The Shakespeare authorship debate has been raging for years and the circumstantial evidence for one candidate is particularly compelling: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
In this two-part interview we ask Matthew Cossolotto, Shakespeare Oxford Society president (2005-2009), to defend the case for Edward de Vere by answering some common Stratfordian questions.
In the first installment we ask Cossolotto to consider the Shakespeare-De Vere relationship and ask how William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon fits into the De Vere story.
About.com: There is documentary evidence that a man called William Shakespeare existed? How does this man fit into the authorship case for Edward de Vere?
Matthew Cossolotto: There’s no question that a native son of the town of Stratford-upon-Avon with a name similar to “William Shakespeare” did in fact exist. Nobody questions his existence. The issue is whether this “William of Stratford” – as I like to refer to him – was in fact William Shakespeare, the great poet and playwright.
As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out as to the exact role that this William of Stratford played in the Shakespeare story. More research is needed. There are several theories: he may have been go-between, a play broker, or a front man for the real author. Personally, I don’t think he ever played the traditional front man role as the public face of the writer during his lifetime.
About.com: So you don’t believe the conventional story: that William Shakespeare left Stratford-upon-Avon to become a prominent actor on the London theater scene?Matthew Cossolotto: No. There’s virtually no contemporaneous evidence that William of Stratford was an accomplished or prominent actor on the London stage. Did he play a few bit parts in some plays? Perhaps. But that does not prove he was William Shakespeare, the great poet and dramatist. It simply suggests he might have been recruited to play a kind of stand in role – perhaps because his name was so similar to the famous Shakespeare name
In fact, the evidence suggests that William of Stratford spent most of his time in Stratford-upon-Avon and very little time in London. After his death in 1616, William of Stratford began to play what I think of as the “fall guy” role. As Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth Night:
Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them.
After his death, William of Stratford had greatness thrust upon him.
Partisans of the Stratford theory are fond of circular reasoning. “Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare” is a frequent refrain. But partisans of the Stratfordian theory deny even the possibility that “William Shakespeare” could have been a pseudonym. So they shut down the debate and close their minds instead of opening their minds - Maybe I’m naïve, but I always thought true scholarship required an open mind.
About.com: Are there biographical connections between the life of Edward de Vere and the plays and sonnets?
Matthew Cossolotto: Yes. The correspondence between de Vere's known life experiences, his vast education, travels and personal scandals are abundantly reflected in the plays and poems – especially so with regard to the Sonnets.
Hamlet is often cited by Oxfordians as being particularly autobiographical. The character of Polonius is widely regarded as a parody of Lord Burghley, Queen Elizabeth's Lord Treasurer and most powerful adviser – and de Vere’s father-in-law. In the play, Hamlet and Polonius’s daughter, Ophelia, have a stormy relationship. In reality, de Vere married Burghley’s daughter, Anne Cecil, and the couple had a very stormy relationship.
Also, a detail is revealed in Hamlet that has no bearing on the plot: Hamlet is captured by pirates on his return to Denmark. Interestingly, the very same thing happened to de Vere upon his return to England after his extended sojourn to the continent.
About.com: Stratfordians claim that plays were being written up to c.1613. How is this possible if Edward De Vere died in 1604?
Matthew Cossolotto: The operative word here is "claim." This is a Stratfordian claim without any basis in fact or evidence. The entire Stratfordian composition chronology is a flimsy construct because it was erected around the timeline of the Stratford candidate.
The reality is that Stratfordians have no hard evidence about when particular plays were actually composed. It’s a guessing game and most responsible scholars acknowledge this.
The idea that certain plays (or even one play) was composed after de Vere’s death in 1604 is nothing more than an assertion. It’s not even close to being an established fact. Instead of following the evidence, Stratfordian partisans seem intent on erecting a series of roadblocks against de Vere’s candidacy. They insist de Vere’s death in 1604 precludes him from being “Shakespeare” because some plays were written after 1604.
About.com: I’ve always been led to believe that evidence exists that The Tempest was written after 1604. You’re saying that this isn’t the case?
Matthew Cossolotto: No. What proof do they have that The Tempest was written after 1604? None. Zip. Nada.
They have conjecture, supposition and convoluted theories about the composition date of The Tempest, but they have no real proof. A performance date or publication date tells you very little about the composition date. Half of the plays published in the First Folio in 1623 had not been published before. Does this prove these plays were composed after William of Stratford’s death in 1616? … Of course not!
Matthew Cossolotto was president of the Shakespeare Oxford Society between 2005-2009.
In the second part of this interview, Cossolotto discusses the reasons why Edward De Vere would have needed a pseudonym.
