What do you think?
Rate this book
"Shakespeare" Identified
The Pioneer work of discovery of the true Shakespeare.
- GenresShakespeareNonfiction
550 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 4, 2020
23 people are currently reading
86 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Want to read
March 28, 2017I do not understand how it can have taken me so long to learn about the existence of this book.
November 11, 2018
More important than Shakespeare's identity is his work. Tolstoy points out that Shakespeare lacks the ability to give his characters each a distinct voice, nor a voice appropriate to who they are supposed to be. Every Shakespearean character speaks in the same pretentious, Shakespearean voice. Moreover Shakespeare oozes contempt for the common person, fawning for whoever occupies a position of authority. Shakespeare’s plays are tedious, his politics vile. Shakespeare is good at one thing: playing with words. Nor was Shakespeare widely acclaimed until some 200 years later when Goethe began the fandom—there being no German playwrights of note, and disliking the French. /Tolstoy on Shakespeare/ online at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27726
J. Thomas Looney in /Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford/, 1920, identifies many characteristics the author of Shakespeare's works must have had. Looney tells us that only Edward deVere, earl of Oxford, possessed all of them. A taste of it here:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
and
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Mark Twain came away from Stratford (where he learned that the man named Shakespeare didn’t leave a single book in his will) saying he didn’t know who wrote the plays, but it wasn’t the man from Stratford. More:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Games Magazine did a wonderful summary of Looney's book, maybe 1998. Doesn’t seem to exist anywhere anymore.
“I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium . . . . Shakespeare can not be recognized either as a great genius, or even as an average author. . . . far from being the height of perfection, [King Lear] is a very bad, carelessly composed production, . . . can not evoke among us anything but aversion and weariness. . . . All his characters speak, not their own, but always one and the same Shakespearian, pretentious, and unnatural language . . . .”
― Leo Tolstoy, “Tolstoy on Shakespeare: A Critical Essay on Shakespeare”
Permalink:
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27726
J. Thomas Looney in /Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford/, 1920, identifies many characteristics the author of Shakespeare's works must have had. Looney tells us that only Edward deVere, earl of Oxford, possessed all of them. A taste of it here:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
and
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Mark Twain came away from Stratford (where he learned that the man named Shakespeare didn’t leave a single book in his will) saying he didn’t know who wrote the plays, but it wasn’t the man from Stratford. More:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Games Magazine did a wonderful summary of Looney's book, maybe 1998. Doesn’t seem to exist anywhere anymore.
“I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium . . . . Shakespeare can not be recognized either as a great genius, or even as an average author. . . . far from being the height of perfection, [King Lear] is a very bad, carelessly composed production, . . . can not evoke among us anything but aversion and weariness. . . . All his characters speak, not their own, but always one and the same Shakespearian, pretentious, and unnatural language . . . .”
― Leo Tolstoy, “Tolstoy on Shakespeare: A Critical Essay on Shakespeare”
Permalink:
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
November 27, 2017
The Forward to this edition of J.T. Looney's 'Shakespeare' Identified... is from a talk given by Judge Minos Miller of the Third Circuit Court of Louisiana. It closes: "Lord Oxford's life, even without the juxtaposition of the Shakespeare authorship, can be the foundation of a magnificent film. Overlayed with the authorship, it can be a masterpiece."
In 2011 such a film was released to poor critical reviews and even poorer returns. The critical consensus from Rotten Tomatoes reads: "Roland Emmerich delivers his trademark visual and emotional bombast, but the more Anonymous stops and tries to convince the audience of its half-baked theory, the less convincing it becomes."
If Anonymous was unkind to the Oxfordian theory, than history has been even unkinder to Oxford. Information either not available, or deliberately suppressed by Oxfordians has emerged and far from the eccentric, cultured, man of genius that Looney and his acolytes would have of the 17th Earl.
Not being much of a student eight months after Oxford entered Cecil house his tutor Lawrence Nowell wrote to Cecil: "I clearly see that my work for the Earl of Oxford cannot be much longer required." Hardly surprising since Oxford's expenses for a four year time period (1563-1567) show that he spent an amount greater than his cash inheritance not on books or parchment but rather on clothing, rapiers, and daggers. (Monstrous Adversary p.39)
His touring of Italy was geared towards sexual gratification not tourism. He spent most of his travels on the Continent in Venice where he apparently spent quite some time with a known prostitute. (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelso...) Also while in Venice Oxford abducted a 16 year old boy, whom he brought back to England and whom eventually left the Lord's employ citing sexual abuse. (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelso...) Contrary to later assertions by Richard Paul Roe-Oxford never entered Verona (site of Romeo and Juliet).
Subsequent analysis of literary styles have dismissed Looney's assertion of similarity with Oxford's poetry. Subsequent analysis of the plays have also confirmed that The Tempest belongs within the Shakespeare Canon, and that this play with a very clear composition date established not only by William Strachey's memoir of shipwreck on Bermuda but also portions of the original score that survive written by Robert Johnson. Each of these of course means that The Tempest-connected with the Shakespearean Canon, and definitively dated post-1604 means that Oxford was most assuredly not Shakespeare.
Sorry.
In 2011 such a film was released to poor critical reviews and even poorer returns. The critical consensus from Rotten Tomatoes reads: "Roland Emmerich delivers his trademark visual and emotional bombast, but the more Anonymous stops and tries to convince the audience of its half-baked theory, the less convincing it becomes."
If Anonymous was unkind to the Oxfordian theory, than history has been even unkinder to Oxford. Information either not available, or deliberately suppressed by Oxfordians has emerged and far from the eccentric, cultured, man of genius that Looney and his acolytes would have of the 17th Earl.
Not being much of a student eight months after Oxford entered Cecil house his tutor Lawrence Nowell wrote to Cecil: "I clearly see that my work for the Earl of Oxford cannot be much longer required." Hardly surprising since Oxford's expenses for a four year time period (1563-1567) show that he spent an amount greater than his cash inheritance not on books or parchment but rather on clothing, rapiers, and daggers. (Monstrous Adversary p.39)
His touring of Italy was geared towards sexual gratification not tourism. He spent most of his travels on the Continent in Venice where he apparently spent quite some time with a known prostitute. (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelso...) Also while in Venice Oxford abducted a 16 year old boy, whom he brought back to England and whom eventually left the Lord's employ citing sexual abuse. (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelso...) Contrary to later assertions by Richard Paul Roe-Oxford never entered Verona (site of Romeo and Juliet).
Subsequent analysis of literary styles have dismissed Looney's assertion of similarity with Oxford's poetry. Subsequent analysis of the plays have also confirmed that The Tempest belongs within the Shakespeare Canon, and that this play with a very clear composition date established not only by William Strachey's memoir of shipwreck on Bermuda but also portions of the original score that survive written by Robert Johnson. Each of these of course means that The Tempest-connected with the Shakespearean Canon, and definitively dated post-1604 means that Oxford was most assuredly not Shakespeare.
Sorry.
November 8, 2013
This is one of the nuttiest books ever written (excluding works of Scientology, course. Even the eponymous Mr Looney doesn't have billions of aliens being lured off their home planet by the pretext of a tax audit). And utterly humorless. And endlessly long. All in all, a rich source of inspiration.
July 12, 2024
Blockbuster work of erudite, careful research. Particularly impressive trail blazing work for 1920. If you like detective stories, you'll like the journey Looney takes us on. The breadth and sophistication of "Shakespeare's" plays & sonnets--with the required background, European travel, intimacy with courtly life, falconry, jousting, and ground rules of nobility, & multi-lingual learning necessary to author the works-- conclusively eliminate Stratford's "Shaspere" as the writer.
Put another way, you can't have written these works and be a small town grain dealer and claims court denizen [with the thundering silence of not a single mention whatsoever as the world's greatest writer from contemporary neighbors, Stratford dignitaries, or small town drinking buddies & acquaintances].
Neither can a small town businessman with no books or recorded education of his own plausibly take credit for this ouvre [which Shakespeare of course did not take credit]. There was nary a single Stratfordian dedication, proclamation, ceremony, diary entry or any other sign of civic pride during his lifetime or at his death.
Only much later was the Stratford legend crafted with sentimental energy and wishful thinking. It was far easier to do that then to solve the maze of clues leading to the 17th Earl of Oxford as the concealed real author.
How better to bolster British national pride then to imagine a primitive, noble genius [who left no written record of any kind substantiating his existence as a writer and left many clues that he was ironically himself likely illiterate] springing from the countryside to take the literary world by storm. But he didn't take it by storm in his lifetime--no, it took centuries to build that revisionist, mythical, & legendary existence. And even now most contemporary Shakespearean scholars cling to that belief system like a conversion-fired religious epiphany. You gotta believe--otherwise things rapidly get more than a little inconvenient, and your Shakespeare PhD dissertation could go stale in a hurry.
Put another way, you can't have written these works and be a small town grain dealer and claims court denizen [with the thundering silence of not a single mention whatsoever as the world's greatest writer from contemporary neighbors, Stratford dignitaries, or small town drinking buddies & acquaintances].
Neither can a small town businessman with no books or recorded education of his own plausibly take credit for this ouvre [which Shakespeare of course did not take credit]. There was nary a single Stratfordian dedication, proclamation, ceremony, diary entry or any other sign of civic pride during his lifetime or at his death.
Only much later was the Stratford legend crafted with sentimental energy and wishful thinking. It was far easier to do that then to solve the maze of clues leading to the 17th Earl of Oxford as the concealed real author.
How better to bolster British national pride then to imagine a primitive, noble genius [who left no written record of any kind substantiating his existence as a writer and left many clues that he was ironically himself likely illiterate] springing from the countryside to take the literary world by storm. But he didn't take it by storm in his lifetime--no, it took centuries to build that revisionist, mythical, & legendary existence. And even now most contemporary Shakespearean scholars cling to that belief system like a conversion-fired religious epiphany. You gotta believe--otherwise things rapidly get more than a little inconvenient, and your Shakespeare PhD dissertation could go stale in a hurry.
Read
January 17, 2024A primer on dismantling Stratfordian orthodoxy and a satisfying construction of an investigative chain of thought. It is crazy that we’ve come so far without a reasonable consensus on, at the very least, a negative view of the Strafordian theory; Looney illustrates his case like he was solving a murder and the subject matter has all the exciting redolence of a conspiracy. It’s a shame that Looney was unable to expound upon the Italian Connection or details concerning Ben Jonson (and many more) in what would become a landmark entry into the authorship discussion, but the 100 years that followed have definitely filled the gaps. Without saying more, I will defer to Joan Robinson, “Because I do not wish to spoil for anyone the purely detective-story pleasure of reading Mr. Looney.”
March 23, 2020
As it's another one of my course materials, I only read what was provided to me and that is only a section of the book, which were pages 1-23 and 90-151, ie introduction and chapters 2-6. Despite that, I can say that this book is an excellent show of scholarship, where Looney bases his research on evidence found, not what is believed to be true.
If I ever have the extra time, I will likely take up this book again and finish it proper.
If I ever have the extra time, I will likely take up this book again and finish it proper.
July 24, 2022
I now have doubt!
This book in a clear and concise fashion has laid out a strong case in support of the Oxfordian position. My compliments to both Mr Looney and Mr Warren.
This book in a clear and concise fashion has laid out a strong case in support of the Oxfordian position. My compliments to both Mr Looney and Mr Warren.
April 8, 2023
As a tribute on my dad, I'm ploughing through his copy of a 1920 tome about how the man from Stratford on Avon could not have written theplays. In short they require a knowledge of foriegn languages, ancient and modern; history; philosophy, court etiquette etc etc that the son of an illiterate corn chandler, who never educated his own children, could not possibly have written. My father felt the mystery man was Edward de Vere, so my next task will be to read a bit more about him....
August 24, 2019
This is the one that started it all. Relatively few had Edward heard of Edward fearEdward heard of Edward fear, let alone suspected he might be the actual author of the Shakespeare plays, let alone suspected he might be the actual author of the Shakespeare plays. It was Thomas Looney put the put the pieces together and figure out the puzzle. It has yet to be definitively proven, but the parr but the pathbut the pad but the path now does lead interferes direction.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews