Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), wrote the plays and poems conventionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. Oxford is presently the most popular of several anti-Stratfordian candidates for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Adherents to the Oxford theory are called Oxfordians. Those who defend the orthodox position are often referred to as Stratfordians.

Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford - from an engraving by J. Brown after G.P. Harding 1575. Oxford is the leading alternative candidate for the author behind the alleged pseudonym, Shakespeare.

The case for Oxford's authorship, first presented in the 1920s, and substantially expanded in the 1980s, is based on numerous factors, including alleged similarities between Oxford's personal biography and detailed events in Shakespeare's plays; documented parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's Bible that may correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays.

Oxfordians point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, and his reputation as a concealed poet, as well as Oxford's connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his known relationship with Queen Elizabeth I, his knowledge and understanding of Court life, his extensive education, and his academic and cultural achievements.

Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, an argument that has been raised against the Oxfordian theory, Oxfordian scholars cite examples they say imply that the writer known as "Shake-Speare" was dead prior to 1609, when Shake-Speare’s Sonnets first appeared with the words “our ever-living Poet” on the title page. Oxfordians point to 1604, the year of Oxford's death, as the year that regular publication of Shakespeare's plays "stopped" for almost 20 years, until the 1623 publication of the First folio.

Supporters of the standard view, often refered to as "Stratfordian" or "Mainstream", dispute all contentions in favor of Oxford. Aside from the issue of Oxford's early death, they assert that the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural, and that Oxford's known poetry is "distinctly modest".

History of 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 other 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 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.

In 1984, Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare not only renewed the case for Oxford's authorship with an abundance of new research but also 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 approaches such as Ogburn's: "Doubts about Shakespeare came early and grew rapidly. They have a simple and direct plausibility", and that 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 that "The case made for Oxford leaves one unconvinced: plausible but unproved, possible but improbable, less satisfactory than the unsatisfactory orthodoxy it challenges," he also concluded that "a particular achievement of ... Ogburn is that he focused our attention so effectively on what we do not know about Shakespeare. .. [Problems that he identifies] cast a shadow over the traditional received theory of authorship."

Biographical evidence

There is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate) to the plays of Shakespeare. However, Oxfordians maintain that the numerous parallels between Oxford's life, family, and 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 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 to Bridget De Vere). Oxford was a leaseholder of the first Blackfriars 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 to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the dedicatee of Shakespeare's narrative poems (indeed, many scholars believe Southampton to have been the Fair Lord 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 Shakespearean Sonnet (or English Sonnet) form.

Furthermore, in 1662 Dr. John Ward said that Shakespeare spent at a rate of 1,000 pounds a year. In another oft-noted parallel, Oxford had a publicly unexplained annuity from the notoriously thrifty Elizabeth I of 1,000 pounds a year.

Shakespeare, in addition, was fascinated by all things Italian, placing many plays in Italy and sprinkling a number of detailed descriptions of Italian life throughout his plays. While there is no evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford ever traveled to Europe, Oxford, on the other hand, lived in Venice, while travelling for over a year through Italy and France.

Moreover, if any two names traditionally evoke Shakespeare they are the Avon and Stratford. In what Oxfordians do not believe is a coincidence, Edward de Vere once owned an estate, Bilton, in the Avon river valley, near the Forest of Arden and the nearest town to Hackney, where he later lived and was buried, was named Stratford, the suburb northeast of London

And finally, due to ongoing financial problems similar to those faced by Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens, Oxford sold his house, Fisher’s Folly, to William Cornwallis in December 1588. In 1852, J.O. Halliwell-Phillips discovered “Anne Cornwaleys her booke,” apparently the day book of Cornwallis’ daughter Anne, written Halliwell-Phillips believed sometime in 1590 (later revised to 1595). Anne’s handwritten book contains “Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde,” “Anne Vavasor’s Echo” and a poem ascribed in 1599 to Shakespeare by William Jaggard in “The Passionate Pilgrim.” According to Charles W. Barrell, Anne’s version was both superior textually to the one published by Jaggard and the first handwritten example we have of a poem ascribed to Shakespeare.

Was Oxford a concealed writer?

This image, known as the Ashbourne Portrait, was long believed to depict William Shakespeare. It was analyzed by Charles Wisner Barrell, an expert in the use of infra-red photography, for an article in the January 1940 issue of Scientific American. Barrell determined that the portrait was an overpainting of the Earl of Oxford. Later research has led other scholars to suggest that the portrait depicts Sir Hugh Hamersley, a mayor of London whose Coat of Arms, these scholars contend, is visible beneath the overpainting.

Oxford was undoubtedly known as a dramatist and court poet of considerable note, 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. Anonymous and pseudonymous publication was certainly 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 that 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 “On Grammar and Oxford in The Art of English Poesie” paraphrased the passage: "In earlier days these writers’ poetry (Phaer, Golding, etc.) 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, translators of Ovid and Vergil. 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” [everyone named in the paragraph], 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).

Oxford as poet and playwright

There are three principal pieces of evidence that Oxford (or Oxenford) was praised as both poet and playwright:

1) The anonymous 1589 Arte of English Poesie, in a passage that appears in the same chapter that details the practice of concealed publication by figures from the court, lists Oxford as the highest praised for 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, and lists him among the "best for comedy". Interestingly, Shakespeare's name appears further down in 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 that Shakespeare's appearance on the same list proves that Oxford and Shakespeare were two different writers, however Oxfordians contend that, as of 1598, Meres simply wasn't aware of Oxford's use of the Shakespeare pseudonym.

3) Henry Peacham's 1622 The Compleat Gentleman, praised Oxford as one of the leading poets of the Elizabethean 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.

— and his list makes no mention of any William Shakespeare.

Stratfordians disagree with this interpretation of Peacham's work. They point out that the Peacham copied large parts of Puttenham's work but did not use the names of those writers who would not have been considered "gentlemen", a title that Peacham felt should not be applied to actors. They also argue that the list is only of poets and that Peacham does not list playwrights, neglecting others such as Christopher Marlow.

Although, not strictly a report on his ability as a playwright there is a description of the esteem to which he was held as a writer in a 1613 play by George Chapman (possibly the Rival Poet of the 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.”

The 1604 Problem

Title page from the 1609 edition of SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS. The hyphenated name appears on The Sonnets, A Lover's Complaint and on 15 plays published prior to the First Folio, where it was hyphenated on 2 of the 4 dedicatory poems.

Dedication page from The Sonnets. Both the hyphenated name and the Sonnet's dedication, specifically the words "ever-living poet", have fueled controversy within the authorship debate.

Oxfordian scholars have cited various examples they say imply that the writer of the plays and poems was dead prior to 1609, when Shake-Speare’s Sonnets first appeared with the enigmatic words “our ever-living Poet” on the title page. These researchers claim that the words “ever-living” rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is actually alive. Oxfordians also assert that 1604 is the year that Shakespeare “mysteriously” stopped writing. If either claim proved true, it would give a boost to the Oxfordian candidacy, as Bacon, Derby, Neville and Shakespeare of Stratford lived well past the 1609 publication of the Sonnets.

Publication

Regarding dates of publication, Mark Anderson, in Shakespeare by Another Name, stresses the following: from 1593-1603 “the publication of Shake-speare’s plays appeared at the rate of 2 per year. Then, in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent” and stopped publication for almost 5 years. Anderson also states “the early history of reprints …also point to 1604 as a watershed year,” and noting that during the years of 1593-1604, when an inferior or pirated text was published, it was 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”.

Further fuelling this problem, Shakespeare failed to eulogize Queen Elizabeth on her death in 1603 or Henry, Prince of Wales on his in 1612. [1] In turn, when Shakespeare of Stratford deceased in 1616 he was not publicly mourned either and this in an age when such things were expected. Furthermore, for a supposed professional author, Shakespeare of Stratford seems to have been entirely disinterested in the publication of his plays and sonnets. For example, while well documented as a litigious person, he never took any of the publishers pirating his works to court, nor did he ever object to their practice - starting in 1605 - of attaching his name to obviously inferior works. Also, there is no record of his protesting the unauthorized publication of his sonnets in 1609. In addition, his detailed will fails to mention any of his published or unpublished plays or poems, or any of the source books that Shakespeare is known to have read. 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.”

Composition

Regarding dates of composition, Oxfordians note the following evidence: In 1756, in “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ben Jonson”, W.R.Chetwood concludes that 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, on dating of Henry VIII, the majority of 18th and 19th century scholars, including notables such as Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps all placed the composition of Henry VIII to before 1604. And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare’s plays, Alfred Harbage shows that the composition of MacBeth, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra (all traditionally regarded as “late plays”), likely did not occur later than 1604.

Science

Anderson also notes that while Shakespeare made reference to the latest scientific discoveries and events right through the end of the 16th century, “yet Shakespeare is mute about science after De Vere’s (Oxford’s) death in 1604”. Anderson cites, among other examples, that neither a spectacular supernova that appeared in October of 1604, nor Kepler’s revolutionary 1609 study of planetary orbits, cause even a mention in all of Shakespeare’s works.

Parallels with the plays

According to Charlton Ogburn Jr., and other researchers, Oxford's personal biography is strikingly similar to the plots and subplots of the plays themselves:

Hamlet

1) Oxford's father died suddenly in 1562, and his mother remarried shortly thereafter.

2) Oxford was made a royal ward and was placed in the household of Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer, a member of Queen Elizabeth I's Privy Council, and her closest and most trusted advisor. Burghley is often regarded as the prototype for the character of chief minister Polonius, in Hamlet. Further, the chief minister’s name in the first folio was not Polonius but Corambis (Cor ambis = two hearted) a swipe, as Charlton Ogburn noted “at Burghley’s motto, Cor unum, via una, ‘one heart, one way.’”

3) As Hamlet was engaged to marry Ophelia, daughter to Polonius, Oxford was engaged to marry Anne Cecil, daughter to Lord Burghley. (According to Gabriel Harvey, 'Polus' was Burghley’s nickname).

4) Laertes received a famous list of maxims from his father Polonius. In actuality, Robert Cecil received a similarly famous list from his father, Lord Burghley - lists that mainstream scholar Sir E.K. Chambers acknowledged were parallel.

5) Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school. And for similar reasons, Burghley had someone spy on his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris.

6) Both Oxford and Hamlet were of noble blood, supported acting companies and had a trusted friend/close relative named Horace (or Horatio) Vere/Horatio.

7) On 23 July 1567, the seventeen-year old Oxford killed an unarmed under-cook by the name of Thomas Brincknell while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam, a merchant tailor, in the backyard of Cecil's house in the Strand. Oxfordians note that Brincknell's "accidental" death is reminiscent of the accidental murder of the spying Polonius.

8) On his return across the English Channel, Oxford's ship was hijacked by pirates, who stripped him naked, apparently with the intention of murdering him, until they were made aware of his noble status, upon which he was allowed to go free, albeit without most of his possessions. Hamlet tells a similar story of a pirate abduction when he recounts to Horatio how he freed himself from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Additional plays and Oxford parallels cited by Ogburn, and other researchers, include:

Taming of the Shrew

When Oxford traveled through Venice, he borrowed 500 crowns from a Baptista Nigrone. In Padua, he borrowed from a man named Pasquino Spinola. In Shakespeare's 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.

Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby, successfully courted Oxford's sister, Mary de Vere in 1577. Though the couple met the resistance of Oxford and others, they were married within a year. Bertie and his mother Kate are lampooned, not only in The Taming of the Shrew, but in the Winter's Tale, and Twelfth Night.

Henry IV, Part 1

In May 1573, in a letter to William Cecil, 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 travelers—on the highway from Gravesend to Rochester.

This scene was also present in that paean to the 11th Earl of Oxford, “The Famous Victories of Henry the Fift.” However, in that version of the play, which Oxfordians believe the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote in the 1570’s, even the correct date of the crime, May 20th, was mentioned.

The Life and Death of King John

In the inflated importance and superb speeches given Philip Faulconbridge, the Bastard, 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 that the play’s author felt it necessary to air-brush out of existence the traitorous Robert De Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford.

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, suggest 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, noted “Timon of Athens” is Shakespeare’s self-portrait as a downwardly mobile aristocrat.”

Romeo and Juliet

Oxford's illicit congress with Anne Vavasour led to a prolonged quarrel with her uncle, Sir Thomas Knyvet, resulting in three deaths and several other injuries. Oxford himself was lamed in one of the duels. The imbroglio was put to an end when the Queen threatened to jail all those involved. The theme of "lameness" is evident in Shakespeare's Sonnets.

Much Ado About Nothing

From an Oxfordian point of view the play is a classic Edward De Vere autobiography, starting with an apology to Anne Cecil for ever thinking she was unfaithful (Claudio – Hero), to the Dogberry sub-plot as a parody of the Arundell-Howard Libel case, to a defense of his affair with Anne Vavasor. (Sir Thomas Knyvet, Anne Vavasor’s enraged uncle, even makes an appearance as Beatrice’s 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 3 plays make use of the same Shakespearean plot that 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 imaging 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.”

The Merchant of Venice

In 1577 the Company of Cathay was formed to support Martin Frobisher’s hunt for the Northwest Passage, although he - and his investors – became quickly side-tracked by reports of gold at Hall’s Island. With thoughts of an impending Canadian gold-rush in his head, and trusting in the advice of Michael Lok (a London businessman with Mediterranean connections) Oxford finally went in bond for 3,000 pounds. Or, as Charlton Ogburn said, “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.” As was to be expected, when Frobisher’s fleet returned empty-handed, the shyster-Lok came in for some very heavy criticism. Frobisher himself said he was “a false accountant to the Company, a cozener to my Lord of Oxford, no venturer at all in voyages, a bankrupt knave.” Although 3,000 pounds was enough to ruin financially any man, De Vere went on to support Northwest Passage expeditions in 1584 and again in 1585. An Oxfordian might say that, along with Hamlet, Edward De Vere was “but mad north-northwest.”

As You Like It

Much of the play takes place in the Forest of Arden, which was also the name of the forest near Oxford’s old country estate, Bilton, and features the former libertine, Lord Jaques who, like Oxford, “sold his lands to see other men’s”.

One of the sites that Oxford may have seen on his travels through 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’s 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.”

Alls Well That Ends Well

On 19 December 1571, in an arranged wedding similar to that of Bertram and Helena, Oxford married Lord Burghley's fifteen-year-old daughter, Anne Cecil — an equally surprising choice as in the play since 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 that same year by Queen Elizabeth to enable the marriage of social inequals.

Also, Francis Osborne (1593–1659) included a bed-trick anecdote about Oxford in his Historical Memoires on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James (1658). 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 Ramsey at a horse race at Croydon. Herbert, who did not strike back, “was left nothing to testifie 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 vertuous deceit she [that is, Pembroke’s wife] is said to proceed.” Oxfordians point out that the same bed-trick also appears in “Measure for Measure.”

Measure for Measure

From an Oxfordian perspective “Measure for Measure” contains numerous autobiographical allusions to Edward De Vere. Besides the already mentioned “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, the Duke of Norfolk.

Oxfordians note that the Duke 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 similiarities between his known letters and the following 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.”

De Vere Letter to William Cecil:

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

The generally accepted source of the play was a supposedly true incident that occurred in 1547, near Milan, a region that De Vere is known to have traveled through. 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 Also, Isabella did not marry Angelo but, following Anne Cecil’s life story, married the Duke(De Vere).

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 Merry Wives: 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 noblemen 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 DeVere, commenting on his father-in-law Cecil, in the following passage:

"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.”

Henry V

A number of observers, including the mainstream Shakespearean scholar Dover Wilson, believe that the character of Fluellen was modeled 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 would only have been known by private manuscript. Sir Williams 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.[2]

Parallels with the Sonnets

In 1609, SHAKE-SPEARE's Sonnets, a series of 154 linked poems, was published, apparently without the help of their author as the text contained errors no one familiar with the poems would have allowed in print. In addition, it is believed that someone other than Shakespeare provided the dedication. The focus of the series appears to follow the author’s relationships with 3 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, assumed to be Southampton and the Dark Lady is believed by some Oxfordians to be Anne Vavasor. While there is no consensus candidate for the Rival Poet, some think he might have been Christopher Marlowe or George Chapman.

The Poet considered himself old

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 in an age when the average life expectancy was short, being between 26 and 39 was not considered old.

Sonnet 73

That time of year thou mayst in me behold

When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang

Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,

Bare ruin’d choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.

Sonnet 138

… vainly thinking that she thinks me young,

Although she knows my days are past the best.

The Poet described himself as lame

Oxford led an active life, going on campaign in northern England, traveling through Europe for over a year in an age where that meant going by horseback or by springless carriages over bad roads. In addition, he jousted, accidentally killed a man while fencing and was kidnapped by pirates in the English Channel. As far as history is aware Shakespeare of Stratford lead a sedentary life, with no known aliments.

Sonnet 37

I, made lame by fortune’s dearest spite

… am not lame, poor, nor despised,

Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give…

Sonnet 89

Speak of my lameness, and I straight will halt,

Against thy reasons, making no defense.

Edward De Vere’s letter of March 25, 1595 to 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."

The Poet gave Southampton – The Fair Youth – marital advice

Many Oxfordians believe, along with Joseph Sobran, that “the first seventeen sonnets, the “procreation” poems, give every indication of belonging to Burghley’s campaign to make [Southampton] marry his granddaughter, and 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.”

The Poet and Southampton were of equal social rank

In 16th century England part-time actors and playwrights simply did not presume to give their betters advice about anything. In fact, they were more than happy not to be arrested as vagabonds. However, according to Joseph Sobran, “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,” 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.

Sonnet 91

Thy love is better than high birth to me,

Richer than wealth, prouder than garments’ cost,

Of more delight than hawks or horses be.

The lines may imply that he is in a position to make such comparisons, and the “high birth” he refers to is his own...”

The Poet believed he was in public disgrace

Sobran wrote that “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 36

Let me confess that we two must be twain,

Although our undivided loves are one;

So shall those blots that do with me remain,

Without thy help, be borne by me alone….

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 that Ward and Allen developed have become known as the Prince Tudor 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 that 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 the facts supporting this theory,^[3] which was expanded by Elisabeth Sears' Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose and Hank Whittemore, in his analysis of Shakespeare's Sonnets, The Monument, which interprets the poems as a poetic history of Queen Elizabeth, Oxford and Southampton.

Stratfordian objections

The primary objection to Oxfordian theory is that Oxford died in 1604, after which, according to Stratfordians, a number of Shakespeare plays are conventionally believed to have been written. Oxfordians respond that the conventional dates for the plays were developed by Stratfordian scholars, and are, therefore, inconclusive and self-serving. Oxfordians also note that a number of the so-called "later plays", such as Henry VIII, 'Timon of Athens and Pericles have all been described as "unfinished", whereas under one version of the Oxfordian theory these plays were completed by another author after Oxford's 1604 death. Stratfordians reject these arguments and cite examples to support their point:

• The Tempest is considered by many mainstream scholars to have been inspired by a description of a shipwreck written in 1610. However, literary scholar Kenneth Muir noted "the extent of verbal echoes of the (Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated." Muir then cites 13 thematic and verbal parallels between The Tempest and St. Paul's account of his shipwreck at Malta. In addition, Oxfordians point to previously acknowledged sources that show that some of the words and images in The Tempest may actually derive from Eden's "The Decades of the New Worlde Or West India" (1555) and Erasmus' "Naufragium”/”The Shipwreck" (1523). Both sources are mentioned by previous scholars as influencing the composition of The Tempest and Oxfordians point to new research that they believe confirms this.

• Stratfordians believe Henry VIII was described as a new play in 1613. However, 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. In addition, many 18th and 19th century scholars, including Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps placed the composition of Henry VIII to before 1604.

• Stratfordians suggest that Macbeth represents the most overwhelming single piece of evidence against the Oxfordian position, asserting that 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 also the subject of a 1583 tract by Queen Elizabeth's chief councillor Lord Burghley as well as the 1584 Doctrine of Equivocation by the Spanish prelate Martin Azpilcueta that 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. Oxfordians also question the tradition that Macbeth was written in celebration of King James's accession to the English throne, suggesting that the play's depiction of the murder of a King would have been unsuitable for such an occasion.

• The publication of Shake-speares Sonnets in 1609, with its dedication reading "by our ever-living poet" is taken by Oxfordians to imply the author was dead by that time of publication. Although some scholars (such as Donald Foster) have disputed the meaning of this phrase, when applied to a person rather than a deity, "ever-living" was generally understood to mean that person was deceased. Nevertheless, it remains debatable whether the phrase, in this context, refers to Shakespeare or to God. In this interpretation the phase is taken to read as wishing upon Mr. W.H. the "Happienesse and that eternitie promised" to him by God. One Stratfordian, however, has recently cited a poem published in 1598, which specifically refers to Shakespeare — presumably still alive at that early date — as follows "Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever: Well may the Body die, but Fame dies never". Stratfordians, however, have been unable to provide any examples where the term "ever-living" referred to an individual who was not deceased at the time.

Further criticism

Aside from the problem of the author's date of death, supporters of the standard view dispute all contentions in favor of Oxford. In particular, they assert that the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural; that the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest ; and a method of 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". Other critics, notably Jonathan Bate, invert one of the key assumptions of Oxfordians (and Baconians): that Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays because he had too little learning and was not familiar with court life. They argue that Shakespeare most certainly was familiar with life at court (he acted there often enough, and had noble patrons- the same level of experience as all of his other contemporaries who depict court life), but that neither Oxford nor Sir Francis Bacon would have had much chance to develop Shakespeare's acknowledged ear for the language of ordinary people. However, Oxfordians note that DeVere was known for traveling in wide circles and was certainly surrounded throughout his life by a variety of servants, representing a wide range of Elizabethean society.

As for authorship computer studies, Oxfordians would argue that they have been known to be incorrect. For example, based on one the "Funeral Elegy" was widely - but erroneously - believed to have been written by Shakespeare. It is now conceded to have been written by John Ford. There was said to be 997 chances out of 1,000 that Shakespeare wrote this poem, but he did not.[4]

In respect to the supposition that Shakespeare of Stratford was a full-time actor Oxfordians would counter that during this period of time all acting companies toured, and while a thorough seach of municipal records throughtout England has uncovered evidence of many touring groups, and many actors, it has failed to locate any trace of Shakespeare of Stratford. Apparently, he was not with them.

Regarding the claim concerning Shakespeare’s "patrons", Oxfordians point out that there is little or no evidence that they existed. The only indications even pointing to that possibility being the dedications to Southampton found in The Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis. However, 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.” In addition, no record of any payment to Shakespeare has ever been discovered.

Some Stratfordian academics argue, in addition, that Thomas Looney's Oxford theory is based on simple snobbishness: anti-Stratfordians cannot bear the idea that the son of a mere tradesman could write the plays and poems of Shakespeare. In fact, all the major Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories promote an aristocrat in favour of Shakespeare of Stratford. Contrasting this is the statement of Professor The Revd. V. A. 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." Further, Oxfordians note that figures such as Walt Whitman, Charlie Chaplin, Sigmund Freud, Friederich Nietzsche [5] and Mark Twain, none of whom are obvious candidates for snobbery, have all expressed anti-Stratfordian views.

See the "Criticisms" section of the article on Baconian theory for additional discussion of authorship theories.

Notable Anti-Stratfordians

Mark Twain - “We are The Reasoning Race, and when we find a vague file of chipmunk tracks stringing through the dust of Stratford village, we know by our reasoning powers that Hercules has been along there. I feel that our fetish is safe for three centuries yet.”[6]

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.” [7]

Sigmund Freud - “I no longer believe that… the actor from Stratford was the author of the works that have been ascribed to him.” [8]

External links

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
  • Oxfordian reviews of Alan H. Nelson's orthodox biography of Oxford, Monstrous Adversary (2001)
• Oxfordian 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 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
• 'The Man Who Wrote Shakespeare' a narrative poem by Michael J. Farrand that makes the case for Oxford.

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)