Customer Reviews

The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

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.

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

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!

Using the standard methodolgies of historical research, as applied by both historians per se and historical archeologists, Ogburn and many others have demonstrated that there is no direct evidence linking the man from Stratford with the plays of Shakespeare. In fact, there is no evidence that that man was literate.

Similarly, there is no direct evidence linking Oxford to the plays, but he is known to be a talented poet and playwriter.

But when the content (internal evidence) of the plays is compared with the known lives of Stratford and Oxford, there is absolutely no similarity between the plays and Stratford, and hundreds, perhaps thousands of similarities between the plays and Oxford.

This is what Ogburn's book (among many others) shows in great and fascinating detail. Anyone who is willing to go with the evidence will see that the hypothesis, that Oxford was "Shakespeare", is the only hypothesis with the power to explain the facts. If you want the truth, read this book!

Anyone who has ever let the language of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets speak directly to him knows instinctively that the man of Stratford-on-Avon could not have written them. Watching Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, I was struck by Henry's statement that the only difference between him and his men was "ceremony." Any commoner would have thought of riches, power, lineage; but only one close to the throne would realize that the true difference lay not within the sovereign himself, but in the perception of him by others. In that revelatory moment, I knew that the Shakespeare of tradition lacked the background to arrive at this insight. So I was well disposed to agree with the iconoclasts who have found the received image of Shakespeare not just an irrelevance, but an absolute hindrance, to the understanding of his works.

Ogburn's book frees us to look beyond the sketchy facts known about the tradesman of Stratford-on-Avon. His marshalling of the inconsistencies and absurd assumptions of orthodox "scholarship" give us the confidence to believe what Shakespeare himself repeatedly tells us: that he is one with Romeo and Hamlet; that Dogberry is from an alien world.

Who then is Ogburn's candidate for the honor of the greatest English writer of all time--dare I say "ever"? For his choice is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Oxford's education and travels on the Continent fully account for the erudition and breadth of reference that suffuse the Bard's works. Most startling are the parallels between the extraordinary events of Oxford's life and the stranger aspects of the tragedies, notably the radical decline in Shakespeare's heroines from the strength of Katherine, Rosalind, Viola, and the like in the comedies to the pitiable Desdemona and Ophelia.

Whether in the end you agree with Ogburn or not, this book will enrich your feel for Elizabethan life, refresh your knowledge of Shakespeare, and sharpen your critical faculty to assess the barrage of "expertise" in the information age. Best of all, it will inspire you to reacquaint yourself with the greatest legacy of elevated sentiment and elegance of language to which English-speakers are heirs.

I came across news of this book many years ago and had to special order it. I was like many, disappointed by the many traditonal biographies of the Bard. For me, this book tore the mask off of the faceless face that is the Shakespeare we know. And it showed a man who could have, who I am sure did, write the plays. It is sad that it is out of print. Time magazine recently wrote about Edward De Vere and the authorship question. I hope it brings others to seek out copies of this book, serious students of Shakespeare, to see how incredible this story, this 'mystery' surrounding the authorship, is. Academics denounce the book, in tones similar to the Vatican atronomers who refused to look through Galelio's telescope. Yet, those who will look will see irrefutable proof that, for any thinking person, there is a gigantic question to be delved into. Those who dismiss it offhandedly betray their small mindedness. Those who read it fairly will have their minds expanded. You can see by the polar views in rating this book that the argument is heated. Any argument so polarized demands, by definition, to be examined. One day, this book will be cited as one of the most important works of literary scholarship of the 20th century. Mr. Ogburn, sadly, died last year. I corresponded with him several times. He was alternatively gracious, kind, cranky, and always completely committed to his belief. If you care about who Shakespeare was, find this book, read it, and have your preconceptions changed. Unless you have already made up your mind that the sun revolves around the earth and the moons of Saturn don't exist.

Perhaps It would be appropriate to let Charlton Ogburn himself say something about the following three derogatory reviews, each evidently written at the urging of Dr. Kathman. Ogburn's book was by no means the first effective treatment of the Oxfordian argument, nor will it be the last. He placed his own study of the authorship question in the following light in his 1984 introduction:

As I saw it, however, a more compelling presentation of the case could be made than in any of the score of books on the subject. It would, for one thing, have the help of the books that had preceded it and of the journals of two societies concerned with the Shakespeare authorship [question], one British, one American, that over the years had brought out articles on new and important discoveries....

No less important was the opportunity to repair what I saw as a fatal flaw in the deficiency of earlier books, including one of which I was part author. All were vulnerable to a demurrer by critics -- by those whose backing was essential if a fair hearing of the case was to be had. Of all it could be objected that, "Yes, what you say sounds convincing, but you have argued only one side of a question I am not fully up on. The experts on the subject -- the scholars in the universities -- have gone over all the evidence thoroughly and have decided against you. They say there is no possible doubt that the Stratford man wrote the works of Shakespeare."

The book I had in mind would allow the critics no such way out. I could not pretend to have made Shakespeare my life work. No one I knew of, however, was as steeped as I in the methods practiced by the academic authorities in meeting challenges to the possession of the high ground they enjoyed by consent of critics, editors, journalists, professors, heads of philanthropic foundations, and, apparently, a determining part of the reading public. One of their weapons was to attack the character and motives, even the sanity, of dissenters. I meant to try not to reply in kind. One of my points would be that the *argumentum ad hominem*, while often effective and difficult to combat, does not much advance anyone's understanding of the issues and is the resort, usually, of those unable to defend their case on its merits. What I could do and would do was to put the orthodox academicians on record at every turn and contrast their claims with the facts. I knew the academicians well enough to have little doubt that if their animadversions were matched against those facts they would never again be cited as authorities by anyone with a respect for evidence and reason. It might require considerable illustration to convince reluctant readers, but I had much to draw upon -- more than I could find place for.

(Ogburn, 1984 xvii)

I heartily enjoyed this book, and I concur with Justice Harry A. Blackmun's opinion that "the Oxfordians have presented a very strong -- almost fully convincing -- case for their point of view. The debate continutes and it is well that it does. We need this enlightenment in these otherwise somewhat dismal days. If I had to rule on the evidence presented, it would be in favor of the Oxfordians."

J.T. Haverhill Palo Alto, Ca.

I keep hearing people drone on about how the authorship question doesn't matter....but it DOES matter. The fact that so many in academia defend the Stratford man's position as author shows what hypocrites they are. If it doesn't matter, then declare de Vere author and move on, eh?? Why can't they do it? Because they prefer propoganda.

This book reads like a detective novel! I went to it as a Stratfordian with a degree in English literature. I took every Shakespeare class I could in college. I came out the other end convinced that, regardless of who it might be, it ISN'T the Stratford man.
I keep buying copies of this for friends and family and am grateful for Amazon.com because it beats doing book searches the OLD way!!!

I gave up a long time ago expecting the mainstream to tell the truth about anything. This is just another instance of laziness in academia (like we needed one more). Colleges and Universities and badly educated high school English teachers will continue selling the Stratford man propoganda to students because it beats having to do any research or learn a new thing. In the meantime, people who want to know things have to find them out for themselves.

This book is an opportunity to open up your mind. Whether you agree or not with the conclusion, you will at least realize that it is a much more complex historical question than what any English teacher you ever had has led you to believe.

One comes away from this book with a sense of discovery and exhileration! Read for yourself about the ludicrously weak case made by scholars who are entrenched in the mythology of the man from Stratford, contrasted with the man who in every way in his life and background fits the Shakespeare of the poems and plays. Join Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Henry James, Charles Chaplin, Orson Welles, Sigmund Freud and many other creators and thinkers who have disbelieved the authorship of the man from Stratford. Read Ogburn's magnificent book to see why Freud said, "The man of Stratford ...seems to have nothing at all to justify his claim, while Oxford has almost everything." This is the most extraordinary literary dective story of all time. And when that time comes, as it must someday, when Oxford is rightfully acknowledged as the author of Shake-speare's works, Ogburn's deeply felt and thoroughly researched book will be a classic that true scholars of Shakespeare will be indebted to and treasure. If you love Shakespeare, read this book.

Those who care deeply about the Bard have never been able to shake a feeling of enigma unusual for any major artist, let alone the man who wrote the plays and practically created modern spoken English. I suppose art should be seperated from the artist (quite successfully so in this case, given the Stratford man's ascendence). Mr. Ogburn writes as a voice in the wilderness, with all the prickly sensibility of one against a particularly large academic industry. But he knows his plays, his Elizabethan scene, and his Oxford. Though art should stand alone, there is nothing quite like the sense of the unity of this greatest of English poet's work that Ogburn provides in illuminating Oxford as its author. The strongest voice in the language now has a real history, painstakingly pieced together in this somewhat eccentric but majesterial volume