Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

VINE VOICEon 5 September 2014
Reading Schoenbaum, Ackroyd, Shapiro, Wood and others' traditional "Stratford" biographies I have been less than impressed by the amount of corroborative fact they provide in their "his name is on the books so it must have happened like this" approach based on sparse contemporary historical records, hearsay (Scuttlebutt as Price would say) and inferences from the texts, although a few tell a good story.
Price spreads out all that we actually know from contemporary records, including possible, suspected references from the period and not only analyses them but gives the best interpretations of the "facts" i have yet read to build a credible picture of Shakspere of Stratford. It's not always a flattering portrait but it fits well with the evidence, and a lot of the rumour of the time.
It leaves us with a street smart (unscrupuous?) entrepreneur and successful business man who came from the country and made good in the big city but shows how unlikely he is to be the genius behind the bulk of the poetry and drama published under the name of WIlliam Shakespeare. Price doesn't speculate on the exact identity of likely candidates (except the suggestion that they were nobility) and avoids the pitfalls of portrait analysis and detailed intepretations of the sonnets that have spoiled some other books on the topic. If you are interested in the debate (and why wouldn't you be?) then this is an excellent place to start.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 15 August 2002
I have been a Shakespeare fan for some time, but am relatively new to the question of who actually wrote the plays. I found this book an ideal beginning place for those also interested, for in providing uncomfortable documentary evidence that traditional scholarship typically ignores, it pushed me farther along in my suspicion that, whoever wrote the works of Shakespeare, it was not the man from Stratford.
In very readable terms Price shows that there is indeed enormous room to doubt the traditional attribution of the plays. Rather than try to influence potential readers with only my opinions, I will let the book speak for itself by mentioning a few items which most impressed me, in the hope that this will convey the tone of the book as a whole:
Traditional scholars express disbelief at the suggestion that the Stratfordian was a "front man" for a high-born anonymous author: "Why use an actual person? Why not just a false name?" However, Price renders this objection moot by quoting the Elizabethan Robert Greene, who wrote of poets who "for their calling and gravity, being loath to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, get some other Battillus to set his name to their verses." (Battillus was an ancient who put his name to the works of Virgil.) Thus, Price provides proof that in Elizabethan England front men were indeed employed by anonymous authors to protect their reputations. Whether scholars want to believe it or not, it was done.
Traditional scholars also protest that no one doubted Shakespeare's authorship during his lifetime. Price again quotes contemporary records to prove this another falsehood. Apparently the mystery surrounding the Shakespeare authorship dates back to the 1590's, for even as the works were printed some readers took the name "Shakespeare" to be a pseudonym for (variously) Francis Bacon, Samuel Daniel, and Edward Dyer.
Traditional scholarship's claim that the actor Shakspere was also a writer is founded on an ambiguous passage about a "Shake-scene" from the 1592 pamphlet "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit." (Aside from this passage, they have *nothing* dating from Shakspere's life which clearly states that he was "Shakespeare.") However -- and for the first time that I've ever seen -- Price places the "Shake-scene" passage *within the context of the pamphlet as a whole*. I was shocked to learn that the whole first section of "Groatsworth" -- never mentioned by orthodox scholars -- deals with a seemingly autobiographical account of how Greene was misused and cheated by a greedy, moneylending actor who brokered plays and took credit for others' writings. The description of the actor tallies exactly with the picture we get of the Stratfordian's character from his later business activities. (Why have we never been told this in traditional biographies?)
(Price also shows that, despite scholars' claim that the "Shake-scene" passage represents Greene's envy that a mere actor should show success at playwrighting, that is apparently not how Elizabethans interpreted it. She quotes the one Elizabethan allusion we have to the passage -- and its author took the "Shake-scene" passage as representing an unethical moneylending actor who takes credit for others' writings.)
Similarly, Price shows how traditional scholarship -- for no good reason -- rejects some records related to Shakspere, but accepts others on far weaker grounds. For example, Shakspere's first recorded activity in London is a 1592 document which shows him lending 7 pounds (a large sum of money then). Most biographers, if they mention it at all, reject this record as referring to "another Shakspere" -- even though it is perfectly congruent with Shakspere's later known moneylending activities. Apparently the only reason this record is rejected is that this *fact* about Shakspere's early London activity does not match scholars' *beliefs* about his supposed early writing career.
Similarly, Price brings to light contradictions in the historical record which orthodox scholars gloss over. For example, biographers claim that during the Christmas season of 1597 Shakspere was fulfilling professional commitments by performing at Court with his theater company. (As it is documented that the company indeed did. It was their most important engagement.) They also acknowledge that the records show that Shakspere was regularly in Stratford, engaged in business. However, what they fail to mention is that the documents indicate Shakspere was doing mundane business in Stratford *at exactly the same time* that he was supposedly performing at Court as a key member of "his company." Price shows how traditional biographies typically deal with these incompatible records: by placing them in different chapters, apparently in the hope that no one will notice the obvious conflict in timing.
And much more ...
From what I have seen, this book has been a great embarrassment to traditional scholarship, for it clearly demonstrates how weak much of that scholarship has been, based on assumptions taken as fact, unquestioned received wisdom, and circular logic. And since Price quotes only orthodox sources, she shows how orthodoxy has painted *itself* into a number of mutually incompatible corners. This is an essential book for any open-minded Shakespeare fan.
22 Comments| 46 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 2 November 2016
Really enjoying reading this book - it's interesting
You do ask yourself, while reading this book, why have so many authors been very selective with the evidence they have found over the years?
The writings of "Shakespeare" are not diminished even when we start to question who the person/s, was/were, that wrote the plays and sonnets attributed to "Shakespeare"
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 June 2016
Once you have read this meticulously researched but yet very readable book it is impossible to believe the story that William 'Shakspeare' of Stratford wrote the 'Shakespeare' plays. A must for anyone remotely interested in the Shakespeare authorship controversy.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 6 September 2016
Brilliantly researched and almost impossible to fault. The idea that the bloke from Stratford also wrote plays is laughable...this book will give you chapter and verse to make the case.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 March 2016
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 January 2014
I originally got this from the local library and enjoyed it so much I wanted my own copy. An eyeopening piece of research. Everyone should read it. It will open your eyes as to the lack of evidence that exists regarding William Shakspeare being the playwright Shakespeare.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 17 January 2013
The best book on the Shakespeare Authorship question.

Pure scepticism about the claim the man from Stratford wrote the plays of Shakespeare, or was even a writer. She shows clearly there is no contemporary, relevant, personal literary evidence linking anyone to the plays, or linking the man from Stratford (christened William Shagsper) to the plays. And before anyone says there isn't such evidence for many or any other writers of the time, Price shows that there was such evidence for twenty-five major to minor writers of the same period, but zero, yes zero, for Shagsper. This is the only book that orthodox Shakespeare scholars should answer.

The host of alternative candidates makes for interesting speculation, but none have any firm evidence, only circumstantial evidence, just like William Shagsper of Stratford. There are some great books discussing the alternatives: Robin Williams on Mary Sidney, Charles Beauclerck on the Earl of Oxford (and subject of the excellent film Anonymous) or Ros Barber's The Marlowe Papers. In a talk I heard Price give, she was even straightforward enough to say that she thought the best circumstantial evidence was for William Shagsper! A must read.

Criminal it costs so much, though. Where is the paperback?
11 Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 August 2016
Shaxckspere the show business Man. Un financier. Un Turcaret. Un Monsieur Jourdain... After this book every Stradford book sounds like a great comédie. And so he plays his part! Le ridicule ne tue plus?
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 March 2012
An extremely thorough and critical study of the Shakespeare authorship question. I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in Elizabethan/Jacobean literature, history and the thorny subject of who wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)