The article is mostly straight facts, even allowing for the many coincidences that connect Shakespeare and de Vere (rather more snug a fit than with the Stratford man, in fact!) but ends with this:

"A major difficulty in the Oxfordian theory, however, is his death date (1604), because, according to standard chronology, 14 of Shakespeare’s plays, including many of the most important ones, were apparently written after that time. The debate, however, remained lively into the early 21st century."

There is a surprising omission in this seemingly innocuous paragraph, one I would not expect of so worthy a tome as the Brittanica. And that is that the "standard chronology" is a series of conjectures BASED on the life of the Stratford man. "If he was living here and doing this, then he probably was also writing this. And if he wrote this, then, then he probably wrote this other piece when he was over here doing this. . . " And so on.

Thus, de Vere's death in 1604 actually presents NO barrier to him having written those remaining 14 plays. The very fact that he was some 14 years older than Stratord Will easily shifts the entire chronology of the Works back by an equivalent span. De Vere was known to be writing poems from his late teens, when the Stratford man was a mere babe.

Some are quick to point out topical references in those later plays, which obviously could not have been included if de Vere was dead when they were written. But they COULD have been included if someone else added them. Today, the works of Shakespeare are treated as Holy Writ, and messing about with the text is largely frowned upon, but Back in the Day, it was common practice for actors to extemporize, ad-lib, toss in references to the amusement of the crowds. Even Shakespeare's reference to "this wooden O", in HENRY V, was routinely modified to fit the theater in which the play was being performed.

As I have mentioned before, I once saw a performance of THE MIKADO in which the Executioner's Song included a reference to Rubics Cubes, a toy invented long after the death of Gilbert and Sullivan. Does this prove G&S did not write THE MIKADO?

An interesting point along these lines -- the contemporary references -- has been made in that so many are conspicuous by their absence in plays first performed after 1604. Shakespeare peppered his works with references to what was then Modern Science, for instance. Hamlet's suggestion to Ophelia that she "doubt that the Sun doth move" was included as a nod to what was then a new thought. But, as one instance, a spectacular supernova, visible after de Vere's death in 1604, oddly finds no reference in the works.

Ah, well. As most of you can guess, I have no plans to stop flogging this particular horse. I mention this as it illustrates how deeply ingrained is the prejudice toward the Stratford man, that even the Brittanica can (inadvertently?) skew its reportage in his favor.

An interesting subject. I only read something recently in the Daily Express. It was a very brief article. As interesting as this subject is, it's inaccessible in a certain sense, I do not know where to start.

So, Mr Byrne, as my Kindle is long overdue for some new books, are there at least 2, preferably 3, books on the subject which could you please recommend?

Thanks!

I would recommend Diana Price's "Shakespeare - An Unorthodox Biography". Ms Price does not have "a horse in the race" and offers no candidate for the authorship. She does, however, thoroughly demolish the Stratford man.

Richard Whalen's "Shakespeare - Who Was He?" presents a concise overview, and is one of the shorter volumes on the subject, if you want to learn to swim without fear of drowning!

A much large tome is Charlton Ogburn's "The Mysterious William Shakespeare".

And then there is the granddaddy of the modern theory, "Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere", by John Thomas Looney (pronounced Loh-nee, but the damage is done. . . )

You can also take a quick look HERE.

Thank you for the recommendations, Mr Byrne. And the website link, too.

I wasn't lazy in not searching because I would have if need be, but as you know the subject, I guessed you might be able to name a few books. I'll see if they have them on the Kindle or even as books (but I really do not have any shelf space for any more books!).

••

Did not for one moment think you were!

JB:There is a surprising omission in this seemingly innocuous paragraph, one I would not expect of so worthy a tome as the Brittanica. And that is that the "standard chronology" is a series of conjectures BASED on the life of the Stratford man.

••

So Gilbert & Sullivan DIDN'T write THE MIKADO! Fascinating!