• To The Reader
• 1. Shakspere or Shakespeare?
• 2. Shakespeare a Pseudonym?
• 3. Treasure Texts
  • 3.1. Harvey - Nashe The Players
  • 3.2. Gascoigne-Willobie
  • 3.3. Munday - Shakespeare
  • 3.4. Spenser - Edwards
  • 3.5. Lyly-Greene-Chettle
  • 3.6. Hall-Marston-Parnassus
  • 3.7. Sir Thomas Smythes voiage
  • 3.8. List of contemporary witnesses
• 4. Edward de Vere
• 5. Works
• 6. Ben Jonson’s Forgery
• 7. Research for Shake-speare
• 9. Relationship
• 10. Chronology

3. Treasure Texts : Shakespeare Identified

INTRODUCTION

At this point in time, there is only one piece of concrete, irrefutable proof for the Earl of Oxford's authorship of the Shakespearian works; that being the fact that the two literary rivals Thomas Nashe and Gabriel Harvey referred to the Earl of Oxford as being the creator of the character, Sir John Falstaff and being the author of the epic poem, Venus and Adonis. These references later being given confirmation by Shakespeare, in a humorous manner, in Love's Labours Lost.

All other observations must be regarded as being circumstantial evidence that supports this proof.

Most importantly:

- The content and the literary style of the Earl of Oxford's early works correlate with Shakespeare's poems and plays.

- Thomas Edwards, Henry Willobie, Joseph Hall, John Marston, Henry Chettle and John Davies of Hereford all indicated that they knew that the man behind the nom de plume WILLIAM SHAKE-SPEARE was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

- In the Stationers’ Register of 1598 the “Lord Chamberlain” exercised the author's right to withhold permission for further printing of The Merchant of Venice.

- The discontinuation of good quartos after 1608/09

- The respectful reminiscences that appeared between 1607 and 1614, referring to the deceased author, WILLIAM SHAKE-SPEARE. (The actor Will Shakspere died in 1616.) See 3.5. Contemporary witnesses on Oxford / Shakespeare.

If we wish to paint ourselves a picture about how Shakespeare's contemporaries spoke of him (both officially and behind his back) it is essential that we familiarise ourselves with the “Treasure Texts”. Up to present date, the Oxfordonian theory has not been widely accepted; partly due to adventurous speculations based on sketchy factual knowledge and prejudice, without the back up of the necessary literary research. In fairness it must be said that Stratford hasn't done sufficient research to be able to comment accurately on the matter either.

Our web-site will fill in these gaps in the hope that people of all stand points, equipped with the necessary knowledge, will take part in a worthwhile and fruitful discussion. Posting the old works isn't enough. One also has to have a thorough understanding of them.

It is important to understand the underlying logic that forms texts 3.1.1. to 3.1.10. to an integral unit. The texts are presented and commented accurately, albeit in an abridged version. With the exception of the comedy Loves labors lost (First editon, 1598) modern spelling is used throughout. The use of capital or italic letters is taken directly from the original.