Another interesting phenomenon of sixteenth century Venice was the rage among aristocratic youth for plays and masques. DeVere's stay in Venice would have put him in close contact with this cohort.
I think the early poems of DeVere are quite clever. One, "The Echo", uses his name over and over again in a interesting way. His family motto is a pun "Nihil vero verius." In the worKs attributed to Shakespeare we find "Every word doth almost speak my name." The name of "Verona" would also appeal to him. The clown scene in "Antony and Cleopatra" uses the word worm eleven times. "Worm" is "ver" in French, the former language of the old aristocracy of England. If one substitutes Elizabeth for Cleopatra and Vere for the worm (called an asp or serpent in the source material -- North's translation of Plutarch's Lives) one gets a very interesting interchange.
The Stratford Myth is a central element of the founding myth of the Modern Age, which is why it is so rabidly defended.

J. W. McPherson, Silver spring, MD USA

"Rialto" simply means "high bank" and is where the first settlement in Venice occured in the early seventh century.
De Vere (Oxford) brought a choir boy named Orazio (Horatio) back to England when he returned from his stay in Venice (where he had kept a famous courtesan). Orazio was questioned by the Holy Office (the Inquistion) on his return and his testimony indicates he was allowed to practice the Catholic custom of abstinence from meat on Fridays and to attend Mass at an ambassador's residence on Sundays and holy days while living at Oxford's London residence.
An imaginative Italian poem of the seventeenth century portrays Oxford and the Queen of the Amazons jousting and knocking each other to the ground from which Oxford shakes his spear.
Other Italian details abound--that inland Bergamo was a sail-making center, that canals were a means of transportation across Lombardy, and the nasal accent of the Neapolitans, for example.

J. W. McPherson, Silver spring, MD USA

Merchant of Venice contains several references to the Rialto as a marketplace (“What news from the Rialto?”), but never directly references the bridge, which was built in 1591. DeVere visited Venice in 1576.

Il Gobbo di Rialto is not on the bridge, but on the street near the bridge. It was unveiled in 1541.

Although when compared to prose and poetry written much later, DeVere’s poetry is merely serviceable, a few things should be kept in mind. DeVere was in his early teens when he wrote nearly all of his known poetry, and that poetry stands up well when compared to its actual contemporaries. After DeVere became an adult, there is very little poetry or prose published under his name, but many examples of contemporary writers praising both his poetry and his plays.

Sean, Boston, MA

DeVere was not only active, but powerful in the London theatre when William was still a boy in Stratford. He patronized several troupes of players, held the lease on the Blackfriar’s Theatre and employed playwrights John Lyly and Anthony Munday as his personal secretaries.

The contention that William could not have written the plays due to his supposed lack of education is, I agree, one that essentially goes nowhere. The best case for Oxford’s authorship is built on a large amount of circumstantial evidence connecting his life with the plays. Nowhere is numerology involved, rather it is when one reads Hamlet describing being captured by pirates while crossing the Channel, stripped naked and set upon the shore, and one finds that Oxford was once captured by pirates while crossing the Channel, stripped naked and set upon the shore, that one might begin to become suspicious. When those suspicions are presented with hundreds of other such connections, they tend to form a hypothesis.

Sean, Boston, MA

I have no view as to whether the plays are by de Vere or by W.S. But I think we should distinguish between those arguments for de Vere that are worth taking seriously (such as the similarity of passages in the plays and poems to earlier, unpublished writings of de Vere) and those arguments for de Vere that are not worth taking seriously (such as that no mere commoner like W.S. could possibly have been cultured enough to write the plays, that only an aristocrat could have done so). The first argument is striking (though not necessarily decisive) evidence; the second argument is mere class prejudice, easily counterexampled.

Roderick T. Long, Auburn, Alabama, USA

Much of Shakespeare's work was based on the rigorous study of language in Elizabethian grammar schools. They learned to employ language powerfully, by fusing a trivium of rhetoric, grammer, and logic, and by studying the forms in classics and comtemporary histories. The rigor is far beyond what we experience in our primitive schools. Children would wake at 5am and study to 7pm, translating existing works from latin to greek to english, learning the trivium and the complex forms needed to use language properly. People who think that a country boy in rural England couldn't possibly have written his work (the basis behind most theories that Shakespeare didn't write his works) fail to understand the rigor of schooling then. His works are filled with references to the grammar school texts used for the study of language. When a child graduated from an English grammar school then, they were masters of the language arts.

Tom, Bellevue,

compare the known poems of de vere with those of shakespeare and it is obvious the earl was not shakespeare. He wrote servicable verse but that is it.

steve, corpus christi, texas, USA

Edward DeVere was also infatuated with the Queen, which explains the fantastic motivation for writing such brilliant plays and poems. Financial and artistic motives were not enough to impel Shakespeare to create the plays. Genius will only get a person so far, but love will make people do unparalleled things.

David, Dallas, Texas

Oh, God! The DeVere theorists are at it again. Nevermind that there is nothing but cryptic numerological connections in the plays - which can be teased out of any work - to connect the two. The entire theory was started by a DeVere descendant who thought he might like to be a descendant of the bard.

Also nevermind that there is copious amounts of evidence, more than is present for Marlowe and other playwrights of the day, for example, to connect the author of the Shakespeare plays to a man named William Shakespear of Stratford-upon-Avon.

We have examples of DeVere's poetry, and the man was without any serious talent.

Matthew, Columbus, OH

The difficult thing for people to admit is that the plays were written by Edward De Vere, when the evidence is overwhelming. The academics are too invested in their belief that the playhouse owner (who signed his name with an "x", and owned no books) somehow wrote these plays (and the sonnets).

Gregory Sobran, Ann Arbor, Michigan, US

The reason this is so difficult to understand is that the guy from Stratford, William Shaksper, didn't write the works attributed to "William Shake-speare".

They were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, writing under the pseudonym, "William Shake-speare". May I respecfully suggest to all reading this to pick up at their library: "The Mysterious William Shakespeare," by Charlton Ogburn. If you love Shakespeare, your life may never be the same again. If you prefer to keep your head buried in the sand...well, that's your decision.

Gary Livacari, Park Ridge, Illinois

Thank you, Veronique. The deVere theory explains a good deal else as well, such as Shakespeare's detailed knowledge and thoughts about power and those who possess it. Whereas the man from Stratford couldn't possibly have had such intimate understanding.

Orson Welles didn't believe Shakespeare wrote his plays. Neither did John Geilgud, or Sigmund Freud, or Mark Twain...

Buster, Sacramento,

Does it matter? Really?

The works EXIST. They serve their purpose - to inspire, to entertain, to educate. They may have been written by one man - or ten. Local colour may have been provided by travel, or tavern gossip. We can never truly know...

The only important thing is that this body of work exists, and is still doing today what it was intended to. Which almost certainly wasn't to provide a subject for scholars to endlessly dissect!!

Let those who enjoy them continue to do so.

Those who seek to diminish them by analysing them to death, those who rewrite the past to boost their own stature - "A plague o' both your houses!"

Chris, St Leonards, UK

There is really only one relevant mystery here: why is it so difficult for so many people to believe that the son of a tanner, from rural england, possessed of no more than a grammar school education and who probably never left his country's boarders could have authored the body of works attributed to William Shakespeare?

Can anyone justify why the well-travelled are more capable of writing great plays than the less-so? Or why those with a university education have any advantage? I see nothing conclusive in any rate.

Shakespeare could well have travelled to Italy. He could also have gone down to the local tavern or market and chatted to any number of foreigners passing through London on a daily basis. He might even have conversed with those patrons at his theatre who were visitors to London taking in a show whilst in the capital.

Sotirios Hatjoullis, London, UK

I have read an excellent book about Shakespeare that makes clear that Shakespeare was only a pseudonym for Edward De Vere. And Edward (the 17. Earl of Oxford) traveled France, Germany and ITALY (which kind of explains everything).

Veronique, Frankfurt, Germany

Rodney Bolt's "History Play" lays out a plausable case for Christopher Marlowe having spent time in Venice on behalf of Walsingham & how stories of death were greatly exaggerated, with apologies to Samuel Clements.

Well worth reading.

Clearly W.S. was a player & possibly a front. However, read the words he wrote for his epitaph - the only words we can be sure he penned & tell me that he be the Bard.

Alan Hawley, Minneapolis, MN, USA

See Joseph Sobran's "Alias Shakespeare" for a brief summary of the evidence for Oxford. See also www.shakespearefellowship.org

Richard Carpenter, Downingtown, PA

Of course they're both right. Shakespeare never visited Venice, he being too busy teaching his children to be illiterates, engaging in grain merchantry in the English sticks, and breaking in his "second best bed" for the benefit of his wife after his death. What a noble fellow. On the other hand, the author of the plays did visit Venice. And he was often beholden to Jewish moneylenders. Someone, say, like Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

Joe Horatio, Hoboken, USA