Search & Browse

Play advocating Edward de Vere's authorship of Shakespeare's works.

Poem.

Analyzes the function of the play-within-a-play in Midsummer Night's Dream and Hamlet.

Discusses the significance of Delia Bacon's scholarship on the Shakespeare authorship question and the reception of her "unreadable" book, The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded (1857). Concludes that Bacon "wrote about Shakespeare authorship as a poet or novelist rather than as a literary or historical scholar" and that, reading her scholarship as anything but "fiction, fantasy or romance," "we can only conclude that it remains . . . a scholarship without content, an argument without conclusion and a history without evidence."

Takes the 1853 meeting between Francis Bacon scholar James Spedding and Shakespeare authorship scholar Delia Bacon as a starting point to tell "the story of the case for Bacon [as Shakespeare's true identity], and [to] asses[s] the evidence that it forwarded."

Describes the history of scholarship pointing to Christopher Marlowe as Shakespeare's true identity and assesses the evidence cited by proponents of this claim.

Provides a biography of Edward de Vere and an overview of scholarship connected to the Oxfordian movement. Critiques the evidence for De Vere's authorship of Shakespeare's works, as well as the representation of the theory in Roland Emmerich's Anonymous (q.v.).

Analyzes the methodology of several anti-Stratfordians promoting lesser-known identities for Shakespeare, focusing on the tendency of these scholars to approach the authorship question under the assumption that Shakespeare is a pseudonym "without ensuring that the premise is corroborated by data." States that "the goal of [the] chapter [is] to exploit methodology and use it as a way in--a means to synthesize the myriad of other, lesser candidates of the authorship discussion," analyzing obscure arguments concerning the identity of Shakespeare and "mak[ing] clear just how each argument does not stand up to historical fact and/or rationality."

Discusses how incomplete knowledge of early modern authors' lives, though not unusual, can lead to skepticism about authorship, and how knowledge about early modern writing practices can dispel misinformed views of authorship. Concludes that despite the lack of detailed knowledge about Shakespeare and his contemporaries, "we can be certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that early modern authors did not ever pretend to be other people."

Lists early modern allusions to Shakespeare, arguing that this evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is indeed responsible for the Shakespeare canon.