Is William Shakespeare just an alias of Edward De Vere?

Question

De Vere is most famous today as the alleged author of the works of William Shakespeare, a claim that most historians and literary scholars reject but which is supported by a vocal minority. A commoner from Stratford would be unable to write good plays. A nobleman would have the education and experience to write these plays, but he would have to hide his hobby to avoid social stigma. Anagrams in the plays suggest someone else wrote these works. Political Coverup?

Answer 1

Nope lame conspiracy theory. There's even a conspiracy theory that the Bard wrote the Bible. Let me ask you this 500 years from now will people say someone else wrote all of Stephen King's novels, short stories, screenplays, etc.?

Look for the absurd in anything and you will find it. William was no commoner he attended school for free as his father was a town official he could do so at no cost (back then all school was private school or run by the church) he is believed to have become a teacher himself but eventually wound up in London doing theater and was well known for being a financial whiz. He got his start acting in plays written by his friend Ben Johnson and by all accounts was an accomplished actor.

Shakespeare rewrote several old plays and wrote many of his plays direct from historical events and it wouldn't be suprising if he didn't get help from Johnson because it was common in Elizabethan times for a group of people to write plays and credit be given to the owner of the theater however while he lived his plays weren't considered that great it wasn't until a century after he died that his work gained the respect it still has today.

DeVere died in 1604 and Shakespeare continued to write until 1612 when he partnered with John Fletcher. His last "solo" play was written in 1911 "The Tempest".

Answer 2

Famous people who have been suggested as the "real" author of the works of William Shakespeare include de Vere, Christopher Marlowe, Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and even Queen Elizabeth I. Those who claim these people wrote Shakespeare cite supposed clues through the works. I don't know about you, but when I want to keep a secret, the LAST thing I do is drop clues in public view.

The argument that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare is ultimately class-based. Some people are bothered by the idea that a commoner could be smart enough to write anything of any lasting significance. Basically, the anti-Stratfordians think that common people from the working class are stupid, and that people who are born the sons of rich fathers are smarter and more creative than others. This is palpable nonsense, especially if you've ever met anybody born to a large fortune.

Nobody seriously thought William Shakespeare was anyone but who he claimed to be until over two centuries after his death. Even as the world moved away from believing in the Divine Right of Kings, we came to romanticize royalty and think they were in some way superior to the rest of us. As a hereditary nobleman who wrote a little poetry (most of it atrocious) Edward de Vere was an easy mark to be the "real" Shakespeare. But if this were so, why did nobody special mourn the death of de Vere, as many writers mourned the death of Shakespeare?

And as far as playing anagrams goes, it is worth noting that words in English didn't have constant spellings in Shakespeare's day. It wasn't until Dr. Samuel Johnson published his famous Dictionary in 1755 that people came to believe there should be one constant spelling for a word that applies at all times in all situations. Modern editions of Shakespeare have to be edited to make all the words spell the same; any anagrams you find are from later editions and cannot be considered reliable.

There is no cover-up. Edward de Vere did not write the works of Shakespeare. Those great plays were really the work of a play producer from Stratford, and the right person really does have his name on the by-line. Don't waste time on fanciful theories; reality is so much more complex and beautiful than any conspiracy fairy tale you could ever hope to find.

Answer 3

I am a member of that "vocal minority." I'm providing a link to a long response I wrote previously for Y! answers on a similar question. I would also recommend checking out two of the books I recommended: Shakespeare by another name by Mark Anderson, and Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran. Both make strong cases for the Oxford authorship theory.

The main thrust of the Oxford argument, though, isn't quite for the reasons listed above. Most people who reject the Oxford as Shakespeare theory do it quite vehemently because they (rightly) are offended by the suggestion that it "must have been a nobleman" because, as you wrote, "a commoner from Stratford would be unable to write good plays." I think we need to look at it in the way that Looney (whose name was pronounced like "lonely" without the second l, not like "crazy loon" btw) did; if you wipe out the idea that we know who wrote the plays, and just look at the evidence - with NO candidates in mind - who emerges as a likely author? When you do that, you simply come up with Oxford. It's not a slam, or classist. But when you look at everything, you get that the evidence is compelling for it to have been Oxford, that's all.

Again - the argument is NOT "only a nobleman had the education and experience to write these plays" - rather, it's only OXFORD had the SPECIFIC education and Life experience that is reflected in the specific works of the plays and sonnets. Lots of noblemen are stupid and lots of scrappy young actors from London suburbs were and are smart as a whip. But only Oxford had a foster father/father in law who wrote him Polonious speech to Laertes (seriously, it's almost a line for line rewrite of a real letter de Vere's foster father Lord Cecil wrote, which Oxford had in his posession) and only Oxford had access to Lord Cecil's library (all the sources and references in the plays can be accounted for by books in this library, one of the finest in the country and books were not commonly available) and only Oxford had the bible with the unique phrasing and words used in the plays underlined.

The anagram thing is more of the Bacon theory. Personally I think you can find anagrams in anything (ever read the bible code?) but certainly there are puns and allusions - often to political and social events of the day, that were occuring to people Edward de Vere knew and socialized/worked with.

His hobby wasn't exactly hidden - there are references to him being one of the best dramatists around. He was kind of a rotter (bad marriage, lots of affairs with both sexes, a terrible businessman and a loudmouth who made enemies) and to put out the plays and poems under a different name probably made good political sense in Elizabethan England (deniability, for one thing.)

anyway - for more on the subject check out the link to the other answers. I've provided two previous answers of mine: first one you'll find me immediately as a "best answer" up top, a shorter response with a link to the Oxford society: the second one I lost in voting, so scroll down for my response.

I make a couple of points that cover some of the other answerer's points and questions in that other answer (ie; do the plays have post-1604 sources)

Answer 4

That is a Looney idea - quite literally! (The name of the man who thot it up!)
Nothing but snobbery behind it.
What about Jonson then - far more obviously learned than Shakespeare - did some lordy write his stuff too?
Shakespeare did have access to the court and aristocratic circles - far more difficult to know how a magnate like Oxford would be able to listen to the rude mechanicals.
What is more, Oxford made the mistake of dying in 1605. There are plenty of references in the later plays to events happening after that. It's not only a matter of references - there's structural stuff too. The late plays were written for the covered candlelit theatres popular c. 1610 - the strongly marked five act structure
is because they needed a pause every so often to trim the candles. How could anyone have written to suit a fashion that only came into being five years after his death?

Answer 5

Whoever stated that Meyer became into extra appropriate than Shakespeare in all probability has by no potential study yet another e book of their life as nicely Twilight. That assertion shows how ignorant that man or woman is. Shakespeare is a classic. His writing has stood the attempt of time and have been study for hundreds of years. there's a reason his artwork is taught at school. i do no longer think of you will ever discover the Twilight sequence on a school examining record. Twilight isn't something yet a section and could be forgotten in some years.

Answer 6

any real scholar who knows anything about shakespeare would disagree with this. it basically amounts to a conspiracy theory with no real, concrete evidence to support it. why should a commoner be unable to write eloquently? anyone who can read can have the ability to write, and being of a "low" background does not exclude someone from having potentially exceptional gifts, rare as they may be. another important thing to consider is shakespeare who he is today because of what he wrote back then, or because of what scholars made later? and don't get me wrong, i think shakespeare is exceptional

Answer 7

At this point, does it matter?