The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship suggests that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare. Although most historians and literary scholars do not support this idea, many people remain interested in the Oxfordian theory. After the 1920s, this theory became the most widely discussed alternative to the traditional belief that Shakespeare wrote his own works.

Scholars use written records, such as title pages, statements from other writers of the time, and official documents, to determine who wrote works. These sources strongly support the idea that Shakespeare wrote his own plays and poems. No such evidence connects Edward de Vere to Shakespeare’s works. Supporters of the Oxfordian theory, however, argue that the lack of direct evidence is due to a conspiracy that hid the real author’s identity. They claim that events in Oxford’s life match events in Shakespeare’s plays and poems, and that similarities in language and style between Oxford’s writings and Shakespeare’s works support their claim. Oxfordians also point to certain passages in Oxford’s Bible that they believe relate to Shakespeare’s use of religious references. They note that no plays are known to have been written under Oxford’s name, and they suggest that Shakespeare may have been a person who helped publish the plays or was mistaken for the author.

The strongest evidence against the Oxfordian theory is the fact that Edward de Vere died in 1604. Most scholars believe Shakespeare wrote plays after this date. Oxfordians respond by saying that new Shakespeare plays were no longer published after 1604 and that a dedication in Shakespeare’s Sonnets (published in 1609) implies the author was already dead. They argue that the changes and collaborations seen in Shakespeare’s later plays were completed by other writers after Oxford’s death.

History of the Oxfordian theory

The idea that the plays and poems written by William Shakespeare were actually created by someone else began in the middle of the 1800s. In 1857, a book titled The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded by Delia Bacon was published. Bacon suggested that a group of people, led by Francis Bacon and including Walter Raleigh, wrote the works. The book mentioned Edward de Vere once, listing him as one of many "high-born wits and poets" connected to Raleigh. Some people later thought this might mean de Vere was part of the group. During the 1800s, Francis Bacon was the most common name suggested as the hidden author. Edward de Vere was not mentioned again in this context during that time.

By the early 1900s, other names, usually from noble families, were proposed, such as Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. In 1920, J. Thomas Looney wrote a book titled Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, arguing that de Vere was the real author. Looney claimed that the known facts about Shakespeare’s life did not match the personality of the writer of the plays. He pointed to the lack of records about Shakespeare’s education, his limited life experiences, his poor handwriting, and the "dirt and ignorance" of Stratford-upon-Avon during his time. Looney also noted that Shakespeare seemed greedy, while the plays often portrayed generous, aristocratic heroes. He argued that the plays showed the author had knowledge of law, ancient Latin texts, and languages like French and Italian. Looney believed that even early plays, such as Love’s Labour’s Lost, suggested the author was an experienced, older person, possibly in his 40s or 50s. He claimed that de Vere’s life matched the traits of the author, including his travels to France and Italy, which inspired settings in many plays. Looney also linked de Vere’s death in 1604 to a decline in Shakespeare’s work and suggested that plays published after de Vere’s death, like The Tempest, were likely finished by others. He argued that a 1609 dedication to Shakespeare’s sonnets, which called the author the "ever-living poet," implied the author was already dead at the time.

In the 20th century, people like Sigmund Freud and writer Marjorie Bowen supported Looney’s theory, making de Vere the most popular alternative to Shakespeare. However, most scholars ignored the debate. Looney’s supporters, including writers like Percy Allen and Charles Wisner Barrell, published books that added new arguments. Some of their research helped scholars learn more about Elizabethan history. In 1921, Looney and others founded The Shakespeare Fellowship, an organization that promoted the idea that Shakespeare was not the real author.

After World War II, interest in de Vere declined until 1952, when Dorothy and Charlton Greenwood Ogburn published a 1,300-page book titled This Star of England, which briefly revived the theory. However, academic books and articles, such as The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined (1957) and Shakespeare and His Betters (1958), limited the theory’s growth. By 1968, a newsletter for The Shakespeare Oxford Society reported that its members were no longer active. In 1974, the society had only 80 members. In 1979, a study of the Ashbourne portrait, which was once thought to be Shakespeare or de Vere, revealed it actually showed a man named Hugh Hamersley.

In 1976, Charlton Ogburn Jr. became president of The Shakespeare Oxford Society and helped revive the theory through public debates, media, and the internet. He criticized scholars as part of a group that ignored new ideas. In 1985, Ogburn published The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality, which included a foreword by historian David McCullough. He compared the debate to the political climate after the Watergate scandal, using media to reach the public. Ogburn’s efforts made de Vere the most popular alternative to Shakespeare.

Although scholars criticized Ogburn’s work, some, like Richmond Crinkley, acknowledged that his arguments raised questions that forced experts to rethink their views. By the late 1990s, Oxfordian supporters had grown stronger, hoping to challenge the traditional belief that Shakespeare wrote his own works.

Variant Oxfordian theories

Most Oxfordians agree on the main reasons for believing Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote Shakespeare’s works. However, some different versions of the theory have not been widely accepted by all Oxfordians, even though they have received attention.

In a letter from 1933, Looney wrote that Allen and Ward had proposed ideas about Oxford and Queen Elizabeth that he found unlikely and potentially harmful to Oxford’s claims about Shakespeare. Allen and Ward believed Oxford and Queen Elizabeth had a child together. In his 1934 book Anne Cecil, Elizabeth & Oxford, Allen argued the child was named William Hughes, who later became an actor using the stage name “William Shakespeare.” He claimed Oxford used the name because another man named Shakespeare, from Stratford-upon-Avon, was a law student but never an actor or writer. Later, Allen changed his mind, suggesting the child was the Earl of Southampton, who is mentioned in Shakespeare’s poems. This idea, called the Prince Tudor theory, was said to be hidden in Oxford’s works. A book titled Star of England (1952) by Charlton and Dorothy Ogburn supported this version. Charlton Ogburn Jr., their son, later avoided discussing the theory in his own works, agreeing with Looney that it could harm the Oxfordian movement.

The theory was later revived by Elisabeth Sears in Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose (2002) and Hank Whittemore in The Monument (2005). Whittemore’s book analyzes Shakespeare’s sonnets as a poetic history of Queen Elizabeth, Oxford, and Southampton. Paul Streitz’s Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (2001) proposed a different idea: Oxford was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth and her stepfather, Thomas Seymour. This would make Oxford the half-brother of his own son by the queen. Streitz also claimed Queen Elizabeth had children with the Earl of Leicester, including Robert Cecil, Robert Devereux, Mary Sidney, and Elizabeth Leighton.

Oxford’s supporters have also linked him to other works besides Shakespeare’s. Looney first suggested this in his 1921 edition of de Vere’s poetry, claiming de Vere wrote some works credited to Arthur Golding, Anthony Munday, and John Lyly. Streitz believed de Vere also wrote the King James Version of the Bible. Some linguists claimed de Vere wrote not only Shakespeare’s works but also many famous English literary pieces, using names like Edmund Spenser, Christopher Marlowe, and John Lyly as pseudonyms. Ramon Jiménez credited Oxford with plays such as The True Tragedy of Richard III and Edmund Ironside.

Some early Oxfordians believed Oxford worked with others to create the Shakespeare canon. Looney suggested Oxford may have been helped by his son-in-law, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who might have written The Tempest. B. M. Ward also thought Oxford and Derby collaborated. Percy Allen later argued Oxford led a group of writers, including William Shakespeare. Other scholars, such as Gilbert Standen, Gilbert Slater, and Montagu William Douglas, proposed theories where Oxford was the main author or creative leader of a group of writers.

Case against Oxfordian theory

Experts who study Elizabethan literature disagree with the way Oxfordians support their claims about Shakespeare's authorship. Because there is no evidence, such as documents or signatures, that is usually used to prove who wrote a work, Oxfordians do not use the methods that historians normally use. Instead, they argue based on other ideas, like similarities between Edward de Vere's life and events in Shakespeare's plays. Another argument is that some writings from the time seem to hint that de Vere wrote plays, which Oxfordians believe shows others knew he was the real author. David Kathman says these methods are not reliable because they use unfair standards. He argues that Oxfordians' claims are not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars because they change facts, ignore important details, and sometimes make up information. One major problem with the Oxfordian theory is that Edward de Vere died in 1604, but many of Shakespeare's plays are believed to have been written after that time. In a 1962 book called The Shakespeare Claimants, H. N. Gibson wrote that the Oxfordian case seems very weak after careful study.

Some scholars say the Oxford theory is based on prejudice, as people who disagree with the idea that Shakespeare was born to a common family believe he could not have written the plays. The Shakespeare Oxford Society says this criticism avoids answering Oxfordian arguments and is an unfair attack on the person making the claim. Other critics argue that if Shakespeare were not the real author, it would have been nearly impossible to keep this secret because so many people would have known. James S. Shapiro, a professor at Columbia University, says theories that claim a secret group hid the truth about de Vere's authorship are not logical. He explains that these theories rely on the idea that the lack of evidence proves de Vere was the real author, which is a flawed argument.

Circumstantial evidence

While no written records directly link Oxford (or any other person) to the plays of Shakespeare, some writers who support the Oxfordian theory, such as Mark Anderson and Charlton Ogburn, argue that there is strong indirect evidence connecting Oxford to Shakespeare’s works. This includes Oxford’s involvement in Elizabethan theatre and poetry, his family’s role in printing the First Folio, his connection to the Earl of Southampton (a patron believed by most scholars to be Shakespeare’s), and specific events in Oxford’s life that some say are reflected in the plays.

Oxford was known for supporting writers and performers. He helped many authors by giving them special mentions in their works. For much of his adult life, he supported acting groups, musicians, and even performances by animals. In 1583, he was the owner of the first Blackfriars Theatre in London.

Oxford was related to several important literary figures. His mother, Margory Golding, was the sister of Arthur Golding, who translated the works of Ovid. His uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, helped create the English sonnet form.

Three people who received dedications in Shakespeare’s works—Earl of Southampton, Earl of Montgomery, and Earl of Pembroke—were all proposed to marry Edward de Vere’s daughters. Two of Shakespeare’s poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, were dedicated to Southampton, who many scholars believe was the "Fair Youth" of the Sonnets. The First Folio was dedicated to Montgomery and Pembroke, who were connected to Edward de Vere’s family.

In the late 1990s, Roger A. Stritmatter studied the marked passages in Edward de Vere’s Geneva Bible, now held by the Folger Shakespeare Library. The Bible has many underlined words and notes, some of which Stritmatter claims appear in Shakespeare’s works as themes, references, or quotes. He grouped these markings into eight categories and linked them to de Vere’s interests. However, critics argue that the markings could have been made by other people who owned the Bible before 1925, and they question whether the connections Stritmatter found are meaningful.

Two poems in the 1623 First Folio mention Shakespeare’s hometown of Avon and a "Stratford monument." Oxfordians suggest that the phrase "Swan of Avon" might refer to one of Edward de Vere’s estates, Bilton Hall, near the River Avon. Others note that the town near where de Vere lived and was buried, Hackney, was also named Stratford. However, scholars argue that de Vere sold Bilton Hall in 1580, long before the 1623 poem was written, and there is no evidence of a monument to de Vere in Stratford or elsewhere.

Oxfordians also point to a 1662 diary entry by Rev. Dr. John Ward, which claims Shakespeare earned £1,000 annually for writing plays. This matches the £1,000 annuity Queen Elizabeth I gave Oxford in 1586. Some Oxfordians believe this was because Oxford wrote patriotic plays for the government, but historical records suggest the money was given to help Oxford recover from financial difficulties caused by the loss of his estate.

More than half of Shakespeare’s plays are set in Italy, with details about Italian laws, customs, and culture. Oxfordians argue that these details could only come from personal experience in Italy, especially Venice. For example, The Merchant of Venice includes references to the Jewish ghetto and Venetian laws. Historical records confirm that Oxford lived in Venice and traveled across Italy for over a year. Though he disliked the country, he remained there for six months before leaving in 1576. Some scholars say Shakespeare’s portrayal of Venice is inaccurate, but others believe he used sources like John Florio’s Italian language guides.

In 1567, Oxford joined Gray’s Inn, one of the legal training institutions in England. Some scholars note that Shakespeare’s Sonnets include many legal terms and ideas, which may reflect Oxford’s background.

Oxford's literary reputation

Some of Oxford's poems have survived. Steven W. May, an expert on Oxford's poetry, says sixteen poems are definitely his, and four might be. He believes these are only a small part of Oxford's work because two writers from the 1580s ranked Oxford as the best poet among courtiers, a position he likely would not have earned with only a few poems.

May describes Oxford as a poet who used common styles of mid-1500s love poetry and calls his work "examples of the standard kinds of love poems from the mid-1500s." In 2004, May wrote that Oxford's poetry was part of a larger trend in Elizabethan poetry and challenged readers to tell Oxford's work apart from that of his less talented peers. C. S. Lewis said Oxford's poetry showed "a faint talent" but was mostly "undistinguished and verbose."

J. Thomas Looney believed Oxford used many of the same poetic forms as Shakespeare, and almost all of these forms appear in Shakespeare's work. Louis P. Bénézet created a test by mixing lines from Shakespeare and lines he thought were from Oxford, asking others to tell them apart. May noted that Looney compared certain themes and phrases in Oxford's poems with Shakespeare's work, but some of the poems Looney used were actually written by other poets like Greene, Campion, and Greville. Bénézet and others also mistakenly attributed poems to Oxford. May said this confusion shows problems with how Oxford's work has been studied.

A computer study by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic found that Shakespeare's and Oxford's writing styles were very different, and the chance Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works was "lower than the chance of being struck by lightning." The First Folio has a dialect similar to Shakespeare's, but Oxford spoke an East Anglian dialect from Essex. Some critics, like John Shahan and Richard Whalen, criticized the study, saying it compared the wrong types of writing and made incorrect assumptions about Oxford's early work.

Joseph Sobran's book, Alias Shakespeare, includes Oxford's known poems and claims they have similarities with Shakespeare's early works, like Titus Andronicus. Some Oxford supporters say Oxford's surviving works are from his youth and should be considered "juvenilia," while May believes they date from his early 20s and later.

Four critics from Oxford's time praised him as a poet and playwright, three of them while he was alive. However, mainstream scholars believe the praise for Oxford's poetry was more about showing respect for his status than genuine admiration for his writing. Alan Nelson, Oxford's biographer, wrote that writers like Harvey, Webbe, and Puttenham exaggerated Oxford's talent out of respect for his rank.

Before copyright laws, many writers used pseudonyms or kept their work private. A 1589 book called The Arte of English Poesie mentioned that aristocrats who wrote well shared their poetry only with friends, fearing it would seem unbecoming for a gentleman to appear learned. Another part of the book listed Oxford among poets, suggesting their works were known within court circles but not widely published.

Some argue that Oxford was a hidden writer, but others say the book listed poets whose works were already public. Critics note that six of the nine poets mentioned in the book were published before 1589, including some of Oxford's poems. Puttenham even quoted one of Oxford's poems by name in his book. Oxfordians who believe Oxford was hidden may have misunderstood Puttenham's text.

Oxfordians also claim that John Marston's 1598 work, Scourge of Villanie, refers to Oxford as "Mutius." However, experts like Arnold Davenport believe Mutius is a different writer, Joseph Hall.

In the 1613 play The Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois by George Chapman, Oxford is described as "Rare and most absolute" and praised for his intelligence, bravery, and ability to write about both serious and political topics. Chapman said Oxford "spoke and writ sweetly" on many subjects.

Chronology of the plays and Oxford's 1604 death

For mainstream scholars who study Shakespeare, the strongest evidence against Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, being the author of Shakespeare's plays (besides the historical proof that William Shakespeare lived) is his death in 1604. This is because most scholars believe that Shakespeare wrote about 12 plays after 1604, such as Macbeth and The Tempest.

The exact dates when Shakespeare wrote most of his plays are not known for sure. However, David Bevington says that most teachers and scholars agree that Shakespeare’s later plays show a creative development that continued after 1604. This is supported by references to events and writings that happened after 1604, as well as changes in Shakespeare’s writing style to match the tastes of the time and the needs of the King’s Men, the acting company he was part of.

Oxfordians, those who believe Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare’s plays, argue that the dates when the plays were written were set by scholars to fit within Shakespeare’s lifetime. They say there is no proof that any plays were written after 1604. One person, named Anderson, claims that all plays written during the Jacobean era (after James I became king) were written before 1604. He supports this by pointing to the slow rate of new play publications before 1604 and the lack of new plays published between 1603 and 1608. Anderson also notes that after 1604, no new plays were described as "newly corrected" or "augmented" in their titles, suggesting the writing process stopped.

Oxfordians also question why Shakespeare did not write about important events, such as Queen Elizabeth’s death in 1603, Prince Henry’s death in 1612, or the coronation of James I in 1604. They say Oxford’s death in 1604 explains this, as it would have prevented him from writing about these events. They also argue that Shakespeare did not write about the 1604 supernova or the 1609 work on planetary orbits by Kepler, which happened after Oxford’s death.

Professor Jonathan Bate says Oxfordians cannot explain how Shakespeare’s plays changed after the King’s Men moved to the Blackfriars Theatre in 1608. The Blackfriars required plays with more breaks for lighting, and plays written after this time, like Cymbeline and The Winter’s Tale, have a five-act structure that earlier plays lack. Bate argues that if Shakespeare wrote these plays, he would have needed to adapt to the new theatre, which was not possible if he died in 1604.

Oxfordians say Oxford knew the Blackfriars Theatre well because he owned a lease there. They also point out that some scholars, like A. Nicoll and Harley Granville-Barker, argue that Shakespeare did not write five-act plays and that the structure used in the First Folio (a collection of Shakespeare’s plays) was not authentic.

Some Oxfordians claim that certain plays were written by more than one person, which they say could mean the plays were written before Oxford’s death or completed by others after. However, scholar James Shapiro calls this a problem for Oxfordians, as it suggests the plays were not all written by one person.

Oxfordians also point to lost works from Oxford’s time that seem similar to Shakespeare’s plays, like a 16th-century story about a nobleman that might be an early version of Twelfth Night. They also argue that the phrase "ever-living poet" in the dedication of Shakespeare’s sonnets, published in 1609, might refer to a dead poet, not a living one. However, scholars like Don Foster and Jonathan Bate say the phrase likely refers to God or the eternal soul of the poet, not a dead person.

Another argument against Oxford is a poem written in 1620 by William Basse, a student at Oxford University, which mentions Shakespeare’s death in 1616, the year Shakespeare actually died.

Scholars also note that the play The Two Gentlemen of Verona shows little knowledge of Italy, which Oxfordians say means it was written before Oxford visited Italy in 1575. However, the play’s main source, a Spanish story, was not translated into English until 1578, meaning the writer would have needed to read it in Spanish. There is no evidence Oxford knew Spanish, so this supports the idea that Shakespeare, not Oxford, wrote the play.

Oxfordian cryptology

Although looking for hidden messages in Shakespeare's works that might reveal the true author is most often linked to the Baconian theory, similar ideas are also presented by Oxfordians. Early Oxfordians noticed many mentions of Oxford's family name "Vere" in the plays and poems, using words that sound like "ever" (E. Vere). In The De Vere Code, a book by English actor Jonathan Bond, the author claims that Thomas Thorpe's 30-word dedication in the original publication of Shakespeare's Sonnets contains six simple hidden messages that clearly prove de Vere wrote the poems. He also states that these messages identify "the Fair Youth" as Henry Wriothesley and include important references to the sonnets themselves, as well as de Vere's connections to Sir Philip Sidney and Ben Jonson.

In 2009, an article in the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles pointed out that Francis Meres in Palladis Tamia compared 17 English poets to 16 classical poets. The authors of the article suggested that Meres was interested in numbers and believed the counts should match. They argued that readers were meant to understand that Meres knew two of the English poets—Oxford and Shakespeare—were actually the same person.

Parallels with the plays

Literary scholars explain that the idea that an author’s work must reflect their personal life is a belief from the Modernist period, which Elizabethan writers did not share. They also say that trying to understand a writer’s life to prove they wrote a certain work is not reliable. For example, lists that compare events in Shakespeare’s plays to the life of an aristocrat are not strong arguments because similar lists have been made for other people, like Francis Bacon and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Harold Love says that the fact that these lists lead to many different people being named as possible authors shows the method is not trustworthy. Jonathan Bate says that the Oxfordian approach to finding connections between Shakespeare’s plays and someone’s life is similar to solving a cryptogram, because Shakespeare’s plays include so many different characters and stories that it would be possible to find links to almost anyone.

Despite this, Oxfordians point to many events in Edward de Vere’s life that they say match events in Shakespeare’s plays. They often mention similarities between de Vere’s life and the plays Hamlet and Henry IV, Part 1, especially a famous scene in Henry IV where a robbery happens that they say is similar to a real event involving de Vere.

Most Oxfordians believe Hamlet most clearly shows de Vere’s life story. However, other scholars argue that events from the lives of people like King James or the Earl of Essex also fit Hamlet well. In Hamlet, the father is murdered, and the mother marries someone else quickly after. Oxfordians say this matches de Vere’s life, as his father died in 1562, and his stepmother remarried within 15 months.

Another common comparison is Hamlet’s story about being captured by pirates in Act IV. Oxfordians say this matches an event in de Vere’s life when he returned to Europe in 1576. His ship was attacked by pirates who robbed him and left him nearly naked. Anderson notes that neither the pirates nor the army mentioned in Hamlet appear in the play’s sources, which puzzles many critics.

Oxfordians also say the character Polonius in Hamlet is based on Lord Burghley, de Vere’s guardian. In the First Quarto of the play, Polonius was named Corambis. Some say the name means “two-hearted,” possibly a reference to Burghley’s motto, “one heart, one way.” Others suggest the name comes from a Latin phrase meaning “reheated cabbage,” which was used to describe someone who repeats boring ideas. Similar names appear in Latin-English dictionaries from that time.

In 1658, Francis Osborne wrote about de Vere’s daughter being born from a situation where her mother was mistaken for someone else. This kind of plot, where a character is tricked into a relationship, was common in plays from the time. Shakespeare used it in All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure, following stories by Boccaccio and Cinthio. Oxfordians say de Vere was drawn to these stories because they matched Osborne’s account.

Oxfordians also claim that Shakespeare’s history plays show favor toward de Vere’s family. For example, Shakespeare left out a character based on the traitorous Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford, in King John. In Henry V, the 12th Earl of Oxford is given a more important role than history suggests. This character appears even more prominently in the non-Shakespearean play The Famous Victories of Henry V. Some Oxfordians argue that this play was written by de Vere because it gives the 11th Earl of Oxford a bigger role.

J. Thomas Looney noted that in Henry VI, Part Three, the 13th Earl of Oxford is praised but not given a major role. However, the play shows him fighting in the Battle of Tewkesbury, which did not happen in real life. Oxfordians, like Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, say Shakespeare included this character to show de Vere’s loyalty to Queen Elizabeth and remind her of his family’s past support for the Tudors. Looney also pointed out that in Richard III, the Earl of Oxford is shown standing beside the future King Henry VII and speaking first to the king’s followers.

Non-Oxfordian scholars do not see evidence of favor toward de Vere’s family in Shakespeare’s plays. For example, Richard de Vere, 11th Earl of Oxford, who appears in the non-Shakespearean play The Famous Victories of Henry V, is not mentioned in Henry V. In Richard III, the Earl of Oxford speaks only two lines, while he has a larger role in the non-Shakespearean play The True Tragedy of Richard III. Scholar Benjamin Griffin argues that these non-Shakespearean plays are more likely connected to de Vere. Oxfordian Charlton Ogburn Jr. says Shakespeare downplayed the Earl of Oxford’s role in Henry V and Richard III to keep de Vere’s identity secret. He suggests that people might have laughed if they knew de Vere was the real author.

In 1577, de Vere invested in a voyage to find the Northwest Passage, which was led by Martin Frobisher. He signed a bond for £3,000 to invest £1,000 and take on £2,000 of another man’s investment. Oxfordians say this is similar to Antonio in The Merchant of Venice, who owed Shylock £3,000.

Oxfordians also note that de Vere borrowed money from people in Venice and Padua. In The Taming of the Shrew, a man named Baptista Minola is described as rich and from Padua. Oxfordians think this name combines the names of two men de Vere borrowed from: Baptista Nigrone and Pasquino Spinola.

In The Comedy of Errors, a servant named Dromio says, “I buy a thousand pounds a year! I buy a rope!” Oxfordians say this line might be connected to de Vere, who received a £1,000 annuity from the Queen.

Parallels with the sonnets and poems

In 1609, a collection of 154 linked poems was published under the title SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS. Oxfordians believe the title suggests the work was complete and no more sonnets were expected. They also note that some scholars debate whether the Sonnets describe real events or are fictional, which they see as a challenge for traditional scholars. Joseph Sobran questions why Shakespeare (who lived until 1616) did not publish a corrected version of the Sonnets if they were fictional, and why they do not match Shakespeare’s known life if they are autobiographical. Sobran and others argue that the themes and personal details in the Sonnets closely match the life of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

The 154 sonnets appear to describe the author’s relationships with three characters: the Fair Youth, the Dark Lady, and the Rival Poet. Most Oxfordians (except for Percy Allen and Louis Bénézet) believe the Fair Youth refers to Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, who was Oxford’s peer and a potential son-in-law. Some Oxfordians think the Dark Lady is Anne Vavasour, Oxford’s mistress and the mother of his child. Oxfordian researcher Peter R. Moore suggested the Rival Poet could be Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex.

Sobran argues that the sonnets about procreation (encouraging marriage) were part of a campaign by Lord Burghley to convince Southampton to marry Oxford’s daughter, Elizabeth de Vere. He claims Oxford would have been more likely to support such a campaign than Shakespeare, who may not have known the people involved or advised nobles.

Oxfordians also note that the tone of the poems sounds like a nobleman speaking to someone of equal status, not a poet addressing a patron. For example, Sonnet 91 compares the Fair Youth’s love to things like high birth and wealth, which suggests the author himself is of noble rank.

Oxford was born in 1550 and would have been between 40 and 53 years old when the sonnets were written. Shakespeare was born in 1564. Though life expectancy in the Elizabethan era was shorter, being in one’s 40s was not considered old. However, aging and the passage of time are common themes in the Sonnets, as seen in Sonnets 138 and 37. Oxford described himself as “lame” in his later years, and the sonnets also mention the author being lame, such as in Sonnets 37 and 89.

Sobran believes the Sonnets reveal a sense of disgrace or shame, which the poet expects his friends to understand. He argues the poet’s situation matches Oxford’s, who faced public scandal and was seen as falling from wealth and honor to disgrace. This is reflected in Sonnets 29 and 112.

As early as 1576, Edward de Vere wrote about disgrace in his poem Loss of Good Name, which scholar Steven W. May called a bold and unique work of its time.

The poems Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, published in 1593 and 1594 under the name “William Shakespeare,” were very popular. Venus and Adonis was printed six times before 1616, and Lucrece was printed four more times. By 1598, poet Richard Barnefield praised Shakespeare’s work, saying it would live on forever.

Despite this fame, Sobran notes that the Sonnets’ author hopes to be forgotten, believing only his young friend will be remembered. He claims his style is so unique that “every word doth almost tell my name,” suggesting his identity is hidden. Oxfordians interpret “every word” as a play on words, hinting at the name “Edward de Vere.” Mainstream scholars argue that some sonnets directly mention the name “William,” such as in Sonnet 136, where the poet says, “thou lov’st me for my name is Will.”

Oxfordians argue that if the author wanted his name to be forgotten, it would not be the name used on the published works. They point to Sonnets 81 and 72 to support this view.