The more research I do, the more I'm convinced that it was not Shakespeare the man who wrote Shakespearean works, but Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. And that makes me quite the Anti-Stratfordian-slash-Oxfordian individual. (The Oxfordian designation most likely comes from the fact that de Vere was the Earl of Oxford.)
One of the strongest arguments for my point of view consists of disproving the Stratfordian argument - proving that Shakespeare couldn't have written the literature attributed to him.
The evidence is compelling: Shakespeare, born Shakspere, was the son of a tradesman who was probably illiterate. He only had a grammar school education, and presumably had no way of possessing the knowledge of foreign places, foreign languages, music, medicine, astronomy, court life, and other sophisticated things that are often referred to in his writing. He was a commoner, and was most likely quite ignorant. Furthermore, there exists no documentation that Shakspere ever wrote anything, at all.
Many Stratfordians (the name probably comes from the fact that they believe in Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon) try to make this out to be a snobbish argument, and ask why a common man can't write great works. But the Oxfordians believe the exact opposite. They (we) claim that it is hardly democratic to tell students and writers and anyone who reads Shakespeare that the only reason he was able to write so well was because he was born with genius. And there's no hope for anyone else to write in such a way unless they, too, are born with such genius. If Oxford (or any other thoroughly educated and worldly person, for that matter) was actually the true author, then there is hope for the rest of us: with the right education, we too could write like Shakespeare.
So, in conclusion, I confess my loyalty to the most unpopular of academic beliefs: the Oxfordian, Anti-Stratfordian point of view. The "Con" is my "Pro."
About Me
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Fascinating! I can see why it is disappointing to doubt Shakespeare, as he is like the superstar of literature--engimatic & decidedly genius. I am curious to understand how, despite so much evidence against him, Shakespeare could have gotten so much credit and fame for his plays in the first place.
Good point! So far, it may seem like Shakepeare was a shady character who somehow got his name all over great works of literature that he did not write. But, if you were to believe the Oxfordian theory, it was actually de Vere who wasn't completely honest--he wrote under the pseudonym of "William Shake-speare." More on this to come!
Wow, this definitley brings up a lot of questions and curiousity. Perhaps, if you haven't already done so, you should look into the kind of people who believe in the Oxfordian theory and who believe in the Stratfordian theory, this will probably help you gain more understanding of where both points of view are coming from.
Good point, Jaimie, and that has definitely come up in my research. Most professors trust in the almost-sacred Stratfordian theory, but there are also scholars--including Shakespeareans!--who believe in the Oxfordian theory.
Post a Comment