Edward de Vere (Oxfordian) Shakespeare Theory

Overview

Of all the alternative candidates proposed as the “real” author of Shakespeare’s plays, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, has attracted the most serious and sustained advocacy. The Oxfordian theory — named for its candidate’s title — is the dominant anti-Stratfordian position, supported by dedicated organizations, peer-reviewed journals (of a sort), and an impressive roster of prominent believers that has included Supreme Court justices, knighted actors, and at least one Pulitzer Prize winner.

The argument is seductive in its simplicity. Shakespeare’s plays display an intimate knowledge of courtly life, foreign travel, aristocratic sports, legal proceedings, and classical education that seems wildly inconsistent with what we know about the life of William Shakespeare of Stratford — a glove-maker’s son with no documented university education and no record of foreign travel. Edward de Vere, by contrast, was a highly educated nobleman who traveled extensively in Italy, studied law, patronized acting companies, wrote poetry praised by contemporaries, and lived a life that uncannily mirrors the plots and themes of Shakespeare’s plays.

The catch, and it is a significant one, is that de Vere died in 1604. A substantial number of Shakespeare’s plays were written, performed, and published after that date. Mainstream Shakespeare scholarship overwhelmingly supports the Stratford attribution based on extensive documentary evidence. But the Oxfordian movement, now more than a century old, shows no signs of fading. If anything, it is growing.

Origins & History

The Authorship Question

Doubts about Shakespeare’s authorship are older than the Oxfordian theory itself. As early as the 1850s, writers like Delia Bacon (no relation to Francis Bacon) were raising questions about whether a man of Shakespeare’s background could have written works of such intellectual range and aristocratic sensibility. These early doubts tended to favor Francis Bacon as an alternative candidate, and the “Baconian theory” dominated anti-Stratfordian thinking for decades.

The underlying question was always the same: how did a man with no documented university education, no record of foreign travel, and no known aristocratic connections produce works that displayed expert knowledge of all three?

Stratfordian scholars have always had answers to this. Shakespeare’s plays demonstrate wide reading, not necessarily formal education. His knowledge of Italy, while impressive, contains errors that suggest he never actually visited. His legal knowledge, while extensive, is not technically precise. And the Elizabethan theater was a collaborative, commercially driven environment where a talented playwright could absorb enormous amounts of knowledge through reading, conversation, and professional experience.

But the doubters were not satisfied. And in 1920, a new candidate emerged.

J. Thomas Looney’s Discovery

John Thomas Looney (pronounced “Loney,” as the man himself insisted) was an English schoolteacher with a passion for Shakespeare and a growing conviction that the Stratford man could not be the author. Rather than starting with a candidate and arguing backward, Looney developed a profile of the “true” author based on characteristics of the plays themselves:

• A man of the upper class, familiar with courtly manners
• A man who had traveled in Italy
• A man with knowledge of law, music, military matters, and classical languages
• A man connected to the theater but perhaps unable to publish under his own name
• A man with a lyrical poetic sensibility evident in the plays’ verse

Looney then searched for Elizabethan noblemen who matched this profile. He landed on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and published his findings in “Shakespeare” Identified in Edward De Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford in 1920.

The book was a sensation — and an embarrassment. Looney’s unfortunate surname guaranteed that reviewers would mock the work regardless of its content. But beneath the jokes, his argument was methodical and detailed, and it launched a movement that would outlast him by a century.

The Case Builds

Through the mid-twentieth century, Oxfordian research expanded. Key developments included:

Charlton Ogburn Jr.’s The Mysterious William Shakespeare (1984): A 900-page opus that became the Oxfordian movement’s bible. Ogburn, a former military intelligence officer and son of another Oxfordian researcher, presented the case with the thoroughness of a legal brief. The book attracted mainstream attention and was reviewed (not always favorably, but reviewed) by major publications.

The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship: Founded in 1957, this organization has maintained continuous advocacy for the Oxfordian position, publishing a journal (The Oxfordian), organizing conferences, and coordinating research.

The moot court tradition: Beginning in 1987, a series of mock trials examined the authorship question, with prominent judges and lawyers hearing arguments. In a notable 1987 event at American University, three of the five Supreme Court justices serving as judges expressed some sympathy with the Oxfordian position.

The Twenty-First Century

The authorship debate intensified in the 2000s and 2010s:

• The 2007 Declaration of Reasonable Doubt: Signed by over 3,000 people, including scholars, actors, and writers, this document argued that the question of Shakespeare’s authorship deserved open academic investigation
• The 2011 film Anonymous: Directed by Roland Emmerich, this fictionalized account of the Oxfordian theory brought the argument to mainstream audiences, though the film took extensive dramatic liberties
• Mark Anderson’s “Shakespeare” By Another Name (2005): A detailed biography of de Vere that served as a more accessible companion to Ogburn’s work
• Growing academic resistance: Shakespeare scholars responded with increasingly forceful defenses of the Stratford attribution, including Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson’s Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013)

Key Claims

Biographical Parallels

Oxfordians argue that de Vere’s life maps onto Shakespeare’s works with uncanny precision:

• Hamlet: De Vere was raised as a ward of Lord Burghley (William Cecil) after his father’s death — just as Hamlet is orphaned and placed under the authority of Polonius, whom Oxfordians identify as a satirical portrait of Burghley. De Vere’s letters to Burghley contain phrases echoed in Hamlet’s dialogue
• Italian plays: De Vere traveled extensively in Italy in 1575-1576, visiting Venice, Padua, Florence, and other cities featured prominently in the plays. The Merchant of Venice, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, and The Two Gentlemen of Verona all display detailed Italian settings
• The Sonnets: The autobiographical interpretation of Shakespeare’s Sonnets — with their themes of aging, shame, social stigma, and a beloved aristocratic youth — fits de Vere’s biography more comfortably than Shakespeare’s, Oxfordians argue
• Musical and legal knowledge: De Vere was trained in music and law, both of which feature prominently in the plays

Social Stigma

A core Oxfordian argument is that Elizabethan aristocrats could not publicly write for the commercial theater without suffering social disgrace. Playwriting was considered a low-status occupation, unsuitable for a nobleman. De Vere, as one of the most senior peers of the realm, would have had powerful reasons to publish under a pseudonym.

This claim is partially supported by historical evidence. Some Elizabethan aristocrats did publish anonymously or pseudonymously. But other noblemen, including de Vere’s contemporaries, published under their own names without apparent consequences, which weakens the argument.

The “Missing” Biography

Oxfordians emphasize the extraordinary thinness of Shakespeare’s documented biography. Beyond legal and financial records — property transactions, tax records, a will that mentions no books or manuscripts — there is remarkably little documentation of Shakespeare’s life as a writer. No personal letters survive. No manuscripts in his handwriting. No eulogies at his death in 1616. His will, famously, mentions his “second best bed” but not a single play, poem, or book.

Stratfordians respond that this reflects the patchy survival of Elizabethan records, not evidence of a conspiracy, and that Shakespeare’s authorship is documented through multiple contemporary references, title pages, and the First Folio of 1623.

Evidence

For the Oxfordian Position

• De Vere’s documented travels match the geography of the plays
• His education and social position match the plays’ intellectual range
• Contemporary references describe de Vere as “best for comedy” among Elizabethan courtier-poets
• His coat of arms features a lion shaking a spear — a visual pun on “Shakespeare”
• Biographical parallels between de Vere’s life and characters, plots, and themes in the plays
• His known patronage of acting companies and literary figures
• The dedications of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece to the Earl of Southampton, who was de Vere’s prospective son-in-law

Against the Oxfordian Position

• The death date problem: De Vere died on June 24, 1604. At least twelve plays are dated after this, including King Lear, Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline, and The Tempest. Several of these draw on source material that was not published until after 1604
• Contemporary testimony: Multiple contemporaries, including Ben Jonson, John Heminges, and Henry Condell, identified Shakespeare of Stratford as the author. The First Folio (1623) explicitly names him
• No contemporary identification: Despite de Vere’s prominence, no contemporary source identifies him as Shakespeare. In a world of literary gossip, this absence is difficult to explain
• The plays’ development: Shakespeare’s artistic development over time — from the relatively conventional early comedies to the profound late romances — is difficult to reconcile with a single cache of pre-1604 manuscripts
• Collaboration evidence: Stylometric analysis shows Shakespeare collaborated with other playwrights (Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, George Wilkins). This pattern of living collaboration is hard to explain if the “true” author died in 1604
• The Italian errors: While Shakespeare’s Italian settings are vivid, they contain geographical and cultural errors that suggest the author had not actually visited Italy — or had visited briefly and imperfectly

Debunking / Verification

The Oxfordian theory is classified as unresolved not because the evidence is evenly balanced — mainstream scholarly opinion overwhelmingly favors the Stratford attribution — but because the question is inherently difficult to settle definitively with four-century-old evidence.

The death date problem remains the single most serious obstacle to the Oxfordian position. Oxfordians have developed various responses (the plays were written earlier than traditionally dated; they were revised after de Vere’s death by collaborators; the traditional dating is wrong), but these responses require increasingly speculative assumptions.

At the same time, the Stratfordian position, while supported by the weight of evidence, relies partly on the absence of evidence (we cannot prove Shakespeare did not travel to Italy, because we simply do not know what he did for long stretches of his life). The authorship question ultimately comes down to how much weight one gives to biographical circumstantial evidence versus documentary evidence of attribution.

Cultural Impact

The Oxfordian theory has had a substantial cultural impact, particularly in theatrical and literary circles:

Academic politics: The authorship question has become one of the most contentious topics in literary studies. Scholars who express interest in anti-Stratfordian positions risk professional censure, while Oxfordians accuse the academic establishment of closed-mindedness. The debate has become, in some respects, a proxy war over academic authority and the boundaries of legitimate inquiry.

Theatrical tradition: Prominent actors and directors who have supported the Oxfordian position — including Mark Rylance (former artistic director of Shakespeare’s Globe), Derek Jacobi, and Jeremy Irons — have brought the debate to theatergoing audiences who might otherwise have been unaware of it.

Class politics: The authorship question carries implicit class politics. The suggestion that a commoner could not have written Shakespeare’s plays strikes many as elitist — a refusal to believe that genius can emerge from humble origins. Oxfordians counter that their argument is about specific knowledge (travel, courtly life, legal training), not innate ability.

Tourism and heritage: Stratford-upon-Avon’s entire tourism economy depends on the traditional attribution. The Oxfordian challenge, while never seriously threatening the town’s identity, adds a layer of contested meaning to every visit to the Birthplace and the grave.

In Popular Culture

• Anonymous (2011) — Roland Emmerich’s film presents a fictionalized Oxfordian narrative, with de Vere secretly writing the plays and using Shakespeare as a front. The film was commercially unsuccessful but generated extensive media discussion
• Shakespeare in Love (1998) — While supporting the Stratfordian attribution, the film playfully acknowledges the authorship question
• Mark Rylance’s advocacy — The acclaimed actor has used his platform to promote the Oxfordian theory, including refusing to participate in celebrations of Shakespeare’s birthday under the Stratfordian banner
• The Shakespeare Conspiracy (documentary) — Multiple documentaries have examined the authorship question, typically presenting the Oxfordian position sympathetically
• Novels — Several novels have fictionalized the Oxfordian scenario, including Sarah Smith’s Chasing Shakespeares (2003)

Key Figures

• Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) — The candidate himself: courtier, poet, patron of the arts, and one of the most prominent noblemen of the Elizabethan era
• J. Thomas Looney (1870-1944) — English schoolteacher who first systematically proposed de Vere as the author in his 1920 book
• Charlton Ogburn Jr. (1911-1998) — Author of the monumental The Mysterious William Shakespeare (1984), the Oxfordian movement’s most comprehensive statement
• Mark Anderson — Author of “Shakespeare” By Another Name (2005), a de Vere biography framed by the authorship question
• Mark Rylance — Acclaimed actor and the Oxfordian movement’s most prominent living advocate
• Stanley Wells — Leading Shakespeare scholar and vocal defender of the Stratfordian attribution

Timeline

Sources & Further Reading

• Looney, J. Thomas. “Shakespeare” Identified in Edward De Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. Cecil Palmer, 1920.
• Ogburn, Charlton Jr. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality. Dodd, Mead, 1984.
• Anderson, Mark. “Shakespeare” By Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare. Gotham, 2005.
• Wells, Stanley, and Paul Edmondson, eds. Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Shapiro, James. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? Simon & Schuster, 2010.
• Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Liverpool University Press, 2003.
• The Oxfordian (journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship).

Related Theories

• Francis Bacon as Shakespeare — The other major anti-Stratfordian candidate, with a longer history but smaller contemporary following
• Shakespeare Authorship Question — The broader umbrella debate over who wrote the plays