Edward de Vere as Shake-speare

If anyone doubts the de Vere authorship of the Shakespeare canon, the resolution lies in the name itself! Take a close look at the family coat of arm: the knight appears to be shaking a spear. For more conclusive evidence tie various events and characters in the canon to Edward de Vere. In western dramatic literature Shake-spear(the hyphen is not happenstance)is, surely, the most autobiographical. Looney(1920)was the first to document connections between plots and characters with de Vere's experiences. Fortunately, de Vere's underlined Bible passages show up in various plays. Even the most superficial or casual purview reveals Shake-speare's identity! For the Oxfordians, it's a no-brainer! So, why is there still debate? What lies behind the Stratfordian syndrome?

First, doctoral matriculation is deliberately arduous and prolonged, a natural selection process that favors tenacity, persistence and, obviously, comformability. Learning how to act pedagogically or professorially is as important as learning particular subject matter.The doctoral degree concept and practice has its origin in 19th century Germany and probably reflects Prussian values. Its modus operandi is allegiance to hierarchical order and authority. The conventional wisdom and the inertia that secures it are legendary elements. Therefore, given a closed system, the resistance to the Oxfordian theory should not come as a surprise.

Second, one has to consider obstacles that preclude objective acknowledgment of something that after extensive investigations should be obvious! The problem for many academicians rests, perhaps, on political correctness or established proprieties. For staid researchers, Will Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, in all probability a stand-in for de Vere, is a known figure with a well-established roll, without much of a paper trail. He is more fictional than real, a figure of one's imagination.

The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford was a complicated individual with propensities toward irregular personal conduct . The stand-in, even an actor, has a more acceptable persona. It would be rather contradictory to eulogize someone seriously compromised or flawed, who has a resume that is not entirely flattering. What can be gleaned from extant records would be quite disconcerting to people beholden to mainstream behavioral norms. One needs only to consider to whom some Sonnets were allegedly addressed as a starting point. Oxford was involved in a sword fight death of a sub cook. There are other serious accusations. Will Shakspere was cover for an autobiographical author of high social rank. Today, he brings a degree of respectability with which everyone can fine satisfaction.

Third, there are commercial interests in maintaining the status quo. There appears to be an effort to overwhelm the Oxfordians by the publication of an endless procession of dogma and propaganda. When Mark Anderson's, Shakespeare by Another Name was published in 2005, I was surprised by the rash of Stratfordian books, which seems to continue unabatedly. The issue of Shakespearean authorship is big business. In the professorial contest of "publish or perish", Stratfordians have a game-winning "slam-dunk!"

That some great actors have no doubts about the de Vere authorship is testimony enough! The Orson Welles pronouncement in 1954, is definitive and puts the issue to rest.