Well I've now waded through the 1165 pages of this book and think that I've probably wasted a significant portion of my remaining life. Basically, it's one big conspiracy theory. Yes it may be right ...that the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere was the actual author of the Shakespearian plays.I realised as I got more into the book that there is a whole society called the Oxfordians, dedicated to claiming or proving that de Vere was the author and not William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. So yes, they have amassed a huge amount of "circumstantial " evidence that suggests that de Vere COULD have written the Shakespearian plays and sonnets. But, as is confessed: 'There is no single “smoking gun” document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc. Instead, one builds the case upon a series of facts and observations that, when put together like pieces of a puzzle, produce an overall picture that becomes difficult to deny'.
But the whole edifice relies on an argument along the line: Shakespear's plays (or sonnets) describe X and these incidents Y of de Vere's life would seem to match with X. Or, in most cases, it is just suppositions..".One can readily envision how, as this aristocratico inglese settled into his new hometown, he also began attending plays that would be meting out ideas, plots, characters, and inspiration for the rest of his life..........It is unknowable what plays de Vere saw in Venice, when the commedia literally spilled out into the streets and piazzas". So on the basis of assumptions about plays that de Vere MIGHT have seen in italy, Anderson draws some pretty fantastic conclusions. It's much the same right through, with Anderson surmising that de Vere "would have" or "probably saw" or "It's likely that" etc. etc. Maybe it was the case but there is no evidence there to prove this.
And where did all this conspiracy theory start. Well the basic assumption appears to be that a country boy like Will Shakespeare....although he undoubtedly was a player in a troupe that played in the Globe Theatre....was just not educated or smart enough to have written the works attributed to him. And therefore, someone else must have written them. At that point the theorists start casting around for people around at the same time who might, conceivably, have had the skills and education to be the author ...and a favourite suspect is Edward de Vere.
I described what I was reading to a friend and her attitude was "Who cares whether he did or didn't write the works?" The important thing is that we have the plays and sonnets and it's then text that is important now....not who wrote them. I find myself half agreeing with her but there does appear to be evidence that Will Shakespeare did exist; that he was from Stratford on Avon (he left a will), that he was a player in a troupe that played Shakespearian plays, that the plays were collected and published as his works in about 1620, and there are records of him having a wonderful wit. So, no hard evidence with a play written and signed by him....but still a lot of positive indicators.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that Shakespeare build on pre-existing stories or plays for example "The queen’s account books list the title of Westcote’s masque as The History of Titus and Gisippus, an ancient story of friendship. It is also known to be one of two principal source texts for Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen of Verona". So, if you are re-working existing stories you don't have to be especially inventive. And having written a play myself and had it produced, I'm well aware that the text is liable to be constantly amended and teased...sometimes to suit current events and sometimes to suit the particular actors and sometimes ....just because it works better. So a play script is likely to be continually evolving. And, it appears, that this is what happened with Shakespeare with the various printings claiming authenticity to the original words. Anderson, in fact, makes something of this claim about de Verde, viz: "It is the contention of this book that de Vere wrote some of these “lost” courtly interludes. Then, during the 1590s and early 1600s, he—probably with the assistance and input of others in his immediate circle of family, secretaries, and friends—rewrote these plays for the public stage". (Note the insertion of the word "probably").
The bottom line is that, whilst Anderson weaves a reasonable case that Edward de Vere had lots of experiences and close encounters that have similarities to various scenes in Shakespeare's works ....... and de Verde lived at the same time as Shakespeare....though he apparently died after a considerable illness in 1604.,.....whilst Shakespeare's plays were still being produced much later and he (Shakespeare) apparently died well after 1604. (Though this is disputed by Anderson).....there is just not enough hard evidence to prove the case. Or to disprove that Will Shakespeare, of Stratford on Avon was the author.
I do have to acknowledge Anderson's extensive research and prodigious imagination in being able to match so many twists and turns of de Vere's life with the Shakespearian canon. However, one could probably do much the same with Prince Charles.
Yes, one has to ask why did Shakespeare have no books of manuscripts of plays etc in his will when he lists his "Second best bed"? That certainly seems odd. But maybe he had access to other people's libraries ...especially when wealthy people ran their own troupes of players. ...Anyway, I'm not going to be able to resolve the issue about Shakespeare's true identity here. I give the book four stars on the grounds that Anderson makes a very thorough case ....even if his conclusions and assumptions might be a bit suspect. ( )

I listened to the audiobook [by the incomparable Simon Prebble] and it convinced me. Fascinating, detailed, and makes the case. Well worth the time and attention. ( )

This book completely changed the way I thought about and perceived Shakespeare. I can no longer sit in English or Literature classes and think about Shakespeare the way my fellow classmates do. The depth of this argument is absolutely astounding and while I would like to believe in the romantic idea that a boy from Stratford-Upon-Avon could have written the amazing anthology of plays and poems, the evidence is too overwhelming. I can't argue it. The time and research put into this book is incredible. A very interesting, controversial read. ( )

The real Edward de Vere was a restless Elizabethan malcontent who dissipated a fortune in money and opportunities. He was also a moderately skilled poet. By virtue of having been one of the first Elizabethans to devote his verses to non-religious subjects, he holds a modest place in literary history that a modern cult has exalted into the “true authorship” of Shakespeare’s plays.

Mark Anderson’s pseudo-biography tries to find in every event of the earl’s life a parallel to something in Shakespeare. One would not have thought unfettered imagination could be so tedious. In the words of another reviewer:

"Anderson has simply stitched together his narrative of Oxford’s life from the plays’ protagonists—he is Hamlet, the disenfranchised son, but also Lear, father of three daughters, and Timon, a bitter hermit alienated from court. Imagine the loss to English literature if the man [had] decided instead to keep a diary.

"This is the same old game of code-breaking; the Baconists’ cryptological terms have been replaced by biographical ones, appropriate to our memoir-obsessed age. Such parallels may be compelling if you believe that Oxford wrote the plays, but they cannot be convincing: The book is an enormous exercise in begging the question."

( )

Read the full title carefully: “Shakespeare” by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare (Gotham Books, 2005). Prepare for 380 pages of engaging argument, but be aware of what you’re letting yourself in for.

I picked the book up at a bookstore. (I am an inveterate browser.) I had just been rereading some Shakespearean plays, recapturing pleasure that has lasted a lifetime (well, not counting one or two undergraduate courses that almost turned me off). I read Derek Jacobi’s brief foreword. So-so. I began to scan the author’s introduction, and soon I was hooked. There he lays out what he calls the “cornerstones” of his case. The text distinguishes between Will Shakespere, the actor from Stratford, and William Shake-speare, the pen name of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Apparently they didn’t even spell their names the same way. Anderson opens his case by reminding us of what has puzzled aficionados for years: the strangely sparse details about such a prolific playwright’s life as a writer and the doubt that someone of his background could have been so learnéd as to have produced such erudite scripts. “Even if Will Shakespere had attended the Stratford Grammar School as a child, a supposition for which there is no evidence, it would not have provided him the kind of myriad-minded expertise one finds in abundance in Shake-speare. Will Shakespere’s documented biography is extensive, but it is all commercial activities, lawsuits, and entrepreneurial ventures. It reveals no formal education, tutelage, or apprenticeship in his presumed craft.” This introduction was more than a little persuasive.

Then I happened to turn to an appendix on the “Ashbourne Portrait” of Shake-speare, for it is the art featured on the cover. Equally convincing. I scanned the 137 pages of end-notes, documenting the decade of research the author, Mark Anderson, devoted to this project. Simply reading his cast of characters for each of the eleven chapters (a very handy device, by the way) led me on. Well, I said to myself, whether he proves his position or not, this ought to be interesting reading. Whether he’s Shakespeare or not, this de Vere guy sounds like a fascinating character. I bought it—the book, that is, not necessarily the argument.

I was right, and I was wrong. Edward de Vere was, indeed, a fascinating character. Reading about his harum-scarum life not only involved one in suspenseful conflicts with his guardian, his wife (his estranged wife for a long period, perhaps in a unconsummated marriage), with a number of his fellow courtiers, and at times even with his Queen. His life story also presents the history of Elizabeth I’s court and her era from a new perspective, one that gives insight into conflicts and tensions surrounding the monarch.

So, interesting reading? Yes. Except it does go on and on. And, browsing in the bookstore, I had already read most of the compelling (?) evidence that de Vere was actually Shake-speare. Only one other passage is equally persuasive, the account of de Vere’s Grand Tour of Europe, especially his sojourn in Italy—Verona, Venice, Palermo, Genoa, Florence, Naples, Milan, Padua—and his personal knowledge of some of the settings of Shakespeare’s plays. (If you read only parts of this biography, make one of them pp. 79-107; you will also get a glimpse of the contention between de Vere and his wife and father-in-law, who was also his guardian, in other words his “Polonius.”)

What is especially confusing is Anderson’s explanations of the relationship between the Earl of Oxford and this actor come in from the country. What kind of deal did they have, and why? Why was it so important, even after his death, that Oxford’s authorship remain a secret? Oh, motives are offered; excuses are made. But they don’t stand up as incontrovertible amidst all the other questionable inferences and suppositions.

What gets mired down in details and remains unconvincing is Anderson’s chronology of de Vere’s “writing” of the plays. Even less convincing are the parallels between the plots and characters of all the plays and de Vere’s own experiences. Yes, that’s ALL the plays, and many, many details, most of which frankly could be merely coincidental. In the words of the Bard himself, “Methinks he doth protest too much.” Too much. One’s eyes begin to blur and one’s attention wanders. If there is, indeed, telling evidence of this sort, I may have overlooked it as the details ground on and on.

But am I glad I read the book? Absolutely. The life of de Vere alone, minus the playwriting, would be a good read. The insights into Shakespeare’s plays are occasionally tantalizing; the insights into the courtly life and the theatrical venues are particularly informative. One sees first hand the opening and closing of different kinds of theaters. That de Vere dabbled in drama seems quite probable; that he worked with (and against) other writers seems clear. That his education and experience seem more likely to have produced masterpieces than Will’s, perhaps. Evidence of writing style admittedly from de Vere’s own pen? Not clear at all.

Immediately after reading this I turned to another Shakespearean biographer, one squarely in defense of the Stratford actor’s authorship, who fails to note any relationship at all with de Vere. This account was equally interesting (emphasizing the Shakespere family’s Roman Catholic background and, perhaps, their resulting sedition), and it is similarly dubious in amassing details from the plays that supposedly have autobiographical meanings.

So, yes, I’m glad I read the book. But ultimately I am unmoved from my original stance. We do not know much about the Homer who wrote the Iliad or the Odyssey, if indeed someone named Homer actually did. We don’t know, for sure, whether Will Shakespere, or Edward de Vere, or someone else was William Shakespeare. We don’t know whether the autobiographical details from the playwright’s life get reflected in the plays or not. When I read Hamlet or King Henry IV Part I or As You Like It, I don’t much care. The plays stand on their own, and they are masterpieces. Students, having read something about the controversy, used to ask me, “Did Shakespeare really exist?” Yes, “he” did. We just don’t know for sure who “he” was. But we know all we need to know about Falstaff and Prince Hal, about the Prince of Denmark and old Polonius, that garrulous, prying old man who was Hamlet's prospective father-in-law.

Was he de Vere’s father-in-law, too?

Is it Shakespere or Shake-speare?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."