| ||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
57 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Stunning, compelling proofs of the real identity of Shakespe,
By
This review is from: The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality (Hardcover)
I must confess, I had heard for years that there was a controversy about whether William Shakspere of Stratford was the real author of the William Shakespeare corpus of plays and poems, and had never paid it much heed. When I found this book, I was intrigued by its claim to have found the real author's identity. When I delved into it, I became spellbound. It's not only that it's highly implausible that a man who at best could have had an 8th grade education in a provincial public school in a hamlet called Stratford could have written the plays. It's impossible, as Ogburn shows. Shakespeare displays intimate and highly accurate knowledge of detailed subject matter in a myriad of disciplines, from falconry to botany to law to geography to music and many other areas that no "homespun genius" of any brilliance could possibly intuit: There are some things that even the most brilliant man in the world would have to learn by extensive training, study and in some cases European travel. Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, had every qualification to have been able to write everything in every play by Shakespeare. Shakspere of Stratford had virtually none of these qualifications. The author of the plays had "been there, done that," as had de Vere, and as Shakspere of Stratford had not. It is not only implausible, it is impossible, that a commoner could have gotten away with lampooning the second most powerful man in Elizabeth's realm, Robert Cecil, Lord Burghley, who was in charge of the apparatus of a very tight police state. But virtually all agree--and the evidence is conclusive--that Polonius is a caricature of Burghley. De Vere, Burthley's son-in-law and a favorite of Queen Elizabeth, could have gotten away with it, provided his authorship was hidden from the public. It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to posit that the greatest dramatist in history, in his own lifetime, never: 1) was publicly associated with his own plays; 2) took no interest in editing them or preserving them; 3) sought no credit for them whatsoever; 4) suddenly stopped writing them at the height of his powers and retired to a rural hamlet for his last 10 years, while in good health; 5) was unknown as a playwright in his own, very small, home town; 6) had no contact whatsoever with any of the other literary luminaries of his day, who otherwise had dealings with each other, and who after his death honored the plays themselves as the great creations they were--these are inconceivable UNLESS their author was from the class that was not allowed to sully themselves in the theater--the upper nobility, to which De Vere belonged. I can't summarize the whole book, but Ogburn shows convincingly that there are no fatal facts that would rule out de Vere. There are myriad that rule out Shakspere, beyond what I mentioned above. There are hundreds of individually compelling facts that point to de Vere. There are only a few inconclusive suggestions that point to Shakspere, all of which can be disposed of by other extant evidence. Just one example of how this evidence has been misread over the years: In his famous dedication of the First Folio of 1623, Ben Jonson says "and though thou hadst small Latin, and less Greek,.." which has been construed as confirming that Shakespeare was not well educated. But read together with the lines that follow, such a reading is incoherent. The "though" is clearly a subjunctive, meaning "And even if thou had had small Latin and less Greek," even then, you were so great that the greatest of the Greek dramatists should be called to honor you. Read in the conventional way, these next lines make no sense. This is proof that Shakespeare DID have lots of Latin, and Greek. It argues against Shakspere, and for de Vere. Once de Vere is seen to be the author, major sections of many plays are immediately seen to be autobiographical. Hamlet is very much like de Vere in real life. De Vere's mother married again within a couple of months of his father's death. Polonius-Burghley was the right hand man of the Queen, and an obstacle to Hamlet/de Vere. Etc. In Merry Wives of Windsor, a commoner, Anne, woos a nobleman way above her station, who is much like the real life de Vere. De Vere married Anne Cecil, in a marriage many called surprising, given his high station. These examples can be multiplied by the dozens. To believe that every single instance that points like an open book to De Vere's life in the works of Shakespeare is idle coincidence is about as probable as believing that random mutations in a chimpanzee might cause that chimp to give birth to a full human. One or two instances might be coincidence. Dozens and dozens can't be. The last thing I want to say is why this matters. It matters because it permits an even richer understanding of the plays. It permits explanation of many otherwise arcane or cryptic passages, and gives added depth to many others. In the same way that Dante's Divine Comedy has been shown to be full of topical political references, so are Shakespeare's plays. There are real people and real political events behind many of the plays. And by the same token, the plays, and their author, are shown to have been actors on the political stage as well. King John was almost certainly first performed in the months before the Armada, to rally the English people to the defense of their country--a date too early for Shakspere to have written it. But the parallels between John facing a papist foreign onslaught, and Elizabeth facing the Spanish Armada, would not have been lost on a contemporary audience. De Vere was the scion of the most distinguished noble family in England, an intimate of the Court, and possible one-time consort of the Queen herself. He used his plays to try to do what he couldn't do any other way, hamstrung by his father in law Burghley--just as Hamlet uses a play to catch the conscience of a king, and as other de Vere-like characters do in other plays, where they put on plays within the play. A must read for anyone who likes Shakespeare, for all teachers and professors of English literature, for students of all ages, and for anyone who likes a good whodunit. After this book, the burden of proof is on the advocates of Shakspere of Stratford to reply, seriatum, to each specific piece of evidence adduced by Ogburn (and others, I have since discovered), and not to simply dismiss the matter by ad hominem attacks on advocates of de Vere, or by nitpicking tangential and non-consequential points and ignoring the major arguments. The major arguments are very strong. They convinced me. They have convinced 3 members of the present Supreme Court, hundreds of very prominent people over the last several decades, and tens of thousands more who have taken the effort to examine the issue without prior ax to grind. Let the debate be joined, but stick to the facts, please.
22 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Say It Ain't So!, or, Adieu, Darling Willy,
By A Customer
This review is from: The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality (Hardcover)
Look, I didn't WANT to believe it. I only read the
damn book out of out intellectualy honesty--I was
writing a novel in which Shakespeare would appear
and thought I'd better look into the authorship
issue.I loved Willy. I loved the whole IDEA of Willy, that small-town boys make good, that towering genius will out. I did not happily give these up. But Ogburn makes a far stronger case for Edward de Vere than all the scholars and academics have made for Will in the centuries they've had to to do it. In fact, once you read this book you will never hear or read "expert" testimony the same way again--you could read it for that alone. Ogburn lets the reader in on what the experts leave out, like an elipsis in one citation that replaces one word--"not"! Scalawags and rascals! It's hilarious, outrageous, and, ultimately, tragic, because, as Ogburn shows, the legend of Will robs us of a far richer reading of the plays and robs the true author of his immortality. The book's length was daunting at first, but once it grabbed hold I actually stayed up into the wee hours reading it, gasping, laughing, and deeply moved. Ogburn's style can be idiosyncratic (passion can do that), but the sheer force of the facts and arguments in the end overwhelm everything else. I finished this book 95% convinced that darling Will was not the author of "Hamlet," and 90% convinced that Edward de Vere was. So be warned: If you think Eve was better off before she ate the apple, this might not be the book for you. But if you believe that knowledge and truth are worth the price of a few illusions, beloved as they are, have a bite. Suzie Elliott
18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" of the Oxford movement!,
By A Customer
This review is from: The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality (Hardcover)
If you want one book on the Authorship Question, this is it. Upon finishing it, you'll be convinced that the man from Stratford didn't write the Works. I'll go to my grave believing that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) did. But you must read the entire book--don't worry! his writing flows!--before you are allowed to have an opinion either way. Then it's up to you whether or not you believe that the greatest written masterpieces in the English language were written by the under-educated glover's son or by Lord Oxford. VERO NIHIL VERIUS!
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
|
|
