Over the last 6 months or so I've read Middlemarch (twice), Pickwick Papers, Our Mutual Friend, Desperate Remedies (Hardy's first) and currently re-reading The Mayor of Casterbridge (which seems too simplified, I preferred the style of the former, which was not well-received). Also King Lear, The Tempest, re-read Twelfth Night and currently Hamlet, and Peter Carey's new book "Olivier and Parrot in America".
I've also been re-introduced to a theory I've known about for some time but not got into:- that William Shakespeare of Stratford was not author of the plays and poems, in fact there is nothing whatever to link him to any of them, and very little link to him to the theatre either though he certainly made a fair bit of cash somehow. A more likely contender is Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford who had the necessary classical learning, experience of the court, had travelled extensively in Italy, and was known as a first-class writer in his lifetime. For more info try The De Vere Society - welcome or SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS - THE MONUMENT CHANGES THE PARADIGM - SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS: THE MONUMENT are two of many sites.
That's the argumentum ex silentio - a logical fallacy. There's plenty of evidence to link the plays to
someone called William Shakespear, & a total lack of any other candidate of that name.
All arguments against Shakespear except those of education & background apply much more strongly to every other candidate. The original, & still chief argument put forward by Anti-Stratfordians is snobbery. They assume that only an aristocrat was capable of such writing.
The anti-Stratfordians conveniently ignore the mountain of evidence. They're cranks, superficially plausible as long as you read only their arguments, & don't compare them with any others. For example, this, from the de Vere Society -
there is simply not a shred of evidence produced in his lifetime that he was either an author and surprisingly little evidence that he was even an actor. The only documents that link him with the theatre are two which record him being a shareholder in the Globe Theatre, and three which link him as an associate of known actors of the King’s Men and the Chamberlain’s Men.
There are no letters written by him, even though he lived apart from his wife and children for many years. There are no letters written by his contemporaries which describe any literary activities on his part.
It is, quite simply, garbage. The claim that "there is simply not a shred of evidence produced in his lifetime that he was either [sic] an author" is totally, utterly, false. There are numerous references, for example in the
Palladis Tamia of 1598, where he's described as an author of unpublished sonnets, as well as named as the author of 12 of the plays. He was named during his lifetime as author of other Shakespear plays. And much, much, more.
There is nothing in the surviving papers of his literary contemporaries which refer to Shakspere as a fellow writer;
An outright lie - also from the de Vere society.
The de Vereists also wilfully misrepresent the eulogies in the First Folio, e.g. claiming that Ben Jonson's "The figure that thou here see'st put, It was for gentle Shakespeare cut" refers to a substituting of the picture of Shakespeare for that of a different, nobly-born person. Shakespeare was 'gentle', in the meaning of the time, i.e. a member of the gentry, & had been since his father was granted arms in 1596. The idea that because Jonson, who in his memoirs described Shakespeare as a good friend, would be subtly referring to an aristocrat, rather than his friend the officially, legally, 'gentle' Mr. William Shakespeare is ludicrous. The rest of the re-interpretation is similarly specious.
Etc.
The argument for de Vere is basically that he was the sort of person who snobs expect to have written great literature, & Shakespear (whose glover father's elevation to the gentry was protested against by some) wasn't. There's no evidence whatsoever that de Vere wrote any of the plays or sonnets.
