Customer Reviews

"Shakespeare" Identified in Edward De Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, and the Poems of Edward De Vere (2 vols)

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

 

 

This book introduced the revolutionary idea that an aristocrat named Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- 1604), wrote the works of Shakespeare under a psuedonym. Oxford is now considered the leading candidate for the authorship of the Shakespeare canon largely because of the influence this book has had over a 75 year period. It first addresses the documentary evidence "against" Will Shakspere from Stratford as the author, then presents the positive evidence on behalf of Oxford as author. The evidence for Oxford is detailed and circumstantial: literary and intellectual parallels in the works of Oxford and Shakespeare; parallels in the life of Oxford, his family and friends and the plots of the Shakespeare plays; topical references in the plays that pre-date the time during which Shakespeare allegedly wrote the works; professional, political and historical knowledge displayed in the plays for which the Stratford actor could not have had the training or access; and so on. Exhaustive research; excellent organization of materials; superbly written. A book that academics have not been able to refute since its publication in 1920.

Book arrived in the late afternoon, I started reading and didn't get to bed till 10 AM the next morning. A stunning detective story.

(And by the way, it's pronounced "Loney.") I can't add much to the other positive reviews of this ground-breaking book. Written well, convincing...long live the Earl of Oxford--"Though I once gone to all the world must die" indeed!!

Looney's double-o is for emphasis, in some languages, e.g. Dutch, as in 'brooch' - everyone points out he isn't pronounced to rhyme with 'loony'. This book was published in 1920, after some years' work. It's not the first alternative authorship book: in 1910 for example a Baconian work was published. Looney is always described as a schoolmaster or teacher in Gateshead (a town on the other side of the Tyne from Newcastle), though so far as I know, no school in the area claims him.

Looney's method was to comb the plays for clues as to character, then comb what's known of the Elizabethan world for a person to match, detective fashion. It would be inaccurate to state that controversy raged thereafter. He was largely ignored and shrugged off. But he must have made a bit of impact, since one volume of Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga mentions the theory.

This book therefore has some historical significance. Just a few notes:
[1] It's a tremendous proving-ground for theories of revisionism. Every possible attitude - derision, contempt, accusations of ignorance, etc - and every possible style of counter-argument - pulling of rank, ridicule, concentration on trivia etc - has been used against Looney, and, for that matter, by his supporters when on the defensive.
[2] In principle, deletion of the 'Stratford man' (probably an illiterate war profiteer in food) should allow a far better appreciation of the Elizabethan period. This means historians would have to do some hard work, however. (One edition of this book included an excellent description by Capt. Ward of England as engaged in a war with Spain, comparable with the First World War, and far removed from the ahistorical merrie England stereotype of for example 'Shakespeare in Love').
[3] What does it matter? - Well, there's an effect on educational theory. Occasionally , educators look at the real world, and even more occasionally, at genius. Their view of 'Shakespeare' therefore is of some importance. If the traditional story is correct, genius can appear anywhere, even to someone of little education, who is thought to be able to deduce almost everything about the world. But if Looney is right, education is of paramount importance. Present-day acceptance of poor educational standards therefore owes something to the 'Shakespeare' myth.