AS YOU DON’T LIKE IT
Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare.
By
JEFFREY HOWARD ROWE
Copyright 2011 Jeffrey Howard Rowe
Smashwords Edition.
SMASHWORDS EDITION, LICENSE NOTES:
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Dedicated to the Professors of Shakespeare, the ones who still profess that it was the man from Stratford Upon Avon.
AUTHOR'S SPECIAL NOTE:
The true story of the real authorship of the works under the name of William Shakespeare has been known for many years now. However, many professors, whom are considered the beacons of knowledge on the topic, have ridiculed the very notion out of importance. Thus, I have chosen their own style, as I ridicule them back.
INTRODUCTION
Admit it. You don’t like “conspiracy theorists.” You think those people are ‘trying to get attention’ or ‘going against the grain’ and ‘being difficult.’ They undermine the very culture that you are proud to be a part of and you don’t like that.
You don’t like to read that Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles and just about every great mind that looked into the ‘Shakespeare authorship issue’ came to the conclusion that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare.
You don’t like how the people who know the story of the Earl of Oxford get so much more out of the plays. We get to marvel at how much alike Edward De Vere is to Romeo, Hamlet, Othello, Prince Hal, Timon of Athens, Antonio, King Leontes, Bertram and King Lear, while you are left merely to analyze the style and label the techniques: ‘Pentameter’ ‘Iambic’ ‘Stanza’ ‘Couplet’ ‘Rhymed Couplet.’ You think Shakespeare’s emotional content is the stuff ‘made up’ for the stage, while we know it is what Eminem calls music, ‘a reflection of self.’
The fullness of Edward De Vere’s experiences completely matches the fullness of the range of emotions articulated in Shakespeare’s plays and poems. Completely. There are hundreds and hundreds of specific similarities. You don’t like that, because you can’t explain it. It makes far too much sense and ruins your nonsense.
You don’t like this quote, by Francis Meres, in 1598, nearly a decade into the supposed Shakespeare’s career. “So the best for comedy amongst us bee, Edward Earle of Oxenforde.”
You don’t like it that pennames were very commonplace in these times, largely due to the danger of defaming royalty. Further, you don’t like that Oxford was related to, or surrounded on all sides by, THE people in power, both in Queen Elizabeth’s time and in King James’ time. It strengthens the theory of ‘cover-up’ and weakens your theory of…oh, I’m sorry, you don’t have any biographical theory.
You don’t like that the two reigning Lord Treasurers during Oxford’s lifetime were his father-in-law and his brother-in-law. One had a crooked, humped back and walked with a limp, like Richard III, and both were chief counselor to the Queen, like Polonius, in Hamlet. Both became wealthy by seizing ruling power (banking and covert intelligence) from the Nobleman they grew up around.
You don’t like this quote about them from father Francis Edwards. “For at least fifty years-until 1612-England was virtually ruled and with remarkable consistency and effectiveness, by Sir William Cecil and Sir Robert Cecil, his son. As principal secretaries, they had all the power necessary to preserve or destroy for posterity the materials of future history that lay in public hands. As Masters of the court of wards, they had similar opportunities to deal, sooner or later, with the private records of a great many leading families."
And you especially don’t like the fact that when people hear the story of Edward De Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, descendant of the most unmentioned by Shakespeare, powerful, royal family in Feudal English history, as author of the plays that glorify this very time, they sit up straight, their nostrils flare and their blood starts moving through veins faster toward earlobes.
Why? Because it’s that age old sound that gets lost in modern culture, with all of the ads and toys and games. It’s the wonderful sound of truth.
You don’t like the fact that you stand out as special, because you understand Shakespeare and now it’s possible that you don’t understand Shakespeare. The reason you don’t like that is because that means you have work to do. You don’t like that. You’ve already done plenty. It’s not fair to you that people of the ‘google generation’ get to be fast-forwarded right to the good stuff, while you suffered endless instruction from someone who also didn’t understand Shakespeare.
Professors of Shakespeare, it’s time you looked into The Earl of Oxford and it’s time you read the plays a little differently. It doesn’t matter whether you can describe and categorize the author’s tools and techniques or write masterful essays, examining the emotional dimensions of his words.
It matters that you know WHY he wrote it.
Why write I still, all one, ever the same
and keep invention in a noted weed,
that every word doth almost tell my name,
showing their birth and where they did proceed?”
SONNET 76
Many professors, scholars and everyday Stratfordians are fine with not asking WHY and I wrote this book because I DON’T LIKE THAT. Truth tastes good, even if it’s force-fed.
So, here it goes, Stratfordians, as you don’t like it…
TWAIN
"All the rest of [Shakespeare's] vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures — an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts."
EMERSON
"Other admirable men had led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought, but this man in wide contrast."
CHAPLIN
"In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare.... Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude."
DICKENS
"It is a great comfort, to my way of thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. The life of Shakespeare is a fine mystery and I tremble every day lest something turn up."
WHITMAN
"Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism — only one of the 'wolfish earls' so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works."
ORSON WELLES
“I think the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays. If you don’t, there are some awful funny coincidences to explain away.”
JAQUES, in As You Like It.
“All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”
“My name be buried where my body is” sonnet 72
“Do not so much as my poor name rehearse” sonnet 71
“Remember not the hand that writ it” sonnet 71
“Your name from hence immortal life shall have,
though I, once gone, to all the world must die” sonnet 81
“Thy love is better than high birth to me” sonnet 91
MARK ANTONY
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones
GLOSSARY:
Stratfordian: Pretender.
Oxfordian: Genuine Article.
Chapter 1
THE FIGHT IS OVER
If you are someone who does not know about the authorship issue concerning the writings of William Shakespeare, you are quickly forgiven.
If you know about it and you don’t care to look into it, you are nearly forgiven.
If you love Shakespeare’s plays and poems and you take offense to the idea that they might have been written by someone other than him, you are hereby challenged.
If you have heard any of the specifics of the events of the Earl of Oxford’s life, mixed with the strange circumstances of the publishing of the plays, and you refuse to acknowledge its importance, you are on high alert.
If you are a professor at a college, entrusted with opening the minds of the youth, while privately you have closed yours, I’m sorry, but you are a fool.
And you are exactly who the joke is on.
You simply need to read about Edward De Vere. Then, if you still don’t get it, you're still the fool. Read it until you get it. Like a Rorschach painting, just keep staring. You’ll see it. It is blunt face obvious when you look at the characters that surround Edward De Vere, mixed with his time spent in Italy and abroad. The Earl of Oxford's life story is so similar to the plots, circumstances and mindset of Shakespeare’s writings that anybody should marvel at its mirror image. It’s as though the Earl of Oxford lived the life that is put into ink, over the several hundreds of thousands of Shakespeare’s words. Add to that the notion that his name was totally obscure to the public eye, until 1920.
In 1920, a science teacher from England applied a ‘scientific approach’ to finding a likely candidate for the authorship of the plays. He figured if the prank was pulled off with such mastery by 1593, then the same writer was possibly writing under his own name, earlier than that. He went back to the 1570’s, wherein he applied a mathematical matchup of Sonnet style to the writers just one generation ahead of William Shakespeare. Boom! There he was. The Earl of Oxford. Once he found this obscure Earl, he started looking for notations in the historical records of the time, finding quotes about him, from peers, colleagues and kinsman. What he discovered was a very 'bad boy,' like Hamlet, with an obviously incredible talent for writing plays, in a time when pennames were completely necessary. In 1589, the very year Shakespeare is reported to have arrived in London, the following was written.
1589 - The Arte of English Poesie, by George Puttenham
“And in her Majesties time that now is are sprong up an other crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Majesties owne servantes, who have written excellently well as it would appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford.”
In the years leading up to 1593, the year the name William Shakespeare is first assigned to a published work, De Vere was in ownership of a company of players. The Earl of Oxford’s Men were highly active in putting on plays and he also owned the lease of a small playhouse, the Boar’s Head Inn, at Aldgate. Ironically, The Boar’s Head Inn is the name of the pub in Henry IV. The star of Henry IV, Prince Henry (or Prince Hal), is considered a very autobiographical character of the Earl, because it is a character in line for the throne, who hangs out with bums and boozers, exactly like the Earl of Oxford. There are no plays that survived under De Vere's name. Yet, time and again, for a span of many, many years, Oxford is listed as first among the writers, first amongst the players and first amongst the popularity of the people. Thirty-three publications are dedicated to him, expounding on what an amazing and generous lord he was. Yet, the official story of England passes him totally by.
Very telling are the letters Oxford wrote to his father-in-law, the most powerful man in the country, whom was his guardian, whom controlled his fortune, whom pushed him into marrying his fifteen-year-old daughter (think Juliet), while he kept all of his family wealth from him, which led him to borrow money, which led to his financial demise. You should read the way 'Shakespeare' smartasses and condescends (like Hamlet to Polonius) the most powerful man in the country. That father-in-law is William Cecil and he is only one character, with several circumstances, situations and characteristics that arise in many of Shakespeare’s plots. There are myriads more.
When all of these autobiographical elements are conveyed to committed Stratfordians, it really gets them talking stupid. Even though they admit that they know nothing about small-town Shaksper or his motives for such intricate, thought-provoking passages, they immediately start denying the Oxfordian parallels, rather than keep listening. A truly open mind would take in all of the information and seek more. They call them scholars.
A typical cocktail debate goes like this.
OXFORDIAN: "Did you know that Edward De Vere's mom remarried two months after his father's death, just the way Hamlet goes on about?"
STRATFORDIAN: "It doesn't mean he wrote the plays."
OXFORDIAN: "You know he had three daughters, who inherited his estate while he was still alive, like King Lear, and he lost all of his money borrowing against the sale of his lands, like Timon of Athens?"
STRATFORDIAN: "It doesn't mean he wrote the plays."
OXFORDIAN: "He falsely accused his wife of infidelity, like A Winter's Tale. He and his servants fought in the streets against another noble family and their servants, over a hot love affair, like Romeo and Juliet."
STRATFORDIAN: "Check, please."
Stratfordians and Stratfordian professors usually embody some special sort of defensiveness that could be considered its own art form of denial. They wear their Shakespearean knowledge like a badge of intellectual superiority, with a confidence that is slowly eroding around them. They have adopted Shakespeare’s words as their own 'calling-card' of intellectual power and they tremble at the thought that a different face will now grace the works, making them look like the ‘Emperor who wears no biography.’
Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford is laughing at them, alongside those 'vilest worms' he dwells with. I mean, why wouldn’t he be laughing heartily, from the grave? He uses a real guy’s name as his penname, to give the prank its long-lastingness, yet he knows that one day we will discover that the name he used belonged to a guy who couldn’t read or write. He knew that the ‘genuine articles’ would see it and the ‘pretenders’ would not. That’s a four hundred year funny.
Go read about Edward De Vere and then go read Timon of Athens, a play almost no one talks about. It's main character is a generous lord, who throws parties and banquets, daily, while many men come to him for money, so they can pursue some literary, artistic or scientific enterprise; a mirror image of Edward De Vere's life of benevolence. Eventually, Timon goes flat broke, borrowing against the sale of his lands, another mirror image of the life of Edward De Vere. For all practical purposes, the royal family fortune that history says Edward De Vere squandered actually created and financed the Elizabethan era of plays and literature we all still marvel at today. He ran a troupe of young actors (like Hamlet discusses) called Oxford's Boys and they eventually became THE LORD CHAMBERLAINS MEN (the company that Shakespeare is listed as spending most of his career with).
Go read about Edward De Vere and then read the play All’s Well That Ends Well. It is a play about a common woman who is in love with a nobleman and tries everything to win his love, including a 'bed-trick.' By marrying her, he brings her into nobility. That is also the story of Edward De Vere's marriage, only his story is more interesting. His marriage (identical to the plot of The Merry Wives of Windsor) brought the Cecil family into the peerage and you only need to google the Cecil family to see how far that power-move went.
Read The Merchant of Venice; a city where Edward De Vere lived for a year, a city that he built a house in, the city where Othello lived. In the beginning of Merchant, a young man asks to borrow money from a very, very generous lord, who decides to take out a loan to lend his friend some money. Ironically enough, this theme keeps popping up in the same way, throughout Shakespeare's works; always a generous lord giving and lending money to friends, just like...guess who. Again, thirty-three works of literature or scholarly publications are dedicated to the Earl of Oxford, by writers, scientists, doctors, botanists and artists of his time. A dedication at the introduction to the published work was often the custom when someone has financed your project. Edward De Vere was a very generous lord.
Most importantly of all, in this authorship hunt, are the perspectives of the great geniuses. Frankly, they would know before we would know if the works are the 'genuine article.' They also would know before the professors would know and from Walt Whitman to Orson Welles, they all say, ’it ain't him.’
It's obvious to many great minds who have walked the similar path of being a writer, like Twain and Whitman, that characters like Hamlet are based in some level of reality, that someone really thought these thoughts. Most of Shakespeare's characters live and breathe complicated thoughts in the form of a nobleman who has thought them. Time after time, play after play, sonnet after sonnet, the pages of Shakespeare share the thoughts of a nobleman. It's Hamlet's thoughts that people have marveled at over the years.
HAMLET
Oh, that this too, too solid flesh would melt,
thaw and resolve itself into a dew or that the
everlasting had not fix'd his canon against self slaughter.
Obviously, life is tough and some people just cry or drink booze, but not Shakespeare. He thinks with ink. The thoughts, not the plots, are the thing. The lasting elements of the genius plays are the genius passages that reveal genius thoughts, about the complexity of the human existence.
“Love is the smoke rais’d with the fume of sighs.”
“Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.”
“All the world’s a stage.”
“To be or not to be, that is the question.”
The action, the situation, the names of the characters or the country it’s set in seem not to be what the masses remember; it’s the passages, speeches and quotes. So, how do you have thoughts? Do you make up thoughts or do they arise? I argue that they arise. They arise from what you see, which affects what you imagine. So, whether you're dreaming or awake, your thoughts emanate from your life. If I said to you, 'go make up a bunch of plays about someone else's life,' how well do you think you would fare?
THE BIG OBSTACLE most people have to believing that Oxford used the penname William Shakespeare, however, is the 'cover-up.' People say, "come on, how could they cover that up for four-hundred years?" That’s why it helps to read about Edward De Vere and the cast of characters he grew up around. His three daughters married Earls, one of which eventually carried the same office as Oxford, after his death (Lord Great Chamberlain, Staff of State). This son-in-law was a very important person, even forty years after Oxford's death. 'Shakespeare's son-in-law' took the 'Staff' from his older brother, whom had been engaged, at one time, to a 'Shakespeare' daughter himself. They were both in power when the plays were finally published. It's important to note, especially when you hear their names. They are William and Philip Herbert, the 'incomparable pairre of brethren' that the 'First Folio' of William Shakespeare praises.
In order to understand the conspiratorial possibilities, you must first understand the importance of Edward De Vere. He lived as a possible successor to the throne his whole life. When he was born, he was named after the nine year-old King Edward VI. Jonathon De Vere (one of the lead nobleman in the court of Henry VIII) named his son ‘Edward’ because it was a King's name and he was grooming him to be a King. After Edward VI's death (1554) and his sister's death, Bloody Mary (1558), only Princess Elizabeth had a legitimate claim to the throne. That's it! One person in all of England who could take the throne and, quite frankly, it wasn't all that legitimate. She had a cousin in Scotland with a claim, sort of (her son ended up succeeding Elizabeth). Other than that, whom do you think they were considering for the throne? ‘William Shakespeare,’ that's who. Oh, I mean, the Earl of Oxford.
(Ever notice how Shakespeare sort of obsesses over Kings?)
If you can imagine that an Earl is nearly equal to a Prince and that a Prince is as high up as a Vice President, in our time, you could see the need to cover up the ugly thoughts of a vividly real character like Prince Hamlet. It would be similar to George Bush wanting to kill George Bush, Sr. and while it may make for great story to see great flaws in great leaders (like John F. Kennedy having an affair with Marilyn Monroe), it does not help put great faith in those same leaders. It exposes an ugliness that comes with such ‘outrageous fortune’ that it is nothing any leader or prominent figure would want to adopt as an outward image and thus they cover it up. You always see a 'cover up' of sexual mores and party-filled lifestyles, even in modern politics. Even though the culture around the politicians has evolved into online sex beasts, the 'leaders' are still harassed and judged by the press.
Hamlet, a Royal Prince, from God's 'anointed family,' says this about life, to the girl he has wanted to marry for a long while.
HAMLET
Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou
be a breeder of sinners? I am myself but indifferent
honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things
that it were better my mother had not borne me:
Compare that to Shakespeare's non-fictional character.
HENRY V
We in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Feel free to choose for yourself which outward image you would have reflect the 'you' you put forth, but know this!! ---The family name of the real author of these plays was associated with the second speech, not the first. More importantly than that, the De Veres are some of the most influential military leaders in the history of England. Take note that it was a Duke who beat Napoleon, who likely learned many of his military strategies from 'Shakespeare's family.
The second reason for the highly plausible cover-up of authorship are the three daughters of Edward De Vere. Like I said, the husband of one of them is mentioned as one of the 'incomparable brethren,' in the 'first folio.' Remember, it is THE document that brought forth all of the genius compilation of plays, under the name William Shakespeare. The document doesn't leave much of a trail and yet it is highly important, so the utmost amount of importance should be placed upon any trail it does leave. Again, you can either believe the Stratfordians that a couple of actor blokes compiled it, from a bunch of scraps, or you can see the obvious ‘Oxfordian’ analysis---that Bridget De Vere and her husband, Philip Herbert, most likely held the plays, as inheritance. Interestingly enough, when King Lear gives his inheritance to his three daughters, he phrases it very, very strangely.
KING LEAR
We have this hour a constant will to publish
Our daughters' several dowers, that future strife
May be prevented now.
(Publish? Several? Like Thirty-seven?)
Also, the uncle to those three daughters was a crooked-back monster, who took over the throne of England, after Elizabeth died. He successfully cut off the head of the leading English nobleman and put a Scottish guy on the throne. Only one head was chopped for the King of one country to take over another country? That's pretty smooth sailing for a takeover, if you have ever read your Shakespeare. Well, that kind of smooth sailing is what you get when everything is fixed behind the scenes.
Robert Cecil, like his father before him, had the English nobles by the 'coin' and by their 'secrets.' He is most likely made fun of in the very famous monologue, “Now, is the winter of our discontent,” in which a royal outcast, who is not supposed to get the throne, plans to murder his way to it and use it for his own dark plots, all because he is deformed and no one wants to have sex with him. Edward De Vere's brother-in-law really was the power behind the throne and he really was terrible and he really was deformed. He was also greedy and addicted to gambling. Forget every other argument for De Vere and this alone is solid reason why no diary exists, nor outward mention of De Vere as Shakespeare. That, coupled with the quote from Father Francis Edwards that he 'virtually ruled' and 'many of the documents of leading families were in his hands,' gives us motive and ability. Not only were all of the other noblemen equally afraid of Robert Cecil, one of them got their head chopped off, when trying to fight against him. It was the Queen's own boyfriend, the Earl of Essex.
Below, is a letter this same deformed man wrote during the time when he concocted and subsequently succeeded in putting a Scottish guy on England’s throne (King James I). In 1603, only months from Queen Elizabeth’s death, Sir Robert Cecil, her chief counselor, wrote as follows to Sir James Harrington.
“Good Knight rest content, and give heed to one that hath sorrowed in the bright luster of a Court and gone heavily on even the best-seeming fair ground. ’Tis a great task to prove one’s honesty and yet not mar one’s fortune. You have tasted a little thereof in our blessed Queen’s time, who was more than a man, and, in truth, sometimes less than a woman.”
Now, hopefully you noticed that even though I just told you he was a vile, deformed, corrupt man, his pen sure writes elegantly. He sure sounds like ‘Shakespeare’s brother-in-law. ‘Tis a great task to prove one’s honesty and yet not mar one’s fortune?’ That sounds exactly like a Shakespeare character and not at all like someone from Stratford Upon Avon. Even more telling, if you don't already know, it is a mirror image of a very famous line from King Lear. In fact, it even mirrors the situation mentioned by Cecil.
KING LEAR
Mend thy speech a little lest it may mar thy fortune.
I.E. ‘You better kiss my butt or you don't get squat.’ (Sound like every rich, miserable relative you ever heard about?) You see, just like Robert Cecil illuminates in his letter regarding the monarch, Lear has asked all of his daughters to describe how much they adore him, in order to get their inheritance. After watching her two older sisters ‘flatter’ the King, like a couple of phonies, Cordelia, his youngest, thinks it's all very absurd and says so. Thus, her fortune is marred. This is exactly what Robert Cecil is fearing and lamenting, in his letter. That he is 'Shakespeare's brother-in-law should give you much to chew on, considering that flattery is a supreme topic in the works of Shakespeare...Super Supreme.
'In our blessed Queen’s time, who was more than a man, and in truth, sometimes less than a woman?' I’m sorry Stratfordians, but this particular passage screams the plot of every Shakespeare comedy/romance that deals with a woman’s feigned male identity. Also, I hope you are starting to see how the characters in De Vere's life mirror the thoughts about such characters from the pen of William Shakespeare. A deformed, corrupt, gambling-addicted extortionist writes with an educated lightness that does not reek of the evil he enacts. This is Shakespeare. Rich characters. If you read Richard III, you will see that the author is sympathetic with this beast. The character is multi-dimensional and more than just some cartoon-villain. Now, you could either invent all of those complex personality characteristics or you could see them for so long that you naturally use those colors to draw your sketch.
Finally, if we can then conclude that a cover-up is not only possible, but probable, holding the idea that the author is Edward De Vere, then we can move on to an analysis of the 'cover.' The rest of this book will explain who Edward De Vere was and why he needed a 'cover.' So, if you are a committed Stratfordian (yes, you should be committed), then you may want to go impress somebody at a coffee shop, with one of Shakespeare’s soliloquies, and put this book down. What I am about to reveal makes you look like a fool.
Chapter 2
THE FOOL
When I first set out to read the entire works of Shakespeare, I was already convinced that the real writer was Edward De Vere, based solely on what I had read about him. Smart people were chiseling out a detailed perspective of him and I trusted their scholarship. The evidence that the genius works of William Shakespeare (plays like Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Othello) were actually the hidden story of the Earl of Oxford was overwhelming. However, one thing remained unsolved. The reason he chose the penname William Shakespeare had all of the Oxfordian scholars unanimously confused. They all seemed to take to the notion that William stole the plays or was hired to be the 'cover.'
To me, that didn't seem to fit.
First off, you don't steal from the law and the Earl of Oxford was the law. Below, you can even see clear evidence of just how high up The Earl of Oxford was.
Secondly, NOT ONE person from Stratford Upon Avon ever mentioned that Gulielmus Shaksper was a writer, in any way. So, his ‘cover’ certainly didn’t go more than a hundred miles during its time. However, in London, there is a William Shakespeare listed in performances of some of the plays at this time. Thus, there is a big, fat question mark about why the Earl of Oxford chose for his penname the name of an actor who was actually listed in some of the performances of the plays?
Thus, when I read the nearly million words myself, I looked particularly for the use of the name William, because I had a theory. What if William Shakespeare was known as an illiterate fool and the author was making a joke out of his own official penname? All kinds of research points to the fact that Edward De Vere assumed many pennames during this very time, as did many other writers. Obviously, this is the name he wanted to be associated with these works, then, right? What motive would he have in asserting that some uneducated, small-town man wrote all of his mind-blowing words?
Unless, as a joke.
Bottom, Slender, Simple, Moth, Wart, Feeble, Shallow, Silence, Snarl, Fang and Quickly are clear evidence of how Shakespeare likes to make up humorous names for his uneducated fools. In most other circumstances, and I mean most, Shakespeare uses real characters. Most of Shakespeare's characters are historical, like Julius Caesar, Richard III and the Duke of Norfolk. Thus, if so many of the fictional characters strike an obviously funny chord, why would it then be hard to imagine that he would choose a funny name to be his penname, which is yet another fictional character?
Most of the records indicate that Shakespeare was illiterate and yet he was listed as an actor. Also, all of the records indicate that Shakespeare was not a successful actor, not even close. Was William Shakespeare the worst actor in town and a known fool, largely because he couldn't read? Secondly, is it also a joke on the very professors who pontificate on, critique and glorify his words? Some of the most University-educated wit in the world, people who write and communicate with the grandest language and knowledge in our society, are in some classroom, right now, telling people that the fool was the genius. The man who couldn’t even spell his own name (or recognize it on the cover of a poem) wrote a million words of genius?
So, I searched the plays, looking for my theory. I wanted to see where the author uses the name William and if it could possibly reference an illiterate fool. Guess what I found. How many characters in all of Shakespeare do you think are named William, with no last name?
ONE.
I found two other instances where a William is simply mentioned (and both reveal codes), but there is only one William, with no last name, in all of Shakespeare. Also, after seeing zero instances of a William, and then to see that he was listed as a ‘country fellow,’ made my blood start to speed. As fate would have it, AS YOU LIKE IT was one of the last plays I read on my Oxfordian hunt for authorship clues, hidden within the works. Thus, I had a good idea of what the majority of Shakespeare’s plays encompassed, by the time I got to it, and I was convinced of its autobiographical qualities. In other words, after reading several hundred thousand of this man’s words, I completely sided with Walt Whitman, that it must have been one of those 'wolfish earls.' The difference is, Walt didn't know which Earl and, because of J. Thomas Looney, we do.
Then, I find myself in the middle of a play, unlike any other Shakespeare play, where there is almost no plot, but yet a lengthy discussion about a very sad nobleman, who has been a libertine (amoral sexually) and wants to talk about his life. To do so, he wishes to have a ‘motley coat.’ He has just run into a ‘motley’ fool, in the forest, whom he finds rather witty, but simple. He marvels that the fool can say whatever he wants and it doesn’t matter, because he is not in politics. Now, if you know anything about Shakespeare's work, the characters that play the 'fool' get to say some pretty dangerous stuff to Kings and Queens and Dukes and Princesses. Anybody else dare say it and trouble brews.
Well, imagine you are the Earl of Wherever and you have done some pretty embarrassing things. Take Edward De Vere. He killed a cook when he was seventeen. At Twenty-five, De Vere fled the country. He was gone for a year and a half to Italy and refused to see his royal, newborn daughter when he came home. Accusing his wife of something a Shakespeare character might accuse his wife of (cuckoldry), he refused to see her or sleep in her bed. Instead, he impregnated a chambermaid of Elizabeth's and this caused a war on the streets between his servants and her families' servants, until two people died and everyone was jailed, including the Earl of Oxford (Remember, he was in line to be King).
Did I mention he was known as the best for comedy?
When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state...
For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
SONNET 29
Jaques is the nobleman who represents Oxford's noble side, in the play AS YOU LIKE IT (I like to think if you say his name with a silent 'J' it sounds like Ox, the nickname of De Vere). He is an exiled Courtier and he is big-time sad about everything. The reason that he is sad sounds very Shakespearean. Not small-town Shakespeare, but disguised nobleman Shakespeare.
JAQUES
I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is
emulation, nor the musician's, which is fantastical,
nor the courtier's, which is proud, nor the
soldier's, which is ambitious, nor the lawyer's,
which is politic, nor the lady's, which is nice, nor
the lover's, which is all these: but it is a
melancholy of mine own, compounded of many simples,
extracted from many objects, and indeed the sundry's
contemplation of my travels, in which my often
rumination wraps me in a most humorous sadness.
This passage is very telling in many ways, when we consider it in accordance with the authorship question. All throughout Shakespeare's work exists this highly articulated melancholy. It appears in the mouth of characters like Hamlet, Romeo, and Antonio and in many of the sonnets. Above, the character 'Ox' is telling us where he gets his melancholy. Also, he doesn't mention anything about a 'glover's melancholy' and that's what Shakespeare's father's occupation was. I find it very strange that he would be able to identify and simplify everybody, but his own folk. In the opening scenes of the play, Jaques is very key to the analysis of a penname, because it is he who proclaims the whole prank.
JAQUES
A fool, a fool, I met a fool!..
O that I were a fool!
I am ambitious for a motley coat...
It is my only suit; Provided that you
weed your better judgments
Of all opinion that grows rank
in them That I am wise. I must have liberty
Withal, as large a charter as the wind,
To blow on whom I please;
for so fools have...
Invest me in my motley;
give me leave To speak my mind,
and I will through and through
cleanse the foul body of the
infected world, If they will
patiently receive my medicine.
Hmmm…? A sad nobleman who will become happy, if he can speak his mind? Jaques wants to heal the world with his thoughts and isn't that what Shakespeare's works do for us? By having the noblest of humans suffer the same horrible mistakes we do (often horribler), he guides us with his indepth thinking. In other words, like Eminem today, he goes there. He goes to the deepest, ugliest trenches of self-loathing and walks around in it. By Hamlet battling through some very ugly times, we get to see what it would be like, because within ourselves we are often too afraid to go there. Oxford does this with his 'motley coat.' Thus, taking Jaques (Ox) at his word, let's invest him in his 'motley' and see if his 'coat' has a name.
In the cast list it states that William is ‘a country fellow in love with Audrey.' Audrey’s root meaning is 'nobility,' or 'noble strength,' and would have been known to be such, because it was the first name of St. Etheldrea, whose name graced the chapel where Henry VIII and Princess Elizabeth attended church. Therefore, Edward De Vere is winking at us, here. ‘A country fellow in love with nobility’ totally describes the works of William Shakespeare. The given story of the man is that he moved to London, from the country, and wrote nearly a million words on the topic of nobility; be it Roman, Greek, French, Spanish or Italian 'nobility.' A million words would suffice as ‘in love,’ I would say.
Well, that's only the beginning of this mysterious William. As you read on, you will think of Ben Jonson's dedication of the only known physical image of Shakespeare, the Droeshout engraving, on the cover of the 'first folio.' This image of William Shakespeare is THE IMAGE we have to go by. It appeared, with a strange dedication by Jonson, when the plays were finally published, twenty years after all the players of De Vere and Elizabeth's kingdom were dead and seven years after the man who is pictured was dead. It's important to note that at the time of this dedication Ben Jonson was in the employ of William Herbert and Philip Herbert (Oxford's son in law---cover-up?).
To the Reader.
This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life :
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face ; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was ever writ in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
Do not look at the picture, look at the book? ‘This figure,’ according to Ben Jonson, was ‘put’ here. Also, not only is 'Hath hit his face' a strange way to say 'nailed it' or 'landed it' or 'got it right,' but it sounds exactly like 'hid his face,' when you say it out loud. Further, that dedication wouldn't be as strange of a dedication if William Shakespeare had been more visible. Shakespeare is the most unmentioned by his friends and peers and neighbors and cousins person of all time. No one in London ever noted a lunch date with the great playwright, a drink they had with him or any kind of social gathering that they saw him attend. Look at the picture again. Look at the weird left shoulder (backwards?). Look at the strange way the head is placed on the body. Look at the left side of the face, in the shadows, and how it looks like it could be 'a face on a face.' Is it a mask? Lastly, look at the front of the supposed collar. Why does it look like a platter or something to serve mutton on? It has no neck opening. Has the head been cut off and placed there? Are we being served a face? Oh, but alas, I've lead you astray. Do as Ben Jonson suggests and look not at the cover, the cover, the cover...
Ladies and gentleman, gather 'round.
You are about to read it as black and white as it will ever be (haha, an ink joke) that William Shakespeare is a penname. I will fast-forward you to Act V, Scene I, of the play AS YOU LIKE IT. Here, out of nowhere, we meet a brand new character, the only William with no last name, in all of Shakespeare. It is the only chance the author has to reveal himself in the whole 37-play canon, in a play that is about concealed authorship.
WILLIAM
And good even to you, sir.
TOUCHSTONE
Good even, gentle friend. Cover thy head, cover thy
head; nay, prithee, be covered.
Chapter 3
THE FOREST OF SHAKESPEARE
‘Cover thy head’ once would suffice for an absurd greeting, since there is no mention of rain anywhere in the whole play. However, the author’s use of it twice glares out at you. Then, he changes it totally. He says, ‘No, don’t just cover your head…be covered.’ Three lines in a row, to the only William in all of Shakespeare, seems to go about a billion miles too far, with a meaningless reference. After all, what could it possibly mean? These are exactly the kinds of lines that appear all throughout Shakespeare that must befuddle actors and directors on exactly what it means and how to play it. It is only when you understand whom the author is speaking to (1. Elizabeth 2.The royal Court 3.The Wise world) that you see these references (As you continue to read this book, you will become a part of number 3).
Do not so much as my poor name rehearse
But let your love even with my life decay;
Lest the wise world should look into your moan
And mock you with me after I am gone.
SONNET 71
Thus, our first piece of circumstantial evidence tells us that the only William in all of Shakespeare is a 'country fellow,' whom the first thing said to him is ‘you are cover.’ Furthermore, he is pronounced 'cover' by Touchstone, who himself makes a point to announce his own role in the play, upon entering the forest of Arden.
ROSALIND
Well, this is the forest of Arden.
TOUCHSTONE
Ay, now am I in Arden; the more fool I; when I was
at home, I was in a better place: but travellers
must be content.
ROSALIND
Ay, be so, good Touchstone.
‘Touchstone’ represents the 'wit' of Edward De Vere. The name Touchstone has two meanings. One is ‘a stone used to assess alloys of gold’ and the other is 'a standard or criterion of which something is RECOGNIZED.' (The Gold Standard, so to speak.) So, in Edward De Vere's case, he was the ‘standard of wit,' in his time.
"the best for comedy amongst us”
"the first among court poets"
Touchstone's 'better place' refers to a place of 'betters' (the royal court). When he runs into Corin (whose name means SPEAR), a Shepherd who dwells in the forest, he rubs his superiority in his face.
TOUCHSTONE
Holla, you clown!
ROSALIND
Peace, fool: he's not thy kinsman.
CORIN
Who calls?
TOUCHSTONE
Your betters, sir.
Representing pure wit, Touchstone is even introduced as such a quality, in Act I, when he comes to Rosalind and Celia at court. Celia sees Touchstone coming and addresses him.
CELIA
...for always the dulness of
the fool is the whetstone of the wits.
How now, wit! whither wander you?
Thus, by her asking 'wit' where he wanders, it affords the playwright the ability to use Touchstone as Edward De Vere's wandering wit. Not to mention, later on it is revealed that he has no 'features.' So, having set up the 'wit' of Edward De Vere and the name he has chosen for his 'cover,' let's get back to the conversation between the 'cover' (William) and the 'wit' (Touchstone). Let's see if this introduction is only some incidental reference or if it leads us anywhere, like the author has a design for this odd character, William.
TOUCHSTONE
How old are you, friend?
WILLIAM
Five and twenty, sir.
Scholars generally agree that William Shakespeare was twenty-five when he got to London. Ripe Coincidence.
TOUCHSTONE
A ripe age. Is thy name William?
WILLIAM
William, sir.
TOUCHSTONE
A fair name. Wast born i' the forest here?
Was IT born in the forest??!!! Was IT? Notice, the courtly fool doesn’t ask William if HE was born in the forest, but only if his name was born there. Also, it further points right at the small-town Shakespeare himself, because he was born in Stratford Upon Avon, a little farm-town outside of the forest of Arden. The forest of Arden is very significant, since four of the five acts of the play take place in it. It is Shakespeare's only pastoral and it is clearly the only time he writes about something resembling home.
Further, Act I of this same play takes place in the only fictional court in Shakespeare (meaning no specified country), thereby laying the grounds for the only play that can be completely metaphorical. Thus, the rest of the discussions, which concern WRITING, take place in the forest of Arden and the forest of Arden is mentioned as a metaphor for a book. It is not only mentioned so in the opening lines below, but also mentioned so in many other instances throughout the play.
DUKE SENIOR
And this our life exempt from public haunt
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones and good in every thing.
Gulielmus Filius Johannes Shaksper, like all of us, had two parents, who each had different last names. His mom's maiden name was Mary Arden. Thus, in this play of metaphors, the forest of Arden, when flipped to its metaphorical name, is the FOREST OF SHAKESPEARE.
In Act II, Orlando (Renowned Land) is actually using the forest as a book, writing love notes on the trees.
ORLANDO
These trees shall be my books and in
their barks my thoughts I'll character.
Later on, Celia (blind) comes into the scene, reading Orlando's (renowned land) works out loud.
CELIA (reading)
"Why should this a desert be? For it
is unpeopled? No: Tongues I'll hang on
every tree that civil sayings show."
From an Oxfordian point of view, this is De Vere saying, ‘why should the book of Shakespeare not be written?’ Why should I not write about my times? It was a time filled with poisonings, sword fighting, rebellions, religious apocalypses, wrongful invasions, pirate ships, gold ventures, royal marriages and successful military battles. There were Shipwrecks and adultery, gossip and KINGS. Imagine a writer with the most gifted sense of story, fully educated in history, law, Greek, Latin, etiquette, dancing, plays and poetry and he is put in there with the snakes of court. Of course, he should have written about it.
Before we go on, it is necessary to back up to the dialogue prior to seeing and conversing with the only William in all of Shakespeare. The scene before William approaches Touchstone and Audrey showcases the couple's desire for a minister who will marry them. When they see William coming, Touchstone jests that William may be some competition for Audrey's hand.
TOUCHSTONE
But, Audrey, there is a youth here in
the forest lays claim to you.
AUDREY
Ay, I know who 'tis; he hath