There's one question that's always bothered me about all the "anti-Stratford" arguments, and was wondering whether anyone whose read more widely among these can supply the answer: it's very easy (from a modern perspective) to under-estimate Ben Jonson's stature as literary figure during his lifetime. If (say) De Vere's authorship was more or less an open secret, why would such a literary giant perpetuate the lie that Shakespeare was the author of these plays after Shakespeare's death?

•••

£

••

Direct evidence? No. But, then, there is no direct evidence that the man from Stratford was the Author.

Jonson became heavily involved in the publication of the works of Shakespeare after the Stratford man died. He became, in fact, the biggest Shakespeare booster of the day, despite having had not one good word to say about the Author during the lifetime of the Stratford man. When Will Shaksper died, Jonson had no words to offer, despite being forthcoming with eulogies for other writers and actors who died around the same time. ("Shakespeare" himself was also curiously silent when Elizabeth I died. That event generated a nationwide outpouring of prose and poetry from practically everyone who could hold a pen, but not Shakespeare. At the time, the Stratford man was still alive, but DeVere, one of Elizabeth's favorites, was not.)

It is not difficult to imagine, given the temper of the times, that the imaginary author "Shakespeare" was invented to both create a "brand" and to protect the works from Burghley and his agents. After concerned parties were dead, the name would have been continued -- with "new" plays turning up for several years -- to continue the profitable brand. This latter may have extended to works that were not "pure" Shakespeare, since even Stratfordians see other hands in the later works. One, KING JOHN, is considered by some to not have been by Shakespeare at all.

This is certainly not difficult to believe, since I have experienced it in my own career, with work turning up on eBay and the like, attributed to me but not touched by my hand. Jim Warden recently sent a query about a piece on eBay that was actually traced from a doodled I'd done on the back of a page!!

-- Walt Whitman

••

Whitman's comment goes to the core of the matter. Shakespeare wrote with ease and comfort about things of which the Stratford man had no experience. Shakespeare was quite at home having his characters travel thru Europe, for instance, which DeVere had done, but Shaksper had not. (Critics sometimes note that Shakespeare's Europe is not entirely accurate, with borders sometimes in the wrong place. However, it has been shown that those borders were where Shakespeare puts them during the time DeVere traveled abroad.)

Comparison has been made between the writings of Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, who sometimes touched upon the same subjects. In one play, for instance. Jonson includes a hunting party, but does so using reference -- the text is known -- since he was himself not a hunter. The scene uses all the right terms, but too many! It is not written, as are such scenes in Shakespeare, with the casual language of one who has "lived the life," but with the stilted prose that comes with "book learning." Such instances are used to argue against Shakespeare, in the form of the Stratford man, having gained his extensive knowledge of the royal courts, the legal courts, the army, the navy, botany, falconry, history, and the day to day life of the aristocracy from simply reading about them.

As Whitman notes, Shakespeare's most deeply rooted attitudes lie in the aristocracy, and not in the form of a poser. He "wrote what he knew."

••

There is hardly a "lack of contemporary satirical bite" in Shakespeare. HAMLET alone has content that has puzzled scholars for years, as they wondered how a country bumpkin from Stratford could get away with parodying the most powerful of Elizabeth's officers, and even making snarky remarks ("…she may paint an inch thick…") about the Lady herself.

Of course, it becomes a little easier to understand if we imagine the Author as an actual member of the court he's is poking fun at, the son-in-law of that powerful officer, and one of Elizabeth's favorites to boot. Especially if we imagine the Works having been created for private consumption within that court, and having "leaked" into the public theaters.

••

Not if, as is commonly believed, the identity of the true author was an "open secret". In fact, by setting up Shaksper as a kind of "straw man," the no arrests could be made without forcing the exposure of the true author -- something Burghley especially would have wanted to avoid.

••

In my opinion, altogether too much is made of the so-called "lost years." As with the Stratford man's missing education, his champions seize upon any "gap" as something into which they can pour whatever they want, and in whatever quantities. Thus, the Grammar School in Stratford becomes a font of education unmatched by even the finest universities of the time -- tho somehow managing to turn out only ONE student of note, and without being noticed by anyone else at the time for being this miracle of enlightenment.

Similarly, the "lost years" are filled up with all the parts needed to transform the Stratford Man into the Author, tho without quite managing to explain how he was continuing with all the other affairs -- business, legal, theatrical, etc -- that are NOT "lost."

In the end, it IS possible to create Shakespeare from Shaksper, but it takes Olympian effort, and seems rather pointless when, in DeVere, we have a candidate who comes already equipped with all the necessary parts, no effort required.

Occam's Razor.

••

One of the strongest arguments for Shakespeare having been one of the "wolfish earls" and not a commoner, is that it is much, much more simple for a member of court to learn the ways of the common man than for a common man to learn the ways of court.

Shakespeare even illustrates this with Prince Hal.