Debunking
the Oxford - Shakespeare Authorship
Thesis
12 A R G U M E N T S
------------
12 Arguments Against Edward de Vere as Shakespeare
1. Oxford Died Too Early
Edward de Vere died in 1604, yet many plays attributed to Shakespeare were
written (or first published) after 1604 —
which Oxford could not have written.
2.
No Direct
Documentary Evidence
There exists no contemporary manuscript,
signed draft, or direct attribution tying Oxford’s hand to the works
published under the name “Shakespeare.”
3.
Lack of Signed
or Manuscript Material
No surviving manuscripts of plays exist in Oxford’s handwriting, and none were
definitively linked to him during his lifetime.
4. Stylistic and Literary Mismatch
The known poetry and writings of Oxford do
not match the depth, style, and technical features of the Shakespeare
canon—especially dramatic structure and linguistic richness.
5.
Oxford’s Limited
Theatre Experience
Oxfordians claim he was connected to theatre, but mainstream evidence shows no firm proof of sustained involvement withLondon’s professional stage where Shakespeare worked.
6.
Chronology of
Specific Texts
Some works attributed to Shakespeare show development and revision long after
1604, which a dead author could not convincingly account for without invoking
unlikely posthumous completion conspiracies.
7.
Lack of
Publication Records
Oxford’s name never appears as playwright on any original quartos or title
pages; “William Shakespeare” does. This absence is problematic for de Vere’sproponents.
8.
Dependence on
Conspiracy‑Like Mechanisms
The Oxfordian case frequently requires elaborate explanations (e.g., secret
pseudonyms, deliberate concealment by printers/authors) that appear implausible given the evidence.
9.
Misuse of
Anagrams and Cryptography
Many Oxfordian claims rely on back‑solved anagrams, numerology, or hidden
messages which are not regarded as credible evidence in serious scholarship.
10.
Biographical
Overreach
Oxfordians often interpret episodes from Oxford’s life as direct parallels to
play content. Such subjective connections are considered speculative rather
than evidentiary.
11.
Problematic
Redating of Plays
To keep Oxford viable as the author, Oxfordians often must redate plays earlier than established scholarly chronology —a method that runs counter to most textual and historical evidence.
12. Scholarly
Consensus and Documentary Tradition
The overwhelming consensus of textual scholars, editors, and historians
attributes the works to “William Shakespeare of Stratford‑upon‑Avon” on the
strength of publishing records, title pages, and
contemporary references — evidence Oxfordian theory fails to overturn.
-----------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment