What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare
The debate over the true author of Shakespeare’s body of work (some of which was published under the name “Shake-speare”) began not long after the death of William Shakespeare, the obscure actor and entrepreneur from Stratford-upon-Avon who was conventionally assumed to be the author. There were natural doubts that an uneducated son of a glover who never left England and apparently owned no books could have produced some of the greatest works of Western literature. Early investigators into the mystery argued for such eminent figures as Christopher Marlowe or Francis Bacon as possible authors, but recent scholarship has turned to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the true Shakespeare.
“Shakespeare” by Another Name is the first complete literary biography of Edward de Vere that tells the story of his action-packed life—as student, soldier, courtier, lawyer, political intriguer, sophisticate, traveler, and, above all, writer—finding in it the background material for all of Shakespeare’s plays. Anderson brings to bear a wealth of new evidence, most notably de Vere’s personal copy of the Bible (recently analyzed to show the correlation between his underlinings and the biblical allusions in Shakespeare’s work) and has employed it all to at last give a complete portrait and background to the man who was “Shakespeare.” BACKCOVER: “Makes a compelling case. . . . Anderson’s demonstration of how de Vere’s real life matches the characters and circumstances found in the plays attributed to Shakespeare is especially impressive.”
—THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
“Deserves serious attention. . . . Mr. Anderson shows there are myriad Shakespeare authorship connections for de Vere.”
—THE NEW YORK TIMES
“Tantalizing parallels between the plays and Oxford’s life certainly exist. . . . Anderson has a knack for finding fishy aspects of the traditional view that Shakespeare was Shakespeare.”
—NEW YORK SUN
640 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
102 people are currently reading
664 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 - 30 of 113 reviews
March 13, 2011
This life-changing book is a must-read for anyone who has not delved into the Authorship Question.
This is the best book that I've read in years. It was fascinating. I left it on the passenger seat of my car, open, so I could read it at red lights. The designation of "Red Light Book" is my highest honor for a book.
More to the point: I like Shakespeare's works. I took two Shakespeare classes in undergrad. When I watch a play, I tote along my big, red Bevington (dog-eared, written-on, and wrinkled with coffee, wine, and tears,) to read along.
During one undergrad class, one professor noted in passing that some people didn't think the guy from Stratford on Avon (the town) wrote the plays, but it didn't matter, really, who wrote them. The play's the thing that matters.
I didn't realize that the authorship issue was so hotly debated. (Read some of these other reviews, not to mention the websites and books and forums and conferences dedicated to debating this issue. Wheesh!) I just assumed that there was ample evidence that William Shakspeare (no typo, that's how the guy from SOA spelled his name,) went to London, became an actor, and wrote the plays. It was only 400 years ago. The year 1600 (a round number within the Shakespearean era) isn't the Iron Age. We have many records and books from the era of Elizabeth I. It's just not that long ago.
A few years ago, I saw a special on PBS about the Shakespeare authorship question. I've been hooked ever since.
*'Shakespeare' by Another Name* by Mark Anderson is a convincing compilation of the Oxfordian side of the argument. At almost 600 pages long, it is indeed quite complete. As I stated above, I read every word avidly. I read the appendices.
Anderson does indeed write a biography of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, and parallel events, characters, and situations from de Vere's life with WS's works. It's exhaustive but hardly exhausting. With each new tidbit, I became more convinced that de Vere indeed adopted a pen name and stuck to his story. Even his heirs stuck to his story.
While there is, ultimately, no smoking gun, Anderson presents a convincing case. Let's go with the classic structure of a murder case: means, motive, and opportunity.
While Anderson does not stoop to such a crass outline, he nevertheless explains in deep detail *how* de Vere pulled off the Shakespeare hoax, *why* he used a pen name at all and why that one, and *when* the hoax was first perpetrated and then canonized.
Anderson's writing is amusing, lucid, and strong. There are laugh-out-loud lines and paragraphs that made me gasp, astonished.
Here's a little preview: as a young lad, de Vere lived with a guardian after his father died, received a world-class education, and had access to a phenomenal library. This library included, at the time, the only extant copy of Beowulf. Beowulf, though well-known today and hated by most high school juniors, was almost lost to the ages, but for *that one copy.* De Vere's tutor, an old English scholar, signed his name in the copy (a common thing, back then, kind of like a check-out slip.) Consider, if you will, the obvious plot and character parallels between Hamlet and Beowulf. The author of Hamlet clearly had read Beowulf and understood deeply. (Any other explanation is like denying the literary relationship between "Heart of Darkness" and *Apocalypse Now.*) De Vere was one of very few people in England or elsewhere with access to Beowulf, let alone that his tutor signed it at the time he tutored de Vere.
That's one small example. There are hundreds. Maybe thousands. De Vere signed his ancestral home over to his three daughters while he was still living (like King Lear.) Hamlet appears to be very thinly veiled autobiography.
I also really liked the statistical analysis of the Biblical quotes in Shakespeare's works vs. the underlined passages in de Vere's Bible. While this sounds dry, Anderson keeps this short and pithy. Just enough math to support the conclusions.
Anderson is so convincing that from now on, when I watch Shakespeare, I plan to tote not only the big, red Bevington, but also Anderson. De Vere's life informs the plays and makes them more poignant and brilliant.
I'm an Oxfordian convert. With conversion, as anyone who knows an ex-smoker is aware, comes zealotry. If de Vere wasn't Shakespeare, he should have been.
You have to read this book. It's a literary mystery wrapped in reimagining of history. Even if you're a die-hard Stratfordian, you should read Anderson's book.
TK Kenyon
Author of Rabid: A Novel and Callous
This is the best book that I've read in years. It was fascinating. I left it on the passenger seat of my car, open, so I could read it at red lights. The designation of "Red Light Book" is my highest honor for a book.
More to the point: I like Shakespeare's works. I took two Shakespeare classes in undergrad. When I watch a play, I tote along my big, red Bevington (dog-eared, written-on, and wrinkled with coffee, wine, and tears,) to read along.
During one undergrad class, one professor noted in passing that some people didn't think the guy from Stratford on Avon (the town) wrote the plays, but it didn't matter, really, who wrote them. The play's the thing that matters.
I didn't realize that the authorship issue was so hotly debated. (Read some of these other reviews, not to mention the websites and books and forums and conferences dedicated to debating this issue. Wheesh!) I just assumed that there was ample evidence that William Shakspeare (no typo, that's how the guy from SOA spelled his name,) went to London, became an actor, and wrote the plays. It was only 400 years ago. The year 1600 (a round number within the Shakespearean era) isn't the Iron Age. We have many records and books from the era of Elizabeth I. It's just not that long ago.
A few years ago, I saw a special on PBS about the Shakespeare authorship question. I've been hooked ever since.
*'Shakespeare' by Another Name* by Mark Anderson is a convincing compilation of the Oxfordian side of the argument. At almost 600 pages long, it is indeed quite complete. As I stated above, I read every word avidly. I read the appendices.
Anderson does indeed write a biography of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, and parallel events, characters, and situations from de Vere's life with WS's works. It's exhaustive but hardly exhausting. With each new tidbit, I became more convinced that de Vere indeed adopted a pen name and stuck to his story. Even his heirs stuck to his story.
While there is, ultimately, no smoking gun, Anderson presents a convincing case. Let's go with the classic structure of a murder case: means, motive, and opportunity.
While Anderson does not stoop to such a crass outline, he nevertheless explains in deep detail *how* de Vere pulled off the Shakespeare hoax, *why* he used a pen name at all and why that one, and *when* the hoax was first perpetrated and then canonized.
Anderson's writing is amusing, lucid, and strong. There are laugh-out-loud lines and paragraphs that made me gasp, astonished.
Here's a little preview: as a young lad, de Vere lived with a guardian after his father died, received a world-class education, and had access to a phenomenal library. This library included, at the time, the only extant copy of Beowulf. Beowulf, though well-known today and hated by most high school juniors, was almost lost to the ages, but for *that one copy.* De Vere's tutor, an old English scholar, signed his name in the copy (a common thing, back then, kind of like a check-out slip.) Consider, if you will, the obvious plot and character parallels between Hamlet and Beowulf. The author of Hamlet clearly had read Beowulf and understood deeply. (Any other explanation is like denying the literary relationship between "Heart of Darkness" and *Apocalypse Now.*) De Vere was one of very few people in England or elsewhere with access to Beowulf, let alone that his tutor signed it at the time he tutored de Vere.
That's one small example. There are hundreds. Maybe thousands. De Vere signed his ancestral home over to his three daughters while he was still living (like King Lear.) Hamlet appears to be very thinly veiled autobiography.
I also really liked the statistical analysis of the Biblical quotes in Shakespeare's works vs. the underlined passages in de Vere's Bible. While this sounds dry, Anderson keeps this short and pithy. Just enough math to support the conclusions.
Anderson is so convincing that from now on, when I watch Shakespeare, I plan to tote not only the big, red Bevington, but also Anderson. De Vere's life informs the plays and makes them more poignant and brilliant.
I'm an Oxfordian convert. With conversion, as anyone who knows an ex-smoker is aware, comes zealotry. If de Vere wasn't Shakespeare, he should have been.
You have to read this book. It's a literary mystery wrapped in reimagining of history. Even if you're a die-hard Stratfordian, you should read Anderson's book.
TK Kenyon
Author of Rabid: A Novel and Callous
October 10, 2022
[I am editing my review to the review that I posted on Amazon.com of this book, where I have noted a textual problem with Margo Anderson's book. Margo Anderson refused to answer the discrepancy, and so here it stands. I apologize for the length.]
==Further edit 10/9/22: It is my understanding that the author of this book has transitioned and identifies as Margo Anderson. I have corrected the dead-naming of the author but nothing else==
Anderson devotes Appendix C towards general questions as to new plays supposedly appearing after 1604. The Tempest is very often cited, she states as evidence against de Vere's candidacy, and quite rightly so. De Vere could not have written the plays of Shakespeare, it is indeed "the silver bullet" that Anderson mocks. Since there is no reason to suppose that The Tempest was written by anyone other than the individual who also wrote the other works of Shakespeare, that means that if Oxford did not write The Tempest, then he did not write the other works of Shakespeare, regardless of the supposed "autobiographical" details of the text.
For this review then I will concentrate wholly on this portion of Appendix C and The Tempest under the assumption that Oxford did indeed write the poems and plays of Shakespeare. In doing this I will operate as a Stratfordian who contests that the Earl of Oxford could ever have written the plays ascribed to him.
I own the updated paperback edition of Shakespeare by Another Name. In Appendix C beginning on my page 402 Anderson states that the references to "the still vex'd Bermooths" is a reminiscence of de Vere purchasing distilled liquor in a neighborhood near Charing Cross nicknamed "The Bermudas." Anderson's notes on the pages cite only the lines from the play proper, and a reference to a name on a map within a 1989 biography on Ben Jonson. I do not own the book, but I searched through several maps of the 16th century and mid-18th century and found no such area in the "east" marked as "The Bermudas." I searched through Google for any references to an area east of Charing Cross being called "The Bermudas" and still found nothing. It could be an inside joke as Anderson suggests-but then that's a very well hidden inside joke that we're very fortunate for Anderson uncovering using nothing more than an Oxfordian reading of that one line and a book from the late 20th century, 385 years too late to be considered much of a corroborating source. [update 10-20-15, I found a copy of the Jonson biography of Riggs, and sure enough there is the map Anderson mentions, but right above this modern map is a copy of a map of London from 1575. There is NO area named the Bermudas on this map, which-no surprise- is also not mentioned by Anderson] It would have been helpful if Anderson had included "the brief bibliography" that she cites from a book by Richard Whalen (Shakespeare: Who Was He?), but that is not to be. [Update 8-24-15: I tracked down Whalen's book that Anderson quotes from and the portion that covers The Tempest cites the SAME biography on Jonson. This means that Anderson quotes from the biography herself and then quotes Whalen knowing that Whalen is just simply looking at the same map. Two citations for one source!] I cannot then discount the fact that "The Bermudas" may be a contemporary (as in the past 100 years) name for the area-if it is indeed called that at all. If, it was indeed known as "The Bermudas" during this time period, and it is an autobiographical element of the trek for distilled liquor, then there is no reason that a man named William Shakespeare who also spent much of his working life in London could not have included the same reminiscence. The argument Anderson makes is that Oxford alone was responsible for the plays, not Oxford was the only man who ever went to grab some liquor in the neighborhood. There's also no reason to necessarily suppose that it is autobiographical. It could just be a fantastic element in a fantastic play. [Update: the Bermudas area of London only became known as such after an ex-governor of the Island resided there. Bermuda was uninhabited until after 1609. There would be no governor of an uninhabited island, which means that this reference is unequivocally NOT to the area of London. The Tempest is also the first poetical use of Bermuda, hence it refers to the island].
Another problem with this is that Anderson immediately afterward cites a book by Kenneth Muir called The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays. Anderson quotes at length Muir's doubts as to how much of the Strachey manuscript on a shipwreck in Bermuda actually played a role in The Tempest. What Anderson does not include is the sentence immediately before this quotation where Muir states that Shakespeare was undoubtedly familiar with Strachey's manuscript.
Going off of this the addendum that Anderson adds from my updated edition states that she has learned from two researchers that Strachey's manuscript would nonetheless have been unavailable to Shakespeare in any fashion whatsoever. She bases this on Strachey's statement in another work describing an "unfinished" manuscript on the Bermudas in 1612 and that a subsequent perusal of the finished work shows that a dozen books were needed to finish it. These books Anderson says, he would not have had access to in Jamestown, Virginia. This is likely true. But, in another omission Anderson fails to mention that the manuscript whilst containing a lengthy description of the shipwreck (which is for what it is most well known) is not all that it is about. Its full title is the lengthy: "A true reportory of the wracke, and redemption of Sir THOMAS GATES Knight; vpon, and from the Ilands of the Bermudas: his coming to Virginia, and the estate of that Colonie then, and after, vnder the gouernment of the Lord LA WARRE, Iuly 15. 1610." If Strachey needed more books to finish the manuscript they were probably on the other portions of the text: Sir Thomas Gates, the state of the Virginia colony, and the colonial governorship of Virginia-these would have been the events he would likely have been unfamiliar on. He lived through the shipwreck after all, and in writing an autobiographical account Strachey would not have needed outside sources to write on an event that no one but himself had written about anyway. Anderson also doesn't mention that Strachey also crafted a smaller account just of this shipwreck itself that made its way to England before the rest of the manuscript was finished. It seems that this letter formed the basis of Strachey's account of the shipwreck in the finished work. Anderson seems to believe that Strachey's manuscript was the only text that Stratfordians claim William Shakespeare could have drawn upon if he was the author of the play. 1609 saw the publication of Sylvestar Jourdain's A Discovery of the Barmudas, which is also another possible influence, though this explanation it has fallen in favor of Strachey's account in more recent years. Anderson does not mention it at all. She does mention two other texts by Erasmus and Richard Eden respectively that were available before Oxford's death in 1604. Anderson tantalizingly suggests that Oxford may have had access to them in their manuscript form through Sir Thomas Smith-his tutor-and from his father-in-law Lord Burghley who employed Richard Eden as a secretary. The `when' however is what I question. Smith died in 1577, which is 25 years before Anderson has Oxford writing The Tempest. Meanwhile, Oxford and Lord Burghley were together in close company from 1566 to 1572 when Oxford was relinquished from Burghley's authority. This adds at most another decade for Oxford to have read two works in manuscript form, which he then compartmentalized the intricate descriptions of the New World somewhere in his brain to never use them in any of the other works he had allegedly written, and all the texts needed to finish those while only drawing these two out sometime just before he died. The other possibility is that he simply owned them in book form independently of Burghley and Smith. This possibility then warrants an answer as to how Shakespeare would have been barred from these, if he like Oxford was reliant on the printed text rather than any special original manuscript. Just as there are many ways for Oxford to conceivably read a text, the same is true of William Shakespeare. This second point is troubling for Anderson's reputation since either he knew of the sentence that he left out from Muir's work, or never actually looked at it himself despite giving an accurate page number for where to find it; he neglected to give the whole story on William Strachey's manuscript which no doubt he knew the title of since he quotes another research team's findings on it; he conceals the dates where Oxford could have conceivably read those manuscripts that he considers essential for The Tempest's composition and he neglects to mention the fact that they later appeared in book form and would have likely been available to William Shakespeare in this form.
Finally Anderson closes the appendix with a discussion on how while it is commonly thought The Tempest also borrowed heavily from the plays Eastward Ho! (1605), Darius (1603), and the German play Die Schoene Sidea there is no reason to suppose that they in fact did not borrow from Oxford instead. There is a HUGE problem with this reasoning contained in fact within the book proper. Anderson mentions on page 362 that 1607 is the start of Oxford's posthumous career with the release of Lear, apparently as a result of his second wife cleaning house, and settling the finances of the estate for Henry 18th Earl of Oxford and son of Edward. Earlier he mentions an unfortunate "leak" with the release of Richard III that had been written to skewer Robert Cecil (like the eponymous Richard he was also a hunchbacked control freak). Oxford is shown as being very controlling with the release of his plays and the release of this play was most definitely a mistake-and an almost ruinous one at that. Back to the problem: if Oxford released no plays from his death until 1607 when there was a whole slew of "new" plays, and Anderson states unequivocally that The Tempest was Shakespeare's last written play composed just before Oxford's death, how could these plays have borrowed from The Tempest?
Anderson's explanation of this claim is that Jacob Ayer-author of the German Die Schoene Sidea frequently lifted plots from British plays that he purchased from traveling bands of actors. To fit this to the theory Oxford's The Tempest must have been procured just after it was written, and before Ayer died in 1605. Since The Tempest's first English performance was in 1611, which Anderson does not contest, that means that barely had the ink even dried before it was removed from Oxford's proximity, performed by traveling actors in Germany and then returned to England to make its debut there in 1611, or someone surreptitiously copied the manuscript, distributed it, making its way to the aforementioned traveling actors' bands where Ayer pirated it just barely pre-mortem. The Tempest was then dropped from said actors' performances, and forgotten whereupon six years later the second, original, copy from Oxford's manuscripts was released during Oxford's wife's "cleaning house period" to theaters in England. Pending these two unlikely occurrences, an even less plausible possibility is that The Tempest was not actually first performed in 1611, but was performed sometime between when Oxford wrote it and his death in 1604, pirated and or stolen, shipped to Germany where Jacob Ayer pirated it a further time, whilst in England it was dropped from performance, forgotten about and resurrected in 1611 as a new play. The only logical possibility in attributing The Tempest to Oxford is that the plays were begun separately and only resemble each other through coincidence. But, this in itself poses problems for the Oxfordian case: if Oxford had no influences and influenced no one and ultimately conceived his text purely within a vacuum of the mind there's nothing to suppose that it wasn't written at any time and ultimately anyone. It would be just as logical to suppose that the text birthed itself from nothingness than that Oxford had written it.
Considering the importance of The Tempest to the rest of the plays Anderson should have devoted far more time in making the case for Oxford as author of it. As it is, outside of a few "autobiographical" elements that Anderson claims represent Oxford, these three points in the Appendix are all there are to ascribe Oxford's authorship to it. These three points, as I have shown are all incredibly weak. The first I could not substantiate outside of two books one of which is this one. The second point shows that Anderson most likely deliberately excised pertinent information that would have enlightened the reader's understanding at the expense of her thesis. This is unethical for any scholar, especially as scholars are concerned only with fact and ostensibly above this sort of behavior. The third point is the weakest. It was also Anderson's best and really only opportunity to show how The Tempest could have been written before 1604 and thus could be ascribed to Oxford. She instead skirted around the logical inconsistencies that it entailed and what is more he did not corroborate this claim with what he had previously written in the same book! This is proverbial sloppiness.
My verdict is that Oxford not only did not write The Tempest, he could not have written The Tempest. The timing between his supposed composition of the work and subsequent death, and Jacob Ayers' composition of Die Schone Sidea and subsequent death are too close together. Anderson's best guess is that The Tempest was written by an Oxford near death and while he offers no conceivable way for the play to have gotten to Germany nonetheless hypothesizes that this must have been the case. Meanwhile Ayer obviously could not have influenced Oxford, since his work appears after Oxford's death. At best Oxford is Very Highly Unlikely to have written The Tempest, and thus the rest of the works attributed to William Shakespeare. Meanwhile the same William Shakespeare had all the necessary qualifications to write The Tempest: he was alive; in being alive he would have had some kind of access to the texts that seem to bear most closely upon the texts through sponsors of his own, printers whom he was acquainted with since boyhood (a fact generally not spoken of), and possibly some type of private ownership.
Since Margo Anderson is either unaware of her sources, or is guilty of having concealed and excised pertinent information that would have raised doubts against her own thesis as to Oxford's authorship of the plays of William Shakespeare she deserves one star for this book. I will give her a free pass however for ignoring her own previously cited information, and failure to logically question her own analyses.
==Further edit 10/9/22: It is my understanding that the author of this book has transitioned and identifies as Margo Anderson. I have corrected the dead-naming of the author but nothing else==
Anderson devotes Appendix C towards general questions as to new plays supposedly appearing after 1604. The Tempest is very often cited, she states as evidence against de Vere's candidacy, and quite rightly so. De Vere could not have written the plays of Shakespeare, it is indeed "the silver bullet" that Anderson mocks. Since there is no reason to suppose that The Tempest was written by anyone other than the individual who also wrote the other works of Shakespeare, that means that if Oxford did not write The Tempest, then he did not write the other works of Shakespeare, regardless of the supposed "autobiographical" details of the text.
For this review then I will concentrate wholly on this portion of Appendix C and The Tempest under the assumption that Oxford did indeed write the poems and plays of Shakespeare. In doing this I will operate as a Stratfordian who contests that the Earl of Oxford could ever have written the plays ascribed to him.
I own the updated paperback edition of Shakespeare by Another Name. In Appendix C beginning on my page 402 Anderson states that the references to "the still vex'd Bermooths" is a reminiscence of de Vere purchasing distilled liquor in a neighborhood near Charing Cross nicknamed "The Bermudas." Anderson's notes on the pages cite only the lines from the play proper, and a reference to a name on a map within a 1989 biography on Ben Jonson. I do not own the book, but I searched through several maps of the 16th century and mid-18th century and found no such area in the "east" marked as "The Bermudas." I searched through Google for any references to an area east of Charing Cross being called "The Bermudas" and still found nothing. It could be an inside joke as Anderson suggests-but then that's a very well hidden inside joke that we're very fortunate for Anderson uncovering using nothing more than an Oxfordian reading of that one line and a book from the late 20th century, 385 years too late to be considered much of a corroborating source. [update 10-20-15, I found a copy of the Jonson biography of Riggs, and sure enough there is the map Anderson mentions, but right above this modern map is a copy of a map of London from 1575. There is NO area named the Bermudas on this map, which-no surprise- is also not mentioned by Anderson] It would have been helpful if Anderson had included "the brief bibliography" that she cites from a book by Richard Whalen (Shakespeare: Who Was He?), but that is not to be. [Update 8-24-15: I tracked down Whalen's book that Anderson quotes from and the portion that covers The Tempest cites the SAME biography on Jonson. This means that Anderson quotes from the biography herself and then quotes Whalen knowing that Whalen is just simply looking at the same map. Two citations for one source!] I cannot then discount the fact that "The Bermudas" may be a contemporary (as in the past 100 years) name for the area-if it is indeed called that at all. If, it was indeed known as "The Bermudas" during this time period, and it is an autobiographical element of the trek for distilled liquor, then there is no reason that a man named William Shakespeare who also spent much of his working life in London could not have included the same reminiscence. The argument Anderson makes is that Oxford alone was responsible for the plays, not Oxford was the only man who ever went to grab some liquor in the neighborhood. There's also no reason to necessarily suppose that it is autobiographical. It could just be a fantastic element in a fantastic play. [Update: the Bermudas area of London only became known as such after an ex-governor of the Island resided there. Bermuda was uninhabited until after 1609. There would be no governor of an uninhabited island, which means that this reference is unequivocally NOT to the area of London. The Tempest is also the first poetical use of Bermuda, hence it refers to the island].
Another problem with this is that Anderson immediately afterward cites a book by Kenneth Muir called The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays. Anderson quotes at length Muir's doubts as to how much of the Strachey manuscript on a shipwreck in Bermuda actually played a role in The Tempest. What Anderson does not include is the sentence immediately before this quotation where Muir states that Shakespeare was undoubtedly familiar with Strachey's manuscript.
Going off of this the addendum that Anderson adds from my updated edition states that she has learned from two researchers that Strachey's manuscript would nonetheless have been unavailable to Shakespeare in any fashion whatsoever. She bases this on Strachey's statement in another work describing an "unfinished" manuscript on the Bermudas in 1612 and that a subsequent perusal of the finished work shows that a dozen books were needed to finish it. These books Anderson says, he would not have had access to in Jamestown, Virginia. This is likely true. But, in another omission Anderson fails to mention that the manuscript whilst containing a lengthy description of the shipwreck (which is for what it is most well known) is not all that it is about. Its full title is the lengthy: "A true reportory of the wracke, and redemption of Sir THOMAS GATES Knight; vpon, and from the Ilands of the Bermudas: his coming to Virginia, and the estate of that Colonie then, and after, vnder the gouernment of the Lord LA WARRE, Iuly 15. 1610." If Strachey needed more books to finish the manuscript they were probably on the other portions of the text: Sir Thomas Gates, the state of the Virginia colony, and the colonial governorship of Virginia-these would have been the events he would likely have been unfamiliar on. He lived through the shipwreck after all, and in writing an autobiographical account Strachey would not have needed outside sources to write on an event that no one but himself had written about anyway. Anderson also doesn't mention that Strachey also crafted a smaller account just of this shipwreck itself that made its way to England before the rest of the manuscript was finished. It seems that this letter formed the basis of Strachey's account of the shipwreck in the finished work. Anderson seems to believe that Strachey's manuscript was the only text that Stratfordians claim William Shakespeare could have drawn upon if he was the author of the play. 1609 saw the publication of Sylvestar Jourdain's A Discovery of the Barmudas, which is also another possible influence, though this explanation it has fallen in favor of Strachey's account in more recent years. Anderson does not mention it at all. She does mention two other texts by Erasmus and Richard Eden respectively that were available before Oxford's death in 1604. Anderson tantalizingly suggests that Oxford may have had access to them in their manuscript form through Sir Thomas Smith-his tutor-and from his father-in-law Lord Burghley who employed Richard Eden as a secretary. The `when' however is what I question. Smith died in 1577, which is 25 years before Anderson has Oxford writing The Tempest. Meanwhile, Oxford and Lord Burghley were together in close company from 1566 to 1572 when Oxford was relinquished from Burghley's authority. This adds at most another decade for Oxford to have read two works in manuscript form, which he then compartmentalized the intricate descriptions of the New World somewhere in his brain to never use them in any of the other works he had allegedly written, and all the texts needed to finish those while only drawing these two out sometime just before he died. The other possibility is that he simply owned them in book form independently of Burghley and Smith. This possibility then warrants an answer as to how Shakespeare would have been barred from these, if he like Oxford was reliant on the printed text rather than any special original manuscript. Just as there are many ways for Oxford to conceivably read a text, the same is true of William Shakespeare. This second point is troubling for Anderson's reputation since either he knew of the sentence that he left out from Muir's work, or never actually looked at it himself despite giving an accurate page number for where to find it; he neglected to give the whole story on William Strachey's manuscript which no doubt he knew the title of since he quotes another research team's findings on it; he conceals the dates where Oxford could have conceivably read those manuscripts that he considers essential for The Tempest's composition and he neglects to mention the fact that they later appeared in book form and would have likely been available to William Shakespeare in this form.
Finally Anderson closes the appendix with a discussion on how while it is commonly thought The Tempest also borrowed heavily from the plays Eastward Ho! (1605), Darius (1603), and the German play Die Schoene Sidea there is no reason to suppose that they in fact did not borrow from Oxford instead. There is a HUGE problem with this reasoning contained in fact within the book proper. Anderson mentions on page 362 that 1607 is the start of Oxford's posthumous career with the release of Lear, apparently as a result of his second wife cleaning house, and settling the finances of the estate for Henry 18th Earl of Oxford and son of Edward. Earlier he mentions an unfortunate "leak" with the release of Richard III that had been written to skewer Robert Cecil (like the eponymous Richard he was also a hunchbacked control freak). Oxford is shown as being very controlling with the release of his plays and the release of this play was most definitely a mistake-and an almost ruinous one at that. Back to the problem: if Oxford released no plays from his death until 1607 when there was a whole slew of "new" plays, and Anderson states unequivocally that The Tempest was Shakespeare's last written play composed just before Oxford's death, how could these plays have borrowed from The Tempest?
Anderson's explanation of this claim is that Jacob Ayer-author of the German Die Schoene Sidea frequently lifted plots from British plays that he purchased from traveling bands of actors. To fit this to the theory Oxford's The Tempest must have been procured just after it was written, and before Ayer died in 1605. Since The Tempest's first English performance was in 1611, which Anderson does not contest, that means that barely had the ink even dried before it was removed from Oxford's proximity, performed by traveling actors in Germany and then returned to England to make its debut there in 1611, or someone surreptitiously copied the manuscript, distributed it, making its way to the aforementioned traveling actors' bands where Ayer pirated it just barely pre-mortem. The Tempest was then dropped from said actors' performances, and forgotten whereupon six years later the second, original, copy from Oxford's manuscripts was released during Oxford's wife's "cleaning house period" to theaters in England. Pending these two unlikely occurrences, an even less plausible possibility is that The Tempest was not actually first performed in 1611, but was performed sometime between when Oxford wrote it and his death in 1604, pirated and or stolen, shipped to Germany where Jacob Ayer pirated it a further time, whilst in England it was dropped from performance, forgotten about and resurrected in 1611 as a new play. The only logical possibility in attributing The Tempest to Oxford is that the plays were begun separately and only resemble each other through coincidence. But, this in itself poses problems for the Oxfordian case: if Oxford had no influences and influenced no one and ultimately conceived his text purely within a vacuum of the mind there's nothing to suppose that it wasn't written at any time and ultimately anyone. It would be just as logical to suppose that the text birthed itself from nothingness than that Oxford had written it.
Considering the importance of The Tempest to the rest of the plays Anderson should have devoted far more time in making the case for Oxford as author of it. As it is, outside of a few "autobiographical" elements that Anderson claims represent Oxford, these three points in the Appendix are all there are to ascribe Oxford's authorship to it. These three points, as I have shown are all incredibly weak. The first I could not substantiate outside of two books one of which is this one. The second point shows that Anderson most likely deliberately excised pertinent information that would have enlightened the reader's understanding at the expense of her thesis. This is unethical for any scholar, especially as scholars are concerned only with fact and ostensibly above this sort of behavior. The third point is the weakest. It was also Anderson's best and really only opportunity to show how The Tempest could have been written before 1604 and thus could be ascribed to Oxford. She instead skirted around the logical inconsistencies that it entailed and what is more he did not corroborate this claim with what he had previously written in the same book! This is proverbial sloppiness.
My verdict is that Oxford not only did not write The Tempest, he could not have written The Tempest. The timing between his supposed composition of the work and subsequent death, and Jacob Ayers' composition of Die Schone Sidea and subsequent death are too close together. Anderson's best guess is that The Tempest was written by an Oxford near death and while he offers no conceivable way for the play to have gotten to Germany nonetheless hypothesizes that this must have been the case. Meanwhile Ayer obviously could not have influenced Oxford, since his work appears after Oxford's death. At best Oxford is Very Highly Unlikely to have written The Tempest, and thus the rest of the works attributed to William Shakespeare. Meanwhile the same William Shakespeare had all the necessary qualifications to write The Tempest: he was alive; in being alive he would have had some kind of access to the texts that seem to bear most closely upon the texts through sponsors of his own, printers whom he was acquainted with since boyhood (a fact generally not spoken of), and possibly some type of private ownership.
Since Margo Anderson is either unaware of her sources, or is guilty of having concealed and excised pertinent information that would have raised doubts against her own thesis as to Oxford's authorship of the plays of William Shakespeare she deserves one star for this book. I will give her a free pass however for ignoring her own previously cited information, and failure to logically question her own analyses.
December 11, 2010
This book is anti-Stratfordian. This is that term that is normally used to claim that William Shakespeare (1564-1616), also known as "The Bard" of Stratford-upon-Avon was not the primary author of the plays and poems traditionally attibuted to him. This includes his works like Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet, etc. The reason: Shakespeare lacks the education, aristocratic sensibility, or familiarity with the royal court which they say is apparent in his works.
I have not read any of his works and I have not read any biographies written about him. Shame on me but I graduated from a provincial high school with teachers who probably believed that studying Shakespeare was not important at all. Even my college professor in my World Lit only asked us to choose and explain one of his sonnets. Maybe because my first college degree was on para-medical field so reading his more lenghty work was not part of the curriculum. However, at this point in my life, I would like to read some of his popular works because of the same reason why I am currently reading The Holy Bible: there is no point reading so many books if I am not familiar with even one of Shakespeare's popular works. Ignoring his works is like refusing to acknowledge his iconic stature. In my opinion, anybody who does not know William Shakespeare and a few of his works cannot be considered as well-read. Afterall, he is considered as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.
Greatest, huh? What if it is really true that WS was not the author of those works?
This book, 'Shakespeare' by Another Name is about the life of one of the candidates (the other being Francis Bacon, Earl of Oxford and Christopher Marlowe, Earl of Derby) of the anti-Stratfordian theory: Edward de Vere (1550-1604), 17th Earl of Oxford. Compared to WS, De Vere, being an Elizabethan courtier was also a playwright, lyric poet, sportsman, and patron of arts. Among the 3 candidates, he was the most popular alternative candidate supported by anti-Stratfordian proponents. The height of this controversy happened in the 1920's when Sigmund Freud publicly declared that he no longer believed that WS was the author of those works attibuted to him. In fact, even if he was an actor and poet, there were no published works during his lifetime so the public did not know that he was a writer and a playright.
Which was not the case for De Vere. He published his works but the public did not patronize most of those works primarily because he had a bad name. However, he had a broad education, knew how to speak several languages and extensively travelled in othe European countries, e.g., Italy for example which was the setting for Merchant of Venice. As a courtier of Queen Elizabeth, critics say that she is depicted in his works like in The Midsummer Night's Dream, etc. Anderson presented the life of De Vere elaborating those parts where certain parts of WS works could have been based or drew inspiration from. Those parts which somebody like WS, who did not publish any literary work during his lifetime or even showed any interest in writing, could have even thought of. Anderson's thorough research can easily make a person who has no Shakespeare background like me to believe that those works are not really Shakespeare's.
But who cares really? I mean, like The Holy Bible, we don't really know who actually wrote all those books, right? Yet, if counted as a single book, The Holy Bible is the best-selling book in history with approximate sales estimates ranging in the billions. We read the Bible. We talk about it. We reflect on it. We believe that it has the words that will lead to the salvation of our souls.
Bottomline, be it William Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, since those works are worth reading, then who cares? Just read and enjoy.
I have not read any of his works and I have not read any biographies written about him. Shame on me but I graduated from a provincial high school with teachers who probably believed that studying Shakespeare was not important at all. Even my college professor in my World Lit only asked us to choose and explain one of his sonnets. Maybe because my first college degree was on para-medical field so reading his more lenghty work was not part of the curriculum. However, at this point in my life, I would like to read some of his popular works because of the same reason why I am currently reading The Holy Bible: there is no point reading so many books if I am not familiar with even one of Shakespeare's popular works. Ignoring his works is like refusing to acknowledge his iconic stature. In my opinion, anybody who does not know William Shakespeare and a few of his works cannot be considered as well-read. Afterall, he is considered as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.
Greatest, huh? What if it is really true that WS was not the author of those works?
This book, 'Shakespeare' by Another Name is about the life of one of the candidates (the other being Francis Bacon, Earl of Oxford and Christopher Marlowe, Earl of Derby) of the anti-Stratfordian theory: Edward de Vere (1550-1604), 17th Earl of Oxford. Compared to WS, De Vere, being an Elizabethan courtier was also a playwright, lyric poet, sportsman, and patron of arts. Among the 3 candidates, he was the most popular alternative candidate supported by anti-Stratfordian proponents. The height of this controversy happened in the 1920's when Sigmund Freud publicly declared that he no longer believed that WS was the author of those works attibuted to him. In fact, even if he was an actor and poet, there were no published works during his lifetime so the public did not know that he was a writer and a playright.
Which was not the case for De Vere. He published his works but the public did not patronize most of those works primarily because he had a bad name. However, he had a broad education, knew how to speak several languages and extensively travelled in othe European countries, e.g., Italy for example which was the setting for Merchant of Venice. As a courtier of Queen Elizabeth, critics say that she is depicted in his works like in The Midsummer Night's Dream, etc. Anderson presented the life of De Vere elaborating those parts where certain parts of WS works could have been based or drew inspiration from. Those parts which somebody like WS, who did not publish any literary work during his lifetime or even showed any interest in writing, could have even thought of. Anderson's thorough research can easily make a person who has no Shakespeare background like me to believe that those works are not really Shakespeare's.
But who cares really? I mean, like The Holy Bible, we don't really know who actually wrote all those books, right? Yet, if counted as a single book, The Holy Bible is the best-selling book in history with approximate sales estimates ranging in the billions. We read the Bible. We talk about it. We reflect on it. We believe that it has the words that will lead to the salvation of our souls.
Bottomline, be it William Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, since those works are worth reading, then who cares? Just read and enjoy.
January 29, 2008
The greatest literary mystery of all time! What do Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Sigmund Freud, and Charlie Chaplin have in common? None of them thought the man from Stratford wrote the works of Shakespeare. I completely subscribe to the theory that Edward de Vere was the true author of the works of Shakespeare. This book is a comprehensive and amazingly researched biography of EDV which draws very convincing parallels between his life and the Shakespeare canon. Before you delve into this one, though, I highly recommend some other reading:
General overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordia...
Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran http://www.amazon.com/Alias-Shakespea...
General overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordia...
Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran http://www.amazon.com/Alias-Shakespea...
December 15, 2016
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
October 16, 2022
Heresy! That is what many people will say of this extraordinary book. But in the author's own words, "You don't need a degree in Elizabethan history or English literature to know whether 'Shakespeare' by Another Name has identified its man. All you need is an open mind and a sense of curiosity about one of the greatest mysteries in the history of Western literature."
For centuries, scholars have wondered how a country rube, with no clear evidence of any education or even literacy, or of any travel outside of England, could have mastered the multitude of disciplines in law, theology, medicine, astronomy, philosophy, linguistics, military tactics, nautical seafaring, history, botany, art, mythology, and music; along with a deep knowledge of certain contemporary European locales, especially in Italy where so many of Shakespeare's plays take place. It would take much more than just a literary genius. So how did William Shakspeare of Stratford (no mistake in spelling) come to produce the greatest canon of English dramatic literature?
The simple answer is, he didn't. History has scoffed at us for centuries. And this book provides one of the most researched and cogent explanations behind this mystery; and the man, Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford, is the target. Page after page, we are treated to literally thousands of pieces of evidence, albeit circumstantial, making the almost indisputable case that de Vere was in fact behind the tales, like Hamlet and King Lear, that we have come to know so well.
Even if you remain a skeptic, you will enjoy this book. Beyond addressing the identify behind the Shakespeare plays, it provides us with a deeper understanding of the personal contemporary circumstances in de Vere's Elizabethan life that gave rise to so much of the content of Shakespeare's stories. Like the inexplicable addition to the original 13th century Danish story of Hamlet that inserted a story of Hamlet being kidnapped at sea and left naked and stranded on the English coast. This event actually happened to de Vere, and fills in a gap that has puzzled scholars for centuries. But this is just one small example of the many found in the book. For those who enjoy Shakespearean literature, this book will add color and enlightenment that elude us when only examining the sketchy knowledge of the Stratford Shakspeare.
As the author instructs, keep an "open mind" and you will be amazed and entertained.
For centuries, scholars have wondered how a country rube, with no clear evidence of any education or even literacy, or of any travel outside of England, could have mastered the multitude of disciplines in law, theology, medicine, astronomy, philosophy, linguistics, military tactics, nautical seafaring, history, botany, art, mythology, and music; along with a deep knowledge of certain contemporary European locales, especially in Italy where so many of Shakespeare's plays take place. It would take much more than just a literary genius. So how did William Shakspeare of Stratford (no mistake in spelling) come to produce the greatest canon of English dramatic literature?
The simple answer is, he didn't. History has scoffed at us for centuries. And this book provides one of the most researched and cogent explanations behind this mystery; and the man, Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford, is the target. Page after page, we are treated to literally thousands of pieces of evidence, albeit circumstantial, making the almost indisputable case that de Vere was in fact behind the tales, like Hamlet and King Lear, that we have come to know so well.
Even if you remain a skeptic, you will enjoy this book. Beyond addressing the identify behind the Shakespeare plays, it provides us with a deeper understanding of the personal contemporary circumstances in de Vere's Elizabethan life that gave rise to so much of the content of Shakespeare's stories. Like the inexplicable addition to the original 13th century Danish story of Hamlet that inserted a story of Hamlet being kidnapped at sea and left naked and stranded on the English coast. This event actually happened to de Vere, and fills in a gap that has puzzled scholars for centuries. But this is just one small example of the many found in the book. For those who enjoy Shakespearean literature, this book will add color and enlightenment that elude us when only examining the sketchy knowledge of the Stratford Shakspeare.
As the author instructs, keep an "open mind" and you will be amazed and entertained.
June 7, 2012
I was skeptical at first, I will admit. Was it possible that the mysterious man from Stratford, who has been called the greatest writer and dramatist of all time for centuries, didnt actually create the works that have immortalized him? After reading this book. I believe the answer is yes. I am an Oxfordian believer, and Im not afraid to admit it, even if it's not a popular opinion.
This book is so well-researched, and the parallels between not only de Vere's personal life but the political and social goings-on in Elizabeth I's court (which a poor, uneducated individual would have been largely ignorant of) are just too much to be coincidence. Im not saying that Will Shakspere of Stratford (author's spelling) couldn't have possibly been an untutored genius, but when you look at what little we do know about him, the arguement doesnt hold up. Shake-speare (the author' name for whoever wrote the famous works) had to have very specific knowledge in many specialized fields (law, languages, and psychology, among others) as well as having very specific knowledge of the customs and geography of foreign countries that could only be gained by extensive travels abroad. We have no records of Shakspere ever leaving England - but we know de Vere travelled to many countries in his life. We know deVere's educational credentials as a nobleman of the realm. We don't even know if Shakspere had any formal education, and in an era where printed books were rare and hoarded in private libraries of the aristocracy, I have to ask where the man from Avon learned everything he had to know to write the intricate works that bear his name. In my humble opinion, it takes a lot more blind faith to believe in the circumstancial Stratfordian evidence than it takes to believe in the concrete evidence of the Oxfordian theory.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Im not an expert and I dont pretend to be. I guess all I mean to say in the end about this book is that it puts forth a very compelling arguement in a well-researched, orderly fashion. I was convinced - maybe you will be, maybe you won't. Read for yourself - and yes, do extra homework on the Stratfordian theory as well if you want to have a balanced view. I know I will be - because more than wanting to be right, I love the thrill of the search for truth.
This book is so well-researched, and the parallels between not only de Vere's personal life but the political and social goings-on in Elizabeth I's court (which a poor, uneducated individual would have been largely ignorant of) are just too much to be coincidence. Im not saying that Will Shakspere of Stratford (author's spelling) couldn't have possibly been an untutored genius, but when you look at what little we do know about him, the arguement doesnt hold up. Shake-speare (the author' name for whoever wrote the famous works) had to have very specific knowledge in many specialized fields (law, languages, and psychology, among others) as well as having very specific knowledge of the customs and geography of foreign countries that could only be gained by extensive travels abroad. We have no records of Shakspere ever leaving England - but we know de Vere travelled to many countries in his life. We know deVere's educational credentials as a nobleman of the realm. We don't even know if Shakspere had any formal education, and in an era where printed books were rare and hoarded in private libraries of the aristocracy, I have to ask where the man from Avon learned everything he had to know to write the intricate works that bear his name. In my humble opinion, it takes a lot more blind faith to believe in the circumstancial Stratfordian evidence than it takes to believe in the concrete evidence of the Oxfordian theory.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Im not an expert and I dont pretend to be. I guess all I mean to say in the end about this book is that it puts forth a very compelling arguement in a well-researched, orderly fashion. I was convinced - maybe you will be, maybe you won't. Read for yourself - and yes, do extra homework on the Stratfordian theory as well if you want to have a balanced view. I know I will be - because more than wanting to be right, I love the thrill of the search for truth.
April 20, 2009
Well now. Of course I was slightly biased when I started to read this book, since I'm inclined to take the indication in Gary R. Renard's The Disappearance of the Universe (DU) seriously, that Edward de Vere was in fact Shakespeare.
This book would have been deeply convincing without that, but it would be a joy to read for anyone interested in the seeming inner contradictions of the mythical William Shakespeare, and the unlikelihood that his identity is the one that is supported by the Stratford establishment.
I found this book completely devastating regarding the mythical Shakespeare identity, simply because of the near impossibility for a simple actor in those times to have the level of inside knowledge, but also the profound insight and wide education that is displayed in Shakespeares works, not to mention the strong sense that Shakespeare had lived through much of what he wrote and is writing of it from a level of an enlightened soul who sees through the whole show, and can understand that indeed All the world's a stage.
The aspect of the real Shakespeare being enlightened is not covered in this book, but it is a sense I've long had from Shakespeare's writings, which was underscored again in Gary Renard's comments in DU.
Ok, and now (April 2009) the other shoe dropped. Justice John Paul Stevens supports the notion of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare, and so do another few Supreme Court justices. So the high priests of Stratford, serving the status quo are having conniptions, but mere denial or ridicule will no longer carry the day. Substantive arguments are now needed, and that's exactly what's lacking.
This book would have been deeply convincing without that, but it would be a joy to read for anyone interested in the seeming inner contradictions of the mythical William Shakespeare, and the unlikelihood that his identity is the one that is supported by the Stratford establishment.
I found this book completely devastating regarding the mythical Shakespeare identity, simply because of the near impossibility for a simple actor in those times to have the level of inside knowledge, but also the profound insight and wide education that is displayed in Shakespeares works, not to mention the strong sense that Shakespeare had lived through much of what he wrote and is writing of it from a level of an enlightened soul who sees through the whole show, and can understand that indeed All the world's a stage.
The aspect of the real Shakespeare being enlightened is not covered in this book, but it is a sense I've long had from Shakespeare's writings, which was underscored again in Gary Renard's comments in DU.
Ok, and now (April 2009) the other shoe dropped. Justice John Paul Stevens supports the notion of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare, and so do another few Supreme Court justices. So the high priests of Stratford, serving the status quo are having conniptions, but mere denial or ridicule will no longer carry the day. Substantive arguments are now needed, and that's exactly what's lacking.
March 17, 2010
My reading these days is mostly light enough to page through for a few minutes before going to sleep, and the more serious books are fairly short. Shakespeare by Another Name is an exception. It requires focus, and because it's also lengthy, that focus must be sustained.
On the other hand, what a delight it is for me to learn this stuff!
For years I'd been aware that some scholars doubted whether Shakespeare's plays and poems could have been written by the uneducated actor named William Shakespeare. But aside from a bawdy limerick on the subject, I knew nothing about the controversy. Nor did I think the matter terribly important. The quality of those stupendous creations would not be affected if it turned out that they'd been authored by somebody else.
Shakespeare by Another Name settles the question of authorship, to my satisfaction at least, in the introduction. If that were the book's only purpose, it succeeds before even getting to Arabic-numbered pages. The balance of the book is then given to a biography of Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford and a member of Elizabeth's inner circle, who almost certainly was the one who penned all those immortal lines.
At first, I found the level of detail given to this long-dead man's life impressive but daunting. But then, as his story took shape, the similarities became remarkable. Like Hamlet, de Vere suffered the early loss of an illustrious father and a partial loss of his rightful inheritance. Like Othello, he suspected his wife of infidelity, and was encouraged in that line of thinking by an Iago-like servant. Like Romeo, he engaged in swordplay in the streets with a sweetheart's irate kinsmen. Multiple connections like this are brought forth to tie de Vere with each of the Shakespearean plays, and to explain the reasons various obscure words and expressions are used at various points.
To really appreciate this book, one needs to be reasonably familiar with all the plays. I studied many of them intensively earlier in life, and even acted in two humble productions (Twelfth Night and The Taming of the Shrew), so I was up for the challenge. Still, there are a few (Cymbeline, Merry Wives, ...) about which I know very little. The good news is that basic situations and characters recur in several plays. For example, Desdemona is by no means the only woman wrongly suspected by her husband -- an indication that de Vere must have regretted the way he'd treated his wife.
This book appeals to me for the same reasons that I used to enjoy getting the back story behind challenging works like Ulysses. It clarifies so much that is otherwise confusing. To pick another example, many scholars have wondered at the unnecessarily cruel treatment given Malvolio in Twelfth Night. Sure, the guy is a pompous killjoy, but it's hard to see why he deserves what the other characters do to him. Shakespeare by Another Name explains that, in Elizabeth's court, Malvolio would have been recognized as Sir Christopher Hatton, a rival of de Vere, and depending on their sympathies, audiences would have enjoyed this depiction of him.
This is an extraordinary work of scholarship, the more impressive in that the author looks very young in his his photo. What an accomplishment for him!
On the other hand, what a delight it is for me to learn this stuff!
For years I'd been aware that some scholars doubted whether Shakespeare's plays and poems could have been written by the uneducated actor named William Shakespeare. But aside from a bawdy limerick on the subject, I knew nothing about the controversy. Nor did I think the matter terribly important. The quality of those stupendous creations would not be affected if it turned out that they'd been authored by somebody else.
Shakespeare by Another Name settles the question of authorship, to my satisfaction at least, in the introduction. If that were the book's only purpose, it succeeds before even getting to Arabic-numbered pages. The balance of the book is then given to a biography of Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford and a member of Elizabeth's inner circle, who almost certainly was the one who penned all those immortal lines.
At first, I found the level of detail given to this long-dead man's life impressive but daunting. But then, as his story took shape, the similarities became remarkable. Like Hamlet, de Vere suffered the early loss of an illustrious father and a partial loss of his rightful inheritance. Like Othello, he suspected his wife of infidelity, and was encouraged in that line of thinking by an Iago-like servant. Like Romeo, he engaged in swordplay in the streets with a sweetheart's irate kinsmen. Multiple connections like this are brought forth to tie de Vere with each of the Shakespearean plays, and to explain the reasons various obscure words and expressions are used at various points.
To really appreciate this book, one needs to be reasonably familiar with all the plays. I studied many of them intensively earlier in life, and even acted in two humble productions (Twelfth Night and The Taming of the Shrew), so I was up for the challenge. Still, there are a few (Cymbeline, Merry Wives, ...) about which I know very little. The good news is that basic situations and characters recur in several plays. For example, Desdemona is by no means the only woman wrongly suspected by her husband -- an indication that de Vere must have regretted the way he'd treated his wife.
This book appeals to me for the same reasons that I used to enjoy getting the back story behind challenging works like Ulysses. It clarifies so much that is otherwise confusing. To pick another example, many scholars have wondered at the unnecessarily cruel treatment given Malvolio in Twelfth Night. Sure, the guy is a pompous killjoy, but it's hard to see why he deserves what the other characters do to him. Shakespeare by Another Name explains that, in Elizabeth's court, Malvolio would have been recognized as Sir Christopher Hatton, a rival of de Vere, and depending on their sympathies, audiences would have enjoyed this depiction of him.
This is an extraordinary work of scholarship, the more impressive in that the author looks very young in his his photo. What an accomplishment for him!
September 27, 2015
The author sets out to prove that Edward de Vere was, indeed, the author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare. That he accomplishes far beyond any doubt. Taking de Vere's life virtually year by year, he shows that the literary works are a virtual autobiography of the earl's life. His education, his travels, his travails are all in the canon. Anderson has me a complete believer! From Amazon:The debate over the true author of the Shakespeare canon has raged for centuries. Astonishingly little evidence supports the traditional belief that Will Shakespeare, the actor and businessman from Stratford-upon-Avon, was the author. Legendary figures such as Mark Twain, Walt Whitman and Sigmund Freud have all expressed grave doubts that an uneducated man who apparently owned no books and never left England wrote plays and poems that consistently reflect a learned and well-traveled insider's perspective on royal courts and the ancient feudal nobility. Recent scholarship has turned to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford—an Elizabethan court playwright known to have written in secret and who had ample means, motive and opportunity to in fact have assumed the "Shakespeare" disguise.
"Shakespeare" by Another Name is the literary biography of Edward de Vere as "Shakespeare." This groundbreaking book tells the story of de Vere's action-packed life—as Renaissance man, spendthrift, courtier, wit, student, scoundrel, patron, military adventurer, and, above all, prolific ghostwriter—finding in it the background material for all of The Bard's works. Biographer Mark Anderson incorporates a wealth of new evidence, including de Vere’s personal copy of the Bible (in which de Vere underlines scores of passages that are also prominent Shakespearean biblical references).
"Shakespeare" by Another Name is the literary biography of Edward de Vere as "Shakespeare." This groundbreaking book tells the story of de Vere's action-packed life—as Renaissance man, spendthrift, courtier, wit, student, scoundrel, patron, military adventurer, and, above all, prolific ghostwriter—finding in it the background material for all of The Bard's works. Biographer Mark Anderson incorporates a wealth of new evidence, including de Vere’s personal copy of the Bible (in which de Vere underlines scores of passages that are also prominent Shakespearean biblical references).
March 1, 2009
I challenge you to read this book and retain a dismissive attitude towards its thesis -- that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, wrote the works of Shakespeare. No one or two or three telling facts or coincidences can carry much weight in an argument like this but in this book they keep accumulating through 380 pages, with 4 appendices and 157 pages of footnotes, with heavy use of details in the plays themselves as well as other sources. Well-written and reasonable in tone, it's a pleasurable detective story as well as a convincing argument.
November 19, 2012
This might seem a very strange choice for anyone who has studied the works of Shakespeare, read many of the avalanche of biographies, and seen many of the plays, but it's compelling reading nonetheless. If you've got an open mind on this incendiary subject, read and enjoy. If not, fine. It's a fine biography of the Earl and exquisite scholarship.
October 22, 2025
I do not know enough Tudor history to have really any idea if this guy’s thesis is actually correct, but he had enough facts & cross checking to persuade me. I found this quite interesting & informative, and I also came out of this really understanding how little I know Shakespeare.
August 5, 2022
Be warned: this book is fantasy based on social prejudice, not academia.
The very fact that the author calls academic "literary scholars" gives it away.
First off, the methodology is terrible. The author begins with announcing he assumes Edward de Vere is Shakespeare, and then works back to try to prove his assumption to fit his theory.
He claims characters are based on this or that person in de Vere's life, but these supposed references are scattered across very different characters of plays spanning over 20 years.
Moreover, most of these historical figures were well know across the nation, and anyone could have written about them.
Most of his "proof" is court facts and gossip, which would have been known to everyone in London.
He then tries very hard to bend facts. Here is a non-exhaustive list of examples:
- A letter in Latin to de Vere supposedly says that "thy will shakes spears" (p. 139) when Shakespeare was an unknown 14 year-old. However, if the notes indicate the latin "vultus tela vibrat" is said to in fact translate differently, "thy countenance shakes a spear" or "your glance shoots arrows". Any latin dictionnary will show that "vultus" has nothing to do with "will". "will" is voluntas, -atis.
- His claim that he has "discovered" that the island in "The Tempest" is England is laughable. Secondary school students learn it is an allegory for Shakespeare's home nation.
- Somehow, the Sonnets, which find their first mentions in the 1590s, were written after Richard II, which was first performed in 1595-1597.
- He claims de Vere wrote Richard II because he hated Elizabeth II, but conveniently omits that the historical Shakespeare was arrested because the play was financed by the Earl of Essex, who was then preparing a coup against Elizabeth.
- De Vere died in 1604, but somehow still managed to write after his death. He claims that there is no reference to events after his death, like the 1604 Keppler's supernova, which is not true: All's Well that Ends Well mentions that "bright particular star", as pointed out by P.D. Usher.
Even a preface by Derek Jacobi cannot save this mish-mash of random references which completely fails to prove its point.
The only actual fact he provides is hidden in Appendix A. It's not his. It is Roger Stritmatter's statistical analysis of the convergence between the Geneva Bible de Vere owned and the biblical quotes in Shakespeare's corpus.
All in all, it comes down to one core belief: can you believe someone who wasn't a nobleman was capable of writing some of the best plays the English language has ever known? or are you a snob?
Molière, Shakespeare's equivalent in French (French is "la langue de Molière", English is "la langue de Shakespeare") encounters the same problem. Now and again someone will claim they have "proof" Molière's plays were written by Corneille, a "serious" playwright.
But the theory only comes from prejudice.
The very fact that the author calls academic "literary scholars" gives it away.
First off, the methodology is terrible. The author begins with announcing he assumes Edward de Vere is Shakespeare, and then works back to try to prove his assumption to fit his theory.
He claims characters are based on this or that person in de Vere's life, but these supposed references are scattered across very different characters of plays spanning over 20 years.
Moreover, most of these historical figures were well know across the nation, and anyone could have written about them.
Most of his "proof" is court facts and gossip, which would have been known to everyone in London.
He then tries very hard to bend facts. Here is a non-exhaustive list of examples:
- A letter in Latin to de Vere supposedly says that "thy will shakes spears" (p. 139) when Shakespeare was an unknown 14 year-old. However, if the notes indicate the latin "vultus tela vibrat" is said to in fact translate differently, "thy countenance shakes a spear" or "your glance shoots arrows". Any latin dictionnary will show that "vultus" has nothing to do with "will". "will" is voluntas, -atis.
- His claim that he has "discovered" that the island in "The Tempest" is England is laughable. Secondary school students learn it is an allegory for Shakespeare's home nation.
- Somehow, the Sonnets, which find their first mentions in the 1590s, were written after Richard II, which was first performed in 1595-1597.
- He claims de Vere wrote Richard II because he hated Elizabeth II, but conveniently omits that the historical Shakespeare was arrested because the play was financed by the Earl of Essex, who was then preparing a coup against Elizabeth.
- De Vere died in 1604, but somehow still managed to write after his death. He claims that there is no reference to events after his death, like the 1604 Keppler's supernova, which is not true: All's Well that Ends Well mentions that "bright particular star", as pointed out by P.D. Usher.
Even a preface by Derek Jacobi cannot save this mish-mash of random references which completely fails to prove its point.
The only actual fact he provides is hidden in Appendix A. It's not his. It is Roger Stritmatter's statistical analysis of the convergence between the Geneva Bible de Vere owned and the biblical quotes in Shakespeare's corpus.
All in all, it comes down to one core belief: can you believe someone who wasn't a nobleman was capable of writing some of the best plays the English language has ever known? or are you a snob?
Molière, Shakespeare's equivalent in French (French is "la langue de Molière", English is "la langue de Shakespeare") encounters the same problem. Now and again someone will claim they have "proof" Molière's plays were written by Corneille, a "serious" playwright.
But the theory only comes from prejudice.
April 1, 2011
Anderson substitles his book "The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare". This Elizabethan aristocrat was first proposed as the true identity of the author "William Shakespeare" in 1920, and support for the truth of this thesis has grown from decade to decade. A thorough treatment of his subject matter, Anderson has written 380 compelling pages in support of Oxfordian authorship of the Shakespeare canon, plus 130 pages of appendices and over 150 pages of notes. He has done axhaustive research and knows how to present it. If you are serious about knowing Shakespeare, don't just surrender to the voice of academic authority. It was "authority" which proclaimed that the earth was the center of the planetary system, urging the likes of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton to submit. If you want to "follow the evidence", here is a place for you to start.
June 21, 2018
A fascinating portrait of a complicated man. I was amazed at how much of de Vere's life was documented and the amount of primary sources on his life that still exist. The argument Anderson makes for de Vere is extremely compelling--the biggest piece for me, personally, was learning that they know he actually traveled to almost every country in Europe that appears in the plays. The anecdote about his ship getting taken over by pirates who took all his belongings and left him stranded on the shore naked (a la Hamlet) also seemed beyond coincidental. One or two facts like those on their own wouldn't amount to much, but de Vere's life is chock-full of them. For anyone interested in the authorship question who doesn't already know the facts of the Earl of Oxford's life, this is a must-read.
Want to read
February 7, 2007This research further convinced my UCLA Shakespeare prof that Edward de Vere was the man who wrote the Shakespeare plays. From everything she's said and what I've read of this book so far, I gotta say I'm pretty convinced.
The argument for the man from Stratford is pretty weak with many unexplainable conflicts and contradictions whereas the "Oxford" theory (de Vere was Earl of Oxford and is referred to by his named title) has countless intriguing anecdotes and evidence that account for much more of the broad and specific knowledge found in the Shakespeare plays.
I think it's only a matter of time before the Oxfordists overcome the undereducated, uncultured man from Stratford.
The argument for the man from Stratford is pretty weak with many unexplainable conflicts and contradictions whereas the "Oxford" theory (de Vere was Earl of Oxford and is referred to by his named title) has countless intriguing anecdotes and evidence that account for much more of the broad and specific knowledge found in the Shakespeare plays.
I think it's only a matter of time before the Oxfordists overcome the undereducated, uncultured man from Stratford.
August 4, 2014
For me, this book was better researched than other books on Shake-speare that I've read causing me to revise my opinions of those attempts. Which also means my own theories on the subject bit the dust in the process. So thoroughly does this book wipe out the Shaksper authorship that it cannot even be considered tenable, and one wonders how one ever got into that frame of mind in the first place. Awesome read that shows what the Elizabethan and Jacobean (to a lesser degree) periods of British history were really about. The detail is amazing. Before reading 20 books on the period, read this one first and save yourself a big headache!
March 4, 2010
If Bertram Fields' "Players" made a good case for Edward de Vere as the author of some of the Shakespeare plays, Mark Anderson seals it with a much more in-depth and colorful investigation into the life of
this Elizabethan nobleman.
Even die-hard Stratfordians will find this an interesting read as Anderson packs his book with plenty of detailed historical minutae against a canvass of political and religious intrigue.
Currently I am reading about de Vere's tutelege under the meticulous and capacious intellect of Sir Thomas Smith.
this Elizabethan nobleman.
Even die-hard Stratfordians will find this an interesting read as Anderson packs his book with plenty of detailed historical minutae against a canvass of political and religious intrigue.
Currently I am reading about de Vere's tutelege under the meticulous and capacious intellect of Sir Thomas Smith.
December 13, 2017
After reading two books about him, I am convinced that the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the plays published under Shakespeare's name. This was a fun read—full of conjecture, but I think such a book has to be. One can enjoy the possibilities and learn more about this fascinating, flawed man. The sonnets finally make some sense, and the contemplation of the personal experience behind the plays is enough to occupy one's mind for the rest of one's life. As another mother I ran into at our elementary school said to me, upon seeing that I was holding this book, "Now you can get all the jokes."
August 17, 2018
Fanfreakin'tastic!
There is not a single shred of direct evidence that Will of Stratford wrote any of these plays, or poems.
There is an Himalayan mound of circumstantial evidence that someone like de Vere did.
Will not only change your view of the Bard, but also enlighten you as to how perpetrated/perpetuated hoaxes become received fact.
There is not a single shred of direct evidence that Will of Stratford wrote any of these plays, or poems.
There is an Himalayan mound of circumstantial evidence that someone like de Vere did.
Will not only change your view of the Bard, but also enlighten you as to how perpetrated/perpetuated hoaxes become received fact.
January 12, 2015
Provocative, fascinating and intriguing...
If you want to know everything there is to know about Elizabethan England, it's politics, customs, scandals, and of course Shakespeare there isn't a better narrative available.
If you want to know everything there is to know about Elizabethan England, it's politics, customs, scandals, and of course Shakespeare there isn't a better narrative available.
April 16, 2025
Well researched but not enough evidence for me to fill a book or convince me that de Vere was the author of the famous plays.
March 16, 2025
I saw a Netflix series on this subject, and immediately went to find another source. Mark Anderson does a spectacular job of unearthing every reference in Shakespeare's writings and showing how the man William Shakespeare could not possibly have written or even rewritten his body of work given his station in life and his lack of education, money or any solid proof that he was capable of becoming the best in history at anything.
Derek Jacobi narrated the Netflix offering, and went over much the same ground in tracing de Vere's travels, his marital and money troubles, and showing how they are mirrored in Shakespeare's plays. but Mark Anderson was able to give much more detail and quite convincingly. At least I am convinced.
Derek Jacobi narrated the Netflix offering, and went over much the same ground in tracing de Vere's travels, his marital and money troubles, and showing how they are mirrored in Shakespeare's plays. but Mark Anderson was able to give much more detail and quite convincingly. At least I am convinced.
October 16, 2020
A brilliant piece of scholarship, and truly one of the great literary detective stories of all time. It gave me a completely new understanding not only of Edward de Vere, but of the works of Shakespeare and the personal experiences (de Vere’s) that quite probably inspired the writing of them. William Shakspere of Stratford has always been a ghost-like figure, with a reputation built mostly on supposition and conjecture. He had no proven education, illiterate parents and children, no known travel outside of England, and no letters ever found. His crude last will and testament made no mention of any written works of art, although he did have a reputation as a theatrical producer, actor - and ostensibly, a playwright. His name appeared on many great works, and therefore, obviously he must have been the author.. At least, that’s what 400 years of convention have taught us.
But conventional thinking should be challenged when there are so many questions. Writers - either consciously or subconsciously - put into their work the fabric of their own lives. Stratfordians say the mysteries of William Shakspere’s life can be explained “because he was a genius; he had the ability to imagine things he hadn’t seen or experienced.” But even genius has to have something to work with. And nothing in Will Shakespeare’s life can explain what he supposedly produced.
There is another life - that of Edward de Vere - that closely matches what is in the works of Shake-speare. De Vere was a complex, brilliant man with a complicated life marked by nobility, the finest education, extensive travel in Europe, a tumultuous relationship with his wife, his father-in-law, and Queen Elizabeth; military exploits, political intrigue, and a lot of established, positively Shakespearean-quality writing under his own name. Mark Anderson’s brilliant scholarship shows a multitude of connections between de Vere’s life and the great works. Through the original breakthrough work on Shakespeare authorship by J. Thomas Looney and followed by Mark Anderson and many others, and expanding every day via Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship and the de Vere Society, the tide is slowly turning. De Vere is steadily getting his due as not only the protagonist of a stupendously eventful and highly literate life, but also as the likely author of Hamlet and the other ageless works under the pen name, Shake-speare. We now finally know the man behind the written words.
But conventional thinking should be challenged when there are so many questions. Writers - either consciously or subconsciously - put into their work the fabric of their own lives. Stratfordians say the mysteries of William Shakspere’s life can be explained “because he was a genius; he had the ability to imagine things he hadn’t seen or experienced.” But even genius has to have something to work with. And nothing in Will Shakespeare’s life can explain what he supposedly produced.
There is another life - that of Edward de Vere - that closely matches what is in the works of Shake-speare. De Vere was a complex, brilliant man with a complicated life marked by nobility, the finest education, extensive travel in Europe, a tumultuous relationship with his wife, his father-in-law, and Queen Elizabeth; military exploits, political intrigue, and a lot of established, positively Shakespearean-quality writing under his own name. Mark Anderson’s brilliant scholarship shows a multitude of connections between de Vere’s life and the great works. Through the original breakthrough work on Shakespeare authorship by J. Thomas Looney and followed by Mark Anderson and many others, and expanding every day via Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship and the de Vere Society, the tide is slowly turning. De Vere is steadily getting his due as not only the protagonist of a stupendously eventful and highly literate life, but also as the likely author of Hamlet and the other ageless works under the pen name, Shake-speare. We now finally know the man behind the written words.
Read
January 4, 2020I ran across the volume quite by accident one day. I was at lunch during my regular business day, practicing law. and stopped into the Honolulu Bookstore to browse the shelve. I had read little shakespeare at the time - Romeo and Juliet in High School - and a few other tidbits. I noticed the book on a shelf for discounted volumes. The cover caught my attention with title and the portrait. I picked it up for a closer look and was fascinated. I decided to buy it and take it back to my office. I started reading it shortly there after and couldn't believe how intriguing it was. I finished a few days later. It turns out that my legal secretary was a avid reader, particularly history of England, especially the Tudor monarchy. I told her about the book, and we spent several days discussing it's account of Shakespeare's life, according to author Anderson. She had read much of Shakespeare's history by others, and agreed with me that Anderson was very convincing in his theory, and how he assembled facts in support. After our discussions about other'r theories of who else might have been Shakespeare (we agree with Anderson and others that the Stratford-upon-Avon actor just didn't have the background or literary access to have written the wealth and breath of plays and stories, etc., contained in Shakespeare's works. Anderson's richly detailed and exquisitely penned book was overwhelmingly convincing, after I finished it, I had no doubt the Earl of Oxford had the life experience to write Shakespeare, as well as the necessary library to back up and support the writings. I was thrilled to have found the book and read it, and have shared it with many others. I wholeheartedly recommend it to all Shakespeare fans and even those just interested in finding our who he was.
October 7, 2010
Shakespeare authorship conspiracies have always interested me ever since sopohomore year of high school, where my teacher at the time pointed out a Shakespearean sonnet that could be a veiled reference to homosexuality, "not that such a bright and intelligent man like Shakespeare would ever succumb to that!" (oh, Catholic education). Anyhow, this book mostly addresses the Oxfordian theory, which believes that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, was really Shakespeare. The book does so with over 200 pages of footnotes, and ends up being a massive biography of de Vere using source material, and making a lot of assumptions based on his life and education as to how he came to writing some of his plays. The historian in me has to admit that it's a pretty compelling, if completely currently unprovable, argument. The dramatist in me really hopes that he's wrong, though, and the realist simply knows better than to give this any more credence than that. Still, if you like fun conspiracy theories, this book is worth the read. Be wary, though, it's very dry at times.
December 27, 2009
Anderson presents a very well-researched argument that the true author of Shakespeare's works was the Earl of Oxford, Edward DeVere. While the depth of the examination can at times be tedious I appreciated the secondary literary sources from that era which lent some credence to this investigation as others also questioned his authorship, even in his own day and age! That being said, some examples used by Anderson felt like a stretch, as we often see what we want to see unless we've set up a peer-reviewed study and have controls in place to eliminate research bias. Had these controls been in place while Anderson was conducting his research, his claims would be much easier to swallow. Nevertheless, the journey while reading this book was all the while engaging.
July 27, 2008
This was fun to read if you like literary conspiracy theories, and, if you don't know the arguments on the other side, it's quite convincing. If you do, however, know the arguments on the other side, it's a bit laughable. Is it really that painful for people to believe that a man without a university education could have been the greatest writer of the English language? If you really must have evidence to believe the obvious--that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare-- well, then go here: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/
August 4, 2008
This was a great book about the Stratfordian/Oxfordian rift. (It falls squarely on the Oxfordian side, of course.) The arguments in favor of Edward DeVere are made in a smooth, convincing style, and the text is accessible and enjoyable. De Vere is not canonized by the author; he's presented, warts and all, as the likeliest candidate for the historical Shakespeare.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews