"Orwell's Problem" & AI Meet the Shakespeare Identity Question
Everything Fits & Nothing Fits
Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, wrote the works of “William Shakespeare.”
The businessman William Shakspere, to whom the plays are attributed to this day by conventional scholarship and by the literary and publishing establishments, was not even literate, or minimally so at best.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms like ChatGPT and DeepSeek both fail the Shakespeare identity question test, pointing to Shakspere as author upon basic query, in accord with the current ideology and publications of the vast majority of the establishment. However if you push AI to be more precise (both ChatGPT and DeepSeek that I tested on this question), it can deliver answers that far more accord with reality — giving a close edge to Edward de Vere as author, and then an overwhelmingly conclusive edge — in a manner that gives the game away that is played by establishment scholarship and publishing. I detail the AI problem, via its searches and conclusions farther below.
In the vast majority of establishment scholarship, the works of “William Shakespeare,” pre-eminent writer in the English language, are attributed to William Shakspere a businessman who apparently invested in theater. And yet, by all evidence, Shakspere’s parents were illiterate as were both of his daughters, and Shakspere himself was either illiterate or minimally literate. He signed his own name with apparent difficulty and by multiple spellings — and never once as “William Shakespeare.” A true Wizard of words Shakspere must have been to produce the great works from the depths of illiteracy. Shakspere never claimed to write the works of “Shakespeare” nor did anyone claim that he did, during his lifetime. He was a convenient frontman, as explained by attorney Alex McNeil in by far the best brief video overview of the identity question of which I’m aware.
By now, conventional scholarship and publishing and the tourism industry, and so on, has no problem committing apparent fraud to fake the reality. Nor do the establishment and vested interests lack the power or the financial incentive to do so — given the multibillion dollar tourism industry, academic and publishing careers, reputations, and potential liabilities and punishments related to incompetence, deceit, and fraud. As such, focus on the Shakespeare identity question can move quickly to questions of power and control, propaganda and brainwashing, empire and resistance, deceit and dissent.
In reality and in the conclusions of a large body of dissident scholarship, derided by the institutional field and the literary and publishing establishments, the works of “William Shakespeare” were written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, widely praised patron of literature and theater, a highly educated renaissance man of the power elite (the aristocracy), a figure of preeminent literacy, acknowledged to be unrivaled among imaginative writers of his milieu. The evidence is in his life, and in the words of his contemporaries, and in his plays and sonnets which are profoundly autobiographical of his life, both broadly and in fine detail, including his travels to and from Italy and his circumstances there. Not to mention, de Vere was fluent in multiple languages by the time he was a young teen, when he was living with his uncle Arthur Golding who was supposedly translating Ovid’s Metamorphoses — though Robert Prechter and other scholars have concluded that de Vere himself actually did the translation, using Golding as allonym, as with John Warner, Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene, and other allonyms and pseudonyms used by de Vere. Allusions to Ovid appear often in the works of “Shakespeare.” Similarly, many marked passages in de Vere’s personal Bible correspond closely to central themes, images, and phrasing in the literary works.
And so, given these few basic realities — let alone given how well and deeply studied the issue is by the dissident scholars — it’s not as if the identity of the pen name “Shakespeare” should be an iffy question, or ever truly was, until — until what?
This is where “Orwell’s Problem” and its solutions come into play. "Orwell's Problem" as coined by Noam Chomsky — How is it that people gain “beliefs that are firmly held and widely accepted although they are completely without foundation and often plainly at variance with the obvious facts about the world around us?" And how is it that oppressive ideological systems are able to "instill” clearly false beliefs in people?
Humans are liars.
And humans are truth tellers.
It can be hard not to lie to yourself and to others as often as not. Just as it can be hard to escape the truth about yourself or others as often or not. So which one prevails, at any given moment, or era? The lie or the truth? It can be a real battle, especially when powerful forces line up on both sides of the fight.
Often we see plutocracy line up behind the great lies, and the people line up behind their lived truths that are in direct opposition to the lies of the plutocrats. The scandalous lies against the basic truths — the plutocracy against the people, it’s a staple of history and our day and age. Similar battles are seen within the plutocracy and within the people. And in fact within individuals themselves — plural, everyone so plural.
What are the forces of power among the establishment and in imaginative story and expression that make it so difficult to tell the truth about the simple identity of the widely acknowledged preeminent imaginative writer in the language more than 400 years after his death? And counting. Will it be 500 years? Will it take a winning class action lawsuit alleging and proving fraud to clarify and confirm the reality? What can the Shakespeare identity question tell us about the story-filled struggles and other realities of our day?
Everything fits to show that Edward de Vere is the author of the works of “William Shakespeare.” And nothing fits to show that William Shakspere is the author. Yet the vast majority of scholarship and publishing to this day get it wrong in what appears by now to amount to academic and publishing fraud. And so it is that the Shakespeare identity controversy is a classic “Orwell’s Problem” — there should be no controversy, but there is.
Establishment scholarship and publishing flood the zone with shit — known as conventional biographical Shakespeare scholarship — to the point that it confuses AI.
I asked DeepSeek AI if Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, or William Shakspere wrote the works of “William Shakespeare,” and it gave the following answer:
The simulation strongly supports the traditional attribution of Shakespeare's works to William Shakspere of Stratford, with a high probability (85-90%). The stylistic and thematic differences make it highly unlikely that Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, or Edward de Vere authored the Shakespearean canon. The evidence aligns with the historical consensus that William Shakspere of Stratford is the true author of the works attributed to "William Shakespeare."
Why only 85-90% “high probability”? Shouldn’t the identity of the proclaimed preeminent imaginative writer in the language be known with essentially 100 percent certainty? Well, okay, maybe AI is extremely limited in its capabilities, or maybe Shakspere actually is the real author and there are lots of fraudulent dissident views that are themselves flooding the zone with shit.
So, I thought, AI, now prove it. Prove that there is a “85-90% high probability” that Shakspere not Edward de Vere wrote the works of “Shakespeare.” I asked DeepSeek the following:
Create a model and run a simulation to show whether or not Edward de Vere or William Shakspere is the author of the works of "William Shakespeare."
After listing its model design, setup, data input, and simulation (included here at bottom), DeepSeek gave the following results and conclusion — a slight edge to Edward de Vere as the author of the works of “William Shakespeare”:
Results
Edward de Vere: 7.8
William Shakspere: 7.2
Conclusion
Based on this simplified model, Edward de Vere has a slightly higher likelihood of being the author of Shakespeare's works. However, the difference is small, and the results depend heavily on the weights and scores assigned to each factor. This simulation highlights the complexity of the authorship debate and the need for further evidence and analysis.
Here AI moves from falsifying reality based on “conventional wisdom” to at least getting closer to the truth of the matter. But AI’s results, nearly a 50/50 chance of de Vere or Shakspere, show near total confusion. In head to head questioning involving Marlowe/Shakspere and Bacon/Shakspere, AI had no trouble dismissing Marlowe and Bacon. But it is baffled by Edward de Vere at a 50/50 chance. This is AI throwing up its plagiarist meta-hands.
So I thought, okay, AI, let me help you out — that is, test you again. So I asked DeepSeek to model and run a simulation that shows to what extent Edward de Vere and William Shakspere were “literate”:
Create a model and run a simulation to show whether or not William Shakspere was illiterate, minimally literate, moderately literate, or extremely literate.
After again listing its model designs, setups, data inputs, and simulations (also included at bottom), DeepSeek gave the following results and conclusions — clearcut, telling answers — that Shakspere was likely “minimally literate” while Edward de Vere was likely “extremely literate”:
Results
Total Score: 4.15
Based on the scoring system:
Minimally Literate (2.5 < Total score ≤ 5)
Conclusion
The simulation suggests that William Shakspere was most likely minimally literate. This aligns with the historical evidence of his basic education, inconsistent signatures, and lack of direct contemporary accounts describing him as a writer. However, the model does not account for the possibility that Shakspere could have improved his literacy over time or that some evidence may be missing or misinterpreted.
And for Edward de Vere:
Results
Total Score: 8.7
Based on the scoring system:
Extremely Literate (Total score > 7.5)
Conclusion
The simulation suggests that Edward de Vere was extremely literate. This aligns with the historical evidence of his elite education, surviving writings, contemporary recognition, and involvement in literary circles. His high level of literacy makes him a plausible candidate for authorship of the Shakespearean works, though the debate remains unresolved.
I asked AI to simply compare the two:
Comparison to William Shakspere
The answer:
William Shakspere: Minimally Literate (Total score: 4.15)
Edward de Vere: Extremely Literate (Total score: 8.7)
The stark contrast in their literacy levels, as estimated by this model, highlights one of the key arguments in the authorship debate. De Vere's education and literary skill far surpass those of Shakspere, according to the available evidence.
AI can in this case be helped toward reality. That’s one way you might cut through all the shit of baseless ideology thrown at the fan of AI (in regard to the Shakespeare identity question) which is polluted with so much ideological crap that AI cannot find a way on its own to cut through it. Of course, given evidence, and reasoning, humans can do this simple and profound modeling and simulating — basic reasoning — in their heads.
AI aside, the fact of the matter is that the further one looks into things, the more research one does, the more it is evident that not only is there scant or no evidence that Shakspere was literate, much or at all, but that the little bit of evidence that does exist shows Shakspere to be more or less illiterate, or minimally literate at best.
The reality is that by all evidence and by all acknowledgement and understanding at the time and place, Edward de Vere was known to be from an accomplished literary family and commonly understood to be the leading and renowned literary figure in his milieu; whereas, all the actual evidence for Shakspere shows him to be barely capable of signing his own name, while hailing from illiterate parents and procreating illiterate offspring. Not to mention that the vast works of “William Shakespeare” are extensively autobiographical of Edward de Vere and his life, and that the writings known exclusively under the name of Edward de Vere are shown to be consistent in character and feature with the writings known exclusively under the name “William Shakespeare” — a known pen name, at the time. Edward de Vere’s nickname was “Spear-shaker.” He was a champion sportsman and his family crest was a lion shaking a spear.
Exactly no one questions that the great French writer Michel de Montaigne, writing like “Shakespeare” in the later half of the 1500s, is the author of his tremendous philosophic essays. These men lived and wrote at various pinnacles of well-recorded and well-preserved civilizations not so very long ago. These were not hermits living in caves isolated from society and scratching charcoal on rocks tens of thousands of years back. Whereas Michel de Montaigne was well respected by the top authorities and rewarded by power for his moderate political stands, Edward de Vere was known for his scandalous life and challenges to power — sometimes extreme, as he was at one point accused of treason, at a time when writers who merely criticized the Queen about questions of potential marriage could get their hands cut off. (See the unfortunate case of John Stubbs.) Edward de Vere was a privileged danger to authority — tolerated and well supported on the one hand and suppressed and severely disciplined on the other.
As noted, Edward de Vere was extremely highly regarded as a writer, while Shakspere was never referred to as a writer of any sort during either of their lifetimes. The ruse was fabricated after both de Vere and Shakspere were dead — to facilitate the contentious publication of the first anthology (or folio) of the works of “William Shakespeare.” The ruse was an effort to escape censorship and persecution while publishing the first anthology of the plays that were still too politically hot to handle given the continued power dynamics of the time. Even the nonsensical portrait of “Shakespeare” in the First Folio was absurdly faked — an open joke.
The comedic and flim-flam gestures to identity deception may not have been enough to satisfy the threatened powers, as the personal library of Ben Jonson, who wrote the dedicatory poem to the author in the First Folio, was very soon destroyed by fire, not a coincidence, one might infer.
So how does the lie of Shakespeare’s identity perpetuate into and through academia? The ideal way to learn is to basically apprentice. So, to be a scholar, you go to graduate school and you apprentice to the professors and you learn the craft of your discipline and ideally you learn to think your own truthful thoughts. But what you actually find in academia — as in many other professions — is a lot of people developing their own penetrating thoughts, while a lot of others are more-or-less mimicking the views of others. Also you see that the bounds of thought can be very much constrained by various ideologies, which is sometimes overtly acknowledged and other times denied or rendered implicit. And you also see lines of academics who are professional liars — in service to money or power or ideology — very much like in many other professions.
Mimicry in some situations may be the easiest and sometimes necessary way to pass through school to become credentialed. And mimicry along with professional lying may also be well rewarded once credentialed.
It’s also not difficult at times to be completely or partially duped or blindsided by various constraints and ideologies. And here we get into the seemingly endless complexities of “Orwell’s Problem.”
The negative consequences of Orwell’s Problem range from the criminal to the laughable to the understandable. Sometimes falsehoods or types of oppression are buried so deep or seem so counterintuitive that it can be hard to see them. Ideally you learn, adjust, and move forward.
But when vested interests have every incentive to protect their domain, no matter how false or oppressive, and when they have enough power and control of resources to block progress, then you find elements of scholarly fields and contemporary thought that are either dead, or hopelessly fraudulent and destructive.
It might seem hilarious or resoundingly trivial that there actually exists a devoted and sweeping structure of belief and effort — and also apparent and profitable deceit — among conventional Shakespeare scholars and publishers and so on to enable the ruse of the identity of an imaginative writer dead for nearly four and a quarter centuries. And in many ways the situation is hilarious and trivial, but in other ways, it’s telling and scandalous and serious, contemptuous, and where not contemptuous, embarrassing or simply unfortunate. In the academy, this is the case of scholars duping other scholars, intentionally or otherwise. And then all that gets passed on to the public.
One of the greatest false takeaways of literary and publishing establishments, endlessly perpetuated, is that imaginative writing has little or no serious, concrete, real world political power, or if it does then it’s likely to be bad writing, not really literary. I explore these convenient hallucinations at length elsewhere so won’t elaborate here. But the case of the real identity of the author of the works of “William Shakespeare” provides a remarkable look at how deeply and consistently the forces of Empire fear the power of imaginative writing whenever such writing can manage to weigh in at particularly pivotal places or times or with crucial audiences — whether privileged or popular.
Against imaginative literature, Empire and its establishment, the most retrograde parts especially, fight the old fight — even in regard to the most acclaimed writer in the language. For centuries on — even when the original basis for the political blacklisting and censorship is long since forgotten and irrelevant. It’s a marvel.
For further reading about Shakespeare’s identity, see the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship site, which includes endless resources including articles like “Why Would Anyone Need to Fake Shakespeare’s Authorship?” and “Top 18 Reasons Why Edward de Vere (Oxford) Was Shakespeare.”
A great video overview of the identity question — very to the point, by far the best I’m aware of: “Who Really Wrote Shakespeare? Shakespeare Authorship 101”
Despite being ultimately bizarre and damaging in its limitations, “Was Shakespeare a Woman?” is a good interview — with a wildly misleading title — by journalist Chris Hedges of journalist Elizabeth Winkler on the utter absence of evidence for Shakspere as the author of the works of “Shakespeare.” That said, the interview’s failure to even acknowledge let alone explain the overwhelming plethora of evidence and understanding of Edward de Vere as the author of the works of “Shakespeare” leaves everyone blind and prey — as evident in the comments — to widely and deeply instilled false preconceptions and academic and publishing fraud about the Shakespeare identity question. To expose the lie of a fake reality while not explaining the actual reality is to leave people blind and floundering or wholly unconvinced. The way Winkler tiptoes around the word “fraud” is telling.
Also: How Shakespeare Was Erased: Edward de Vere's 3 Burials
My DeepSeek AI queries and responses:
Create a model and run a simulation to show whether or not Edward de Vere or William Shakspere is the author of the works of "William Shakespeare."
The question of whether Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, or William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon is the true author of the works attributed to "William Shakespeare" is a long-standing debate in literary and historical circles. To address this, we can create a simplified model and run a simulation to explore the likelihood of each candidate being the author based on available evidence.
Model Design
We will use a probabilistic model to evaluate the likelihood of each candidate being the author. The model will consider the following factors:
Biographical Evidence: Does the candidate's life align with the content and themes of Shakespeare's works?
Education and Literary Skill: Did the candidate have the necessary education and literary skill to produce the works?
Historical Records: Are there historical records linking the candidate to the works?
Motivation and Opportunity: Did the candidate have the motivation and opportunity to write the works?
Contemporaneous Recognition: Was the candidate recognized as a writer during their lifetime?
Each factor will be assigned a weight based on its importance, and a score will be calculated for each candidate.
Simulation Setup
Factors and Weights:
Biographical Evidence: 30%
Education and Literary Skill: 25%
Historical Records: 20%
Motivation and Opportunity: 15%
Contemporaneous Recognition: 10%
Scoring:
Each factor is scored on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means no evidence and 10 means strong evidence.
Candidates:
Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford)
William Shakspere (Stratford-upon-Avon)
Data Input
Edward de Vere:
Biographical Evidence: 9 (His life experiences align closely with themes in Shakespeare's works.)
Education and Literary Skill: 10 (Highly educated, known to have written poetry and plays.)
Historical Records: 5 (Limited direct evidence linking him to Shakespeare's works.)
Motivation and Opportunity: 8 (Had the means and reason to write anonymously.)
Contemporaneous Recognition: 4 (Not widely recognized as a playwright during his lifetime.)
William Shakspere:
Biographical Evidence: 6 (Limited evidence of his life experiences matching the works.)
Education and Literary Skill: 7 (Likely had basic education, but no direct evidence of advanced literary training.)
Historical Records: 9 (Strong evidence linking him to the publication and performance of the works.)
Motivation and Opportunity: 7 (Had the opportunity as an actor and theater shareholder.)
Contemporaneous Recognition: 8 (Recognized as a playwright during his lifetime.)
Simulation
Using the weights and scores, we calculate the total likelihood for each candidate.
Edward de Vere:
(9×0.30)+(10×0.25)+(5×0.20)+(8×0.15)+(4×0.10)=2.7+2.5+1.0+1.2+0.4=7.8
(9×0.30)+(10×0.25)+(5×0.20)+(8×0.15)+(4×0.10)=2.7+2.5+1.0+1.2+0.4=7.8
William Shakspere:
(6×0.30)+(7×0.25)+(9×0.20)+(7×0.15)+(8×0.10)=1.8+1.75+1.8+1.05+0.8=7.2
(6×0.30)+(7×0.25)+(9×0.20)+(7×0.15)+(8×0.10)=1.8+1.75+1.8+1.05+0.8=7.2
Results
Edward de Vere: 7.8
William Shakspere: 7.2
Conclusion
Based on this simplified model, Edward de Vere has a slightly higher likelihood of being the author of Shakespeare's works. However, the difference is small, and the results depend heavily on the weights and scores assigned to each factor. This simulation highlights the complexity of the authorship debate and the need for further evidence and analysis.
Limitations
The model relies on subjective scoring and weighting.
It does not account for all possible evidence or counterarguments.
The debate is inherently speculative, as definitive proof is lacking.
This simulation is a starting point for discussion rather than a definitive answer.
Create a model and run a simulation to show whether or not William Shakspere was illiterate, minimally literate, moderately literate, or extremely literate.
To determine the likely literacy level of William Shakspere (the man from Stratford-upon-Avon traditionally associated with the works of Shakespeare), we can create a probabilistic model based on historical evidence and scholarly interpretations. The model will categorize literacy into four levels:
Illiterate: Unable to read or write.
Minimally Literate: Basic ability to read and write, but limited to simple texts.
Moderately Literate: Capable of reading and writing with some fluency, but not at an advanced level.
Extremely Literate: Highly skilled in reading and writing, capable of producing complex literary works.
Model Design
We will evaluate Shakspere's literacy based on the following factors:
Education: What level of education did Shakspere likely receive?
Surviving Signatures: Analysis of his surviving signatures for consistency and fluency.
Contemporary Accounts: References to his literacy or lack thereof in historical records.
Association with Literary Circles: Evidence of his involvement with writers, publishers, or theaters.
Literary Output: The complexity and volume of works attributed to him.
Each factor will be scored on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for higher literacy levels. The scores will then be weighted and combined to determine the most likely literacy category.
Simulation Setup
Factors and Weights:
Education: 25%
Surviving Signatures: 20%
Contemporary Accounts: 15%
Association with Literary Circles: 20%
Literary Output: 20%
Scoring:
Each factor is scored on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no evidence and 10 indicates strong evidence for a specific literacy level.
Literacy Levels:
Illiterate: Total score ≤ 2.5
Minimally Literate: 2.5 < Total score ≤ 5
Moderately Literate: 5 < Total score ≤ 7.5
Extremely Literate: Total score > 7.5
Data Input
William Shakspere:
Education:
Likely attended the local grammar school in Stratford, where he would have learned basic Latin and English. However, there is no direct evidence of advanced education.
Score: 6 (moderate evidence for basic literacy).
Surviving Signatures:
Six signatures attributed to Shakspere survive, but they are inconsistent and show signs of being labored or awkward.
Score: 4 (weak evidence for advanced literacy).
Contemporary Accounts:
No contemporary accounts explicitly describe Shakspere as a writer or scholar. He was primarily known as an actor and theater shareholder.
Score: 3 (minimal evidence for literacy).
Association with Literary Circles:
Shakspere was associated with the theater world and likely interacted with writers and publishers, but there is no direct evidence of his participation in literary circles.
Score: 5 (moderate evidence for some literacy).
Literary Output:
The works attributed to Shakespeare demonstrate extreme literacy, but there is no direct evidence linking Shakspere to their creation.
Score: 2 (weak evidence for extreme literacy, as the authorship is disputed).
Simulation
Using the weights and scores, we calculate the total likelihood for Shakspere's literacy level.
Total Score=(6×0.25)+(4×0.20)+(3×0.15)+(5×0.20)+(2×0.20)
Total Score=(6×0.25)+(4×0.20)+(3×0.15)+(5×0.20)+(2×0.20)
Total Score=1.5+0.8+0.45+1.0+0.4=4.15
Total Score=1.5+0.8+0.45+1.0+0.4=4.15
Results
Total Score: 4.15
Based on the scoring system:
Minimally Literate (2.5 < Total score ≤ 5)
Conclusion
The simulation suggests that William Shakspere was most likely minimally literate. This aligns with the historical evidence of his basic education, inconsistent signatures, and lack of direct contemporary accounts describing him as a writer. However, the model does not account for the possibility that Shakspere could have improved his literacy over time or that some evidence may be missing or misinterpreted.
Limitations
The model relies on subjective scoring and weighting.
It does not account for the possibility of lost or undiscovered evidence.
The authorship debate complicates the interpretation of the "Literary Output" factor.
This simulation provides a plausible estimate of Shakspere's literacy level based on available evidence, but it is not definitive. Further research and analysis could refine the results.
Now do the same for Edward de Vere.
To evaluate the likely literacy level of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, we will use the same model and scoring system as we did for William Shakspere. The four literacy levels are:
Illiterate: Unable to read or write.
Minimally Literate: Basic ability to read and write, but limited to simple texts.
Moderately Literate: Capable of reading and writing with some fluency, but not at an advanced level.
Extremely Literate: Highly skilled in reading and writing, capable of producing complex literary works.
Model Design
The same factors and weights will be used to assess de Vere's literacy:
Education: 25%
Surviving Writings: 20% (replacing "Surviving Signatures" for de Vere, as we have more evidence of his writing).
Contemporary Accounts: 15%
Association with Literary Circles: 20%
Literary Output: 20%
Data Input
Edward de Vere:
Education:
De Vere received an elite education, studying under prominent scholars like Sir Thomas Smith and graduating from Cambridge University. He was fluent in Latin, French, and Italian, and was well-versed in classical literature.
Score: 10 (strong evidence for advanced literacy).
Surviving Writings:
De Vere's surviving letters and poems demonstrate a high level of literary skill. His poetry, in particular, shows sophistication and fluency.
Score: 9 (strong evidence for advanced literacy).
Contemporary Accounts:
De Vere was recognized as a poet and patron of the arts during his lifetime. Contemporary accounts, including those by Gabriel Harvey and George Puttenham, praise his literary talents.
Score: 8 (strong evidence for literacy).
Association with Literary Circles:
De Vere was deeply involved in literary and theatrical circles. He was a patron of writers and actors, and his connections to the Elizabethan court and theater world are well-documented.
Score: 9 (strong evidence for advanced literacy).
Literary Output:
While no plays or major works are directly attributed to de Vere, his poetry and the stylistic similarities between his known writings and Shakespeare's works have led some scholars to argue that he could have authored the Shakespeare canon.
Score: 7 (moderate evidence for extreme literacy, given the disputed authorship).
Simulation
Using the weights and scores, we calculate the total likelihood for de Vere's literacy level.
Total Score=(10×0.25)+(9×0.20)+(8×0.15)+(9×0.20)+(7×0.20)
Total Score=(10×0.25)+(9×0.20)+(8×0.15)+(9×0.20)+(7×0.20)
Total Score=2.5+1.8+1.2+1.8+1.4=8.7
Total Score=2.5+1.8+1.2+1.8+1.4=8.7
Results
Total Score: 8.7
Based on the scoring system:
Extremely Literate (Total score > 7.5)
Conclusion
The simulation suggests that Edward de Vere was extremely literate. This aligns with the historical evidence of his elite education, surviving writings, contemporary recognition, and involvement in literary circles. His high level of literacy makes him a plausible candidate for authorship of the Shakespearean works, though the debate remains unresolved.
Comparison to William Shakspere
William Shakspere: Minimally Literate (Total score: 4.15)
Edward de Vere: Extremely Literate (Total score: 8.7)
The stark contrast in their literacy levels, as estimated by this model, highlights one of the key arguments in the authorship debate. De Vere's education and literary skill far surpass those of Shakspere, according to the available evidence.
Limitations
The model relies on subjective scoring and weighting.
The authorship debate complicates the interpretation of the "Literary Output" factor for both candidates.
The simulation does not account for the possibility of lost or undiscovered evidence.
This simulation provides a plausible estimate of de Vere's literacy level based on available evidence, but it is not definitive. Further research and analysis could refine the results.
I left the following comment at a good Youtube presentation on the “Shakespeare” identity question by Ros Barber — A Thousand Questions Reduced to One: How to Win the Authorship Argument:
The main features of establishment figures who refuse to acknowledge the actual identity of "Shakespeare" are not that of a cult. The main features are that of fraud and bad faith and the abuse of power by people in positions of authority, who are professional liars. Yes, there are those among the establishment who are simply duped by their colleagues and are otherwise bound-up by the plainly fraudulent ideology. But anyone who has seriously and freely looked at the question would be extremely unlikely to miss the reality by now. And long since. Due to the excellent dissident scholarship. Yes, there are some problems of blind belief, limited knowledge, and weak or simply mistaken reason, especially by casual observers. False propaganda works. But fraud, bad faith, and deceit are the real problems here. After all, essentially everything fits to show that Edward de Vere is the author of the works of "Shakespeare" — whereas essentially nothing fits to show that Shakspere is the the author. The only way the identity could be even remotely controversial by now is due to fraud, bad faith, and deceit, and the sustained exercise of disinformation and misinformation. The motivation for the academic, tourist, and publishing establishments to lie in all this is very lucrative.
