••

Oh, Robbie, the "things" that are done...!!

••

A neat summation of why so many bad things happen in the world. As someone I used to know put it, a guy sits around for so long with nothing to do that eventually he starts to wonder what the neighbor's kid would look like as a lamp.

Shakespeare’s plays bear signs of being written by a person from the country, with knowlegde of farming and craftmanship, and who knows the regional dialect of Stratford-Upon-Avon; while at the same time he must have had enough knowledge of the upper classes to describe them convincingly, perhaps through noble patrons of his theatre company. They are clearly written by a writer living closely to the theatre and Lord Chamberlain’s Men. They are written by a person with knowledge of grammar school curriculum, but without a university background – and who could take three names from a list including John Shakespeare and name smaller parts in a play.* They are written by a man who was more concerned with analyzing and displaying human nature than promoting political agendas. They are written by a person fitting William Shakespeare’s background and biography; a man who everyone in London recognized as the author of the plays.

When someone claims that it isn’t “proven” that Shakespeare wrote his plays, it’s hard to see what these people would consider proof. A letter from Shakespeare to his wife saying: “Dear Anne, I’m now working on Romeo and Juliet.”? It’s impossible to say. What matters for experts is that much is known, and that everything they know points towards the same man.

The Earl of Oxford died in 1604, twelve years before Shakespeare and before Shakespeare had written "Macbeth" and "King Lear". Supporters of this theory claim that these plays are wrongly dated and were written earlier, but research show these theories not to be credible. The Earl left behind several poems, simpler and different in style than those of William Shakespeare, which were not particularily recognized in contemporary times.

"The Earl of Oxford died in 1604, twelve years before Shakespeare and before Shakespeare had written 'Macbeth' and 'King Lear'. Supporters of this theory claim that these plays are wrongly dated and were written earlier, but research show these theories not to be credible."

There are no records of when any of the plays were written, only of when they were first performed. Significantly, topical references vanish almost entirely from the plays first seen after the death of Edward De Vere.

"The Earl left behind several poems, simpler and different in style than those of William Shakespeare, which were not particularily recognized in contemporary times."

It was De Vere's distinctly Shakespearean style which caused John Thomas Looney (pronounced LOH-NEE, but, ah, that unfortunate spelling again!) to pick him out of the various writers of lyric poetry of those times. Looney had not previously heard of De Vere, but once he started investigating him, he found he could not go ten paces in the man's life without bumping into Shakespeare. Two of De Vere's uncles, for instance, were acknowledged influences on the writings of "Shakespeare." Portions of several plays become closely autobiographical if De Vere is assumed to be the author.* "Hamlet" especially so.

Oxford was acknowledged in his lifetime as a fine poet and playwright, and "the best for comedy." Oddly, none of his plays survive -- at least, not under his own name.

In a listing of the greatest poets of the Elizabethan Age, published after the death of Elizabeth I, De Vere was placed at the top, and "Shakespeare" was not mentioned at all.

The key to all this, as always, is that any candidate must step into the role without any need for conspiracies. In the case of De Vere, that's a perfect fit, since nothing more is required than business as usual for Tudor times.

–––––––––

* This even includes cleaning up the family history. The Veres were on the wrong side in the War of Roses, and their prominent figures are prominently missing from the plays covering those events.