vere, earl of Oxford, discontented at the rising of a mean gentleman in the English court, circa 1580.” Oxfordian researcher Mark Anderson, contends this conceit is “arguably an early draft of Twelfth Night.” Unfortunately for the Oxfordian movement, Peck never published his archives, which are now lost.

Further reading

• Anderson, Mark. "Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, The Man Who Was Shakespeare. Gotham, 2005 (expanded paperback edition 2006).
• Verily Anderson, The De Veres of Castle Hedingham, published 1993
• Austin, Al, and Judy Woodruff. The Shakespeare Mystery. 1989. Frontlinedocumentary film about the Oxford case.
• Fowler, William Plumer. Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Peter E. Randall, 1986.
• Hope, Warren, and Kim Holston. The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Claimants to Authorship, and their Champions and Detractors. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland and Co., 1992.
• Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford.London: Cecil Palmer, 1920. (The first book to promote the Oxford theory.)
• Malim, Richard, ed. Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604. London: Parapress, 2004.
• Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1984. (Influential book that criticises orthodox scholarship and promotes the Oxford theory.)
• Price, Diana. Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem. Westport, Ct: Greenwood, 2001. (Introduction to the evidentiary problems of the orthodox tradition.)
• Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time. Free Press, 1997.
• Stritmatter, Roger. The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence. 2001 University of Massachusetts Ph.D. dissertation.
• Ward, B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) From Contemporary Documents. London: John Murray, 1928.
• Whalen, Richard. Shakespeare: Who Was He? The Oxford Challenge to the Bard of Avon. Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1994.

External links

General Non-Stratfordian

• The Shakespeare Authorship Trust, survey of all the authorship candidates, a site patronised by the acclaimed actor Mark Rylance and Dr William Leahy of Brunel University, UK

Oxfordian

• The Shakespeare Fellowship current research on the Oxfordian theory
  • Articles by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter, challenging the methods and conclusions of Stratfordian David Kathman
  • State of the Debate - Oxfordian vs. Stratfordian
  • A Beginner's Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Problem
  • Shakespeare's Knowledge of Law: A Journey through the History of the Argument
  • Oxfordian reviews of Alan H. Nelson's orthodox biography of Oxford, Monstrous Adversary(2001)
• response to David Kathman's "historical record" by Joseph Sobran
• Shakespeare Oxford Society
• The Case for Oxford in the Atlantic Monthly, 1991 (subscription required).
• The Shakespeare Mystery (Website for a PBS Frontline documentary; includes several articles)
• Joseph Sobran, The Shakespeare Library (collection of Joseph Sobran's Oxfordian columns. Sobran's Alias Shakespeare is mentioned here, also.)
• The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference A yearly academic conference at Concordia University in Portland, Oregon on Oxfordian theory
• The De Vere Society of Great Britain
• Dr. Michael Delahoyde's summary of Oxfordian theory
• Elizabethan Authors Shakespeare: The Authorship Controversy
• Shakespeare Authorship Sourcebook by Mark Alexander

Stratfordian

• The Shakespeare Authorship Page — Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare
• The Bard's Beard — A Time Article
• Arguments against Oxford's Authorship by Irvin Leigh Matus
• Original-spelling transcripts of Edward de Vere's letters prepared by Dr. Alan H. Nelson (an Oxford biographer not supportive of Oxfordian Theory)

Category:William Shakespeare Category:Shakespeare articles with comments Category:Historical controversies Category:Literature Category:Literature about literature Category:Shakespearean scholarship Category:Theories of history Category:Shakespearean authorship

de:Edward de Vere