Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:49, 28 November 2005

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays conventionally attributed to William Shakespeare.

Oxfordians prefer to distinguish between Shakespeare, which they consider a pen name for the author of the plays, and Shaksper the actor from Stratford-on-Avon who also lived at the approximate time that the plays were written. Oxfordians call those who hold that the Stratford actor was also the author of Shakespeare's plays Stratfordians.

Overview

First proposed by John Looney in 1920, Oxford is presently the most popular of several anti-Stratfordian candidates for the real Shakespeare. Oxfordians base their arguments on striking similarities between Lord Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays. He was, for example, the son-in-law of Lord Burghley, who is sometimes regarded as the model for Polonius. His own daughter was engaged to Henry Wriothesley, the dedicatee of Shakespeare's narrative poems, at the time that most believe the first of the Sonnets were written. Many believe Wriothesley to have been the Fair Lord of the Sonnets. The acclaim of his contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his closeness to Queen Elizabeth I and Court life, underlined passages in his Bible that correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays, parallel phraseology and similarity of thought in his extant letters and acknowledged poetry (Fowler 1986), and his extensive education and intelligence are all cited as evidence in support of his authorship.

The problem of dating

For Stratfordians, the most obvious objection to Oxfordian theory is that Oxford died in 1604, while at least eleven Shakespeare plays are conventionally believed to date from after that period. For example, The Tempest is considered by most mainstream scholars to have been inspired by a description of a shipwreck written in 1610 , while Henry VIII was described as a new play in 1613. Oxfordians respond by arguing that the conventional dates for the plays are mistaken.

Was Oxford known as a secret poet?

Anonymous and pseudonymous publication was indisputably a common practice in the sixteenth century publishing world, and Oxford was known as a dramatist and court poet of considerable note. In 1598, Francis Meres referred to him in his Palladis Tamia as among the "best for comedy," but no examples of his comic drama survive under his name.

Oxfordians believe that the most important contemporary reference to Oxford's poetry is that of the anonymous author of Arte of English Poesie (1589), the leading work of literary criticism of the Elizabethan period, which alludes to the practice of concealed publication by literary figures in the court:

"I know very many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably, and suppressed it again, or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it: as if it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem learned" (37).

According to Oxfordians, Oxford is prominently mentioned as one of those whose work was concealed:

"And in her majesty's time that now is are sprong up another crew of courtly makers, Noblemen and Gentlemen of her Majesty's own servants, who have written commendably well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble gentleman Edward Earl of Oxford" (75).

The publication goes on to list several other aristocratic poets. Oxfordians believe that this passage supports their claim that Oxford was the most prominent anonymous creative writer of the day.

Opponents argue that the passage actually says the opposite: it states that there are anonymous poets whose identities have not been 'found out and made public with the rest', but then lists 'the rest' of the aristocratic authors whose names have been 'made public'. Oxford thus appears in the list of known and acknowledged authors, which also includes Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Ralegh, Fulke Greville and other well-known names. According to this reading, Oxford appears first, not because he is the most important author, but because he has the highest social rank. Far from being evidence that Oxford concealed his creative writing, the passage is evidence that he was open about it, as is the very fact that he was publicly named by Meres and the author of the Arte of English Poesy.

Other arguments against Oxfordian theory

Aside from the problem of his date of death, supporters of the standard view further dispute all of the contentions in favor of Lord Oxford. In particular, they assert that the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural; that the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest ; and that the markings in his Geneva Bible show little or no connection to Shakespeare's use of the Bible..

External links

Oxfordian

• Shakespeare Oxford Society home page
• Joseph Sobran's Shakespeare Library
• The Shakespeare Fellowship
  • A Beginner's Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Problem
  • Oxfordian reviews of Alan H. Nelson's orthodox biography of Oxford, Monstrous Adversary (2001)
• Dr. Michael Delahoyde's summary of Oxfordian theory

Orthodox

• The Shakespeare Authorship Page
  • Why I'm Not an Oxfordian by David Kathman
  • The Ashbourne Portrait: Why It's Not the Earl of Oxford
• The Bard's Beard - A Time Article
• Arguments against Oxford's Authorship by Irvin Leigh Matus
• Original-spelling transcripts of Edward de Vere's letters prepared by Dr. Alan H. Nelson (an Oxford biographer not supportive of Oxfordian Theory)

• Shakespearean authorship