From the article: Shakespeare Authorship Debate
Could Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, really be the genius behind Shakespeare's plays and sonnets? Or perhaps Francis Bacon? We gather your opinions and ask "who wrote Shakespeare?" Share Your Theory
Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
- Almost certainly the man from Stratford did not write this corpus. The fact that so much more is known about the lives of his contemporaries than about him strains credulity. I thought so in high school and I thought so in college--lo, these many years ago after having been a lawyer (very used to assessing and weighing evidence.) Such an issue deserves broad and deep consideration. I suggest that serious learners consult the Shakespeare Reasonable Doubt website.
- —tbyrnesshaw_yahoocom
who wrote Shakespeare
- It's all very well saying De Vere wrote Shakespeare. However, he died in 1604, so who 'wrote' Shakespeare then?
- —Guest robert williams
Occam's Razor
- I have read a wealth of information on this topic over the last several days. I do not need to be an authority or read everyone's printed works on the subject to get a feel for the Anti-Stratfordian arguments. I am a lover of Shakespeare and to those that would deny him his legacy I would say that even your strongest arguments leave their blood upon Occam's Razor.
- —Guest dlsteed
BTW, The Story of Hamlet was well known
- Hamlet or Abeth was mentioned in the Irish Annals of the Four Masters. Saxo the Grammarian wrote of Hamlet (Amlet) as well. The tale was well known. I say that anyone familiar with Celtic lore will recognize that Gertrude, mother of Hamlet, was a Sovereignty Goddess.
- —SusanSiobhan
Some Folks Just Hate Individuals
- I learned of the "Anti-Avonian" theories in college. I thought there are people who can not credit the individual. I read the ridiculous book by Charles Beauclerk, a De Vere descendant, which seems to have inspired the film "Anonymous." I am now reading Jonathan Bate's fine but speculative scholarship. Bate looks at the curriculum offered by Elizabethan grammar schools and traces it through the plays. He also traces the leading playwrights of Will's era: half of them were university boys and half, including Ben Jonson, were not. BTW, why does it matter what Twain and Dickens surmised? We have no record of their scholarship!
- —SusanSiobhan
We will never know
- The author of the plays was a well born and well educated nobleman, welcome in the great houses of his time. The writing is too consistent to be from more than one hand. He was a propaganda writer welcome at the royal courts of Queen Elizabeth and King James. His contemporaries would have known his ruse. Lord Burley would have cleaned the record of all but a few scraps as to who he was. We will never know for sure. Enjoy the plays. Like the Gun Powder Plot and the KIng James Bible, myth and legend endure.
- —Guest PKB
A Liitle Learning
- These comments prove Pope's maxim: a little learning is a dangerous thing. Spend a couple of years actually studying the authorship controversy; read a couple of dozen books on the subject - encompassing all points of view; and keep an open mind. Do this and you will find it is very doubtful that William Shakespeare of Stratford ever wrote anything, and de Vere was certainly not the author. Far and away the best candidate is Christopher Marlowe. If proof is ever found that he did indeed live past 1593, this argument will be settled.
- —Guest Daver852
Shakspere
- His father was illiterate. His children were illiterate. He does not seem to have owned a book. Nor he sent nor received he letters from anyone. And this is why we have an authorship controversy: Because the most famous author in English history seems to have not existed (unless one conclude without evidence that references to Shake-speare automatically refer to Shakspere. At the same time, the famous and accomplished Earl of Oxford seems to have been erased from history. The whole situation smacks of political intrigue. The Cecil's had every reason and every opportunity to erase the name de Vere, and to set-up an educated out-of-towner named Shakspere as being the author. The most successful cover-up in history (until the Warren Commission).
- —Guest Just Steve
De Vere fits.
- The arguments made on this site in favour of the man from Stratford as author are mostly based on emotion. Its not a rich man vs poor man argument. In contemporary Canadian society the illiteracy rate is in the 20-25% range even with a well funded public school system, extensive library network and a huge resource of cheap books. One can only imagine the blocks that would have existed to a broad education in Shakespeare's day. That having been said, it may reasonably be argued that the works of the Bard are so phenominal that only a true genius could have written them and that would transcend any educational handicaps. But there was no such animal as a library card. It is interesting to note that, although he came from a common background, Dr. Johnson was raised in a bookstore. His tremendous knowledge did not mysteriously come out of nowhere. Therefore, to be sceptical about Shakespeare of Stratford's access to the background information necessary to be the author is understandable.
- —Guest Ken
No need to get personal.
- Although I am convinced that De Vere wrote ALL of Shakespeare I don't take offence at anyone who has the opposite view and beg to encourage others to enjoy this "dispute" rather that take offence. In the view of many it is the most beautiful writing in the English language - authored by a true genius who had a magnifying glass on the human soul. No one is trying to denegrate the work. Look into the topic and have fun doing so. There is a little intellectual sport to all of this. No one is hurt if De Vere or Don Rickles was the real author and remember that "Shakespeare in Love" is pure fiction. lol
- —Guest Ken
A few notables who insist on De Vere
- 1. Orson Welles 2. Charles Dickens 3. Mark Twain 4. Henry James 5.Sigmund Freud 6.Walt Whitman. In "'Shakespeare' by Another Name" every serious argument in favour of the man from Stratford in the above comments is very successfully countered. It's a very readable book and, even if it fails to change your view it's still a great read. Give it a shot and have some fun.
- —Guest Guest Ken
"'Shakespeare' by Another Name."
- I would refer doubters to the above noted book by Mark Anderson, Gotham Books, 2005. ISBN 1-592-40215-1. I was as skeptical as anyone but that book completely turned my head around. In the words of Herbert Spencer: "There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance --that principal is contempt prior to invetigation." Naysayers, considered yourselves challenged.
- —Guest A "must read" book on the subject.
Absurd
- I can't believe you're running such a foolish topic. It hurts the crediblity of your site. Here's where you can find evidence of who wrote Shakespeare. http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/ Besides, we know that Shakespeare wrote his later plays for an indoor theatre. Are we too believe that De Vere, before he died, knew the acting company was moving to an indoor theatre and wrote so many plays in advance?
- —Guest Randy K
To Guestgsullivan
- The claim made by Oxfordians that Charles Dickens had doubts about the identity of the author is a lie. It simply is not true. It's true Mark Twain did not think Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works, but it is not true of Dickens. Dickens wrote a letter once saying he was glad there was not a lot known about Shakespeare the man, because if people cared more about the man, they would have dug up his bones. This has been twisted by the anti-Strats into an expression of doubt about the identity of the author, but it simply isn't true.
- —Guest Richard Nathan
Oxfordianism makes no sense
- Of course William Shakespeare was credited as being the author during his lifetime. He was an actor with the company that put on the plays. His name is listed in the royal charter of the King's Men. He left money to buy memory rings, in his will, to other actors in the company. He is listed as an actor both in the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays and in the folio of Ben Jonson's plays. So when the name William Shakespeare appeared as the author on publications of the plays during his lifetime, of course people thought the actor was the author. It's ludicrous to think there was an actor who appeared in the plays with the same name as the author, and no one connected the two. It is also ridiculous to think he was an illiterate yokel who took credit for the plays. If he was an illiterate yokel, he would not have fooled anyone. Oxfordians are incapable of thinking rationally.
- —Guest Richard Nahtan
1-15 of 49Next
