Thomas Looney’s Psychological Profile Identifying the Author of the Shakespeare Canon

Mystic, Connecticut

The Welbeck Portrait of Edward De Vere (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Edward-de-Vere-circa-1575-The-Welbeck-portrait-painted-while-Oxford-was-in-Paris_fig9_342296300)

Introduction

By the first quarter of the 19th Century, it was accepted that Christopher Marlowe co-authored the first two parts of Henry VI and that John Fletcher co-authored Henry VIII. Baconians believed that Francis Bacon was the true author. Thomas Looney, a school-teacher, said, “Let’s look at this another way.” Viewing the works as anonymous, he then drew up a profile which he used to discover the true author.

General Features

1. A Matured Man of Recognized Genius.
2. Apparently eccentric and mysterious.
3. Of intense sensibility-a man apart.
4. Unconventional.
5. Not adequately appreciated.
6. Of pronounced and known literary tastes.
7. An enthusiast in the world of drama.
8. A lyric poet of recognized talent.
9. Of superior education-classical-the habitual associate of educated people.

(Looney 118–19).

Special Characteristics

1. A man with feudal connections.
2. A member of the higher aristocracy.
3. Connected with Lancastrian supporters.
4. An enthusiast for Italy.
5. A follower of sport (including falconry).
6. A lover of music.
7. Loose and improvident in money matters.
8. Doubtful and somewhat conflicting in his attitude towards women.
9. Of probable Catholic leanings, but touched with scepticism.

(Looney 131)

Many of the above points were at odds with the orthodox biography of Shakespeare. For example, in the words of Elizabeth Price, “William Shakspere was a man of no recorded education.” He was also not a member of the higher aristocracy. There was also no evidence that he ever left England. Falconry was also an aristocratic pastime. The Stratford man brought people to court over petty sums; therefore, he was not a spendthrift.

Thomas Looney had the following to say about the profile he created,

“The various points are, indeed, the outcome of the labors and criticisms of many minds spread over a number of years, and it may be that the only thing original about the statement is the gathering together and tabulating of the various old points. So collected, these seem to demand such an aggregate and unusual combination of conditions that it is hardly probable that any man other than the actual author of the plays himself could actually fill them all. When to this we add the further condition that the man answering to the description must also be situated, both in time and external circumstances, as to be consistent with the production of the work, we get the feeling that if such a man can be discovered it must be none other than the author himself” (Looney 133).

Conclusion

Reading and viewing the works through an Oxfordian lens, makes them so much more rewarding. Instead of being an incomprehensible genius, like the Stratford man, the works themselves become reflections of Oxford’s life. It is also astonishing that De Vere was the only man living who answered every element of the profile perfectly.

Works Cited

Looney, Thomas. Shakespeare Identified. Cecil Palmer, 1920.