The debate over the true authorship of Shakespeare's plays has raged for more than a century, fueled by fans like the National Review's Joseph Sobran, who cannot accept that a country bumpkin like William Shakespeare could ever have written the rich plays full of high literary references, intimate knowledge of court politics, and familiarity with personalities in foreign lands. Like many before him, Sobran fingers Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Asserting that the age-old authorship controversy surrounding the plays of Shakespeare ought to be reopened, a syndicated columnist provides evidence that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, is a much more likely candidate to have written the classic works. 30,000 first printing. Sobran presents a good deal of circumstantial evidence for Oxford.
Ghost writers are common.
As a nobleman, Oxford had two reasons to stay quiet. Oxford's experiences seem to reflect the experiences of the playwright in many cases. Numerous phrases from Oxford's private letters, appear again in Shakespeare's plays. Sobran offers better and more specific arguments than these. If I were a Shakespeare scholar, I would no doubt be angry at any probing book debunking the accepted theory, but this study is a well-made case for the Duke of Oxford.