Customer Reviews

Shakespeare--Who Was He?: The Oxford Challenge to the Bard of Avon

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

 

 

Many people don't know that there's a controversy over the authorship of the plays. Many of those that know of the issue ask "Why bother? Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, and that's that." I used to feel that way until I fell in love with the works of Shakespeare in college and wanted to know more about the individual who wrote the plays. Was it Shakspere, the business man from London? or "Shake-speare," a pseudonymn used by the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward De Vere?

For me, part of the joy of reading the works of Shakespeare was finding out the history behind them. The more I read about the man, the more I found academia didn't know much about him. They had a handle on the times and the events, but not the man. This raised several questions in my mind:

1. Why is there little or no mention of William Shakspere amongst his contemporaries (Jonson, Dryden and Marlowe to name a few)?
2. Why is the only written documentation referencing Shakspere concern business dealings. For a playwright and poet as prolific as Shakespeare, you'd think someone would have "something". Yet in the centuries since his passing -- little or nothing.
3. How could an outsider (Shakspere) have intimate knowledge of the aristocracy? (i.e.: Burghley/Polonius) There were definite social boundries in Elizabethan times. Oxford (De Vere) was in that inner circle.

These are just a few of the questions readers of Shakespeare have had about the man from Stratford over the years. Mr. Whalen takes several of these questions and condenses them into a neat little volume, making this a wonderful place for someone interested in the authorship controversy to start.

This book is probably the best introduction to the Shakespeare authorship controversy available at the moment. What impressed me most about it was its tone of quiet logic, and its careful, balanced account of the facts and the arguments on both sides. The orthodox Stratfordians are given their due, and their arguments and their objections to the Oxfordian view are discussed in detail. I also liked the way that facts are put into context, rather than just baldly stated.

On the other hand there is a little repetition, and the chapters sometimes give the impression of being written as separate essays, and then tweaked a bit and put into book form. The first half of the book is devoted to the case against William of Stratford, and the second half to the case for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

I'm certainly not a person who is inclined to accept conspiracy theories. As someone who has always loved Shakespeare and is interested in Elizabethan history, I dismissed the alternative authorship theory for many years as a crackpot idea. However, once I actually started reading the details of the arguments in favor of Edward de Vere (and reading other books on the subject besides this one), I soon became convinced. I think that a careful, objective consideration of the evidence shows that it is far more likely that de Vere wrote the plays than that William of Stratford did. The Stratfordian arguments seem labored and clumsy, and based largely on guesswork, while the Oxfordian view fits into place very easly and effortlessly, and has ample factual evidence to support it. For me this has added a whole new level of insight and understanding to the plays and poetry, and a much deeper appreciation and enjoyment of them.

Whalen's book is highly recommended for anyone who wants a good summary of the issues and arguments.

Whalen is probably as objective as any doubter to the Stratford man could be. Afterall, there just isn't much documented evidence for the traditional view. Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford is easier to support analytically, because much more is known about him. If you were presented with two cases of evidence for authorship, and knew nothing about the controversy, you would be hard pressed to favor the Stratford on Avon gentleman who bears the same name as the immortal bard. This is the way that Whalen presents the arguments. He tries to let the traditionalists refute the Oxfordians claims, but they don't fare so well. Oxford's life parallel's HAMLET'S in so many ways as to make one believe that Oxford either wrote the plays or was the Stratford man's inspiration.

But the defense of Oxford against Stratfordians isn't without critics. Oxford died in 1604 and that seems too early for some of the authorship, but the records of when these works were written is scant at best.

In the end you have two mounds of evidence and Whalen shows that Oxford's pile outweighs the mainstream pile. I'm not a Shakespearean scholar like those in the fray, but I'd lay 13-5 odds that Oxford wrote these plays based on the research in this book.

This subject is off-putting. Didn't we get our Shakespeare done in high school? Why bother with it now? Here's why: the person who wrote these plays and poems did more for England's lasting prestige and prominence than any other. He added some 17,000 words to our vocabulary, and these eventually turned Enlish from an almost vulgar tongue to the lingua franca of the world. Why the identity problem? Politics. Queen Elizabeth wanted no talk of a successor, so this was always a hot topic. Many lost their head over it. The man who actually wrote these plays was a member of the nobility and often at court; he knew what was going on.
The plays' outrageous additions and omissions, inspiring action and elegant dialogue show a well-educated and deeply involved nobleman. But this stuff was too hot to handle, coming from the inner circle, so a decoy was needed. The politicians did a good job there. But let's get past that and see the canon for what it is: hot history beautifully crafted! This slim volume opens the case for de Vere.

Richard Whalen's highly-acclaimed book is the best summary account of the Authorship Question in print. Whalen is careful to limit his study of the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy to a judicious survey of established facts and reasoned analysis; his concise and conservative assessment of the likelihood that the poems and plays of the great Elizabethan Spear-shaker were pseudonymously composed by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, rather than Gulielmus Shakspere, an uneducated butcher's apprentice from Stratford-Upon-Avon, is compelling. Accordingly, I commend the work to all who are interested in reviewing the principal tenets of the Authorship Question; this book is a fine introduction to anyone curious about who the unseen writer was who published his plays and poems under the pen name name of "William Shake-speare."

As Gilbert Taylor notes above, the strength of Whalen's book is his no-nonsense plain-style ability to breif a reader on both sides of a complex and often heated debate. I'm sure the author would plead guilty to the ad hominem accusation that, in the final analysis, he supports the skeptics -- Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, James Galsworthy, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, Mortimer Adler, and Sir Derek Jacoby to name a handful -- who regard the official story of Shakespeare as unproven and regard Oxford as the more likely author. Does he "slight" the orthodox story? Not likely. Does the case for Oxford come out better than that for the Stratford "William"? Of course.

Along with Joe Sobran's book, this one belongs on the shelf of anyone who wants to stay informed on the still-unfolding "Shakespeare mystery" -- a controversy in which the final chapters are still being written.

Roger Stritmatter

Richard Whalen's book *Shakespeare--Who Was He?* is illuminating and exciting, especially for those who are in the process of being introduced to the authorship debate. Confused before by the complex array of information pro and con, I found Whalen straight forward, easy to understand, and fascinating. There can be but one solution: Oxford wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare. A great read!

The Earl of Oxford or the glover from Avon? Richard Whalen's is the second book I've read about this dispute, and I'm convinced that Edward de Vere was the real Shakespeare. The reasons are legion. Shakespeare's will is awfully suspect; the man was barely literate. He left his second best bed to his wife. Then there's de Vere's Bible with underlined passages that fit the various plays almost word-for-word.
De Vere's own life parallels the happenings in the plays. Lord Burgley was de Vere's guardian and he fits the Polonius character in Hamlet like the proverbial glove. The author of the SONNETS also dedicates them to the Earl of Southampton, with whom de Vere had a (homosexual?) relationship. De Vere spent sixteen months in France and Italy, where many of the plays were set. De Vere was once injured in a street fight. Remind you of anything? De Vere was also a lawyer. There's lots of legal jargon in the plays. De Vere was a soldier. Any battle scenes in Shakespeare?
Whalen also states that the First Folio was dedicated to de Vere's son- in-law. To top it off, de Vere was a playwright and once used Shake-spear as a pen name.
What of the fact that de Vere died in 1604? Whalen counters with the contention that Shakespeare's greatest output occurred between the years 1593-1604, most of them published anonymously and that when Shakespeare of Avon died, nobody seemed to notice.
Perhaps because they knew the real one was already dead?
If there's anything to complain about here, it's that the book is too short. There's a longer one on the topic I plan to buy, when I save up enough money.

Despite some pretence at objectivity, Whalen is clearly an Oxfordian proponent and scants the case for the Stratford man. Even his Oxford case is on the thin side, although much more easily digested than any Ogburn opus.

This book by Whalen is not an overview of all competing Shakespeare Authorship Controversy books--the book by John Michell _Who Wrote Shakespeare_ is.

Rather, this book advances the thesis that the Earl of Oxford is the real Shakespeare.

(...)
Disclaimer: I haven't read this book yet.