Throughout the years, millions of scholars have studied the works of the great Bard from Stratford; his plays are legendary and his sonnets are world-famous. But many believe that it was not the man from Stratford who wrote the works we praise William Shakespeare for, and you would be hard-pressed to find any scholar more enthusiastic about the topic than Dr. Felicia Londre. She recently made a visit to AU, where she presented her views on the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare’s true identity.
Scholars who have studied Shakespeare have formulated a list of attributes Shakespeare must have had in order to write like he did. The Shakespeare from Stratford may have had one of those: the fact that he was interested in theater. In fact, according to Londre, the man of literary fame wasn’t even really named Shakespeare; his real name was Shaksper (pronounced like “shock” and “pear”).
Experts also have found some other interesting facts about this Shaksper. For instance, his signature indicates that he was, in fact, illiterate. The school records from the years he was supposed to have attended are mysteriously missing. His children were also found to have been illiterate. And, in his will, Shaksper didn’t leave any books to his children, nor did he leave them his share of the rights to The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, the theatre company he supposedly held stock in.
If this man from Stratford was illiterate and couldn’t have written the works of Shakespeare, as Londre believes, then who did? The name Shakespeare originally appeared as Shake-Speare, which was a common format for pseudonyms. Dr. Londre, as an Oxfordian scholar, believes that the true Shakespeare was a man named Edward De Vere. In the list of Shakespeare’s attributes, De Vere fits every one.
He was interested in theatre, he knew about courtly affairs and falconry and his inherited title was The Great Lord Chamberlain. The company Shakespeare was a member and partial owner of was called The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, and it was documented that De Vere owned stock in the company and it was passed on to his children in his will. There are also numerous events that transpired throughout his life which strangely correlate to events that happen in the plays, such as the time when a friend convinced De Vere that his wife was cheating on him while he was traveling — similar to “Othello.” There are many other parallels between De Vere’s life and the plays of Shakespeare, and many of his sonnets allude to people who are eerily similar to the people in De Vere’s life.
There are also many other inconsistencies which suggest that Shaksper couldn’t have written the works of Shakespeare. The play “Twelfth Night” was originally an Italian commedia dell’arte, a play only available in Italy and written in Italian. Shaksper would not have had access to the story, but De Vere had traveled to Italy around the time of its release and was a fan of the commedia dell’arte style. There was also a publication made after the death of De Vere, but before that of Shaksper, in which Shakespeare is referred to as “The Ever Living Shakespeare,” a term then used for people who had died.
So why would the creator of a collection of writing that was deemed to be of genius quality use a pseudonym and not claim the works as his own? In those days, Londre argued, it was believed improper for a member of the court to have their name on something that would be available to the unworthy masses. So to avoid being whipped by the court, De Vere could have used the pseudonym of Shakespeare.
There are many arguments for and against the different theories of Shakespeare’s true identity, and though both sides hold valid points, many questions remain. Londre introduced those at the lecture to a side of Shakespeare they may not have known otherwise, putting into question the Bard we thought we knew so well.
You can reach this writer at thescene@theeagleonline.com.
