What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality
Discusses the theory that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by the Earl of Oxford
912 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1984
6 people are currently reading
153 people want to read
About the author
Charlton Ogburn Jr.
18 books4 followersCharlton Ogburn, Jr. was an author and freelance professional writer. He was the author of over a dozen books and numerous magazine articles. The Marauders (1959), his first person account of the Burma Campaign in World War II, may be his best-known work; it was later made into the film Merrill's Marauders (1962). His account of his travels along the largely deserted north eastern shore in The Winter Beach is considered a classic of nature-writing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 31, 2012
A little personal background first. I studied Shakespeare at school and was struck at the time I did so by the fact that in class virtually no biography of the man was offered at all, in contrast to the biographical details which were readily supplied to us for Chaucer and Milton. There was always an aura of mystery about the man William Shakespeare. I had somewhat vaguely heard of doubts about the main referred to as the author. I think my mother once mentioned that some people questioned the official biography and a friend of mine lent me a book when I was quite young in which one of the main characters argues that Francis Bacon wrote the Shkespeare plays. In that book by the way, there is a hilarious review of a Shakespeare production in which the reviewer concludes by stating that the Shakespeare controvery will be settled by this production, for if the coffins of the Shakespeare contenders are opened one only has to see which corspe will have turned!
Shortly after school I decided to buy a biography and picked up the one by AL Rowse I think it was. I was disappointed and uneasy. The work was replete with speculation and supposition. Astonishingly little was known as fact about the most famous writer in the Western world. The book wa sfull of hypotheses and suppositions "it may be" "probably", perhaps" etc. For years I let it rest. Shakespeare was a phenomenon rather than a person. Years later I came across this book in a British Council library and I found Charlton Ogburn echoing thoughts which had been slumbering within me so to speak for the last 30 years. This book is really two books, one pointing out what an edifice of fraudulent assurance has built on foudntationms of speculation and scant evidence and in so arguing, Ogburn denyiesauthorship to the man from Stratford. The second part of the book presents Edward de Vere, the Seventeeth Earl of Oxford Earl of Oxford, on avialable evidence, as the only conceivable writer of Shakespeare's works.
I shall not enter into the details of the argument-that is what the book is for-but would like to make a few observations on the signficance of this debate and the issues at stake in conspiracy theories in general.
Firstly, when a conspiracy is suspected and the cry of "hoax!" is raised in connection with some historical event-to take another example than this, Josephine Tay's challenge to Shakespeare's own portrayal of Richard III as the murderer of the two princes in the Tower in a book called "The Daughter of Time" BOTH sides become committed to their positions in such a manner that neither side is disinterested. Both sides in such debates in the great majority are highly partisan.
In the case of the authorship debate both sides tend to have a political agendas in a broad sense of the word agenda, one eltist and one anti-elitist. Orthodox scholars never tire of insisting that challengers to the Stratford theory are motivated by snobbery and elitism, overlooking the fact that upholders of orthdoxy are equally inspired by the myth of a "man of the people" showing that genius can sprout up anywhere and that a man or woman of the humblest circumstances can be Shakespeare. Many of those involved in this debate on both sides have an agenda. More importantly however is the personal commitment. For example, if one has written a book like this it very hard and takes a deal of moral courage to retract one's views-even if the "smoking gun" had been produced, anti-Stratfordians would be denying it to the bitter end, they have invested too much in their case. Likewise orthdoxy-those who have committed themsleves in print to the Stratford cause will look very foolish accepting they were wrong. This should be borne in mind when considering arguemnts from either side.
I am convinced by the argument that Shakespeare was not the the obscurecommoner from Stratford. Ogburn's enormous rivetting work goes to great length explaining how claiming authorship for the man from Stratford runs in the face of everything we know about human nature. The core of this work however, is the argument that Shakespeare's plays are the fruit of experience. If this is accepted, then the works, aristocratic and elitist through and through can only be accepted as having been written by a member of the aristocracy.
Common sense prompts me to accept Ogburn's arguments. There is also an instinctive reason. The dismissive and defensive reaction of upholders of orthodoxy, who seem unwilling to even discuss the issue, does not give the impression of much self-assurance on their part. Their invective and abuse of doubters is remarkable and calls to mind the loud protests of someone rightly accused of some misdemeanour. In this context I would note especially 1) the cynical accusationm that "Oxfordians" blithely ignore the fact that the Earl of Oxford died in 1604, years before many major works were written. Those who use this argument, hoping thereby to make challengers to orthodoxy seem like "conspiracy nuts who ignore the facts when they are inconvenient" simply neglect to inform the unwary that nobody has any evidence as to exactly in what year Shakespeare's plays were written in any case. No original copies exist of any play and no date of composition. All is speculation. 2) the repeated statement or implication that alternative theories as to the true authorship have been "laid to rest". They have not. To my knowledge, nobody has made any systematic attempt to challenge Ogburn's arguments in this book. The usual reaction by the hostile is "elitist claptrap" "lunacy" and other even less complimentary comments. Another especially silly and fatuous argument (used by the late critic Bernard Levin among others) is that many people have been put forward as "candidates" which shows how shallow the anti-Stratford arguments are. That is like saying, -"three members of the jury disagree with the majority that the accused is guilty but disagree as to who is guilty. That proves that the accused is guilty."
Whether conclusive evidence will ever be found I doubt but surely common sense and all evidence is weighed heavily against the authorship of the man from Stratford. Anyone sure that traditonal orthdoxy got it right should treat the many arguments which have gathered over the years with respect and point out in an intelligent and well informed way why they are wrong. To Stratfordians the question is: where is any measured, intellgient and densely argued risposte to this and other challenges to the orthdox biography?
Shortly after school I decided to buy a biography and picked up the one by AL Rowse I think it was. I was disappointed and uneasy. The work was replete with speculation and supposition. Astonishingly little was known as fact about the most famous writer in the Western world. The book wa sfull of hypotheses and suppositions "it may be" "probably", perhaps" etc. For years I let it rest. Shakespeare was a phenomenon rather than a person. Years later I came across this book in a British Council library and I found Charlton Ogburn echoing thoughts which had been slumbering within me so to speak for the last 30 years. This book is really two books, one pointing out what an edifice of fraudulent assurance has built on foudntationms of speculation and scant evidence and in so arguing, Ogburn denyiesauthorship to the man from Stratford. The second part of the book presents Edward de Vere, the Seventeeth Earl of Oxford Earl of Oxford, on avialable evidence, as the only conceivable writer of Shakespeare's works.
I shall not enter into the details of the argument-that is what the book is for-but would like to make a few observations on the signficance of this debate and the issues at stake in conspiracy theories in general.
Firstly, when a conspiracy is suspected and the cry of "hoax!" is raised in connection with some historical event-to take another example than this, Josephine Tay's challenge to Shakespeare's own portrayal of Richard III as the murderer of the two princes in the Tower in a book called "The Daughter of Time" BOTH sides become committed to their positions in such a manner that neither side is disinterested. Both sides in such debates in the great majority are highly partisan.
In the case of the authorship debate both sides tend to have a political agendas in a broad sense of the word agenda, one eltist and one anti-elitist. Orthodox scholars never tire of insisting that challengers to the Stratford theory are motivated by snobbery and elitism, overlooking the fact that upholders of orthdoxy are equally inspired by the myth of a "man of the people" showing that genius can sprout up anywhere and that a man or woman of the humblest circumstances can be Shakespeare. Many of those involved in this debate on both sides have an agenda. More importantly however is the personal commitment. For example, if one has written a book like this it very hard and takes a deal of moral courage to retract one's views-even if the "smoking gun" had been produced, anti-Stratfordians would be denying it to the bitter end, they have invested too much in their case. Likewise orthdoxy-those who have committed themsleves in print to the Stratford cause will look very foolish accepting they were wrong. This should be borne in mind when considering arguemnts from either side.
I am convinced by the argument that Shakespeare was not the the obscurecommoner from Stratford. Ogburn's enormous rivetting work goes to great length explaining how claiming authorship for the man from Stratford runs in the face of everything we know about human nature. The core of this work however, is the argument that Shakespeare's plays are the fruit of experience. If this is accepted, then the works, aristocratic and elitist through and through can only be accepted as having been written by a member of the aristocracy.
Common sense prompts me to accept Ogburn's arguments. There is also an instinctive reason. The dismissive and defensive reaction of upholders of orthodoxy, who seem unwilling to even discuss the issue, does not give the impression of much self-assurance on their part. Their invective and abuse of doubters is remarkable and calls to mind the loud protests of someone rightly accused of some misdemeanour. In this context I would note especially 1) the cynical accusationm that "Oxfordians" blithely ignore the fact that the Earl of Oxford died in 1604, years before many major works were written. Those who use this argument, hoping thereby to make challengers to orthodoxy seem like "conspiracy nuts who ignore the facts when they are inconvenient" simply neglect to inform the unwary that nobody has any evidence as to exactly in what year Shakespeare's plays were written in any case. No original copies exist of any play and no date of composition. All is speculation. 2) the repeated statement or implication that alternative theories as to the true authorship have been "laid to rest". They have not. To my knowledge, nobody has made any systematic attempt to challenge Ogburn's arguments in this book. The usual reaction by the hostile is "elitist claptrap" "lunacy" and other even less complimentary comments. Another especially silly and fatuous argument (used by the late critic Bernard Levin among others) is that many people have been put forward as "candidates" which shows how shallow the anti-Stratford arguments are. That is like saying, -"three members of the jury disagree with the majority that the accused is guilty but disagree as to who is guilty. That proves that the accused is guilty."
Whether conclusive evidence will ever be found I doubt but surely common sense and all evidence is weighed heavily against the authorship of the man from Stratford. Anyone sure that traditonal orthdoxy got it right should treat the many arguments which have gathered over the years with respect and point out in an intelligent and well informed way why they are wrong. To Stratfordians the question is: where is any measured, intellgient and densely argued risposte to this and other challenges to the orthdox biography?
April 1, 2011
A comprehensive study of the Shakespeare Authorship question and an exhaustive examination of the life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as the actual identity of the great playwright and poet. Written in 1982, some twenty years before Anderson's 2003 book, it deserves a reading if you want to know more about "William Shakespeare".
January 16, 2011
I approached the controversy with an open mind. Though I read a lot of conventional Shakespeare stuff, I was intrigued by what I'd read of Oxford's relation to Hamlet. However this book revealed itself inept; rife with mis-readings and impossible and idiotic conclusions, for instance claiming Jonson meant "If" when he used "though" in his dedication to the first folio: this take would invalidate the sentence's last clause which implies the influence of the classics today on those who can read them is less than WS. Also: Shake-speare was hyphenated because of printer's technology of the time. Deal with it. This is a bad trip the deeper you get in to it; Ogburn weirdly fantasizes himself another Oxford, but his Oxford is a fantasy.
May 23, 2020
This book is an excellent introduction not only to the Shakespeare authorship question in general, but also the history (up until 1984), of orthodoxy's failing attempt to prop up the dying paradigm. As Richmond Crinkley wrote in reviewing this book in the Folger Shakespeare Library's *Shakespeare Quarterly*: "it is not just the want of sufficient relevant biographical facts that breeds doubt. It is the absence in William Shakespeare of a life with anybody living in it. The personal void makes us ruminate. The contradictions jar."
This book helps explain why.
This book helps explain why.
Read
December 31, 2019Fascinating.
November 12, 2013
I am not going to get into who really wrote Shakespeare, but as an actor the Oxfordian theory provides rich backstory and subtext. And a good conspiracy theory is always a fun read, especially when well articulated and researched.
October 20, 2009
A serious look at the mythology of the Shake-speare authorship question.
June 17, 2011
The REAL mystery is how anyone who is capable of performing even the most basic of functions could take any of this Oxfordian drivel seriously.
June 17, 2011
The REAL mystery is how anyone who is capable of performing even the most basic of functions could take any of this Oxfordian drivel seriously.
January 2, 2013
Food for thought.
January 12, 2008
Gets a bit heavy handed, but how can you blame him? A must read.
June 9, 2008
Who wrote Shakespeare? Was it the Earl of Oxford? The jury is still out, according to some.
October 2, 2025
I was impressed. This really is a mystery. The book runs to over 700 pages and the more you read the more you see quite clearly that it could not be the Stratford man. I think this has been a hotly contested issue for many years and the 'Stratfordians ' are adamant that there is no mystery.
The first half of the book casts considerable doubt on conventional views as to the identity of Mr Shakespeare. The second half makes a brilliant case for Edward DeVere - Earl of Oxford.
The research is so comprehensive that it seems there is little left that has not been covered. The references in the plays dialogue to actual places suggests knowledge from a lifestyle that the Stratford man would find almost impossible to follow, that only an aristocrat could lead. There is a surviving document - Williams school report - that says he knew ' little Latin and less Greek'. For plays often based on the Greek Myths ( that had not been translated into English in the Elizabethan period ) this is a clear sign that something is not right with the ' Stratford ' view.
For anyone interested in this subject this is well worth reading.
The first half of the book casts considerable doubt on conventional views as to the identity of Mr Shakespeare. The second half makes a brilliant case for Edward DeVere - Earl of Oxford.
The research is so comprehensive that it seems there is little left that has not been covered. The references in the plays dialogue to actual places suggests knowledge from a lifestyle that the Stratford man would find almost impossible to follow, that only an aristocrat could lead. There is a surviving document - Williams school report - that says he knew ' little Latin and less Greek'. For plays often based on the Greek Myths ( that had not been translated into English in the Elizabethan period ) this is a clear sign that something is not right with the ' Stratford ' view.
For anyone interested in this subject this is well worth reading.
March 10, 2020
When presenting his case that the 17th Earl of Oxford was actually William Shakespeare J.T. Looney made particular note that his "solution" did not rest on the use of codes as its Baconian ancestor had. The old Baconian cipher applied to a First Folio could be queued up to deliver any answer, however ridiculous, presented to it. Combined with the occasional reliance upon mediums the Baconians devolved into near insanity.
Shakespeare Identified (published a full century ago last week) on the other hand attempted to bind the 17th Earl of Oxford to Shakespeare purely through literary evidence connecting the events of the works back to the author. This method simply amounts to another code but with the added detriment of being even more subjective than the Baconian one.
In any case, first published in 1984, with a second edition published in 1992, The Mysterious William Shakespeare did much to reinvigorate the then floundering Oxfordian Movement. Charlton Ogburn Jr. comes from a solid Oxfordian pedigree. His parents were both heavily involved in promoting Oxford as the true Shakespeare (a literal and figurative statement as their jointly written This Star of England comes in at nearly 1300 pages). In addition Charlton Jr. coauthored another (thinner) installment with his mother on the same subject in 1962 and after The Mysterious William Shakespeare a near anemic "summary" of 94 pages. Between the three Ogburns and their collective installments there are 2500 pages. Now, if page count determined the veracity of a claim then certainly the three of them have well and buried the opposition. I'd like to mention that my own copies stand only at waist height on my bookshelf because I fear that if either edition of The Mysterious William Shakespeare were to hit me I would surely die.
Page count is unimportant though, which takes away the impressively grueling length that Charlton Ogburn subjects his readers to and unfortunately that's the only impressive thing about this work. Obgurn is only rivaled only by his parents in distorting fact and promoting fiction again literally and figuratively. Considering the sheer breadth of the book there are three things in particular I wish to touch on in my review. The first is that the sources Ogburn relies on are near identical to every other Oxfordian book published before or since. There is an unavoidable bottleneck in the Oxfordian theory- which indicates that there is not any further information being "uncovered" although there was no information to begin with as it remains only an exercise in literary analysis. Therein lies my second point.
Based as it is on interpretations of textual analysis to somehow read into the life of an author and thereby identify them from a vague kind of understanding of the text the Oxfordian theory has been subject to some wildly different interpretation of the same texts. The elder Ogburns wholeheartedly endorsed the so-called "Prince Tudor Theory" (derived from the aforementioned Baconian Mediums) in This Star of England which is that the Earl of Southampton was actually Elizabeth Regina and Oxford's son and would therefore have been heir to the Tudor line. The younger Ogburn states in this book that he has no opinion on it which mirrors Looney's dissatisfaction with Percy Allen's branch of Oxfordians. The late, unlamented Paul Streitz and Charles Beauclerk analyzing the same works of Shakespeare go further in claiming that not only was Oxford the father of Southampton but that he himself was Elizabeth Regina's son and the two had an incestuous relationship! Going off of that Streitz and Beauclerk also claim a differing date of death for Oxford placing him alive as late as 1608 at least noting the odd absence of a will for the 17th Earl- a fact that in Ogburn's eyes would disqualify a Will Shakespeare from Stratford from being an author which leads to my final point.
Charlton Ogburn claims that the Monument of William Shakespeare originally depicted the man as "not a literary figure but a dealer in bagged commodities." Such an assertion is patently false. In her book English church monuments 1510 to 1840 Katharine Esdaile performs a summary of English church monuments that also happens to include the time period in question. In her survey she discovered themes between monuments, and though plenty of sheep herders, grainers, farmers, etc. who would all deal in so-called "bagged commodities," not a one of them is depicted with a sack of any kind. Instead shown are the implements of the trade: sheers, scythes, plows all feature prominently. Pillows for writers are featured however and the design of the pillow is identical to what is shown on Shakespeare's Monument presently. In addition though the monument to Shakespeare has been repaired, painted, stripped of paint, and repainted once more church records detail that the monument has never been altered. Therefore the monument has always depicted a writer, and specifically has always depicted William Shakespeare of Stratford who was recognized as a writer.
A further perusal of Ogburn only reveals a very flimsy albeit dense attempt at making the case for Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford as the real William Shakespeare. A cursory glance at the attendees for the recent "celebrations" of the initial publication of Looney's thesis reveal a little over 70 attendees from around the world whose conference, rather than applaud Looney's contribution, was in part focused on an imaginary conspiracy orchestrated by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to stifle Oxford's claim. The movement is likely destined for oblivion and I would be very surprised if The Mysterious William Shakespeare is given a third posthumous edition at this rate.
Shakespeare Identified (published a full century ago last week) on the other hand attempted to bind the 17th Earl of Oxford to Shakespeare purely through literary evidence connecting the events of the works back to the author. This method simply amounts to another code but with the added detriment of being even more subjective than the Baconian one.
In any case, first published in 1984, with a second edition published in 1992, The Mysterious William Shakespeare did much to reinvigorate the then floundering Oxfordian Movement. Charlton Ogburn Jr. comes from a solid Oxfordian pedigree. His parents were both heavily involved in promoting Oxford as the true Shakespeare (a literal and figurative statement as their jointly written This Star of England comes in at nearly 1300 pages). In addition Charlton Jr. coauthored another (thinner) installment with his mother on the same subject in 1962 and after The Mysterious William Shakespeare a near anemic "summary" of 94 pages. Between the three Ogburns and their collective installments there are 2500 pages. Now, if page count determined the veracity of a claim then certainly the three of them have well and buried the opposition. I'd like to mention that my own copies stand only at waist height on my bookshelf because I fear that if either edition of The Mysterious William Shakespeare were to hit me I would surely die.
Page count is unimportant though, which takes away the impressively grueling length that Charlton Ogburn subjects his readers to and unfortunately that's the only impressive thing about this work. Obgurn is only rivaled only by his parents in distorting fact and promoting fiction again literally and figuratively. Considering the sheer breadth of the book there are three things in particular I wish to touch on in my review. The first is that the sources Ogburn relies on are near identical to every other Oxfordian book published before or since. There is an unavoidable bottleneck in the Oxfordian theory- which indicates that there is not any further information being "uncovered" although there was no information to begin with as it remains only an exercise in literary analysis. Therein lies my second point.
Based as it is on interpretations of textual analysis to somehow read into the life of an author and thereby identify them from a vague kind of understanding of the text the Oxfordian theory has been subject to some wildly different interpretation of the same texts. The elder Ogburns wholeheartedly endorsed the so-called "Prince Tudor Theory" (derived from the aforementioned Baconian Mediums) in This Star of England which is that the Earl of Southampton was actually Elizabeth Regina and Oxford's son and would therefore have been heir to the Tudor line. The younger Ogburn states in this book that he has no opinion on it which mirrors Looney's dissatisfaction with Percy Allen's branch of Oxfordians. The late, unlamented Paul Streitz and Charles Beauclerk analyzing the same works of Shakespeare go further in claiming that not only was Oxford the father of Southampton but that he himself was Elizabeth Regina's son and the two had an incestuous relationship! Going off of that Streitz and Beauclerk also claim a differing date of death for Oxford placing him alive as late as 1608 at least noting the odd absence of a will for the 17th Earl- a fact that in Ogburn's eyes would disqualify a Will Shakespeare from Stratford from being an author which leads to my final point.
Charlton Ogburn claims that the Monument of William Shakespeare originally depicted the man as "not a literary figure but a dealer in bagged commodities." Such an assertion is patently false. In her book English church monuments 1510 to 1840 Katharine Esdaile performs a summary of English church monuments that also happens to include the time period in question. In her survey she discovered themes between monuments, and though plenty of sheep herders, grainers, farmers, etc. who would all deal in so-called "bagged commodities," not a one of them is depicted with a sack of any kind. Instead shown are the implements of the trade: sheers, scythes, plows all feature prominently. Pillows for writers are featured however and the design of the pillow is identical to what is shown on Shakespeare's Monument presently. In addition though the monument to Shakespeare has been repaired, painted, stripped of paint, and repainted once more church records detail that the monument has never been altered. Therefore the monument has always depicted a writer, and specifically has always depicted William Shakespeare of Stratford who was recognized as a writer.
A further perusal of Ogburn only reveals a very flimsy albeit dense attempt at making the case for Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford as the real William Shakespeare. A cursory glance at the attendees for the recent "celebrations" of the initial publication of Looney's thesis reveal a little over 70 attendees from around the world whose conference, rather than applaud Looney's contribution, was in part focused on an imaginary conspiracy orchestrated by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to stifle Oxford's claim. The movement is likely destined for oblivion and I would be very surprised if The Mysterious William Shakespeare is given a third posthumous edition at this rate.
May 20, 2025
Though some of the theories herein contained have since been disproven or had other evidence come to light, this title is still compelling and valuable in understanding the evolution of Oxfordian authorship assertions and theories in the late twentieth century.
July 18, 2024
Read this as an undergraduate in a class on myth and history taught by Roger Des Forges. Brilliant if flaws book on the true identity of Shakespeare!
June 23, 2021
Ogburn presents convincing evidence that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, is the real author of Shakespeare's plays - in thorough detail. Book 1 dealt with examples from Skake-speare's works and Book 2 outlined de Vere's life in relation to the plays. Ogburn would sometimes discuss the refusal of academia to even entertain this theory. To me, after reading this book (among others), it makes sense that Oxford wrote the plays.
March 24, 2016
Charlton Ogburn builds a strong case that the man from Stratford did not write "Shakespeare"; instead he makes the argument that the actual author was Edward de Vere. Wjether or not you agree with his conclusions, the book is compelling reading.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews