Join today and start reading your favorite books for Free!
Rate this book!
Write a review?
A little personal background first. I studied Shakespeare at school and was struck at the time I did so by the fact that in class virtually no biography of the man was offered at all, in contrast to the biographical details which were readily supplied to us for Chaucer and Milton. There was always an aura of mystery about the man William Shakespeare. I had somewhat vaguely heard of doubts about the main referred to as the author. I think my mother once mentioned that some people questioned the o...
I approached the controversy with an open mind. Though I read a lot of conventional Shakespeare stuff, I was intrigued by what I'd read of Oxford's relation to Hamlet. However this book revealed itself inept; rife with mis-readings and impossible and idiotic conclusions, for instance claiming Jonson meant "If" when he used "though" in his dedication to the first folio: this take would invalidate the sentence's last clause which implies the influence of the classics today on those who can read th...
A comprehensive study of the Shakespeare Authorship question and an exhaustive examination of the life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as the actual identity of the great playwright and poet. Written in 1982, some twenty years before Anderson's 2003 book, it deserves a reading if you want to know more about "William Shakespeare".
This book is an excellent introduction not only to the Shakespeare authorship question in general, but also the history (up until 1984), of orthodoxy's failing attempt to prop up the dying paradigm. As Richmond Crinkley wrote in reviewing this book in the Folger Shakespeare Library's *Shakespeare Quarterly*: "it is not just the want of sufficient relevant biographical facts that breeds doubt. It is the absence in William Shakespeare of a life with anybody living in it. The personal void makes us...
I am not going to get into who really wrote Shakespeare, but as an actor the Oxfordian theory provides rich backstory and subtext. And a good conspiracy theory is always a fun read, especially when well articulated and researched.
The REAL mystery is how anyone who is capable of performing even the most basic of functions could take any of this Oxfordian drivel seriously.
Food for thought.
A serious look at the mythology of the Shake-speare authorship question.
Who wrote Shakespeare? Was it the Earl of Oxford? The jury is still out, according to some.
Gets a bit heavy handed, but how can you blame him? A must read.
When presenting his case that the 17th Earl of Oxford was actually William Shakespeare J.T. Looney made particular note that his "solution" did not rest on the use of codes as its Baconian ancestor had. The old Baconian cipher applied to a First Folio could be queued up to deliver any answer, however ridiculous, presented to it. Combined with the occasional reliance upon mediums the Baconians devolved into near insanity. Shakespeare Identified (published a full century ago last week) on the othe...
Ogburn presents convincing evidence that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, is the real author of Shakespeare's plays - in thorough detail. Book 1 dealt with examples from Skake-speare's works and Book 2 outlined de Vere's life in relation to the plays. Ogburn would sometimes discuss the refusal of academia to even entertain this theory. To me, after reading this book (among others), it makes sense that Oxford wrote the plays.
Charlton Ogburn builds a strong case that the man from Stratford did not write "Shakespeare"; instead he makes the argument that the actual author was Edward de Vere. Wjether or not you agree with his conclusions, the book is compelling reading.