Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time

Most people accept the tradition that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were indeed written by him, and they assume that doubters of the Stratford man's authorship (anti-Stratfordians) must be irrational elitists. They might also assume that anti-Strats have nothing to offer those who simply wish to understand and enjoy the plays. But all of these assumptions are either debatable or wrong. In any case, though both sides of the authorship debate have been known to engage in circular arguments based on questionable evidence and to hurl childish ad hominems at one another, this is not true of Joseph Sobran who is reasonable in his arguments and civil toward his opponents. (Reviewers here who accuse Sobran of mudslinging, bashing etc. merely betray the fact that they have not read this book!) Rather than ask whether anti-Stratfordians are elitists, Sobran suggests that we ought to be asking if Shakespeare was one. For example, Shakespeare often makes cruel, unfair fun of social-climbing commoners exactly like Will Shaksper (a common variation of his name in contemporary legal documents). Arguing from evidence in the plays and poems, Sobran also demonstrates that the authorship debate can and ought to be relevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the Works. While I am not wholly on the side of the underdog anti-Strats, I believe that Stratfordian scholars (which too often means mainstream scholars) have done such a disservice to the general public's enjoyment and understanding of Shakespeare that I must take them to task. Some are so fanatical in their defense of the Stratford man's claim to authorship that they seem to believe that if there were no tradition that he wrote the Works, they could conclusively prove from scratch that he did; but they could not for the same reason that anti-Stratfordians can never prove beyond a shadow that he didn't or that one of their alternative candidates did: The trail is old, and the case is cold. If ever there was a smoking gun it has long since turned entirely to rust. The strongest and best evidence that the man from Stratford wrote the Works is the tradition that he did, which, while not being conclusive, is simply difficult to dismiss.But this tradition is not much. Anxious to uncover any details to fill out his biography, overzealous Stratfordians have accepted and taught many dubious legends and read a fanciful biography of the Stratford man into the plays and poems. The anti-Stratfordians see through this mess because they have no desire to add more to the Stratford man's biography than the documentary record will bear or to connect the biography to the Works where such a connection is based on pure guesswork. (Of course, they have motive to see other things that are not there, but here I speak only of how the anti-Strats are right.) For example, it was an anti-Stratfordian who realized that the famous "upstart crow" quotation has nothing whatever to do with Sh

This is a fascinating book that makes an very solid case for Edward DeVere, Earl of Oxford, as the true author of Shakespeare's works. Sobran breaks down all the myth and reverential pseudo-biography that exists around Shakespeare into a list of known facts. There is a temptation to bill anyone who questions the authorship of the man from Stratford as a member of the lunatic fringe, however Sobran is a careful journalist. He uses documented evidence to build a case against the curiously personality-less figure of the historic William Shakespeare being the author of such works. He convinced me, on literary and sociological grounds, that it was far more likely that Oxford is the author of the works. Fascinating and easy to read.

I had never even heard of the Earl of Oxford before picking up the book. I likend the authorship question to fantasies like 'Where is Elvis' and 'Roswell, New Mexico.' Sobran presents a good deal of circumstantial evidence for Oxford. History records little circumstantial evidence for Shakspere, other than he shares the same name with the bard and he was an actor in some of these plays. Ghost writers are common. As a nobleman, Oxford had two reasons to stay quiet. 1) It was beneath his dignity to write plays 2) He could more easily satire his court friends (and enemies) with anonymity. Oxford's experiences seem to reflect the experiences of the playwright in many cases. Numerous phrases from Oxford's private letters, appear again in Shakespeare's plays. Sobran offers better and more specific arguments than these. If I were a Shakespeare scholar, I would no doubt be angry at any probing book debunking the accepted theory, but this study is a well-made case for the Duke of Oxford.

I had never given the issue of Shakespeare's identity much thought until this year; I remembered the fuss about Bacon from college, but assumed that the matter was fairly well resolved. Then I read a recent feature story in Harper's magazine, that brought together 5 or 6 proponents of each side of this matter to debate it.What struck me upon reading that issue was how few facts of merit the defenders of the traditional view had at their disposal. While the Oxfordians (about whom I knew nothing) mustered a number of facts and found inconsistencies in the traditional story, the traditionalists had far less to counter with, and resorted to name-calling and the stance that Shakespeare's identity doesn't matter, or worse, that if he weren't the traditional candidate, it would be somehow wrong to know who he actually was.Because I felt the traditionalists' arguments had been so weak, I wanted to read more. Out of curiosity, I bought Sobran's book. It's made up of two parts, a review of the traditional case, and the argument for Oxford. Whether or not you believe Oxford was Shakespeare -- and I think there is a good case here, but not enough to be certain -- this book just skewers the traditional argument. Sobran simply presents too much evidence to ignore. At the very least, it will leave you wondering how much other received academic knowledge you grew up with could be bogus. The slack standards of Shakespeare's 'biographers' are held to a withering light here.