You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Richard Waugaman challenges the nearly universal assumption that “Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare,” arguing instead that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, is a more likely candidate for this honor. How can such a critical issue be a matter of dispute?
To begin with, William Shakespeare (or “Shakespere” as Waugaman prefers) of Stratford-upon-Avon did not sign the manuscripts of his plays, which were not published in collected form until 1623, a full 7 years after his death. In addition, we know very little about his life, much of which remains a matter of conjecture. There is no incontrovertible evidence to link him to the authorship of the plays, yet there is general agreement that the son of a rural glove merchant penned works of extraordinary eloquence and power. Waugaman finds this assumption ill-founded and uncritical—a matter of belief (supported by the academic establishment) rather than fact.
What does Edward de Vere have going for him? For starters, he was far better educated than Shakespere, who may (at best) have attended the local Stratford-upon-Avon grammar school—whose records of attendance have been lost. The plays show familiarity with aristocratic life, which de Vere would have known more intimately than Shakespere. Also, de Vere traveled extensively in Italy, the location of several of Shakespeare's plays. And finally, some details in the plays may be linked to events in Oxford's life. Like Othello, for instance, he experienced the pangs of jealousy in his marriage to Anne, the daughter of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who raised him in his household. Presumably, de Vere satirized the aging Burghley as the foolish Polonius in Hamlet.
Arguments based on identifications of characters in Shakespeare's plays with historic figures are as conjectural as the links between William Shakespere of Stratford and the author of Shakespeare's plays. Where does that leave us? On what basis do we form our commitments and how do we defend them?
Waugaman suggests tha