Customer Reviews

The Man Who Was Shakespeare: A Summary of the Case Unfolded in the Mysterious William Shakespeare : The Myth and the Reality

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Ogburn's views generally convince those who will examine the historical evidence. It is not fantasy to think that they may eventually prevail, as literary historians who have not already committed themselves to the Stratfordian view gradually replace those who have. But it will take time. The problem is not so much the "you're all crackpots" attitude nor the "you're prejudiced against the uneducated" attitude -- both reflected in earlier reviews. The problem is that if the traditional attitude is true then "Shakespeare" was a transcendent, almost mystical genius, whereas if the Oxfordian theory is true then "Shakespeare" was a great genius but one whose inspiration obviously came -- as it has for most great writers -- from his own life and experiences. To bring him "down to earth" like that will be emotionally wrenching. But the parallels between the writings of "Shakespeare" and de Vere's life seem overwhelming.

Ogburn's views have been popularized in other books but this -- a summary of his much-longer book -- is better. Read it to see what the history books may say fifty years from now.

This is a well-researched and well-written little book that largely demolishes the case supporting Will Shaksper of Stratford as the writer of the great poems and plays penned by "Will Shake-speare." Although he advocates the recognition of Edward deVere, Earl of Oxford, as the true author, Ogburn simply lacks the hard evidence required to develop a sufficient argument to ensure the triumph of his thesis.

The true writer of the plays is acknowledged by most authorities to have been intimately acquainted with English Court life, civil law, military procedures, and to have possessed more than a passing familiarity with Italian customs and geography. It is impossible to connect the man from Stratford with any of this. In his lifetime, Shaksper was never publicly connected with the authorship of any of the plays or poems. When Shaksper died, no obituaries were written which mourned the passing of a great author. There is no evidence that the people of Stratford connected Shaksper with any of the writings. No monument was constructed in Shake-speare's honor in Stratford until decades later. Many years after Shaksper died and the plays had become attributed to him, a local priest scoured the countryside trying to collect Shake-speare memorabilia but found - absolutely nothing: no books; no letters; or no diaries!

Shaksper's will, written by him, mentioned all of his possessions in great detail down to the disposition of his second-best bed, but was totally silent about any books, plays, poems, or literary works of any kind. Neither books, manuscripts, works-in-progress, fragments, nor any but a single letter (written to him) concerning a commercial transaction (there is no evidence that Shake-speare or Shaksper ever wrote a letter to anybody) have ever been found or referred to in any manner of surviving print. For an author who is estimated to have used more than 20,000 different words in his writings, as compared to the next most prolific wordsmith, John Milton (who used 12,000), Shaksper's school that he attended had only thirteen books in its library. Shaksper had no further formal education after leaving a remote public school which was hardly at the forefront of critical thinking. Shaksper's daughter and grand-daughter, whom he loved, died illiterate.

In "The Tempest," Shake-speare wrote: "We are such stuff/ As dreams are made on and our little life/ Is rounded with a sleep..." But Shaksper composed and had the following verse placed upon his headstone as an epitaph: "Good friends for Iesus' [Jesus'] sake forbeare/ To digg the dust encloased heare:/ Blest be ye [the] man yt [that] spares thes stones/ And curst be he yt moves my bones." A comparison between these two passages leads to the same type of quandary which was encountered by such literary notables as Walt Whitman and Mark Twain. Whitman (who was gay) recognized that a large portion of Shake-speare's sonnets described an intense, passionate relationship between an older, notorious, lame man (the author) and a much younger nobleman. The author of the sonnets referred to both his and the young man's elevated social status several times. When the sonnets were published, the around 40 year-old Shaksper was neither as old as the sonnets implied nor hardly of an elevated social status - either the author was having a flight of fancy or was actually a nobleman, himself. In Elizabethan times, commoners did not socialize with or act in a familiar manner towards the nobility. Also, Shaksper's position as a commoner did not grant him the privilege to be notorious! Mark Twain felt that his research into Shake-speare's life uncovered serious irregularities in considering Shaksper to have written the plays. Twain wrote a humorous article detailing his research findings (some of which are inaccurate) titled, "Is Shakespeare Dead?" This article is available on the Internet and is worth reading.

Through the years, other authors have been suggested as being the true Shake-speare: Marlowe; Bacon; deVere; etc. However, no further proof than supposition has ever been hurled against the edifice erected by the Stratfordians. Until such time as hard evidence is forthcoming - which is not very likely after the passing of four centuries, Will Shaksper's authenticity will remain under a very small cloud to a small group of Shakespearean scholars. While I also entertain doubts about Shaksper, it should be duly noted that doubts aside, it is impossible to totally rule him out as being the true author! (If one studies the polished elegance, wit, and wisdom contained in the writings of Abraham Lincoln it is astonishing to realize that Lincoln was largely self-educated and developed his intellect far from the halls of established academia.) The Shake-speare authorship controversy is a fascinating puzzle which will never likely be satisfactorily resolved.

I too found this book exciting and controversial when I first read it. I admit, I was even taken in for a while. Ogburn's argument seemed so persuasive, his argument presented with such confidence and power. Surely he was right and the 'man from Stratford' couldn't possibly have written those plays. And then, having read it, I did some follow-up research of my own. To the reviewer below who states that there is no evidence ("none") to suggest that the Stratford poet is the true author, I have to tell you that that's complete nonsense. The trouble with Ogburn is that he's highly er...'imaginative' with his evidence, to the point of wilfully misleading the reader. One example will suffice to make my point: in the 1623 First Folio, Ben Jonson's well-known eulogy to the 'author' includes the phrase: 'Sweet swan of Avon'. Naturally, Stratfordians have reasonably assumed that this 'Avon' refers to the town of Shakespeeare's birth and death. Not so, says Ogburn. In fact the 17th Earl of Oxford owned a manor called Bilton, also situated on the river Avon. So Jonson MUST've been referring to the Earl. Closer analysis reveals the truth. Edward de Vere did indeed own a manor called Bilton, situated on the river Avon. Unfortunately for Ogburn and his cause, Oxford sold this manor in 1581 and it hadn't been reclaimed by him at his death in 1604. Does it seem likely that Jonson would refer to an old manor of Oxford's 42 YEARS after it left his hands? I don't think so. If we can believe that then to believe that Shakespeare is the true author is a cinch. Needless to say, this is a piece of information that Ogburn leaves out. All of Ogburn's, and the anti-Stratfordians', ideas can be refuted. Ogburn also completely misleads the reader over the issue of the non-appearance of Shakespeare in the diary of the impresario Philip Henslowe. No other actors, at the time when Shakespeare SHOULD'VE appeared in the diary, are mentioned either. Only later, after the mid-1590s, did Henslowe begin to include the names of actors in his diary, and by this time he had nothing further to do with Shakespeare, who was now acting with the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Having waded through all 750-odd pages of this book I was digusted to learn how I'd been mislead. It makes an interesting ... theory, but one that is in the same league as the idea that the moonlandings were faked in a hanger in Nevada. I have no academic axe to grind at all, but don't waste time reading this, especially when you can better spend the time reading Shakespeare himself.

A concise "Mysterious William Shakespeare", completed by Ogburn himself. For those who don't have the time or inclination to read the big one, but who still need to be enlightened about the Authorship Question. Highly recommended.

Count me a convert, along with the following people who believe the Stratford man did not write the poems or the plays: Mr. Justice Harry A. Blackmun (Supreme Court Justice); Mr. Justice John Paul Stevens (Supreme Court Justice); Orson Welles; Mark Twain; Charles Dickens; Henry James; David McCullough; Ralph Waldo Emerson; Sir John Gielgud; Sigmund Freud; Walt Whitman; Mr.Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Supreme Court Justice); Charles DeGaulle; Ambasadore Paul Nitze.

Charlton is not the most flowing writer, but his points are very well researched - a fascinating who-done-it which most likely never can be proven. The evidence clearly points away from "Wm. Shakspere, Gent."

Read this book, then re-read Hamlet. You will have moments which will make your skin crawl.

The question of who wrote the works published under the name of William Shakespeare is a difficult one and an emotional one for some. There is much support today for someone other than William Shaksper of Stratford. This little booklet is a good condensation of a larger work. It is a good scholarly introduction. For easier reading but also good content, try Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran.

Ogburn does an excellent job sifting through the extant evidence regarding the authorship question and builds a solid, logical case for who Shakespeare really is. Frankly, Ogburn convinced me. In fact, at this point I'm somewhat puzzled as to why Stratfordian scholars refuse to address the evidence supportive of Oxford as Shakespeare. While it's natural to be rather emotionally attached to things, scholars (by virtue of being scholars) should be able to remove their affective responses and evaluate the issue with dispassion.

What a crackpot this guy was. Read this if you want material for a parody of conspiracy theories.

Schemes such as these make me sick. Those who spend their time dreaming up false theories do so only because they have no grasp of reality. I for one am tired of people claiming that someone other than Shakespeare wrote his works. It is a hypocrite who believes that no one is capable of such rich language without a university education. Those that are writers themselves and truly appreciate the works of others understand that writing, in itself, is a gift. It is a craft that cannot be taught. Education may, indeed, strengthen one's ability, but it cannot form it. I am enraged at those who dare to dishonor the writings of the greatest writer that ever lived simply because they are ignorant. As his fellow playwright Ben Jonson said of him, "He was not of an age, but for all time." Certainly no Edward De whatever played any role at all in the shaping of Shakespeare's literary genius or his works. I know the trials of human imagination, but let us not get so ensued with unproven and proposterous theories that we shame ourselves by making the mind behind those fascinating works what we as a society want it to be. It is nothing more than human pride and vanity that allows such far-fetched notions to be brought to light. We as humans simply cannot accept that the greatest plays of all time were indeed written by a middle-class man with little education: for us, we need something better-an earl or a rich and famous figure who excelled in the arts and education. I will leave the verdict up to you, but I refuse to let myself be deceived by the abstract theories of foolish men; in truth, there is no authorship question, the authorship is known. The question that remains is this: is society willing to accept the truth or will we continue with these crimes of literary blasphemy in a vain quest to fulfill our own desires of who we want this man to be. I sincerely wish that my eyes should never have to gaze again upon the follies that books of this kind pursue. If you would like to read a real biography of Shakespeare, filled with facts about his life and others that shared his time with him, read "Shakespeare: A Biography" by: A.L. Rowse--if you want to share in another person's dreams, read this one and all the other junk that is sure to follow...........

And if you believe that, you will believe anything. Some people sure love to dream up conspracies.