The Real Shakespeare - A Will and a Way, No Quill, but Plenty a Play

I just finished watching the film 'Anonymous' from 2011 which has nothing to do with that internet anarchy group. This movie presents the idea that in fact it was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who penned the Shakespeare plays, etc. It is a compelling story, but as I am always want to do, I've come up with my own "theory" which is a variation on that presented in the film. Forgive me if it resembles others out there. I haven't read them all, but I do like the idea of a hoax and I do think the known facts could come to this conclusion. What we do know is that there is no record that the person we know as William Shakespeare ever wrote his name as we know it. Instead he opted for “Willm Shakp,” “Willm Shakspere” and “William Shakspeare.” - which speaks to his illiteracy. There is also no evidence that he attended any school of any kind. I believe that Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), like many people of his class including his parents in the town of Stratford (which had a population of about 1,500 at the time), was illiterate. He was one of eight children and the eldest son. In such a large family, he was most certainly expected to have worked to help support it and could not have had time to attend school. At the age of 18 he was compelled to marry the 26-year-old Anne who was three months pregnant. With little to no education, he decided to get away from Stratford to make his fortune and return with it to support his wife and kids. He had little luck for many years (the 7 "lost years.") and wound up in London where he found some work as stagehand and part-time actor. He was able to work with others and learn his lines by having the other actors feed him his during rehearsals. He could learn enough to play small parts. Perhaps the theatre company liked having him around because he was a jack-of-trades. He had learned many skills during the "lost years." Shakespeare's known prolific period (1592 - 1613), it is proposed, coincides with a period when a group of playwrights in London wanted to take on some edgier, more political material. Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford (1550 – 1604) was himself a want-to-be playwright who felt stifled by the royal life of which he was part. He befriended this group of playwrights (on the down-low - class rules dictated that it must be so). What de Vere lacked in extraordinary talent, he made up for in insight into the monarchy, the court and the world. He was, of course, a very well-educated man - he graduated from Cambridge University at age 14. And he had a wealth of personal experiences that appear, although veiled, in the works attributed to Shakespeare. The group of playwrights (this "band of brothers") included de Vere and perhaps Ben Johnson, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Thomas Nashe, and Robert Greene, et al. They would meet secretly and pen what we now know as Shakespeare's works. No one in the group, least of all de Vere, could reveal themselves as authors. They would be persecuted. So many of the Shakespeare plays took on the subjects that were risky or risque - corruption in government, prejudice, suicide, incest, etc. These subjects would not (did not) go unnoticed by those in power. Therefore, sort of as a hoax and as a cover they attributed them to William Shakespeare (unbeknownst to the man himself at first). This idea had come from de Vere who, though a nobleman, actually sympathized with the lower classes (of which Shakespeare certainly was part). The group knew that everyone else around the theatre knew that Shakespeare was illiterate and could not have written the plays and, therefore, would be safe from any persecution. It was a win-win-win - for the group, the man Shakespeare and the theatre in general. Though it took the illiterate Shakespeare by surprise when he was given credit for the fine plays, he soon took to the idea and enjoyed all the perks that came along with such recognition. He was now able to support his family and live high on the hog in London. Playwright Greene is known to have written of Shakespeare that he was "beautified with our feathers." Here feathers refer to quills (pens). "Shakespeare" was a nom-de-plume. The group agreed that it would be so, though perhaps some like Greene resented the idea a bit. After the death of de Vere, the group dared not pen another play. The few major Shakespeare plays that were released after his death (e.g. Macbeth and The Tempest) were written earlier and presented later. De Vere had been the groups' protector. Any time one of them was jailed for something political they had written in a play, he saw to it that they were released. They could no longer enjoy that luxury. Members of the group went back to penning their own innocuous plays and promoting "Shakespeare's" works. Without anymore attributions, Shakespeare, the person, fell out of favor. Group members, who had grown weary of Shakespeare reaping the rewards of their work, soured on Mr. Bill. Feeling unwelcome, Shakespeare returned to his wife and children to live out his final years (1613 - 1616) in Stratford where nothing special happened - least of all with a pen. It is generally agreed that while recognized in their time, the "works of Shakespeare" did not reach their present heights of popularity until the 19th century. Businessmen in Stratford took notice that Shakespeare lovers were making a pilgrimage to their town to see the birthplace of their icon. During this time, the home underwent major renovations hiding the fact that it originated as a humble abode (see pictures above). The myth of Shakespeare had to be perpetuated in every detail. It is no accident that if you look up "Stratfordian" in the dictionary, you find two (intertwined) definitions. A Stratfordian is an inhabitant of the town of Stratford. And a Stratfordian is a person who, in the controversy over who wrote William Shakespeare's plays, holds that it was William Shakespeare himself. The two "Stratfordians" are one in the same. It served the people of Stratford to continue to have people believe that their native son wrote the plays, etc. Today, according to Wikipedia, "The town is a popular tourist destination owing to its status as birthplace of the playwright and poet William Shakespeare, receiving about three million visitors a year from all over the world. The Royal Shakespeare Company resides in Stratford's Royal Shakespeare Theatre, one of Britain's most important cultural venues." It was nothing of the sort in Shakespeare's day. The evidence that supports this lies in what one doesn't find. Despite his love of the theatre, the man known as Shakespeare never built one in Stratford. By 1597, he had the means. It was in this year he bought the second-largest house in Stratford (New Place). And he's also known to have bought a coat-of-arms for his family - trying to appear of a class that he was not. One would think that a man dedicated to the theatre arts would contribute his growing wealth toward building a place in his town where his family could enjoy his works. Instead, he put his wealth toward the material things that had nothing to do with theatre. How to explain this? The plays, etc. were not his. He did not have them and if he had copies, he could not read them. The first theatre in Stratford was built 150 years after the death of Shakespeare. It was during this time that enterprising individuals in the town of Stratford realized the goldmine they were sitting on - to capitalize on the hoax that began in London. The works attributed to Shakespeare are indeed a treasure. The "theory" presented here is not meant to subtract from one individual, but to recognize that the art is what really matters and not its author. The group consisting of de Vere, et al. recognized this and were able to put their egos aside for the sake of it - "The play's the thing."