You have a theory: the true author of Shakespeare’s plays was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. He had to conceal his identity because his plays contained truthful accounts of events in Elizabeth’s court. In particular, Lord Burghley, Elizabeth’s chief minister and de Vere’s father-in-law, was mocked in the character of Polonius, the…
You have a theory: the true author of Shakespeare’s plays was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. He had to conceal his identity because his plays contained truthful accounts of events in Elizabeth’s court. In particular, Lord Burghley, Elizabeth’s chief minister and de Vere’s father-in-law, was mocked in the character of Polonius, the garrulous old fool in Hamlet. As his front man, de Vere chose William Shakespeare, a London actor.
This theory makes no sense. First, the plays were subject to censorship before they could be played or printed. Topical references in plays could be, and were, removed. But it could have been much worse than that. Lord Burghley was the most powerful man in England. He died in 1598, probably before Hamlet was staged, but his son Robert took his place as Elizabeth’s chief minister. If Burghley had been written into Hamlet as Polonius, Robert could have gone to William Shakespeare and threatened “to have a tooth torn out, a finger, nose or an ear cut off, or simply [have him] be locked in the Tower of London and executed.”
And what do you suppose William Shakespeare would have done then?
Here’s a high-level overview of your authorship problem. There are a bunch of plays and poems published during Shakespeare’s lifetime with his name on them. In fact he is the most published playwright, by far, in the 1590s and 1600s. His long narrative poems Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece also do very well. There are a bunch of references to him, admiring or envious, as an author of plays and poems. Excerpts from his work get republished in popular anthologies under his name. Some of the references to him seem to point more or less clearly to an author who is a non-university educated actor in a prominent troupe. There’s a collection of 36 plays published seven years after Shakespeare died identifying him as the author. The collection contains a preface and a dedication by two of his comrades from the troupe. The dedication is addressed to William and Philip Herbert, two prominent nobles closely involved in the theater, and notes that they had honored both the plays and the author, when he was alive. It’s also got a great tribute poem from Shakespeare’s chief rival among London playwrights, Ben Jonson. Also, there’s a fancy monument in Stratford put up shortly after Shakespeare’s death.
That’s what Shakespeare’s got. And everybody else has…nothing. No attributions, no praise, no anthologies, no collections, no admiring poems, no monuments. Nothing, nada, zip. What authorship enthusiasts have to offer is: read Hamlet or Sonnet 125 or whatever the way I want you to and you’ll see that Shakespeare the provincial boob couldn’t possibly have written it. And also my reading will prove to you that Edward de Vere or the Earl of Derby or Sir Francis Bacon or whoever definitely did write it. And also please buy my theory as to why the true authorship was concealed for 200 plus years and nevertheless, I’ve figured out who the real author is.
This approach will never succeed. Scholars are never going to throw up their hands and say, “yes, there’s evidence for Shakespeare, and no evidence for your guy, but your reading of Hamlet is really good, so we’re going to ignore the evidence and go with your guy.” Authorship skeptics are putting up Nothing against Something. Something beats Nothing every time.
It’s not impossible that authorship skeptics could come up with Something. If it could be proved, for example, that Shakespeare couldn’t have written the plays – he was illiterate, say, or he couldn’t speak English, or that he died before they were written – that would definitely be Something. But that proof is never going to be forthcoming. Or if there was a manuscript in de Vere’s or Bacon’s handwriting, obviously that would be Something. Unlike proving Shakespeare illiterate, a manuscript turning up is not impossible, but it has never happened, and it seems extremely likely that it never will. So authorship theories are going to stay on the fringe.
That said, a lot of the things that you imagine support your theory are false. Let’s go through them. For the will and the spelling of Shakespeare’s name, I’ll refer you to David Kathman, who put together a very fine website on Shakespearean authorship in solid antique 1990s internet style.
On the will, he notes that lots of people besides Shakespeare who very clearly had books nevertheless didn’t mention them in their wills, and plenty of playwrights failed to mention manuscripts. I’ll add that I own thousands of books, and they’re very dear to me, but I don’t say a word about them in my will. You say that Shakespeare dictated the will to his attorney, but that’s poppycock. I’m a lawyer, and most of the verbiage in that will seems clearly drawn from legal forms of the period. I’ve read other wills from back then and they don’t read very differently.
On the spelling of Shakespeare’s name: Kathman, bless his soul, lists every spelling for Shakespeare’s entire life. You should definitely check out his site for details, but the highlights are: (i) Shakespeare, the way we spell it today, was the most common spelling of his name, both in London and Stratford, and in literary and non-literary contexts; and (ii) the occasional hyphenations mean nothing, and definitely don’t indicate the presence of a pseudonym.
I’ll add that arguments founded on spelling ca. 1600 are a waste of time; it was wholly irregular. As Kathman notes, we have one signature from Christopher Marlow; he spells his surname “Marley.”
Part I
You have a theory: the true author of Shakespeare’s plays was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. He had to conceal his identity because his plays contained truthful accounts of events in Elizabeth’s court. In particular, Lord Burghley, Elizabeth’s chief minister and de Vere’s father-in-law, was mocked in the character of Polonius, the garrulous old fool in Hamlet. As his front man, de Vere chose William Shakespeare, a London actor.
This theory makes no sense. First, the plays were subject to censorship before they could be played or printed. Topical references in plays could be, and were, removed. But it could have been much worse than that. Lord Burghley was the most powerful man in England. He died in 1598, probably before Hamlet was staged, but his son Robert took his place as Elizabeth’s chief minister. If Burghley had been written into Hamlet as Polonius, Robert could have gone to William Shakespeare and threatened “to have a tooth torn out, a finger, nose or an ear cut off, or simply [have him] be locked in the Tower of London and executed.”
And what do you suppose William Shakespeare would have done then?
Here’s a high-level overview of your authorship problem. There are a bunch of plays and poems published during Shakespeare’s lifetime with his name on them. In fact he is the most published playwright, by far, in the 1590s and 1600s. His long narrative poems Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece also do very well. There are a bunch of references to him, admiring or envious, as an author of plays and poems. Excerpts from his work get republished in popular anthologies under his name. Some of the references to him seem to point more or less clearly to an author who is a non-university educated actor in a prominent troupe. There’s a collection of 36 plays published seven years after Shakespeare died identifying him as the author. The collection contains a preface and a dedication by two of his comrades from the troupe. The dedication is addressed to William and Philip Herbert, two prominent nobles closely involved in the theater, and notes that they had honored both the plays and the author, when he was alive. It’s also got a great tribute poem from Shakespeare’s chief rival among London playwrights, Ben Jonson. Also, there’s a fancy monument in Stratford put up shortly after Shakespeare’s death.
That’s what Shakespeare’s got. And everybody else has…nothing. No attributions, no praise, no anthologies, no collections, no admiring poems, no monuments. Nothing, nada, zip. What authorship enthusiasts have to offer is: read Hamlet or Sonnet 125 or whatever the way I want you to and you’ll see that Shakespeare the provincial boob couldn’t possibly have written it. And also my reading will prove to you that Edward de Vere or the Earl of Derby or Sir Francis Bacon or whoever definitely did write it. And also please buy my theory as to why the true authorship was concealed for 200 plus years and nevertheless, I’ve figured out who the real author is.
This approach will never succeed. Scholars are never going to throw up their hands and say, “yes, there’s evidence for Shakespeare, and no evidence for your guy, but your reading of Hamlet is really good, so we’re going to ignore the evidence and go with your guy.” Authorship skeptics are putting up Nothing against Something. Something beats Nothing every time.
It’s not impossible that authorship skeptics could come up with Something. If it could be proved, for example, that Shakespeare couldn’t have written the plays – he was illiterate, say, or he couldn’t speak English, or that he died before they were written – that would definitely be Something. But that proof is never going to be forthcoming. Or if there was a manuscript in de Vere’s or Bacon’s handwriting, obviously that would be Something. Unlike proving Shakespeare illiterate, a manuscript turning up is not impossible, but it has never happened, and it seems extremely likely that it never will. So authorship theories are going to stay on the fringe.
That said, a lot of the things that you imagine support your theory are false. Let’s go through them. For the will and the spelling of Shakespeare’s name, I’ll refer you to David Kathman, who put together a very fine website on Shakespearean authorship in solid antique 1990s internet style.
https://shakespeareauthorship.com/shaxwill.html
On the will, he notes that lots of people besides Shakespeare who very clearly had books nevertheless didn’t mention them in their wills, and plenty of playwrights failed to mention manuscripts. I’ll add that I own thousands of books, and they’re very dear to me, but I don’t say a word about them in my will. You say that Shakespeare dictated the will to his attorney, but that’s poppycock. I’m a lawyer, and most of the verbiage in that will seems clearly drawn from legal forms of the period. I’ve read other wills from back then and they don’t read very differently.
On the spelling of Shakespeare’s name: Kathman, bless his soul, lists every spelling for Shakespeare’s entire life. You should definitely check out his site for details, but the highlights are: (i) Shakespeare, the way we spell it today, was the most common spelling of his name, both in London and Stratford, and in literary and non-literary contexts; and (ii) the occasional hyphenations mean nothing, and definitely don’t indicate the presence of a pseudonym.
https://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html
I’ll add that arguments founded on spelling ca. 1600 are a waste of time; it was wholly irregular. As Kathman notes, we have one signature from Christopher Marlow; he spells his surname “Marley.”