With the release of Anonymous the room is once again filled with Oxfordian theoeries of the authorship of the Shakespeare plays. The facts hold against them. The elephant in the room, however, is that the facts also hold against that fellow from Stratford-on-Avon from being the true author as well. There’s something damnably obvious that the respected Shakespeare scholars all choose to dance around: the anachronistic language in the work. This may be hard for the modern reader to recognize, primarily because Shakespeare is most people’s first (and often sole) exposure to the language of the sixteenth century… but there’s the rub, Shakespeare did not write in the language of the sixteenth century, and I don’t just mean that it was not the era of iambic pentameter. His plays quite simply use language that just didn’t exist at the time. And I don’t mean just one or two which may be crumulent coinages of his… etymologists have noted more than 1500 words and phrases which would later be in common use but which have absolutely no recorded uses when Shakespeare used them. If I were to say that “cold-blooded bedroom gossip is my addiction, and the more ruthless the savagery that is used to besmirch the fashionable champion, the more it arouses me and caters to my excitement”, I haven’t said anything that you won’t understand… but I’ve used a dozen words that the sixteenth century didn’t have but Shakespeare nonetheless did. Add in there the occasional obviously anachronistic concept (“Tennis balls, my liege” in Henry V – really? Tennis balls in the sixteenth century when the play was written, much less in the early fifteenth century when it’s supposed to take place?)
All this leads to just one rational explanation: rather than looking among the men of his day, we must look elsewhere… or rather, elsewhen… for the true authorship of his plays. I’m starting to work on exactly who, but I think I’ve got a nail on the when, from a few textual clues: the use of the specific anachronisms moonbeams (A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, act III scene 1), drugged (Macbeth II 2), and zany (Love’s Labours Lost V 2); the fascination with magical dreams (again, Midsummer’s) and cross-dressing (Twelfth Night); and both the anachronistic use of the term and the fascination with the concept of assassination all point to the true author being immersed in the culture of the 1960s. (The way he ripped off the plot to West Side Story is mere icing on the logical cake.)
Additional input on who from that era the author is, and how he transmitted himself or his works back in time, are welcome.