It would be logical to ask: If Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the real author of the great Shakespearean plays, poems, and sonnets--as we Oxfordians contend--then how did William Shakespeare get the credit for them?
Well, "William Shakespeare" was merely a pseudonym that de Vere utilized.
But to fully answer this question (in the Oxfordian way, of course), it needs to be looked at from two angles: a close examination of the pseudonym itself, and of why Oxford would have used it.
WHAT: The name "William Shake-speare," with a hyphen, began appearing on manuscripts in the same year that de Vere's name stopped appearing on them. And hyphens were rarely used back in the day, so some believe that is a sure sign that it's an alias. Also: it's quite an "a-ha!" moment to discover that de Vere's family crest had in it a lion SHAKING a SPEAR! A coincidence? Perhaps; some Oxfordians think that de Vere may have just known the real Shakespeare and borrowed the name.
WHY: Why would a man not take credit for the greatest works of literature in the world? There are a number of speculated reasons. Back then, playwrights were NOT the most respected people in the realm, and he may have been protecting his reputation. Furthermore, Shakespearean plays were hardly polite, and this would certainly have caused problems for the nobleman. There are some more scandalous theories, including one that claims de Vere wrote much of his work as love-notes to his son-in-law! A homosexual affair in the Elizabethan was criminal. Some nitpicky Stratfordians ask: If the pseudonym was only to protect the man's reputation, then why not reveal his the true identity after his death--why prolong the charade? Oxfordians cite a number of possible--and incredibly juicy--reasons, all conerning the protection of those who were still alive. Maybe de Vere was Queen Elizabeth I's son? De Vere may have committed suicide, which would have created enough problems for his family in an era when heirs of people who killed themselves were harshly punished.
The case for a pseudonym, when taken alongside the case against William Shakespeare as the "true author," already make quite a compelling Oxfordian case, no?
About Me
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Oh man! This is craziness. Good job!! This was totally thorough and also entertaining. The only suggestion I make is to remember to add some quotes here and there, in the actual paper, from "ye Oxfordians".
I'm glad you think it's so interesting, because it totally blows me away!
Wow...i know this is a delayed comment but you deserve it because you have really engrossed me in your topic in these blog posts. You have some really fascinating details on your hands to run with. And your overalll writing is fabulous, from what I can tell.
When writing your essay, the way you organize your hard evidence, like your quotes, and the theoretical suggestions will be extremely important. My suggestion would be to collaborate them in paragraphs. For example: introducing one theory or two about shakespeare's existance/non-existance and then back it up with some interesting fact/confuddling historical evidence. Just make sure you synthesize the two, because the way you organize your ideas is half the battle.
thanks for the advice, jaime!
Post a Comment