T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
That's how it worked for me. It came down to reasonable doubt about the Stratford man based on an absolute paucity of evidence in his favor. And interestingly enough, I felt similarly about De Vere for quite a while, and for exactly the same reason. But then I became aware of his life, his accolades for theater and the style of his writing combined with the fact that his career simply stopped. So I think you may be headed down the same path.... I now doubt that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare.
The authorship question has two parts, the literary question and the scientific question. For me it's primarily a scientific, forensic, evidentiary question. The literary connections to De Vere's life and experiences is just icing on the cake.
[Please see posts #116, 117, and 118]
Regarding accolades: as you know it was common, even necessary perhaps, at least for the common rabble, to flatter aristocrats even if such flattery was undeserved.
As for the style of his writing: I submit that there are no similarities in style, or precious few, at least with respect to much of the poetry in the plays. I cannot comment on the letters as I've only read one in its entirety, and dipped into several others. That being said, I saw nothing that sounded like what one finds all through the plays. But alas, I'm a nobody, and a newcomer to this, so my opinion means naught.
I have read much about correlations in usage of words, phrases, and spellings, but since the Author and De Vere were contemporaries, both poets, and both writers, that's to be expected.
Tom Veal, at the Stromata blog, and I believe David Katham, mention a few Oxfordians (and provide extensive quotes from their texts), referring to the styles of writing and the evidence compiled regarding corellations, correspondences, what have you. Neither of them were remotely convinced, nor has the greater majority of the community of Shakespeare scholarship been. I am not making an argument by popularity or authority. I have not been persuaded, after all, with their patent dismissal of strictly anti-Stratfordian arguments. I simply must assume that academics, scholars, especially those who have invested so much time in the Authorship question, know something about the scientific, forensic data, or at least enough to venture an educated opinion.
However, I do bear in mind that there are other reasons for dismissing the Authorship question altogether. Good ones, too. I will leave off here for now. Just remember, my mind is open, and I do not dismiss the question, or De Vere.
It is only recently that the Stratford School has admitted that ALL attributions to the Stratford man are posthumous. The publication of the first folio and the few words linking the works to the Stratford man are where the historical dots start getting connected to the Stratford man. The monument mentioned at the time in the Stratford Church was of a person holding a bag of grain, not a book and quill. That monument was changed decades later.
Look, I'm not alleging some great conspiracy, only pointing out historical facts and evidence that would convince an unbiased jury that the Stratford man was not the author. Whether that author is principally De Vere is another question. We do know that some of the Shakespear Canon was finished by committee. Historically, this makes sense based on when De Vere died compared to when the Stratford man died.
Like many of us, I've sat on juries and listened to contradictory witness testimony. At that point the juror is forced to look at other evidence that is likely to shed truth on the actual events that unfolded. I'm merely saying there has been a mistake in attributing the works to the Stratford man. I'm not trying to peddle a conspiracy theory like Trump and his minions are doing. I actually liked what Mitt Romney had to say after the Capitol fiasco. He said that if you really want to help someone "Tell them the truth," don't tell them what they want to hear.
Are you familiar with Rapa Nui and the huge statues? For centuries the best guess as to how the Polynesians moved these megaliths was that they pulled them on sleds made of trees. But there were no trees on the island when the first Europeans arrived. So the conclusion had become that they stopped building their statues when they didn't have any more trees to make sleds. Makes perfect logical sense - IF - they actually used sleds made from trees. But they didn't, so the whole conjecture falls apart. We now know that the statues walked - or were walked, by the natives from the quarry. Their language even contains a word for walking but without moving one's legs. It's a fascinating discovery that makes sense along with all the other forensic evidence. It's an absolute smackdown.
And that's where I am with Shakespeare. It's a scientific question, not a question of literary tradition.
I just picked up Anderson's work from the library. If you ever get a hold of Looney's work you will enjoy it.