The Man Who Was Shakespeare: A Summary of the Case Unfolded in the Mysterious William Shakespeare : The Myth and the Reality

Rating:
Summary: oh, come off it!
Review: I too found this book exciting and controversial when I first read it. I admit, I was even taken in for a while. Ogburn's argument seemed so persuasive, his argument presented with such confidence and power. Surely he was right and the 'man from Stratford' couldn't possibly have written those plays. And then, having read it, I did some follow-up research of my own. To the reviewer below who states that there is no evidence ("none") to suggest that the Stratford poet is the true author, I have to tell you that that's complete nonsense. The trouble with Ogburn is that he's highly er...'imaginative' with his evidence, to the point of wilfully misleading the reader. One example will suffice to make my point: in the 1623 First Folio, Ben Jonson's well-known eulogy to the 'author' includes the phrase: 'Sweet swan of Avon'. Naturally, Stratfordians have reasonably assumed that this 'Avon' refers to the town of Shakespeeare's birth and death. Not so, says Ogburn. In fact the 17th Earl of Oxford owned a manor called Bilton, also situated on the river Avon. So Jonson MUST've been referring to the Earl. Closer analysis reveals the truth. Edward de Vere did indeed own a manor called Bilton, situated on the river Avon. Unfortunately for Ogburn and his cause, Oxford sold this manor in 1581 and it hadn't been reclaimed by him at his death in 1604. Does it seem likely that Jonson would refer to an old manor of Oxford's 42 YEARS after it left his hands? I don't think so. If we can believe that then to believe that Shakespeare is the true author is a cinch. Needless to say, this is a piece of information that Ogburn leaves out. All of Ogburn's, and the anti-Stratfordians', ideas can be refuted. Ogburn also completely misleads the reader over the issue of the non-appearance of Shakespeare in the diary of the impresario Philip Henslowe. No other actors, at the time when Shakespeare SHOULD'VE appeared in the diary, are mentioned either. Only later, after the mid-1590s, did Henslowe begin to include the names of actors in his diary, and by this time he had nothing further to do with Shakespeare, who was now acting with the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Having waded through all 750-odd pages of this book I was digusted to learn how I'd been mislead. It makes an interesting ... theory, but one that is in the same league as the idea that the moonlandings were faked in a hanger in Nevada. I have no academic axe to grind at all, but don't waste time reading this, especially when you can better spend the time reading Shakespeare himself.

Rating:
Summary: Future history?
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Bunk.
Review: What a crackpot this guy was. Read this if you want material for a parody of conspiracy theories.