Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Prime Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Review

13 of 29 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The Wells Effect, 22 Feb. 2014
This review is from: Why Shakespeare WAS Shakespeare (Kindle Singles) (Kindle Edition)
Interesting to note that the great British Actor, John Hurt, has declared himself to be an anti-Stratfordian in interviews this month, while a rising star among the younger Shakespearean actors, Tom Hiddleston, when asked whom he would like to meet if he could travel back in time replied 'Shakespeare or who ever wrote those plays.' American Film Director Jim Jarmusch has also declared in interviews this month that he is anti-Stratfordian. I hope they all sign the online 'Declaration of Reasonable Doubt about the Identity of William Shakespeare.'

This kindle book may have been the cause of their conversions. I was myself driven to doubt the Stratford story by orthodox biographies and I know people who have rejected Stratfordfordianism after reading Professor Wells's last goofy effort entitled 'Shakespeare Beyond Doubt' (2013). This one reproduces many of the same faults and fallacies of the last and given that it has already been criticised at length on this site, I shall confine myself to only one of its many grave mistakes. The author asserts, with what appears to be unshakeable confidence, that nobody ever suspected 'William Shakespeare' to be a pseudonym until 1848. May I suggest he looks into all the 'Labeo' references by Joseph Hall of 1597 & 8, and by John Marston in 'Pigmalion's Image' (1598); also that he asks himself why John Weever called the author of Venus and Adonis 'Spurious' in 1598 when, as we all know, 'spurious' means 'not proceeding from its reputed author'; and why Ben Jonson's friend and servant, Richard Brome, called Shakespeare 'that English Earle that loved a play and player' in 1638; and why John Warren accused the Stratford man of being re-born in a new guise, able to take all the glory despite the fact that the work - the labour - was some else's (see 'Of Mr William Shakespeare', 1640); and why William Davenant appeared to view the Stratford shrine as a mockery (1637); and why the Stratford monument was held in derision by Thomas Vincent (1626) and by the anonymous author of 'Modern Jests, Witty Jeeres and Pleasant Taunts' (1630); and why Ben Jonson, told his readers not to look at the joke picture of 'Shakespeare' in the First Folio of 1623; and why an anonymous poet invited his readers to laugh and weep at that same picture in 1632; and why that absurd picture was subtly mocked again in the 1640 edition of Shakespeare's Poems, and again in Brome's 'Five New Playes (1653). Wells has to ask himself why Ben Jonson began his eulogy to 'THE AUTHOR Mr William Shakespeare' with warnings against 'silliest ignorance', 'blind affection' and 'craftiest malice' in regard to Shakespeare's name, and ask himself if, in his ungrounded defence of Stratford Shakspere, he is not proving himself guilty of exactly those faults which Ben Jonson warned against. He must ask himself also why Ben Jonson appeared to be calling the Stratford man a 'poet ape' in his epigrams (published 1640) and why William Dugdale drew ludicrous apes faces on the Stratford monument in 1634.

If Professor Wells had been taking his task remotely seriously he would have looked carefully at all of this evidence and much more that piles up to show that Shakespeare's contemporaries knew a pseudonym when they saw one. But what does the professor do? He simply ignores the whole lot and starts his story nearly two hundred years later, in 1848. Picking out anti-Stratfordians that he feels he can safely ridicule. Goodness if we fished out all rubbish written over the years by Stratfordians we would have a ball!

If this counts as scholarship it is really substandard - Back to the drawing-board Professor!

as ever, Alexander Waugh
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 22 Aug 2014 09:48:20 BDT
I'll content myself with commenting on just one of your assertions:

"I tell thee,
These lads can act the emperor's lives all over
And Shakespeare's chronicled histories to boot;
And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
That loved a play and players so well, now living,
I would not be outvied in my delights."

Quoting-mining and quoting out of context do you no credit, and undermine whatever credibility you have.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details