Customer Reviews

Alias Shakespeare

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Most people accept the tradition that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were indeed written by him, and they assume that doubters of the Stratford man's authorship (anti-Stratfordians) must be irrational elitists. They might also assume that anti-Strats have nothing to offer those who simply wish to understand and enjoy the plays. But all of these assumptions are either debatable or wrong. In any case, though both sides of the authorship debate have been known to engage in circular arguments based on questionable evidence and to hurl childish ad hominems at one another, this is not true of Joseph Sobran who is reasonable in his arguments and civil toward his opponents. (Reviewers here who accuse Sobran of mudslinging, bashing etc. merely betray the fact that they have not read this book!) Rather than ask whether anti-Stratfordians are elitists, Sobran suggests that we ought to be asking if Shakespeare was one. For example, Shakespeare often makes cruel, unfair fun of social-climbing commoners exactly like Will Shaksper (a common variation of his name in contemporary legal documents). Arguing from evidence in the plays and poems, Sobran also demonstrates that the authorship debate can and ought to be relevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the Works.

While I am not wholly on the side of the underdog anti-Strats, I believe that Stratfordian scholars (which too often means mainstream scholars) have done such a disservice to the general public's enjoyment and understanding of Shakespeare that I must take them to task. Some are so fanatical in their defense of the Stratford man's claim to authorship that they seem to believe that if there were no tradition that he wrote the Works, they could conclusively prove from scratch that he did; but they could not for the same reason that anti-Stratfordians can never prove beyond a shadow that he didn't or that one of their alternative candidates did: The trail is old, and the case is cold. If ever there was a smoking gun it has long since turned entirely to rust. The strongest and best evidence that the man from Stratford wrote the Works is the tradition that he did, which, while not being conclusive, is simply difficult to dismiss.
But this tradition is not much. Anxious to uncover any details to fill out his biography, overzealous Stratfordians have accepted and taught many dubious legends and read a fanciful biography of the Stratford man into the plays and poems. The anti-Stratfordians see through this mess because they have no desire to add more to the Stratford man's biography than the documentary record will bear or to connect the biography to the Works where such a connection is based on pure guesswork. (Of course, they have motive to see other things that are not there, but here I speak only of how the anti-Strats are right.) For example, it was an anti-Stratfordian who realized that the famous "upstart crow" quotation has nothing whatever to do with Shakespeare, but instead clearly refers to an actor who did not write plays but was merely guilty of adlibbing. (More often, each side is equally at fault. I know of at least one instance where both sides used the exact same piece of evidence to prove their opposite conclusions. Upon further examination, it turned out that the evidence in question proved nothing whatsoever regarding authorship, yet each side had found in it proof of what it wanted to believe.) Meanwhile the Stratfordians reject the clear evidence from the plays that Shakespeare had far more learning than could have been provided by any formal education available to the Stratford man. In and of itself, this might not rule out the possibility that he was self-taught-except that the mainstream scholars HAVE ruled this out. They long ago boxed themselves into a corner by declaring that Shakespeare could not have had a vast education and any evidence that he did, no matter how compelling, cannot be admitted. (Once they assume that the Bard had little formal education, many orthodox Shakespeare scholars underestimate Shakepeare's learning and assume that a degree in literature somehow makes them Shakespeare's betters in matters such as, of all things, sixteenth-century Italian geography where it actually turns out that Shakespeare is the master.) Students are misleadingly told that they should readily understand Shakespeare because he wrote in ordinary language, aside from archaic words and grammatical constructions (as if these were not formidable enough). This is belied by the demonstrable fact that Shakespeare employed abstruse legalistic metaphors, used idiomatic Italian phrases (that he only partially translated) and demonstrated arcane knowledge of such subjects as heraldry. This and much more is explained in Sobran's book.

My only criticism of Sobran is that he gets so caught up in his persuasive case for the candidacy of the Earl of Oxford (which understandably persuades him) that he leans too far toward assuming Oxford's authorship to be a proven fact. In this, Sobran is like other participants in the authorship controversy. The authorship debate is a good example of my maxim that wherever there are only two sides to an argument both are usually wrong. Just because there is reason to doubt that Will Shaksper authored the plays and poems does not prove that he did not, and just because a case can be made that someone else might have written them does not prove that he or she did. The anti-Stratfordians are correct to point out that the biography of the traditional candidate does not fit the apparent biography of the author of the Works, and the Stratfordians are right to point out that the anti-Stratfordians cannot prove that one of their alternative candidates is the true author. Part of the argument of each side is correct, but neither side is free of error.

That being said, Sobran's contribution to the anti-Stratfordian cause is extremely readable and thought-provoking. He sums up the best evidence as it stands. If the average reader ought to read only one book by an anti-Strat, this is the one.

If I were a betting man, I still wouldn't bet on any of the possible answers to the "Who Wrote Shakespeare?" question. There are just too many gaps in our knowledge. But there is surely a mystery to be solved, and "Alias Shakespeare" by Joseph Sobran lays out an effective case that the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, is the most likely solution to that mystery.

The book dispenses with the usual ad hominem attacks, amateur psychology, and farcical searches for hidden anagrams that have too often characterized all sides' arguments. He instead approaches this third-rail subject with refreshing objectivity and an apparently sincere search for the truth.

Marshalling a series of arguments and associated facts that point to Oxford, the book is well-organized at the macro level. It fails at times however in structuring the particulars. Threads of the argument are sometimes introduced, developed to a certain level, dropped, and then picked up again at a later point.

For example, Sobran [speaking of an introductory letter Oxford wrote to a friend's translation of "Cardanus Comfort"] writes "The whole letter, which especially foreshadows the [Shakespearean] Sonnets, is of utmost importance to the authorship question." Having raised our utmost curiosity, he abandons this argument with the parenthetical "See Appendix 3."

But his logic, when ultimately reconstructed, seems unassailable. The aforementioned Sonnets are at the core of this logic, and he convincingly lays out the parallels between their content and the well-documented course of Oxford's life. He effectively exposes the circular reasoning used by the defenders of the man he calls Mr. Shakspere - that is, the actor from Stratford-on-Avon. Those defenders deny the obvious autobiographical nature of the Sonnets, on the basis that they don't match with the flimsy autobiography we have of Mr. Shakspere. In fact, this type of circular reasoning pervades their entire defense, whether dealing with the purported dates of the plays or the importance of the early long poems.

There are, of course, legitimate counter-arguments. The problem is that arguments and counter-arguments in this matter are almost always qualitative and very difficult for the non-expert to evaluate. Sobran takes a stab at what is probably the only possible relevant quantitative approach: that of linguistic analysis. But here his use of such an approach amounts to no more than extensive word listings that he has found in common between Shakespeare and Oxford.

The problem for his case is that a more sophisticated, computer-based linguistic analysis has already cast serious doubt on the possibility of Shakespeare's works having been written by Oxford. (Elliott and Valenza, 1991.) Of course, the specific methods used in that analysis are also very difficult for the non-expert to assess. But at least such an analysis takes us closer to a scientific approach with a testable hypothesis.

Nonetheless, given an open mind, it would be hard to read "Alias Shakespeare" without agreeing with Sobran's conclusion. At a minimum, I doubt if any such reader will be laying odds on Mr. Shakspere being the true author.

I had never given the issue of Shakespeare's identity much thought until this year; I remembered the fuss about Bacon from college, but assumed that the matter was fairly well resolved. Then I read a recent feature story in Harper's magazine, that brought together 5 or 6 proponents of each side of this matter to debate it.

What struck me upon reading that issue was how few facts of merit the defenders of the traditional view had at their disposal. While the Oxfordians (about whom I knew nothing) mustered a number of facts and found inconsistencies in the traditional story, the traditionalists had far less to counter with, and resorted to name-calling and the stance that Shakespeare's identity doesn't matter, or worse, that if he weren't the traditional candidate, it would be somehow wrong to know who he actually was.

Because I felt the traditionalists' arguments had been so weak, I wanted to read more. Out of curiosity, I bought Sobran's book. It's made up of two parts, a review of the traditional case, and the argument for Oxford. Whether or not you believe Oxford was Shakespeare -- and I think there is a good case here, but not enough to be certain -- this book just skewers the traditional argument. Sobran simply presents too much evidence to ignore. At the very least, it will leave you wondering how much other received academic knowledge you grew up with could be bogus. The slack standards of Shakespeare's 'biographers' are held to a withering light here.

I had never even heard of the Earl of Oxford before picking up the book. I likend the authorship question to fantasies like 'Where is Elvis' and 'Roswell, New Mexico.' Sobran presents a good deal of circumstantial evidence for Oxford. History records little circumstantial evidence for Shakspere, other than he shares the same name with the bard and he was an actor in some of these plays. Ghost writers are common. As a nobleman, Oxford had two reasons to stay quiet. 1) It was beneath his dignity to write plays 2) He could more easily satire his court friends (and enemies) with anonymity.

Oxford's experiences seem to reflect the experiences of the playwright in many cases. Numerous phrases from Oxford's private letters, appear again in Shakespeare's plays. Sobran offers better and more specific arguments than these. If I were a Shakespeare scholar, I would no doubt be angry at any probing book debunking the accepted theory, but this study is a well-made case for the Duke of Oxford.

This is a fascinating book that makes an very solid case for Edward DeVere, Earl of Oxford, as the true author of Shakespeare's works. Sobran breaks down all the myth and reverential pseudo-biography that exists around Shakespeare into a list of known facts. There is a temptation to bill anyone who questions the authorship of the man from Stratford as a member of the lunatic fringe, however Sobran is a careful journalist. He uses documented evidence to build a case against the curiously personality-less figure of the historic William Shakespeare being the author of such works. He convinced me, on literary and sociological grounds, that it was far more likely that Oxford is the author of the works. Fascinating and easy to read.

Persuasively argued, and finely detailed, Sobran's work makes a strong and reasoned case for recognizing Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, as the author of the Shakespeare plays. One wonders whether the authors of many of the "reviews" posted on Amazon.com have even read the book.

"Alias Shakespeare" is one of those books that very subtly alters your perspective on history, literature, and how greatness can come from misinformation just as often as from fact. I held a relatively open mind about the Who Wrote Shakespeare discussion until I read this completely believable, unerringly well-presented and well-documented argument that Shakespeare, as we know him, is actually no one we know at all.

By the end of the book you truly won't know what to think-Mr. Sobran has taken a volatile, passionately contested topic and presented his ideas clearly, concisely and with sincere conviction. He uses very straightforward logic and circumstantial evidence to demonstrate the great number of similarities in the Earl of Oxford's life to the topics and themes of Shakespearean plays and poetry, and then goes on to examine how the circumstances of William Shakespeare's life argue against his authoring the plays. There's also a wonderful appendix featuring the Earl of Oxford's early poetry (he stopped publishing at his peak-which is curious) to help you `get a feel' for his similarities to Shakespeare's published works. It's fascinating and great fun to delve so deeply into what is a great puzzle of style and authorship. What a great way to exicte a new reader about the plays!

The controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare's works arouses so much emotion that readers tend to praise unthinkingly any writing that supports their own views. One ought to judge cogency separately from conclusions. Sobran's book, though literate and entertaining, leaves huge gaps in its argumentation and ultimately presents a feeble, barely coherent case for the "Oxford was Shakespeare" position. If I believed its thesis (which I'll admit that I don't), I would not direct an undecided inquirer here.

Four points are crucial to Sobran's case: (i) the allegedly aristocratic character of Shakespeare's plays, which supposedly must have been written by a nobleman of ancient family, (ii) the paucity of information about the life of Will Shakespeare of Stratford, (iii) statements and actions by contemporaries that disclose awareness that "the Stratford man" was not the playwright and (iv) the motive for Oxford's concealment of his authorship. In all four areas, the argument is badly flawed.

1. Sobran's picture of Elizabethan England would be truer of Philip II's Spain. The English Court was not isolated in some Escorial but located close to London, where its activities were the subject of avid public scrutiny. Playgoers liked to see aristocrats portrayed on the stage (as the very popularity of Shakespeare's works proves), so that is what the author (and many others) gave them. As for the plays' evidently conservative political views, of which Sobran makes much, haven't such opinions always been widespread among the property-holding English middle class? Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke were not hereditary peers!

2. Shakespeare of Stratford's biography cannot be written in the same detail as the 17th Earl of Oxford's, but no law says that great literature can be written only by men with thoroughly documented lives. What is known about Shakespeare, a prominent theater owner and manager, is congruous with his authorship of the plays, and no one else was ever credited with them during his lifetime. The evidence includes statements by persons, such as Ben Jonson, who knew the playwright (whoever he was) personally and referred to him as "Shakespeare" in diary entries not intended for publication. Sobran's case to the contrary rests primarily on psychological speculation (mostly derived from a literalistic reading of the Sonnets that tries to convert poetry into autobiography, always a perilous endeavor). Astoundingly, he introduces Shakespeare's will as evidence of stylistic ineptitude. Does he imagine that Elizabethans, any more than modern Americans, drafted their own legal documents?

3. Sobran claims that Oxford's authorship of the plays was not in fact unknown to contemporaries. He offers various alleged allusions to "the truth" and places decisive weight on the lack of reaction in London when Shakespeare died in Stratford. Quite simply, almost everybody, according to Sobran, knew the facts. Why, then, did everybody keep them secret? Were hundreds of Elizabethans complicit in a plot to hoodwink posterity? To his credit, Sobran sees that there is a problem here. His response is to assert that English censorship was of near-totalitarian efficiency and that, for some unguessable reason, it ferociously forbade assertions of Oxfordian authorship - even in private letters and journals, even long after Oxford had died - despite the fact that suppression of well-known facts would have served no discernible purpose. Only someone quite ignorant of Elizabethan politics and society could seriously advance such a view.

4. Finally, why the secrecy? Sobran is less explicit than one would like, but he lays much stress on Oxford's alleged homosexual relationship with Henry Wriothesley (1573-1624), Earl of Southampton and dedicatee of Shakespeare's two long poems, "The Rape of Lucrece" and "Venus and Adonis". The reader is left with the impression that the principal motive for hiding Oxford's authorship of the plays was to cover up this scandal. The reader is _not_ left with any idea of why or how Oxford would have been incriminated if his connection with the plays had become known. The point is simply assumed rather than explained.

Not even addressed is a chronological oddity. In order to fit the plays into Oxford's lifetime (1550-1604), Sobran must challenge conventional dating. He places "The Comedy of Errors" in 1577, "Titus Andronicus" in or before 1584, "Hamlet" in or before 1589. By inference, much of the rest of the canon must come from the 1570's and 1580's. The Earl of Southampton was first presented at court in 1590 and was certainly not the object of amorous attentions in 1577 (at age four!). Hence, many of the plays, on Sobran's showing, appear to have antedated Oxford's motive for concealment of his identity as their true author.

Sobran makes a welter of subsidiary points, many of them only loosely connected to his thesis (e. g., the omission of Shakespeare's poems from the First Folio) and others unconvincing (e. g., naive vocabulary comparisons). The alert reader who asks himself, "What does this prove?", "What real evidence is there for that?", "Are there more plausible explanations of those facts?", will eventually dismiss Sobran's conclusions as Oliver Stone-like balderdash. In the unlikely event that the Earl of Oxford really wrote Shakespeare and is now in a position to care about his posthumous reputation, he must be in despair of having friends and advocates like this one.

Before reading Alias Shakespeare, I was sure that William Shakspere of Stratford was the author. Joe Sobran's powerful evidence-filled polemic has, while it has not utterly convinced me of the other side, put some doubt in my mind. Anyone interested in this debate owes it to themselves to read this book. Sobran is not a crank. I found it interesting--I did not know this prior to reading Alias--how many men of letters, like Walt Whitman and Mark Twain, did not believe the man from Stratford wrote the plays attributed to him. Alias Shakespeare is not the final word on the subject, but it is an important contribution to the debate.

Joseph Sobran has written an elegant and persuasive condensation of the case for Edward de Vere's authorship of the Shakespeare canon, updating the previous efforts of passionate and intelligent students of the Shakespeare question such as Charlton Ogburn Junior, Bernard M. Ward and John Thomas Looney.

The book deserve five stars for cogently and persuasively presenting a much-maligned theory which counts among its recent adherents such intellectual lights as Derek Jacoby, Michael York, John Gilgud, Mortimer Adler and Supreme Court Justices Blackmun, Powell and Stevens.

As other reviewers have noted, it does not matter so much whether Sobran's arguments are correct -- this reader finds many of them persuasive -- as that the subject itself warrants serious and sustained attention. At present champions of the orthodox Shakespeare retain their intellectual monopoly within higher education primarily by means of excluding non-specialists such as Sobran from the debate over the Shakespeare question and vociferously denying, against a host of contrary evidence, that the subject even exists.

On the contrary, anyone who cares for the future of literary studies should acquaint themselves with the arguments made in this book. Not all of them are, in my opinion, equally valid. But that is no cause to ignore or belittle Mr. Sobran for tackling an important question which (sorry) ain't going to disappear just because a few powerful Shakespeare industry insiders insist on feeling threatened by it rather than seeing it as one of the greatest boons which could befall a shrinking intellectual discipline.

"Shakespeare" has never been more interesting or more real than he is in this book.

For readers in search of a compact, intelligent, entertaining introduction to the authorship question -- a question which is only now, after many years of suppression and neglect, beginning to come into its prime as one of the great questions of our day -- this book is a great place to begin.

Roger Stritmatter