The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[Swammerdami]

I find no mention of the Shakespeare Authorship controversy here at TFT.Org, except in a very brief review of the movie Anonymous. (If this oversight is deliberate, I ask TFT management to quickly expunge this thread. )

I have been quite curious about the Shakespeare Authorship for three decades. The Pro-Stratfordian case (that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets) is exceptionally meager, once evidence consistent with a hoax hypothesis is ignored.

Anti-Stratfordian arguments are many: Even without an alternate author to propose, Samuel Clemens wrote a book rejecting a Stratford authorship:

Shall I set down the rest of the great Conjecture which constitute the Giant Biography of William Shakespeare? It would strain the Unabridged Dictionary to hold them. He is a brontosaur: nine bones and six hundred barrels of plaster.
... All the rest of his vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures--an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts....

Just for starters, here are some arguments against a Shaksper (WS) authorship:

• No letters written by WS have turned up.
• The only letter to WS that's turned up is a never-sent request for a cash loan.
• No books owned by, or otherwise associated with WS have turned up.
• No manuscripts have turned up. None of Shakespeare's children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews every claimed their close relation penned a poem or story for them.
• No eulogies were written to WS until several years after his death.
• Documents that imply anyone in Stratford knew WS was employed in the London theater — never mind as a playwright/poet — are exceedingly rare. Dr. John Hall kept a journal, even mentioning a Stratford neighbor who was "an excellente poet", but doesn't mention WS. John Hall was married to WS's favorite daughter.
• Camden, a semi-official reporter on Stratford for WS's adult life and who does mention London theatrical doings, passes up multiple opportunities and leaves no reference to WS.
• There is no record of WS ever going to school. (Sure, school records were burned. Still, reconstructions are possible. A mate of the WS youth might have attested "Will was pretty good with words way back in 6th form." No one ever did.)
• As far as is known, WS never traveled abroad or on a ship, nor did he work as a soldier, teacher nor in a law office nor any of several professions consistent with the playwright's knowledge.
• As far as is known, WS was friends with no noblemen.
• Although widely considered a principal Player in the Lord Chamberlain's Men, no role is alleged to be WS's except ... the ghost of Hamlet's father!
• While there are many mentions of WS from that time, very very few of them mention Stratford, or attest clearly that the writer/speaker knew the poet personally. An exception are legal documents which show (a) WS was charged with poaching near Stratford, being a theater ruffian in London, then hoarding in Stratford; (b) WS was granted a coat-of-arms ca 1592; (c) WS served as witness in two minor proceedings; (d) WS filed suit in Straford (at the same time he was allegedly putting the final touches on King Lear) against a customer of his Stratford butcher shop, seeking payment of a 2-shilling debt and other redress; and (e) WS's much remarked-on last will and testament.
• Some references to WS-as-writer from the 1605-1609 period seem to imply that the writer was deceased, though WS died in 1616.
• WS had two children (daughters) who grew to adulthood. It appears neither of them could read or write.

Stratfordians have trite answers:
"Papers are destroyed by fire and flood. Biographical data on other playwrights are also missing."
Wrong. Read the pdf by Stanford's Professor Sturrock accessible from this link to see that among 25 playwrights of that era, and ten binary criteria of notability, only WS satisfies zero of the criteria. John Webster. (1578-1632) is next to bottom place with three criterial satisfactions.

"A typical rural gentleman of that era was likely to have illiterate daughters."
We're not speaking of a 'typical rural gentleman.' We're speaking of an alleged lover of words and learning, perhaps the greatest word-smith ever to have lived. Did this great lover of words allow his children to grow up illiterate?

"The 'Upstart crow' paragraph from Greene's posthumously-published Groatsworth shows that Shakespeare was considered a playwright before the publication of Venus and Adonis."
That quote ("beautified with our feathers") essentially accuses WS of doing what the Oxfordians accuse him of: putting his name on others' work.

WS's earliest fame came from the book-length poem Venus and Adonis and its sequel, signed by William Shake-speare and dedicated to Henry Wriothesley; and it is generally supposed that this Earl of Southampton and/or his mother the Dowager Countess was a patron of the fine poet. (Indeed a gift of £1000 — then a large sum — from Wriothesley to Shakespeare is widely mentioned.) Yet there is no evidence of any sponsership — let alone a princely £1000 — of WS by Southampton or his mother. (To give an idea of £1000 then, Edward de Vere received £1000 annually from Her Majesty; this was the largest annual salary or allowance paid to anyone by Queen Elizabeth.

While many people just focus on the improbability that WS of Stratford wrote the plays and poems, some propose an alternate real author. Edward de Vere Earl of Oxford and 19th hereditary Lord High Chamberlain of England is the most popular choice. He had big reasons (most especially strict instruction by Her Majesty) for keeping himself unnamed.

This gives us a total of four sub-debates:

• The case For Stratford
• The case Against Stratford
• The case For Oxford (assisted by collaborators)
• The case Against Oxford

Please don't mix up the four distinct cases to be debated. The coincidences which make Oxford authorship so likely would still constitute a mystery even if we conclude Oxford didn't write the plays and poems. Did one of his writer friends impersonate the Earl??

Some argue that scores of people would have been "in the know" about the true authorship, and might have let the facts slip cryptically (they would hardly do so openly against the wishes of Oxford and Majesties). And we do see such cryptic mentions, e.g.

Strappado for the Devil[/I] (1615)]Yea, this I know I may be bold to say,
Thames ne'er had swans that sung more sweet than they.
It's true I may avow it, that ne'er was sung.
Chanted in any age by swains so young,
With more delight than was perform'd by them,
Prettily shadow'd in a borrowed name.
And long may England's thespian springs be known.

OR ... read the cryptic dedication of Shakespeare's Sonnets
OR ... the peculiar preface to Troilus and Cressida
OR ... consider the riddles of Peacham's Compleat Gentleman
OR ... the inscription on the monument in Stratford,
OR ... even the Sonnets, e.g. CXXV, CXXVI or LXXVI: "Every word doth almost tell my name." (The anagram Yword Vere is only almost the name "Edward Vere", bu that's what the line states.)

Before continuing, I'd like to hear from people reading the thread. Please report which characterization fits best:

1. I know much more on this topic than Swammi. The "anti-Stratfordians," as they sillily call themselves, really are crackpots, their thinking warped by elitism.
2. I've read a book on the topic. Hogwash! Let's talk about the time Oxford farted while bowing to the Queen.
3. I'm read relatively little on the topic. But I'm pretty sure it's crackpottery.
4. I'd like to learn more about this fascinating topic. Swammi? Can you recommend some reading?
5. Why the hoax at all? Doesn't seem to make sense: wouldn't Oxford want to boast of his writing prowess?
6. I've also thought the Oxfordian case to be strong, and am glad someone here finally admitted it.
7. Other. _________________________________

It may have been a mistake for me to mention 1 or 2 of the coincidences linking Oxford to the plays or sonnets. Coincidences with odds of a trillion-to-one happen somewhere every day (cf. Littlewood's Law) so those who know a little math will jeer if I mention 2 or 3 coincidences, pretending I claim they're probative. But there are scores of coincidences connecting Oxford to the writings, and odds increase. Surely even detractors will understand that I must limit this already-overly long OP post. There are many books and many hundreds of webpages on the topic.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thirty years ago I was a number 6. Eventually I adopted Occams Razor and rationalized that this guy was real and that he was a gifted writer. It's hard to recall all the particulars but De Vere fell out of favor with me because writings attributed to him were not Shakespeare quality. This involved quite a large dose of conspiracy thinking to believe these lesser writings were a front.

As to the signatures and that most of them appear on his last will, and are all different, I eventually concluded that the guy was sick and not in good control of his faculties. But I was really, really, really into the subject at one time.

In short there's a lot of good arguments to be made against Stratford, not to mention all the Shakespeare Apocrypha out there. But like I said, that was a long time ago.

Thanks for bringing up a fascinating topic. It's similar to biblical authorship discussions.

 

[Politesse]

Throw me in with 3; I know little about the topic, but the Oxford crowd seems pretty stereotypically nutty in the way literary conspiracy theorists generally are, and the movie was straight up ridiculous.

 

[DBT]

Whoever wrote the works was "William Shakespeare" regardless of his actual identity?

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

"Don nill he, the author, politician and mountebank, will work this out in time, the Sage is a daisy." "Will I am Shak't spurre writ this play."

Eldarion Lathria

 

[rousseau]

I'd just heard of the controversy a few weeks ago at Historum in this thread. I couldn't express an opinion without looking at the evidence myself, but it's a subject that I'm not interested enough in to really give the time to. Oddly enough I have a biography of Shakespeare kicking around (that I've never read) which might give me more clues.

 

[Swammerdami]

... De Vere fell out of favor with me because writings attributed to him were not Shakespeare quality. This involved quite a large dose of conspiracy thinking to believe these lesser writings were a front.

Yes, the lower quality of Oxford's known poems is, by far, the most significant plank in the Anti-Oxfordian case. That's why I asked that four cases be treated separately. The anti-Stratfordian case and the pro-Oxfordian case are both VERY strong. Even if we conclude that Oxford wasn't the Author, we're left with mysteries. If Oxford wasn't the hidden author, who was? Why do the plays and sonnets mesh so closely with the real life of Edward de Vere?

Anyway, I'm not sure the lower quality of Oxford's poems is 100% dispositive. Poems ascribed to Oxford were written when he was in his 20's or younger, and poetry was just one of many interests of the precocious young Earl of Oxford. He also was a jouster, playboy, traveller, businessman, and sought a career as a military or naval commander. It was only after he was nearly bankrupted, rendered permanently lame in a duel, and humiliated when his Queen offered him no important military commission during the Spanish Armada threat, that he turned to writing full-time. He immersed himself in the theater culture, even hiring 2 or 3 top playwrights as personal secretaries. I think John Lyly, Anthony Munday and others may have tutored him, or helped craft the plays and sonnets. (And Oxford's son-in-law was also renowned as a playwright though, like Oxford, he had to keep this work hidden.)

To compare the "Oxford canon" with Shake-speare's poems may be to compare the doodlings of a 20-year old with the honed skills of a 40-year old. And there are connections between Shake-speare's writing and Oxford's. They use some of the same grammatical and metrical devices. The OED shows Shakespeare as the first recorded usage of numerous words, but several of these words have turned up in earlier letters by Oxford.

Oxford probably wrote under other pseudonyms before he chose "Shake-speare." Some think the praise of "the Author" of Thomas Watson's Hekatompathia was actually directed at Edward de Vere. The seventh sonnet of Watson's work contains the same "silver ... sound" metaphor that is found in works by both Shakes-speare and Oxford. Compare that 7th sonnet with the 130th of Shakespeare's Sonnets which, as Whittemore says, "completely reverses Watson’s sonnet number 7."

Hark you that list to hear what saint I serve:
Her yellow locks exceed the beaten gold;
Her sparkling eyes in heav'n a place deserve;
Her forehead high and fair of comely mold;
....Her words are music all of silver sound;
....Her wit so sharp as like can scarce be found;
Each eyebrow hangs like Iris in the skies;
Her Eagle's nose is straight of stately frame;
On either cheek a Rose and Lily lies;
Her breath is sweet perfume, or holy flame;
....Her lips more red than any Coral stone;
....Her neck more white than aged Swans that moan;
Her breast transparent is, like Crystal rock;
Her fingers long, fit for Apollo's Lute;
Her slipper such as Momus dare not mock;
Her virtues all so great as make me mute:
....What other parts she hath I need not say,
....Whose face alone is cause of my decay.

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun,
Coral is far more red, than her lips red,
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun:
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head:
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks,
And in some perfumes is there more delight,
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know,
That music hath a far more pleasing sound:
I grant I never saw a goddess go,
My mistress when she walks treads on the ground.
....And yet by heaven I think my love as rare,
....As any she belied with false compare.

Despite these pleadings, I agree that the case against Oxford based on quality and details of their known canons is very strong. But we're still left with strong cases for Oxford, and against Stratford.

How do traditional scholars explain the weird dedication of the Sonnets? Same say that "W.H." is a type-setter's error for "W.S." Do you believe that? Or that "Our ever-living poet" is a euphemism for God? ("Ever-living" and "immortal" are adjectives seldom applied to living persons, but each was applied to Shake-speare during the 1604-1616 period that Oxford was dead but Shaksper of Stratford still alive.)

It is even harder for traditional scholars to cope with the peculiar dedication of Troilus. Or the omission of Shakespeare from Peacham's list of Elizabethan playwrights. (It is claimed that Shakespeare was omitted because he wasn't a lord or a knight, but the list does have other names with no distinction but "Mr.", a distinction which Shakespeare — famously — also had.)

 

[Swammerdami]

Throw me in with 3; I know little about the topic, but the Oxford crowd seems pretty stereotypically nutty in the way literary conspiracy theorists generally are, and the movie was straight up ridiculous.

Some "Oxfordian" ideas are pretty nutty. Did the movie pretend that Wriothesley was the Queen's love-child by Oxford? Especially crazy since it would mean Oxford tried to marry his daughter to her own half-brother.

Those arguing pro-Stratford can also get pretty nutty. ("W.H. is a type-setter's error for W.S."?)

What I'd like to see, from those sincerely curious, is for you to research and find ten interesting anti-Stratford or pro-Oxford arguments and tell us NOT about the nine most easily debunked, but about the one claim that disconcerts, that suggests a connection beyond the limits of mere coincidence.

Here's one coincidence which might intrigue: A large number of Shakespeare plays are set in Italy, the country where Oxford spent most of a year as a young man. With one exception the set of Italian cities that Oxford visited is equal to the set of Italian cities in which Shakespeare plays are set. (The one exception is understandable: Oxford didn't visit Rome, but set Julius Caesar there.)

That one coincidence could be just ... coincidence. But when you pore over dozens and dozens of such coincidences it makes you start to wonder.

 

[Swammerdami]

(I submit the following more for my private bookmarking convenience, than as evidence.)


There's universal agreement that Shakespeare's works, written when Oxford was in his 40's or 50's, are superior. But Oxford's younger work wasn't so very bad. The following poem was sometimes attributed to Oxford and is regarded as a masterpiece.

My mind to me a kingdom is;
Such present joys therein I find,
That it excels all other bliss
That earth affords or grows by kind:
Though much I want that most would have,
Yet still my mind forbids to crave.

No princely pomp, no wealthy store,
No force to win the victory,
No wily wit to salve a sore,
No shape to feed a loving eye;
To none of these I yield as thrall;
For why? my mind doth serve for all.

I see how plenty surfeits oft,
And hasty climbers soon do fall;
I see that those which are aloft
Mishap doth threaten most of all:
They get with toil, they keep with fear:
Such cares my mind could never bear.

Content I live, this is my stay;
I seek no more than may suffice;
I press to bear no haughty sway;
Look, what I lack my mind supplies.
Lo, thus I triumph like a king,
Content with that my mind doth bring.

Some have too much, yet still do crave;
I little have, and seek no more.
They are but poor, though much they have,
And I am rich with little store;
They poor, I rich; they beg, I give;
They lack, I leave; they pine, I live.

I laugh not at another's loss,
I grudge not at another's gain;
No worldly waves my mind can toss;
My state at one doth still remain:
I fear no foe, I fawn no friend;
I loathe not life, nor dread my end.

Some weigh their pleasure by their lust,
Their wisdom by their rage of will;
Their treasure is their only trust,
A cloakèd craft their store of skill;
But all the pleasure that I find
Is to maintain a quiet mind.

My wealth is health and perfect ease,
My conscience clear my chief defence;
I neither seek by bribes to please,
Nor by deceit to breed offence:
Thus do I live; thus will I die;
Would all did so as well as I!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following poem is undisputedly by Oxford (how old was he?) and shows talent, I think.

IF women could be fair and yet not fond,
.....Or that their love were firm, not fickle still,
I would not marvel that they make men bond
.....By service long to purchase their good will ;
But when I see how frail those creatures are,
I laugh that men forget themselves so far.

To mark the choice they make, and how they change,
.....How oft from Phoebus do they flee to Pan ;
Unsettled still, like haggards wild they range,
.....These gentle birds that fly from man to man ;
Who would not scorn and shake them from the fist,
And let them fly, fair fools, which way they list ?

Yet for our sport we fawn and flatter both,
.....To pass the time when nothing else can please,
And train them to our lure with subtle oath,
.....Till, weary of their wiles, ourselves we ease ;
And then we say when we their fancy try,
To play with fools, O what a fool was I !

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Throw me in with 3; I know little about the topic, but the Oxford crowd seems pretty stereotypically nutty in the way literary conspiracy theorists generally are, and the movie was straight up ridiculous.

Certainly was. I could not get past the trailer.

For a less melodramatic and more dispassionate discussion, albeit the Marlowe argument, this video.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keovtVI4CD0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Politesse]

That one coincidence could be just ... coincidence. But when you pore over dozens and dozens of such coincidences it makes you start to wonder.

As I said, this fits the literary conspiracy theory model pretty well, a long list of arguments that aren't particularly convincing on their own, but given all at once so the listener feels like its "all part of a larger story". The story being that Shakespeare was Queen Elizabeth, one of the Bronte sisters secretly murdered two of the others, and Hunter S. Thompson was offed by the CIA for knowing the "truth" about 9/11 and/or aliens.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For those less interested in textual matters here's a short article about the Shakespeare Monument at Stratford.

The Mystery of the Stratford Monument

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here is a brief discussion of William Shakespeare of Stratford and of London and the two different lives that occurred simultaneously. One was a wealthy merchant living in luxury and one was a struggling playwright living in debt and in poverty. Noted is the age of Cromwell and how it wiped living memory of Shakespeare from the realm, and how he had to be "rediscovered." His plays survived but he had become lost. There is also more discussion of the Stratford (on Avon) Monument. Few know of the London suburb - actually a small town in Shakespeare's day - named Stratford.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yAgofa-xek[/YOUTUBE]

 

[WAB]

The problem I have with all of these theories is that none of the authors suggested (in the work that is attributed to them) could write anything near the quality of the works attributed to the mature Shakespeare. King Lear, Othello, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, and many others: the poetry of the blank verse is impeccable and unmatched in English letters to this day.

Marlowe was very good, but not as good; Jonson was good, but not as good. Same as all of the other names on the list. There have been masters of blank verse in English: Milton, Tennyson, Keats in the Hyperion fragments, and others, but no one has matched Shakespeare.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The problem I have with all of these theories is that none of the authors suggested (in the work that is attributed to them) could write anything near the quality of the works attributed to the mature Shakespeare. King Lear, Othello, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, and many others: the poetry of the blank verse is impeccable and unmatched in English letters to this day.

Marlowe was very good, but not as good; Jonson was good, but not as good. Same as all of the other names on the list. There have been masters of blank verse in English: Milton, Tennyson, Keats in the Hyperion fragments, and others, but no one has matched Shakespeare.

The issue is being able to fit the historical evidence into the accepted narrative that is Shakespeare. Someone obviously wrote the plays, sonnets, etc., and they are largely magnificent in their use of language. It's the language that is compelling even though the stories and plots themselves may appear trite, even have soap opera qualities. But it's the use of word that makes it Shakespeare, despite, for example, errors of geography, which do occur.

In short, the issue is attributing such great writing to the Stratford Shakespeare, the merchant. And how, for example does one reconcile the wealthy Stratford Shakespeare with the impoverished, London Shakespeare existing simultaneously? The accepted narrative has the starving, in debt, London playwright and the wealthy Stratford merchant being the same person. How can that be? This is just one tiny example of why there is a controversy.

 

[Bomb#20]

The internal evidence of the plays themselves -- the statistical patterns in the word usage -- makes it pretty certain that whoever wrote the plays must have been one of the actors who performed them.

https://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/ox7.html

It's one thing to hypothesize that a nobleman such as Oxford secretly wrote the plays and slipped them to a shill; but it's quite another to hypothesize that Oxford was on stage in disguise, over and over, and was never recognized.

Of course we can't rule out the possibility that Shakespeare was fronting for a different actor; but the text statistics allow identification of which roles the author played, and it lines up with what little is known of Shakespeare's own roles -- the ghost in Hamlet for instance.

 

[Swammerdami]

Thank you for the responses, which have been, without exception, MUCH more intelligent and informed than observed on other message-boards.

I was especially intrigued by Bomb#20's link, which I plan to study.

The internal evidence of the plays themselves -- the statistical patterns in the word usage -- makes it pretty certain that whoever wrote the plays must have been one of the actors who performed them.

https://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/ox7.html

Obstacles to accepting a Stratford authorship include the contents of the Sonnets, and two weird dedications in 1609.

TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE.INSUING.SONNETS.
Mr.W.H. ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.

BY.

OUR.EVER-LIVING.POET.

WISHETH.

THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.


. . . . . . . T.T.​

This was deliberately cryptic. "T.T." is assumed to be the publisher Thomas Thorpe but IIUC this is the only time he abbreviated his name as initials in such a dedication. If the poet were alive why wasn't the dedication to or from him? "Ever-living" is not an adjective normally used with living persons.

The preface to Troilus is even more peculiar. Do traditionalists have any explanation beyond "Inside joke we'll never be able to decipher"?

A NEVER WRITER

TO AN EVER READER:

NEWS.​

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are plays from the period which carry the name William Shakespeare but it is unanimous within the academic community that they were not authored by the same person as the Shakespeare of tradition and of literary academic consensus. The plays seem brokered by a person possibly named Shakespeare, which makes sense considering it was not uncommon practice at the time.

The controversy of Shakespeare authorship is really two discussions. Firstly, was the Stratford Shakespeare the actual author? Secondly, who was?

I found the following moderated debate between Bate and Waugh to very helpful in understanding the discussion. Even Bomb#20 has his point addressed about internal evidence. Both Bate and Waugh know their stuff so it's not so much an argument as an exchange.

It always bothered me that Ben Jonson's comments about Shakespeare in the First Folio were so disparaging at times.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgImgdJ5L6o[/YOUTUBE]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thank you for the responses, which have been, without exception, MUCH more intelligent and informed than observed on other message-boards.

Are you familiar with this presentation:

Did Shakespeare Really Write Shakespeare? – Tom Regnier

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFXD07_NYg[/YOUTUBE]

It's good that I investigated a lot of other material first, but this presentation simply uses the original comprehensive work on the issue by Looney, 1920. It is convincing in itself, but Regnier makes the case even more compelling. A very enjoyable 56 minute video, captivating actually.

 

[Swammerdami]

Thanks for the link, Mr. Moogly. That is a pretty good summary of both the anti-Stratford and the pro-Oxford cases. Regnier, a lawyer, says that circumstantial evidence can be the best evidence; that it is the overwhelming quantity of coincidences that becomes convincing. And in that 1-hour video he has time to barely scratch the surface of the many coinciences.

Like Regnier, I also recommend Mark Anderson's book.

One point of contention is the issue of the playwright's familiarity with Italy. Although Stratfordians insist that their candidate was well versed in law, history, the customs of nobility, and so on; they know he never visited Italy while Oxford spent almost a year there. Therefore they need to minimize the playwright's apparent knowledge of Italy. They seem to think that failure to dwell on Venice's canals shows lack of familiarity, as though the playwright was writing a travel brochure (and as though well-read Englishmen didn't know about the canals). Regnier mentions two of many cases where the playwright does show knowledge of Italian places and works of art, of sorts that almost had to be from first-hand observations.

Another very minor example comes from Romeo and Juliet, In Act I scene I, Romeo's mother wonders where her son is and Benvolio answers

[At dawn] A troubled mind drave me to walk abroad;
Where, underneat the grove of sycamore
That westward rooteth from the city's side,
So early walking did I see your son.

Yes, "sycamore" was probably chosen to pun with "sick amore," but indeed today just outside Verona's western gate is a grove of ... sycamores. A fact that could hardly have been common knowledge. (This vague "coincidence" is unworthy to be called "evidence," but is in a pattern of literally hundreds of such coincidences.)

Similarly, no Stratfordian message-boarder can go long without trying to score points by ridiculing their own candidate's knowledge of geography with the "Bohemian seacoast" in The Winter's Tale. Yet the joke is on them! Bohemia and Hungary shared a King in those days, and Hungary's conquests in Serbia had given them an outlet to the Adriatic: a shore Oxford probably visited. Instead of exposng his ignorance, the writer may have been flaunting his knowledge.

The relationships between Oxford and Henry Earl Southampton (to whom the book poems and many of the sonnets are addressed) is especially convincing, but that needs its own post.

Again, even if you think the anti-Oxfordian arguments are definitive, the strength of the anti-Stratfordian and pro-Oxfordian cases cannot be dismissed: a great mystery lurks.