Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
22 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Future history?, August 13, 2002
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.
|
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An academic demolition of Stratford!, February 16, 2005
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.
|
|
|
18 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Convincing, December 11, 2001
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Mark Anderson
by John F. Michell
by Bertram Fields
