Plays as Biography

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The evidence submitted at university level to support William Shakespeare as the poet and playwright from Stratford upon Avon can no longer be considered entirely reliable. Such evidence invariably takes the form of contemporary written references linking the name William Shakespeare to plays that he reputedly wrote. In normal circumstances this evidence would be considered valid, since similar procedures of examination and acceptance have been, and still are, adopted by historians throughout the world. But it is also a procedure that has one very important failing. If the ruling body of a particular age has engaged in the promotion of an Open Secret; something known only to an elite few and never set down in writing, then historians of a later era will find themselves in the same position as the great majority of people belonging to that former time, whose status in society excluded them from the 'Secret'. It is only to be expected, therefore, that subsequent historical research will result in the same false conclusions being reached as those intended for the people of that time. For, it follows that all relevant public documents belonging to that age will have been written either by persons who were ignorant of the Open Secret, and therefore wrote what they believed to be true, or by those endorsing it. And since contemporary written references to William Shakespeare all fall into that category, they can no longer be considered as a reliable guide to the truth. Even references which might be called private offer no reprieve. Once a 'public lie' has been set in motion, it quickly becomes autonomous and assumes a life of its own, taking sustenance from the frequent repetition with which it is uttered. Since private memoranda are apt to reflect the vocabulary of the age in which they were written, there is no reason to suppose that any verbal exceptions to the norm are likely to occur within their content.

Edward de Vere was the 17th Earl of Oxford and Lord Great Chamberlain of England. He was also greatly reviled by the ruling class to which he belonged: a fact that is frequently urged on readers by today's professorship. Consequently, as the writer of publicly performed plays, de Vere would have provided the perfect reason for the Establishment of his day to have wanted his authorship to be kept from public knowledge. There are several reasons for this. In post-feudal England every man had a master for whom he worked and to whom he gave service. The class system which still prevails in England, even at the commencement of the 21st century, was still at its height during the reign of Elizabeth I. The lowest class in the scale belonged to rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars, with whom actors were linked by the Poor Law. Edward de Vere reneged against the ruling class to which he belonged by writing plays for the general public, so that actors could earn their living by his work. This alone was political dynamite, for it ran completely counter to the thinking of the Tudor age. Were that not enough, the plays contained intimate sketches of his personal life, his family, and those he mixed with at court so that common players, the riff-raff of the age, could reenact these scenes for the amusement of the crowd. Worse still, he lampooned some of the highest names in the land by caricaturing them in his plays, and thus made subtle fun of them in front of the very people who they ruled over. All of this combined to inflame the Establishment to extreme degrees of incandescent wrath. It was against this heated background that the plays were seen as a threat, capable of de-stabilizing the political system then in force. For it was no doubt argued, behind closed doors, that the ridicule of a court member, who had been identified as a character in a play, might result in him being targeted with disrespectful abuse from the lower orders of society. And insolence sometimes provided the spark that ignited rebellion. [In later years, a number of books, plays and operas were also to become the subject of censorship, because the politicians of the time were fearful of introducing 'revolutionary' ideas into their society.]

Under such threatening circumstances, Edward de Vere would never be allowed by the ruling establishment of his day to become identified, openly, as the author of the plays that he had written, and which were then being performed in public. It would be too dangerous to take that risk. A 'patsy' from the lower classes had to be found; someone capable of being recognized by the general public as the plays' author. William Shaxpere, recently arrived from Stratford-on-Avon and therefore relatively unknown in London, but who had already previously been engaged by Oxford to act as a front man for the publication of his two poems, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, was easily persuaded by a lucrative payment to continue the subterfuge. The fact that Shaxpere could not write was actually unimportant. He was not required to do so, and in any case, if he had been able to write, the difference between his ability with a pen and that of de Vere's would have soon given the game away. He was therefore told to excuse himself if ever asked to commit pen to paper. This he did, for as John Aubrey records in a memorandum on Shakespeare: "The more to be admired q[uia - because] he was not a company keeper lived in Shoreditch, wouldn't be debauched, & if invited to writ[e]: he was in paine." For literary purposes, as well as perhaps disguise, Shaxpere's name was changed to Shakespeare. The people of Stratford, particularly those who came to visit London, had therefore no reason to connect the two men. Within a few years, and with the money he received for carrying out this deception to the satisfaction of his employer, he became rich, being able to buy one of the most expensive houses in Warwickshire. He was also able to successfully renew his father's rejected application for a coat of arms, although this grant of arms to "Shaxpere", together with "other base persons", was later condemned by Ralph Brooke, the York Herald. Shares in the theatre were also made over to him in order to keep-up appearances, and satisfy the public's belief in his close association with the theatre. And, of course, at the same time, he had the opportunity to become friendly with a few of the actors who may have known his secret. It appears that he even benefited from this acquaintanceship, for an actor, Augustine Phillipps, bequeathed him a small legacy in May 1605. However, there is no certainty that Phillipps knew who Shakespeare really was. One can only speculate.

Understandably, the professorship of the major western universities are unsympathetic to this conclusion. But, it must be held in mind, their thinking upon the subject, if at all, is without exception based upon misinformation. Their errors, therefore, directly result from the lack of rigour which accompanies a ready acceptance of those references to Shakespeare that were originally intended only for members of the general public; that is, people who were being deliberately denied knowledge of de Vere's authorship. Nevertheless, any one of several logical outcomes emanating from that particular situation would have been, and still is, profoundly obvious to a thinking person.

Firstly, apart from members of the Establishment, which included de Vere's family, the Open Secret would have been known to many members of the literary world, as well as those actively engaged in the theatre. Secondly, it would never be possible to transfer de Vere's education and life experiences onto Shaxpere. The titles of the plays could be transferred easily enough, but not the author's education and the lifetime of experience that had gone into them. Therefore, in time to come, researchers would be repeatedly frustrated, even baffled, by their repeated failure to uncover the literary life of William Shaxpere. Thirdly, the eventual decease of the two men involved in maintaining this subterfuge would mean that neither one could be publicly honoured as Shakespeare when they died. To have done so for de Vere, would have been to reveal him as the true author, and make nonsense of the previous efforts to conceal that fact. At the same time, it would have made those who had concealed his identity look ridiculous. But, to have honoured Shaxpere, was equally impossible. It would have caused so much mirth within the town of Stratford-on-Avon as to have been heard throughout England. How, it would be asked, could a man who had never owned a book in his life, and was unable to hold a pen long enough to even write his name in full, be publicly acclaimed by the London literary society as the greatest poet of the age? The two Shakespeare deaths, at the time they occurred, would therefore have to be ignored. Fourthly, the men of letters who had been silenced by the Establishment under threat of imprisonment, mutilation or even disappearance, but who still felt the urge to signal the truth to posterity, would be expected to resort to secret encryptions. Ben Jonson ["So Test Him I Vow He Is De Vere"], Thomas Thorpe ["These Sonnets All By Nil Vero Verius"], Henry Peacham junior ["Your Name Is de Vere"] and Tom Nashe ["M. Will. Oxon."] were to do just that. Fifthly, the reasons for the Open Secret – the political threat it posed with the scenes from de Vere's private life, together with his caricatures of those at court – could not be removed from the plays. They would therefore be available for future identification if the secret was ever discovered. It is this fifth logical outcome of the Open Secret – the biographical input – that now becomes the subject matter of what follows.

Anne Cecil was his youngest daughter of Lord Burghley. Anne Cecil had three admirers, the slimly built Philip Sidney, the lawyer Edward Manners, and Oxford. Sidney's income was just in excess of £300 per annum. He had also written a book of Songs and Sonnets. Anne's mother favours Edward Manners, her father favours Sidney. Anne wants to marry Oxford. Her father was wary of Oxford's seniority at Court and disliked his lewd friends; he was also aware of Oxford's irresponsibility with money. Anne marries Oxford. In 1575, an author named Geoffrey Fenton, obtained permission to dedicate his book, Golden Epistles, to Anne Cecil, Countess of Oxford. Fenton was clearly an admirer of Anne, and Oxford appears to have assumed this name in The Merry Wives of Windsor to become Anne Page's successful suitor.	The Merry Wives of Windsor - Anne Page has three admirers, Master Slender, Dr Caius (named after the famous lawyer at the time of Justinian), and Fenton. Slender has an income of £300 per annum. He also possesses a book of Songs and Sonnets. Her mother favours Dr Caius, her father favours Master Slender. Anne wants to marry Fenton. Her father thinks he is too high born and criticizes his madcap ways, and fears he only wishes to enrich his estate by the marriage. Anne marries Fenton.
Oxford became a ward of court in Lord Burghley's household at the age of twelve. Oxford left his widowed mother to become a royal ward. His guardian's daughter fell in love with him and wanted to be married. Oxford was of more noble birth than Anne and did not favour marriage. Following an ailment, marriage was agreed and the Queen consented. The wedding was at first postponed, no reason was given. After the wedding, Oxford suddenly left the country. A reconciliation between Oxford and Anne is contrived by switching his bed companion for his wife. As a result, a son is born. Confirmation of this reconciliation appears in The Histories of Essex by Morant and Wright: 1836.	All's Well That Ends Well - Bertram left his widowed mother to become a royal ward. His foster-sister fell in love with him and wanted to be married. Bertram argued he was of too high birth for marriage. Following an illness, the King consented to the marriage. Bertram attempted to change the King's mind regarding his marriage. After the wedding, Bertram suddenly left the country. A reconciliation between Bertram and Helena is contrived by switching his bed companion for his wife. As a result, a son is born.
Oxford's Marriage was planned for 21 September 1571, but postponed until 19 December. Anne Cecil was aged fourteen at the time of her engagement and intended marriage. There is confusion about the date of Anne's birth. According to her father's notes, made long after the event, it was 5 December 1556.	Romeo and Juliet - Juliet marries Romeo at the age of fourteen. Shakespeare deliberately altered Juliet's age from sixteen, in Bandello's original version, to fourteen. No commentator has been able to explain the reason for this change.
At the age of 25 Oxford traveled to Italy. Oxford resided for some months in Venice. He later invested £3000 in Lok's Cathay Company, set up to finance Frobisher's voyage with its promise of returning with gold-bearing ore. The enterprise failed. Oxford became impoverished by his lost investment. Lok was arrested and imprisoned, having gained a reputation for being a person of 'doubtful repute'. The word shy, from which we obtain - shyster, also has this meaning. When prefixed to Lok, the name becomes – Shy-Lok.	The Merchant of Venice - Antonio is a merchant living in Venice. He bonds himself to Shylock for 3000 ducats to be repaid from the proceeds of his cargo. But news arrives that the ships had foundered and the cargo was lost. Antonio is impoverished by his debt and his losses at sea.
While on the continent, Oxford traveled from Strasbourg to Italy. To reach Northern Italy, Oxford would have crossed the Alps, and seen the meadow valleys and the glistening streams running down from the mountain tops.	The Sonnets (33) - Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye, Kissing the golden face the meadows green, Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy...
While abroad, Oxford ran out of money and had to borrow while waiting for funds to arrive. Oxford borrowed 500 crowns from Baptista Nigrone. The money was then delivered to him by M. Pasquino Spinola of Venice. Oxford's allonym was a Warwickshire artisan who ‘woke up one day’ to discover he had become a poet overnight, and was occupying the position of a noble lord.	The Taming of the Shrew - Baptista Minola several times refers to his ‘crowns’. An Induction was inserted, in which Christopher Sly, a Warwickshire tinker, awakens one morning to find he is occupying the position of a noble lord.
While Oxford was abroad, his wife gave birth to a baby girl. Yorke (phonetic anagram Ye-r-ko) was in service to Oxford in Italy. Yorke informed Oxford of rumours that his wife had been unfaithful. Lord Burghley, Oxford's ‘elder’ and England's ‘Treasurer’ was the suspect. Oxford believed the calumny and took drastic action. For many years Oxford's wife was destroyed by his disbelief in her fidelity. Yorke was subsequently tortured and executed for espionage against Spain.	Othello - Iago (pronounced, Ye-r-go) was in service to Othello in Italy. Iago informed Othello of rumours that his wife had been unfaithful. Cassio, Othello's ‘ancient’ and an ‘arithmetician’ is the suspect. Othello believes the calumny and takes drastic action. Othello's wife is killed by him through his disbelief in her fidelity. Iago is subsequently sentenced to torture and execution.
For many years Oxford remained separated from his wife and daughter. Oxford refused to acknowledge his daughter, Elizabeth, as his child. Everyone at Court believes Lady Oxford to be blameless. Lady Suffolk decided to intervene. She forms a plot to bring Oxford and his daughter together in the belief that upon seeing the infant, her father's attitude will soften and the two will be reconciled. The plan failed and no more is heard of it. Eventually, Oxford overcomes his resistance and accepts Elizabeth.	The Winter's Tale - Leontes refuses to acknowledge his daughter, Perdita, as his child. Everyone at Court believes Hermione to be blameless. Paulina decides to intervene. She forms a plot to bring Leontes and his daughter together in the belief that upon seeing the infant, her father's attitude will soften and the two will be reconciled. The plan failed. Instead, the father ordered the child to be removed from his sight. Eventually, Leontes overcomes his resistance and accepts Perdita.
As a ward and then son-in-law, Oxford's life was influenced by Burghley and his family. Burghley was Queen Elizabeth's Lord Treasurer.. Burghley's motto was Cor unum, via una — ‘One heart one way’. Burghley's daughter was courted by Oxford, but later rejected. Burghley has a son to whom he gives advice in Certain Precepts and Directions. Burghley made Wednesday a meatless day to help the fishing industry. Oxford's mother remarried soon after the death of his father. Oxford arranged for a translation of Girulamo Cardano's book to be published. Oxford was captured by pirates while returning to England. Oxford's name does not appear on the list of those who attended his wife's funeral. Oxford foolishly invested £3000 in Frobisher's voyage North of the American continent in search of the North-West passage.	Hamlet - Polonius is the King's Chamberlain. Polonius was originally called Corambis (Latin for ‘a heart of two’). Polonius' daughter was courted by Hamlet but later rejected. Polonius has a son, Laertes, to whom he gives a list of similar ‘Precepts’. Hamlet calls Polonius a ‘fishmonger’. Hamlet's mother remarried soon after the death of his father. Hamlet's musing upon death runs parallel to that written by Girulamo Cardano. Hamlet is captured by pirates while returning to England. Hamlet did not attend the funeral of Ophelia. Hamlet declares himself to be mad—“North, North-West”.
In May 1573, Lord Burghley received a complaint from two of Oxford's former employees. Oxford was accused of having men in his service lie in wait for them on the ‘highway from Gravesend to Rochester’, before mounting an attack and fleeing to London.	Henry IV - Part One - Falstaff and three companions hold up and rob travelers at Gad's Hill, on the highway from Rochester to Gravesend in Kent, before fleeing to London.
In 1584, the first poet of France, Pierre de Ronsard, published a poem addressed to Queen Elizabeth, in which he predicted that: "Soon the proud Thames shall see A flock of white swans nesting on the grass, ... Uttering song, which is the certain sign That many a Poet, and the heavenly troop Of sister Muses quitting Parnassus Shall take it for their gracious dwelling place To tell the famous praise of England's Kings Unto the crowded nations of the world."	King John, Richard II, Henry IV [parts 1 & 2], Henry V, Henry VI [parts 1,2 & 3], Richard III, Henry VIII - In 1583, Oxford acquired the sublease of the Blackfriars Playhouse situated on the northern shore of the Thames. At the same time, Ronsard's reference to the forthcoming Histories, and his address to Queen Elizabeth, citing the poetic acclaim that these would elicit from fellow poets, confirmed his prior knowledge of what was soon to appear in public. Yet, in 1583, William Shaxpere of Stratford-on-Avon was 19 years old, a newly wed, and unknown beyond the environs of his town.

Footnote: I am indebted for the content of many of the above references to the earlier research work undertaken by Eva Turner Clark, Derran Charlton and Charlton Ogburn jnr. and Bernard M. Ward. Without their many hours of dedicated labour, so much that is true and relevant to the authorship debate would still remain uncovered.