Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

The Shakespeare Authorship Page

Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare
NEW
On October 28, 2011, the movie Anonymous opened; it flopped at the box office, but there was considerable discussion of the film at the time. Here is David Kathmans review. Spoiler alert: William Shakespeare is a character in the movie, but the central character is Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford, who is, among other things, the son of Queen Elizabeth, the lover of the same Queen Elizabeth (some years later), and the real author of the works commonly attributed to William Shakespeare. The film is NOT meant to be a comedy. There is, of course, no reason to credit the earl with even one line of any work that has traditionally been attributed to William Shakespeare (for more information about this matter, please see the essays on this site), but many entertaining movies have been based on historically dubious material. The official blog for the movie offers links to the Shakespeare authorship page, so its only fair that we repay the favor. Here are a few links related to the film: The New York Times covers the story -Ari Karpel talks to the films director, Roland Emmerich, in Brush Up Your Shakespeare, or Whoever James Shapiro, who is also quoted in Karpels piece, believes that Hollywood Dishonors the Bard. Roland Emmerich is among those wrote letters in response to Shapiro. Stephen Marche ponders the question, Wouldnt It Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasnt Shakespeare? In addition to previews, trailers, commercials, press kits, blogs, and interviews, the film is also being promoted for its educational value. We are not making this up. An outfit called "Youth Marketing International" has prepared study guides for the movie that the producers hope will be used for high school and college courses. There is also a file explaining how seeing the movie and performing some classroom exercises can meet some educational standards. For a blogospherical discussion of the study guides, see Attention Educators: Have We All Been Played? There will be more reviews when the movie goes into general release, but a showing at the Toronto Film Festicval prompted this blog post by Holger Syme to which the screenwriter John Orloff responded. At Salon, Laura Millers review asks the question, Was Shakespeare really Shakespeare? Simon Shama discussed the film for Newsweek: The Shakespeare Shakedown At Slate, Ron Rosenbaum lists 10 Things I Hate About Anonymous

1 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

A new site that may be of more lasting interest is "60 Minutes with Shakespeare," which was put up by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. "60 Minutes" comprises brief answers to 60 questions about Shakespeare and the authorship of his works; among the 60 are Roland Emmerich, James Shapiro, and our own David Kathman. Youll have to register to see the page, but registration is free and painless. You can also find Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wellss e-book Shakespeare Bites Back as well as remarks about Anonymous by Alan Nelson.

Contents
Introduction How We Know that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare Featured External Site: Tom Veals "Stromata Blog" To the New York Times A Letter to Harper's Critically Examining Oxfordian Claims The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeares Name complete lists (in original spelling) of all contemporary non-literary references and literary references to William Shakespeare. Shakespeares Education and Social Background Were Shakespeares Plays Written by an Aristocrat? Shakespeares Stratford Friends Shakespeares Knowledge of Italy, the Classics, and the Law Shakespeare and Richard Field Dating the Works Barksted and Shakespeare Dating The Tempest Shakespeares Eulogies Images of Shakespeare Shakespeares Stratford Monument The Droeshout Engraving: Why Its Not Queen Elizabeth The Ashbourne Portrait: Why Its Not the Earl of Oxford Manuscripts and Publication Tudor Aristocrats and the Mythical "Stigma of Print" The Survival of Manuscripts Shakespeares Hand in Sir Thomas More Oxford the Poet Oxfords Literary Reputation Puttenham on Oxford Shakespeare, Oxford, and Verbal Parallels Was the Earl of Oxford the True Shakespeare? The Verse Forms of Shakespeare and Oxford Oxfordian Myths First Heir of My Invention The Question Marks in the 1640 Poems Burghley as "Polus" Reviews and Commentary Shakespeare IN FACT This Star of England Why Im Not an Oxfordian Joseph Sobrans Alias Shakespeare Here Comes Everybody The Oxfordian Hamlet The Code That Failed

2 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Funeral Elegy Bardlinks Elsewhere on the Web

Introduction
Many books and articles have been written arguing that someone other than William Shakespeare, the glovers son from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote the plays and poems published under his name. There exist sincere and intelligent people who believe there is strong evidence that Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was the author of these plays and poems. Yet professional Shakespeare scholars -- those whose job it is to study, write, and teach about Shakespeare -- generally find Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even worth discussing. Why is this? Oxfordians claim that these scholars are blinded to the evidence by a vested self-interest in preserving the authorship of "the Stratford Man," and some more extreme Oxfordians claim that there is an active conspiracy among orthodox scholars to suppress pro-Oxford evidence and keep it from the attention of the general public. The truth, however, is far more prosaic. Oxfordians are not taken seriously by the Shakespeare establishment because (with few exceptions) they do not follow basic standards of scholarship, and the "evidence" they present for their fantastic scenarios is either distorted, taken out of context, or flat-out false. This web site is for the intelligent nonspecialist who doesnt know what to make of these challenges to Shakespeares authorship. Oxfordian books can be deceptively convincing to a reader who is unaware of the relevant historical background and unused to the rhetorical tricks used by Oxfordians. Our aim is to provide context where needed, expose misinformation passed off by Oxfordians as fact, and in general show the nonspecialist reader why professional Shakespeare scholars have so little regard for Oxfordian claims. We know from experience that we are not likely to convince any Oxfordians to change their views, but we hope that other readers will find something of value here. We will be updating and adding new material as time permits, and we welcome any comments or suggestions.

How We Know that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare

Antistratfordians try to seduce their readers into believing that there is some sort of "mystery" about the authorship of Shakespeares works. They often assert that nothing (or at most very little) connects William Shakespeare of Stratford to the works of William Shakespeare the author, or that the evidence which exists is "circumstantial" and subject to some doubt. These are astounding misrepresentations that bear little resemblance to reality. Indeed, abundant evidence testifies to the fact that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works published under his name, and this evidence is as extensive and direct as the evidence for virtually any of Shakespeares contemporaries. In their essay How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts, Tom Reedy and David Kathman summarize the extensive web of evidence that identifies William Shakespeare of Stratford as the man who wrote the works of William Shakespeare.

Featured External Site: Tom Veal's "Stromata Blog"

When the Shakespeare Authorship page began 12 years ago, it was the only site on the Internet dedicated to countering claims that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote the lions share of the works professional literary historians have always assigned to Shakespeare. We have more company now (as you can see from the sites listed in our Bardlinks area below), and wed like to direct your attention to Tom Veals blog, which contains some of the best recent commentary on the authorship of Shakespeares works.

3 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Tom responds to The Truth Will Out by Brenda James and William D. Rubinstein, a book claiming that Sir Henry Neville really wrote Shakespeares works. A New "Shakespeare" More on the "New" Shakespeare Arguing Further With Professor Rubinstein The Neville-Shakespeare Theory: An Aperu Tom looks critically at Roger Stritmatters Ph.D. dissertation in comparative literature, which took as its starting point the assumption that the Earl of Oxford really wrote Shakespeares works. Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Tom replies to Michael Brame and Galina Popova, who in Shakespeare's Fingerprints claimed that 17th Earl of Oxford wrote not only Shakespeares works but also just about everything else written in the last half of the 16th Century. VERitable Lunacy

To the New York Times

The Times published a strongly pro-Oxfordian piece on February 10, 2002, that fell far short of the standards we expect from the "paper of record." See our response to the Times.

A Letter to Harper's
In April 1999, Harper's magazine published a group of ten essays collectively entitled "The Ghost of Shakespeare." Five of the essays were by Oxfordians, arguing that the Earl of Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare, while five were by Shakespeare scholars arguing that William Shakespeare was the author. David Kathman promptly wrote a letter to Harper's, pointing out some of the many factual errors and distortions in the five Oxfordian articles and outlining the major reasons why Shakespeare scholars do not take Oxfordians seriously. Harper's elected not to publish the letter, instead publishing a group of short and superficial responses which failed to address the main issues. However, were posting David Kathmans letter here in order to provide a concise summary of the serious problems with Oxfordian arguments.

Critically Examining Oxfordian Claims

The following essays were posted to the newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, and are presented here in edited form. The original impetus for most of these essays was an Oxfordian article by Mark Anderson entitled "Shake-speares Good Book," posted to the newsgroup by Mr. Anderson under the nom de net "E of O." (Interested readers can see this article at http://www.everreader.com/bible.htm --- but be sure to return here!) I posted a quick initial response to the article, to which Mr. Anderson replied with a further posting in which he made several more points, the substance of which should be clear from my responses. I wrote and posted the next eight essays, each of which deals with a specific Oxfordian claim, in response to both the initial posting and the follow-up. They are informal in tone, but I tried to make them as accurate and factual as possible. The next two essays were written later, as parts of longer essays in progress on Shakespeares death and education. The last essay was written in response to Mark Alexander, one of the Oxfordian regulars on the newsgroup. Mark has always been a highly articulate and intelligent opponent, and he has often forced me to think through my own positions more thoroughly than I would otherwise have done. In this post, I address some of the broader issues involved in the Shakespeare authorship debate, and try to articulate the major reasons why I find the Oxfordian approach

4 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

fundamentally flawed. Alleged Parallels between the Plays and Oxfords Life Biographical Information: Shakespeare vs. His Contemporaries Oxfords Letters Oxfords Bible with a complete list of annotations Stylometry and the Shakespeare Clinic SHAXICON Response to Criticisms on Stylometry Further Response: Shakespeares Acting Career Shakespeares Will The Stratford Grammar School Some General Thoughts: Oxfordians vs. Literary Scholars

The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name

The most obvious evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him is that everyone at the time said he did: he was often praised in writing as a poet and playwright, he was named as the author of many of the works while he was alive, and seven years after his death the First Folio explicitly attributed the rest of the works to him. Oxfordians try to account for this evidence by claiming that the man from Stratford was actually "William Shaksper" (or "Shakspere"), a man whose name was spelled and pronounced differently from that of the great poet "William Shakespeare," and that nobody at the time would have thought to confuse the two. Needless to say, such claims bear little resemblance to reality. To see just how badly Oxfordians have misrepresented the name issue, read David Kathmans essay on the spelling and pronunciation of Shakespeares name, accompanied by the complete lists (in original spelling) of all contemporary non-literary references and literary references to William Shakespeare.

Shakespeare's Education and Social Background

Two assumptions are almost universally held by antistratfordians: the author of Shakespeares plays must have been a well-educated aristocrat, and William Shakespeare of Stratford could not possibly have had the education or social connections to have been that author. To those who are familiar with Elizabethan society in general, and with William Shakespeares life in particular, neither of these assumptions comes close to holding water. In this section we present two pairs of articles, the first pair dealing with the aristocrat/class issue, the second dealing with the education issue. Were Shakespeare's Plays Written by an Aristocrat? In this essay based on a series of posts from the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup, David Kathman addresses the common Oxfordian assumption that the author of Shakespeares plays must have been an aristocrat who was intimate with the corridors of power. He points out that nobody in Shakespeares day or for centuries afterward thought that the plays displayed an accurate knowledge of royal courts (in fact, the opposite was the case), and that modern social historians familiar with 16th-century court life have come to a similar conclusion. Shakespeare's Stratford Friends Oxfordians mercilessly attack the character and background of William Shakespeare, depicting him as an "unlettered boob" and Stratford as a densely ignorant backwater bereft of any culture. As usual, the Oxfordians are guilty of twisting facts and ignoring any evidence that they dont like. David Kathmans essay illustrates that Shakespeares closest friends in Stratford were actually a rather cultured lot, and that their hometown bore little resemblance to the cesspool depicted by Oxfordians.

5 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Shakespeare's Knowledge of Italy, the Classics, and the Law Paired with Oxfordians insistence that the author of Shakespeares plays must have been an aristocrat is their insistence that he must have had lots of formal education. As usual, though, the antistratfordians are badly mistaken in some key elements of their arguments. In Shakespeares Knowledge of Italy, the Classics, and the Law, David Kathman focuses on three areas where antistratfordians have often claimed that the plays exhibit knowledge beyond the ability of William Shakespeare of Stratford: Italy, the classics, and law. In each case, he responds directly to claims by Oxfordians, showing that they have greatly overestimated the extent of Shakespeares knowledge and greatly underestimated the resources available to any intelligent Elizabethan who wished to learn about virtually any subject. Shakespeare and Richard Field Since William Shakespeare did not have much formal education, he must have been a voracious reader on many subjects. Oxfordians like to ridicule this very reasonable inference; where, they ask, could Shakespeare have gotten the books he would have had to read? But in fact, Shakespeare was particularly well-positioned in this regard. Richard Field, who grew up down the street from Shakespeare and in very similar circumstances, became one of the leading publishers and booksellers in London. More importantly, he published many of the works his townsman Shakespeare relied on most heavily in composing his plays. Find out more about the connections between these celebrated sons of Stratford in David Kathmans Shakespeare and Richard Field.

Dating the Works

Barksted and Shakespeare Some Oxfordians are not satisfied with claiming that Shakespeares works could have been written before Oxfords death in 1604; they try to turn the tables and argue that the author of Shakespeares works was actually dead many years before William Shakespeares death in 1616. One of their favorite pieces of "evidence" for such a scenario is William Barksteds poem Mirrha, which appears to refer to Shakespeare in the past tense. Since Barksteds poem was published in 1607 -- after Oxfords death but before Shakespeares -- some Oxfordians regard it as a prime piece of evidence for their theory. The problem with such an argument is that it completely ignores the context of Barksteds use of the past tense, both within the poem as a whole and in comparison with other contemporary praise of living poets. When looked at in this context, there is nothing at all unusual about Barksteds usage. Learn more about Barksted, Mirrha, and the meaning of the past tense in Terry Ross and David Kathmans essay Barksted and Shakespeare. Dating The Tempest The biggest stumbling block for the idea that Edward de Vere could have written Shakespeares plays is the fact that he died in 1604, before about a third of the plays were written, according to the standard chronology. Oxfordians reply by claiming that this chronology is mistaken, and that the plays were actually written much earlier than orthodox scholarship supposes. Such a wholesale redating raises a host of questions and ignores strong evidence that several of the later plays, at least, were written well after 1604. Dont take our word for it, though: read David Kathmans essay on dating The Tempest, which presents the remarkably extensive evidence that Shakespeare, in writing this play, was heavily influenced by written accounts of events in Bermuda that happened in 1609-10, at least five years after Oxfords death.

Shakespeare's Eulogies

6 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

One of the most common features of antistratfordian arguments is a claim that the death of William Shakespeare of Stratford went unnoticed in England, in supposed contrast to other prominent men of letters. But this Oxfordian claim, like so many others, is based on a distortion of the facts combined with an ignorance of the necessary context. Contrary to Oxfordian assertions, only socially prominent people such as noblemen were the subject of printed eulogies soon after they died; eulogies for poets and playwrights generally remained in manuscript, often for decades. In Shakespeares Eulogies, David Kathman compares Shakespeare with the most prominent playwrights and poets of the day, and concludes that William Shakespeare was actually the best-memorialized English playwright until Ben Jonson more than 20 years later.

Images of Shakespeare
There are only two portraits of Shakespeare which we can reasonably take as authentic: the monument in Stratfords Holy Trinity Church, and the engraving by Martin Droeshout on the title page of the 1623 First Folio. Antistratfordians have seen all kinds of shady doings and hidden meanings in these portraits, as well as in other "Shakespeare" portraits with less claim to authenticity. Yet these claims, like so much other antistratfordian rhetoric, turn out to be founded on ignorance, misunderstanding, and pure conjecture. Shakespeare's Stratford Monument Shortly after Shakespeares death, a monument was erected to his memory in his home town of Stratford. However, many Oxfordians believe that the monument originally depicted Shakespeare holding a sack, and that it was subsequently altered to depict him as a writer. Their basis for thinking this is an engraving of the monument which appeared in William Dugdales Antiquities of Warwickshire in 1656, and which depicts a monument significantly different from what we see today; Charlton Ogburn writes in The Mysterious William Shakespeare that "there seems scant room for doubt that the subject of the original sculpture was not a literary figure but a dealer in bagged commodities" (p. 213). However, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the Oxfordian scenario. First, read M. H. Spielmanns detailed discussion of the monument, and his demonstrations of the many errors and inconsistencies to be found in seventeenthcentury engravings. Then read David Kathmans discussion of 17th-century references to the monument, which shows that it was always seen as representing a famous poet and not a grain dealer. We have also put up illustrations of both the Stratford monument and Dugdales rendition. The Droeshout Engraving: Why It's Not Queen Elizabeth Antistratfordians since the mid-1800s have found something fishy about the famous Droeshout engraving that graces the title page of the First Folio. In 1995, Lillian Schwartz tried to put a scientific gloss on such speculations when she wrote an article for Scientific American which used computer modelling to suggest that the Droeshout portrait is actually of Queen Elizabeth. But as Terry Ross shows in this article, Schwartzs methods left a lot to be desired, and although her very tentative conclusions have been accepted as gospel by eager antistratfordians, a fresh look shows just how different Shakespeare and Elizabeth were. The Ashbourne Portrait: Why It's Not the Earl of Oxford More than half a century before Schwartz, Oxfordian Charles Wisner Barrell wrote another article for Scientific American, in which he attempted to use X-rays to show that the so-called "Ashbourne Portrait," often taken to be of Shakespeare, is actually a painted-over portrait of the Earl of Oxford. Yet even though Barrells results were conclusively debunked more than 20 years ago, theyre still accepted uncritically by many antistratfordians. Read David Kathmans brief article for the full story.

7 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Manuscripts and Publication

Tudor Aristocrats and the Mythical "Stigma of Print" Oxfordians claim that Edward de Vere could not have been named as the author of Shakespeares works because doing so would have violated the Elizabethan social code, which prohibited aristocrats from having works published under their own names. However, as Steven May points out in his essay, "the alleged code, handy and time-honored as it has become, does not square with the evidence." As May demonstrates, "Tudor aristocrats published regularly." The "stigma of print" is a myth. May does concede that there was for a time a "stigma of verse" among the early Tudor aristocrats, "but even this inhibition dissolved during the reign of Elizabeth until anyone, of whatever exalted standing in society, might issue a sonnet or play without fear of losing status." This essay first appeared in Renaissance Papers. The Survival of Manuscripts Oxfordians find it suspicious that the original manuscripts of Shakespeares plays have not survived. They darkly hint that this is evidence of a coverup, and have even gone so far as to x-ray the Shakespeare monument in Stratford because of a suspicion that the manuscripts may have been hidden inside. (They werent.) But there is nothing the slightest bit suspicious about the absence of Shakespeares manuscripts, since virtually no playhouse manuscripts from that era have survived at all. Read The Survival of Manuscripts by Giles Dawson and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton (taken from their 1965 book Elizabethan Handwriting) for the opinion of two scholars who spent decades examining documents from Shakespeares era. Shakespeare's Hand in Sir Thomas More Even though the original manuscripts of Shakespeares canonical plays have not survived, there is strong evidence that three pages of the manuscript play Sir Thomas More are in Shakespeares hand. This evidence, which cuts across handwriting, spelling, vocabulary, imagery, and more, has persuaded many Shakespeare scholars, but is generally ignored or ridiculed by antistratfordians because accepting it would be a crippling blow for their theories. Read David Kathmans summary of the evidence for Shakespeares hand and judge for yourself.

Oxford the Poet

The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford was a recognized poet in his own day, and Oxfordians make the most of this fact in their attempts to prove that he actually wrote the works of Shakespeare. However, most Oxfordian work in this area involves highly selective use of evidence, and often reveals a distressing lack of knowledge about Elizabethan poetry in general. In this section we critically examine Oxfords surviving poetry and the conclusions Oxfordians have tried to draw from it. Oxford's Literary Reputation Oxford was praised in print as a poet and playwright when he was alive, a fact which Oxfordians understandably try to use to their advantage. In doing so, though, they quote this praise selectively and present it out of context, leading unwary readers to a greatly inflated view of Oxfords reputation as a poet. Terry Rosss essay looks at Oxfords reputation in the actual context of the times, and shows that while Oxfords work had its admirers, nobody seems to have considered him a great poet or playwright. Puttenham on Oxford If Oxford did indeed write the works of Shakespeare, why did he never acknowledge them? Oxfordians

8 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

claim that the works contain dangerous political allegories, and that Oxford could not safely allow them to appear under his own name. Hence, he used the name "Shakespeare." To support this claim, Oxfordians cite George Puttenhams 1589 book, The Arte of English Poesie. However, a close examination of Puttenhams work shows that Oxfordians have relied on doctored evidence, and that Puttenhams actual words contradict the Oxfordian claim. Find out for yourself What Puttenham Really Said About Oxford, and why it matters. This case study of the Oxfordian misuse of evidence was written by Terry Ross; it appeared on the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup, and has been revised for this forum. Parts of the essay criticize the PBS Frontline program "The Shakespeare Mystery," and Frontline has issued a response to which Terry Ross has replied. We have made available the texts of the Response from Frontline -- and a Reply. We have also made the relevant portions of Puttenhams Arte of English Poesie available. Shakespeare, Oxford, and Verbal Parallels Oxfordians have consistently defended the quality of Oxfords poetry, arguing that it is not inconsistent with his later having written the Shakespeare canon. Joseph Sobran has recently gone further, claiming that the verbal parallels he has found constitute proof that the poetry of Oxford and Shakespeare were written by the same person. In Shakespeare, Oxford, and Verbal Parallels, David Kathman examines Sobrans claim and finds it seriously defective, reflecting ignorance of both attribution studies and Elizabethan poetry. Was the Earl of Oxford the True Shakespeare? The Shakespeare Clinic, under the direction of Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza of Claremont-McKenna College in California, was a project which compared Shakespeares poetry with the work of other contemporary poets by means of various objective tests. The goal was to see if any of the claimants poetry matched the Bards, and none did; furthermore, the Earl of Oxford was one of the poorest matches for Shakespeare out of all the poets tested. Read Elliott and Valenzas article on Oxfords candidacy, originally published in Notes and Queries. The Verse Forms of Shakespeare and Oxford Oxfordians from J. Thomas Looney onward have noted that some of the verse forms used by Oxford were also used by Shakespeare, and they have seized upon this coincidence as support for their theories. In The Verse Forms of Shakespeare and Oxford, Terry Ross looks at this issue in detail and shows how badly Oxfordians have distorted the facts in an attempt to exaggerate Oxfords similarity to Shakespeare and his role in the history of English poetry.

Oxfordian Myths
Belief in the Oxfordian story that Shakespeares works were written not by Shakespeare but by the seventeenth Earl of Oxford requires not merely suspending the rules of evidence that would normally be used to establish the authorship of a body of work, but also accepting a set of Oxfordian myths -- tales that are presented as fact but that research shows are simply not true. Some of these myths have been repeated and handed down from Oxfordian to Oxfordian for decades, without any attempt being made to verify them. Here are three essays, each exposing an Oxfordian myth and demonstrating that the Oxfordian faith in them has been misplaced. First Heir of My Invention Shakespeare referred to Venus and Adonis as the "first heir of my invention." Many antistratfordians have been puzzled by the phrase, and have suggested that by "invention," the author must have meant

9 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

"pseudonym"; and thus arose the myth that the phrase means something like "the first product published under my assumed name." The phrase would not have puzzled Shakespeares contemporaries, however, as Terry Ross points out in his essay, since they were familiar with the contemporary habit of referring to works as ones children. Moreover, contemporary writers never used "invention" to mean "pseudonym"; the word referred to the writers wit or imagination. Far from suggesting the use of a pseudonym, Shakespeares use of the phrase "first heir of my invention" tells us that he wrote Venus and Adonis by himself and as himself. The Question Marks in the 1640 Poems In John Bensons 1640 edition of Shakespeares Poems, question marks appear in places where one would expect exclamation points. From this, Oxfordians have decided that Benson must not have thought that Shakespeare was really Shakespeare. Terry Ross has looked at the evidence, however, and shows that in Bensons time question marks were often used as exclamation points. Moreover, Benson nowhere expresses any doubt that the author of the poems was the William Shakespeare whose plays were collected in the First Folio and who died in April of 1616. Burghley as "Polus" For fifty years Oxfordians have contended that strong evidence that the character Polonius in Hamlet was based on Lord Burghley is that Burghleys nickname was "Polus." In this essay Terry Ross traces the "Polus" myth to its sources and reveals that it is absolutely without foundation. He also outlines a fifty year history of Oxfordians parroting and even embellishing the myth without their ever checking to see whether it was true.

Reviews
Shakespeare IN FACT Irvin Leigh Matuss Shakespeare, In Fact (Continuum, 1994) is a good book-length examination of the authorship question, containing thorough demolitions of many Oxfordian claims. Even if youve read the book, check out Thomas A. Pendletons review, which originally appeared in The Shakespeare Newsletter . Not only does Pendleton cogently summarize Matuss arguments, he also adds an excellent discussion of the vast scope of the conspiracy that would have been necessary to conceal Oxfords authorship of the Shakespeare plays. This Star of England In 1953, Dorothy Ogburn and Charlton Ogburn Sr. published This Star of England, a 1300-page Oxfordian tome which was a precursor to their son Charlton Jr.s The Mysterious William Shakespeare thirty years later. Giles Dawsons review of this book for Shakespeare Quarterly provides an excellent summary of the shoddy scholarship and questionable methods which typify so much Oxfordian work. Why I'm not an Oxfordian Charlton Ogburns book The Mysterious William Shakespeare is generally considered the most thorough exposition of the Oxfordian case; it is certainly one of the most passionately argued. However, Ogburn has a distressing tendency to brush aside facts which he finds inconvenient, and to invent or distort other "facts" to suit his purpose; he employs a blatant double standard in evaluating evidence which makes his thesis unfalsifiable. David Kathmans article Why Im Not an Oxfordian, which originally appeared in The Elizabethan Review, looks in detail at some of the many problems with Ogburns book and explains why academic Shakespeareans do not take Ogburn and his Oxfordian brethren seriously.

10 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Joseph Sobran's Alias Shakespeare In 1997, Joseph Sobrans book Alias Shakespeare introduced many newcomers to the Shakespeare authorship question. Written in an accessible style without the bitterness that characterizes some Oxfordian writings, Sobrans book presented a superficially plausible case for Oxfords authorship of Shakespeare. Unfortunately, beneath the glossy surface lies a mass of distortions, half-truths, and contradictions which renders Sobrans book no better as a historical account than other Oxfordian works. David Kathman has written a number of responses to reader queries which discuss some of the major problems with Sobrans book. Here Comes Everybody John Michells Who Wrote Shakespeare? marks a rebirth of the "groupist" view of Shakespearean authorship. Michell thinks that just about everybody ever proposed as a candidate for authorship had his oar in the Avon. Bob Grummans review describes Michells approach, exposes his loose way with the evidence, and corrects several common antistratfordian misreadings. The Oxfordian Hamlet: The Playwright's the Thing In this essay, excerpted from a talk delivered at the Library of Congress, Irvin Matus, the author of Shakespeare IN FACT, discusses the common Oxfordian claim that Hamlet is actually a thinly veiled autobiography of Edward de Vere. Matus points out the weaknesses of the Oxfordian case, and also argues that the Oxfordian approach to the play seeks to diminish its power as a work of art, reducing a profound exploration of the deepest issues that concern us as people to a petty expression of pique.

The Code That Failed: Testing a Bacon-Shakespeare Cipher

Until the 1920s, Francis Bacon was the favorite candidate of those who doubted that Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems that have been attributed to him. The Oxford faction is today the more numerous, but there are still Baconians around. In The Code that Failed, Terry Ross examines the methods of one Baconian, Penn Leary, who claims that he has found cryptographical proof that Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare. We have also made available Penn Learys reply to the piece, as well as Hiawathas Cryptographing, Terry Rosss response to him. In addition we have put up the texts of some UNIX and Perl scripts that were used to test Learys methods.

Funeral Elegy
The 1612 Funeral Elegy by "W.S." has been in the news in recent years, as scholars and other interested readers argued whether it had been written by William Shakespeare; the current scholarly consensus is that the poem was written by John Ford. The case for Shakespeares authorship was made in Donald Fosters 1989 book Elegy by W.S., and in subsequent articles by Foster, Richard Abrams, and others. Time and space do not allow us to present the arguments over the poems authorship here but we can provide the text of the Funeral Elegy itself. There was spirited debate over the elegys authorship on the electronic Shakespeare conference SHAKSPER, and on the newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.Shakespeare. Much of the new evidence which convinced Foster that the Elegy was Shakespeares comes from his lexical database SHAXICON. He wrote an article for the Summer 1995 Shakespeare Newsletter , which, while it did not specifically deal with the Elegy evidence, described the workings of SHAXICON in some detail. Also, read David Kathmans 1996 post to the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup, responding to early Oxfordian criticisms and clearing up some common misunderstandings about Fosters work on the Elegy, as well as a 2002 post on the matter. A number of candidates were proposed as the real author of the Funeral Elegy, including George
11 of 16 15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Chapman, an unnamed member of "a stable of elegy writers", a country parson, Simon Wastell, Sir William Strode, William Sclater, and the 17th Earl of Oxford. John Ford was first suggested in 1996 by Richard J. Kennedy on Shaksper, but it was not until 2002 that the case for Ford was generally considered to be stronger than the case for Shakespeare. The principal arguments in favor of John Fords authorship may be found in Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza. "Smoking Guns, Silver Bullets: Could John Ford Have Written the Funeral Elegy?" Literary and Linguistic Computing 16:205-32 [2001]. Gilles D. Monsarrat "A Funeral Elegy: Ford, W.S., and Shakespeare" in The Review of English Studies 53:186-203 [May 2002]. Here is an abstract of Monsarrats essay. Brian Vickers, Counterfeiting Shakespeare: Evidence, Authorship and John Ford's "Funerall Elegye". Here is the publishers description of the book. After Monsarrats essay appeared, Foster and Abrams conceded that the case for Ford was now stronger than the case for Shakespeare. Ward E.Y. Elliott and Robert J. Valenza have put their own account of the matter online: "So Much Hardball, So Little of it Over the Plate: Conclusions from our Debate with Donald Foster."

Bardlinks Elsewhere on the Web

Shakespeares Works Complete Works (from MIT) Internet Shakespeare Editions provides old-spelling editions of Quarto and Folio texts, plus lots of information about Shakespeare and his life and times. Search Engine for Collected Works David Kathmans Biographical Index of English Drama Before 1660 is a draft list of all people known to have been involved with theater in England between 1558 and 1642. Collections of Shakespeare Links Terry A. Grays Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet: in addition to the most comprehensive guide to Shakespearean resources on the internet, this indispensable site also includes many documents relating to Shakespeare that are available nowhere else on the web, such as an annotated version of Nicholas Rowes 1709 biography. Find more links to material by and about Shakespeare (and a great many other writers of the English Renaisance and 17th Century) at the Voice of the Shuttle Since 1990, scholars and common readers have discussed the works and life of Shakespeare on the SHAKSPER mailing list, which is edited by Hardy M. Cook. Oxfords Writings Alan Nelson has put up a great deal of information about the 17th earl of Oxford including transcriptions of his letters and memoranda, an analysis of his spelling habits, and information about his trip to Italy. (Of related interest is our list of the annotations in Oxfords Bible.) In addition, Nelson has also made available new evidence of the relationship between Shakespeare and Sir George Buc, the Master of Revels from 1610 to 1622. Versions of Poems by Oxford (and others) were inexpertly edited by J. Thomas Looney. Caveat lector . General Discussions of Authorship A fine survey is provided by the Wikipedia article Shakespeare authorship question. Links to websites of the candidates may be found on the Authorship Debates page of J. M. Pressleys Shakespeare Resource Center John George Robertsons 1911 essay "The Shakespeare-Bacon Theory" appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica and has been put online by TheatreHistory.com Ward Elliott tells the history of The Shakespeare Clinic, a project that used stylometric methods to investigate the authorship of Shakespeares works.

12 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Using stylometrics, Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza calculate the odds against Oxfords having written Shakespeare in Oxford by the Numbers In Two Tough Nuts to Crack, Elliott and Valenza test whether their methods support the view that Shakespeare contributed to Sir Thomas More and Edward III. Irvin Leigh Matus s site WillyShakes.com contains several essays on the authorship of Shakespeares works. Steven Dutch, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, believes that antistratfordianism is at best a Pseudoscience. Clark Holloways Shakespeare page includes a look at The Authorship "Problem" James Boyle blends law and literature in The Search for an Author: Shakespeare and the Framers Diana Price argues in her new book Shakespeares Unorthodox Biography that he was not a writer. Alan Nelson has responded to Price. The Wikipedia includes an entry on Shakespearean authorship Alan Haley describes a moot court Authorship Debate between supporters of Shakespeare and of Oxford. Brad Strickland asks Who Wrote Shakespeare?, and answers, "Shakespeare did." Amanda J. Crawford reviews Irvin Matuss Shakespeare, IN FACT Authorship is also a popular topic on the newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. After the release of Shakespeare in Love, the authorship of Shakespeares works became a topic at Mr. Cranky The topic sometimes arises on a German Shakespeare Forum Authorship issues are often discussed in The Elizabethan Review, a twice-yearly journal edited by Gary Goldstein. The Shakespeare Authorship Rountable does not endorse any alternative candidate -- but theyre pretty sure the author was someone other than Shakespeare. Ian Chadwick goes In Search of the Real Bard Meg Greene Malvasi asks, Did He or Didnt He? at the History for Children site. Polly Rance reviews John Michells Who Wrote Shakespeare? . . . as does Jim Loy on his book review page. Nigel Davies offers an authorship Q&A at Who Wrote Shakespeare? Summarizes the case against Oxford at Why Oxford wasnt Shakespeare Shows how angrams can be used to "prove" just about anything at Shakespeare Ciphers From Austria, Patricia Hoda asks Wer war Shakespeare? T. L. Hubeart looks briefly at The Shakespeare Authorship Question A site for schools in Urbana, Ohio, asks Who Wrote Shakespeare? From Richard Stockton College, a brief listing of points for and against Shakespeares authorship of his works. Libby Maia asks, Were There Two Shakespeares? Barbara Rosson Davis describes her screenplay about the authorship of Shakespeares works. Oxford The founding tract of Oxfordianism is J. Thomas Looneys 'Shakespeare' Identified in Edward de Vere the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. The Shakespeare Oxford Society Home Page is the principal Oxfordian web site. The Oxfordian Shakespeare Fellowship site includes essays from the groups magazine Shakespeare Matters. English Oxfordians have the de Vere Society. Mark Alexanders Shakespeare Authorship Sourcebook, an Oxfordian survey of materials related to Shakespeare and Oxford. Nina Greens Oxford Authorship Site credits Edward de Vere with being not merely himself and Shakespeare but also Martin Marprelate, Thomas Nashe, and Robert Greene. The Oxfordian musings of Randall Barron total 31 brief chapters (so far).

13 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

The Oxfordian case was promoted by the PBS Frontline program, "The Shakespeare Mystery." In 1991, the Oxfordian case was debated in The Atlantic Monthly In 1999, the Oxfordian case was debated in Harper's magazine. A number of pieces by the late Oxfordian Charlton Ogburn Jr. are available online: The Man Shakespeare Was Not | Shakespeares Self-Portrait | Interview with Charlton Ogburn | Shakespeare and the Fair Youth Mark Andersons obituary of Ogburn. Joseph Sobran sprinkles his Oxfordian writings with laments that he doesnt get enough respect from Shakespearean scholars: The Problem of the Funeral Elegy | Bible holds proof of Shakespeares identity | Shakespeares Disgrace | The Mystery of Emaricdulfe | David Kathman and the "Historical Record" | The Bards Orphans Sobrans Oxfordian tract Alias Shakespeare has been reviewed by Jeffrey Gantz Favorable comments about Sobrans book by Kathleen van Schaijik led to a lively online discussion. Richard Whalens Shakespeare: Who Was He? The Oxford Challenge to the Bard of Avon is reviewed by Paul Franssen. Peter Morton reviews two novels promoting the Oxfordian view and also Denis Barons De Vere is Shakespeare Ruth Loyd Miller has republished some of the basic Oxfordian tracts. David Ropers Shakespeare Story holds that ciphers in Shakespeares monument point to Oxford as the "real" author of Shakespeares works. Robert Brazil has put up OXPIX, a page of "images relevant to the Shakespeare-Oxford debate" as well as chapters from his book The True Story of the Shakespeare Publications Dennis Hirsch thinks The Mystery of Shake-speares Sonnets goes away if Oxford is assumed to be the real author. Barbara Van Duyn asks the unmusical question Shakespeare, Earl of Oxford? Time magazines Howard Chua-Eoan wonders whether Oxford was The Bards Beard. Paige Norris ponders The Shakespearean Controversy The Seattle Times covered a 1997 debate between Joseph Sobran and Alan Nelson. (You may have to register to view this article, but there is no charge to do so). L. James Hammond offers a summary of the Oxfordian case quarried from Ogburn. Oxfordian Eric Altschuler thinks Hamlet contains a Cosmic Clue to Bards Identity, according to Constance Holden. Volker Multhopp thought Oxford collaborated on the Shakespeare plays with John Lyly; his Small Shakespeare Authorship Page included a response to David Kathmans Dating the Tempest [Note: Multhopps pages are no longer maintained, but they are available at these links via the Wayback Archive.] Nina Green has also prepared a response to David Kathman John Rolletts notion that the dedication to Shakespeare's Sonnets contains Oxfordian cryptograms was discussed in Chance News. Old Arcadia has a pretty (and pretty unreliable) Oxfordian site. A. C. Challinor is also an Oxfordian-centered groupist. His publishers website classifies his book The Alternative Shakespeare as fiction. Oxford was a twig on the deVere Family Tree, though that does not mean he was Shakespeare. Lazy students might want to peek at this sample Oxfordian term paper. A Geronimo Reviewer supports Oxford. Amie Ader sees a case for Oxford in The Great Conspiracy Joseph Eldredge thinks Oxford may have had Marthas Vineyard in mind as the setting fot The Tempest. Introduce schoolchildren to Oxfordianism by playing Who Was Shakespeare? A Mock Trial Nicole Blank, a 9th grader at Willits (California) High School, asks, Is Shakespeare A Fraud?

14 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Oxfordianism is all the rage at Californias Carmel Shake-speare Festival, but the local paper isnt convinced. The Ojai Shakespeare Festival also seems interested in Oxfordianism. The Edward de Vere Studies Conference is held every April at Concordia University in Portland OR. Oxfordianism in Italy: was the name "Shakespeare" actually the pseudonimo del poeta e drammaturgo Edward de Vere? Norma Howes Blue Avenger Cracks the Code presents the exploits of a teen-aged Oxfordian superhero. The Oxfordian Stephanie Caruana has written a play to promote her views. Jerry Feys Oxfordian fantasy Oxfords Will has been performed by the Colony Theater in Los Angeles. Francis Bacon The principal Baconian site is Shake-n-Bacon Another handsome Baconian site: Lawrence Geralds Sir Francis Bacons New Advancement of Learning Is Shakespeare Dead? is a classic Baconian text by Mark Twain. Was Twains book the product of plagiarism? Read contemporary news accounts from the New York Times: May 1, 1909 | June 9, 1909 | June 10, 1909 | June 11, 1909 Read Twains friend and biographer Albert Bigelow Paine on Shakespeare-Bacon Talk and "Is Shakespeare Dead?" Walt Whitman wrote a poem on the Baconian controversy. A classic response to Baconism is Andrew Langs 1912 book, Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown. Penn Leary has written extensively on the Baconian ciphers he finds in Shakespeares works. Leary died on March 9th, 2005. Mather Walker invites you to download an acrostic-anagrammatic Bacon cipher Another person interested in Baconian ciphers is Kevin Scott Boomsma, a student in a cryptography seminar at the University of Illinois Chicago. Virginia Fellows believes that secrets are hidden behind Bacon and Shakespeare Cyphers. Baconian Grant Scicluna is sure that William Shakespeare Did Not Exist Francis Carr insists that Bacon was not only Shakespeare but also Cervantes. Jerome Harner, a Baconian, explains why he is not an Oxfordian Brian Jarvis thinks a collaboration between Shakespeare and Bacon may explain everything. Marlowe Claims for Marlowes authorship of Shakespeares works may be found at the Marlowe Society Another Marlovian site: Peter Fareys A Deception in Deptford A. D. Wraight also believes in Marlowe. John Baker is responsible for the Marlowe/Shakespeare School of Thought Emporium. Jean Jofen thinks that Marlowe was Jewish and that he also wrote the Martin Marprelate tracts when he wasnt writing the works of Shakespeare (she thinks Bacon and Oxford helped Marlowe be the bard). Carolyn Gage has very personal reasons for supporting Marlowe Other Candidates John Raithel looks into the possibility that the works were penned by William Stanley, the sixth Earl of Derby Patrick Buckridge puts his money on Sir Edward Dyer. Would you believe the Earl of Rutland? Ilya Gililov does, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Gililovs work has been reviewed (in Russian) by Anna Bernikova and by Boris Kuzminsky Joanne Ambrose believes Shakespeares works were written by Edmund Campion.

15 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07

Shakespeare Authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

Was Shakespeare Sicilian? See Antonio Casas news account of Martino Iuvaras notion (would it surpise anyone to learn that Iuvara himself is Sicilian?). Iuvaras idea was considered newsworthy by the Times of London. Peter Zenner thinks somebody named William Pierce was not only Shakespeare but also Edmund Spenser, John Donne, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, John Milton and many others. Henry Neville Brenda James bills herself "the sole originator and copyright owner of the Henry Neville as Shakespeare theory. Bruce Leyland and James Goding agree with her Mal Haysom, on the other hand, begs to differ. Nor does Tom Veal buy the Neville notion. Who REALLY wrote the works of Molire? Hint: it wasnt Oxford or Bacon or Marlowe or even Corneille. Thanks to Seven Wonders for naming the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP Home Page the Site of the Day on April 23, 1996. This page is managed by David Kathman and Terry Ross. We thank all our visitors, and we invite your comments.

16 of 16

15-01-2014 11:07