Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem (Contributions in Drama and Theatre Studies)

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Argument Clearly Stated
Review: As artistic director of a Shake-speare theatre company in New York City, and screenwriter of an upcoming Shake-speare film, I have read hundreds of authorship question books and articles, and Ms. Price's "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" is perhaps the best in clearly refuting the claims of those who would have us believe that the greatest writer in the English language was this uneducated actor/money lender/business entrepreneur, who never in his life claimed to be the writer of anything, let alone the greatest canon ever penned. Ms. Price supports everything she claims with contemporaneous documents, and presents them clearly for any reader to judge. This book should be read by anyone interested in developing a deeper appreciation of Shake-speare's works. It is clear, concise, informed and thorough. It is filled with new information and an accurate analysis of the flaws found in traditional Shakespearean scholarship. I recommend it heartily.

Rating:
Summary: A Correction
Review: Diana Price has complained on her Web site that the last bullet point in my earlier review ignored her "reference (p. 127, also listed in the index) to the possibility that Hand D in Sir Thomas More is that of Shakespeare". Though my oversight was inadvertent, she is correct. By way of atonement, I reproduce in its entirety what "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" says about Sir Thomas More and Hand D:

"The poor quality of Shakspere's penmanship is as suspicious as is the paucity of extant handwriting for a man who supposedly lived by the pen, and scholars continue to search for more specimens. Some have pored over manuscript pages of the play Sir Thomas More, hoping to find Shakspere's handwriting in it. Yet there remain only six inconsistent, blotchy signatures against which to make any comparisons. At best, the six signatures support the conclusion that Shakspere could sign or at least scrawl his name, but they do not support the conclusion that he was a professional writer."

A reader will not learn here that scholars have assembled an impressive (though not uncontroverted) body of evidence in support of the identification of "Hand D" with that of William Shakespeare. I'm sorry that I overlooked this passage, because it neatly illustrates my main point: Time and again, Miss Price, instead of seeking to refute inconvenient analyses, pretends that they don't exist. I noted a few examples in my review. If Amazon allotted infinite space to reviewers, I could add more, as well as describe other departures from scholarly practice. (One of my favorite instances: George Chalmers, an eccentric defender of William Henry Ireland's Shakespearean forgeries, is cited as a sound "orthodox" authority (p. 93)! Curiously, though Miss Price relies on him, she doesn't list his work in her bibliography.)

The anti-Stratfordians who have rallied around Miss Price's book should ponder whether gaining converts through the tactic of suppressio veri is a good long-run strategy. Their cause would be far better served by an author who was willing to confront, rather than shut her eyes to and sneer at, the other side of the case.

Rating:
Summary: What's the fuss?
Review: For readers without preconceptions, Ms. Price provides a scrupulously researched biography which does not, for once, depend upon page after page of "surely," "most probably," and "almost certainly." Reading a typical, orthodox biography is like chomping down on a fluff of cotton candy: t'ain't much there. This, by contrast, is USDA Select Beef, with something to bite into and chew over on every page. Do not let the premium price deter you. You get what you pay for, in this case a substantial work of scholarship.

For the still-hesitant prospective buyer, I strongly urge you to drop by Ms. Price's web site. There you will find reviews and responses, errata and addenda, and most importantly get a glimpse of the author's ability to defend her work. Just type in the title slash "author's home page" and let your browser do the rest.

In sum, a very well-researched, very readable book that gets Shakespearean scholarship off to a great start for the new millennium. My highest endorsement.

Rating:
Summary: Information not found in orthodox biographies
Review: 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 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. Why have we never been told this in traditional biographies?! The description of the actor tallies exactly with the picture we get of the Stratfordian's character from his later business activities.

(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. Orthodox scholars seem to be becoming increasingly defensive and hysterical as popular interest in the authorship question, and doubts about the Stratfordian, continue to grow. A typical response appears on Price's website and comes from the authors of the Shakespeare Authorship Web Site: "[We] have both been far too busy with more important matters to write up a comprehensive response to Price (doing exciting real scholarship is somehow much more fulfilling than refuting pseudo-scholarship)."

Apparently it is easier for orthodox scholars to resort to name-calling and bluster than to squarely address these tough questions for which they have no answers. This is an essential book for any open-minded Shakespeare fan.

Rating:
Summary: Who Wrote Shakespeare?
Review: I have read with interest the reviews already posted here. I must say I am struck by the difference in tone of those who seem to like Ms. Price's book and the one person who does not. The pro-Price people seem to feel the author has presented a cogent argument for an author other than the usual suspect. The dissenter is almost vehement that she should even try! Why, I wonder, if, as they say on the X-Files, "the truth is out there" would one be so vituperitive against one who is searching for it?

I enjoyed the book. I was given a copy by a friend who knows I appreciate something off the beaten track, as it were. This authorship controversy is new to me but it is intriguing. It really does seem that Ms. Price is on to something. I did not find any of the "bile" Mr Veal alludes to. This seems to be a well-thought out presentation. Ms. Price is even-handed in her approach and presents the facts in a logical manner. I did not draw the same inferences as Mr. Veal and I wonder if we were reading the same book! If the purpose of a review is to give the prospective reader a sense of the material, then let me say that this unorthodox subject has been given a very good going over by the author. I intend to read more about this controversy. The Stratford people must have something to worry about if this book has generated the kind of "heat" as that in Mr. Veal's review. He seems almost desperate to find something negative to say. Ms. Price has given references and citations for her sources. The chart in the back of the book showing the "paper trails" of contemporary Elizabethan authors and Shakespeare is fascinating and demonstrates to me she has done extensive research on this issue. I also liked the way she explained the "Groatsworth of Wit" reference to the "upstart crow" and how it dovetails into the prevailing attitude toward Shakespeare by his contemporaries. It appears that the long-held view of William Shakespeare is based on tradition and surmise. The actual records tell a different story. Rather than poor scholarship, this is going beyond the formulaic viewpoint and looking at the material with fresh eyes. Probably scholars who have bought into the traditional William are loathe to have their tidy little story questioned. But they have been so hidebound that they could not see the truth of the records that have existed all this time. I recommend you read it to see what the fuss is all about.

Rating:
Summary: Looking for The Bard
Review: I remember studying William Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" in high school and somebody brought up the question of whether Will of Stratford was the real author. The teacher said there were other candidates but quickly moved on and didn't dwell on the Authorship Question (as it is now called). The issue always intrigued me but life happened and I never really thought about it until recently. Now here is a book, "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" that explains the whole thing. And it is a book you can read and understand. The author has evidently done much research and she puts the findings in readable English - which is hard to do if you have ever tried to read some of the Elizabethan commentaries. Tradionalists won't brook any questioning of the Devine William myth but many people HAVE questioned the authorship down through the ages - people like Charles Dickens and Mark Twain. There are just too many unanswered questions about how Will of Stratford came to create the plays and poems we revere as the Shakespeare Canon. If you like a fine mystery, and some fine sleuthing as well, this is a good book for you. Scholars and lay people alike will find Ms. Price's prose lucid and down-to-earth. And the tables in the back of the book demonstrate how thin the evidence is for William of Stratford as an author compared to 9 of his comtemporaries. I think just about anyone would enjoy this book - and become intrigued by the whole Shakespeare Controversy. Good scholarship need not be dull and in this case it isn't! This is a fine book.

Rating:
Summary: Important Work from Price
Review: I'm not a scholar, but I found the book interesting in its scrutiny of the "facts" pertaining to Stratford's Shakspere.

But to me it falls flat in refuting the First Folio evidence.

And if Elizabethan noblemen were that disdainful of playwriting and thought poetry frivolous, why didn't this supposed "real" Shakespeare turn his creativity to accepted norms?

Or if he was so brilliant as to be above those norms, why didn't he just use his own name and buck the system?

Or why not just make up a name instead of attaching the authorship to a real "front man?" If I were the author of those plays, I might hide my real name, but it would drive me nuts to see them attributed to the Merchant of Stratford.

And what about Ben Jonson's complicity in the conspiracy? I would think the production of a large book like the Folio was a big expensive undertaking--why would people who knew the truth fill it with lies? Why not just leave the introductory stuff mentioning Stratford and Avon out?

But the book is definitely worth reading, as are the associated websites.

Rating:
Summary: Important Work from Price
Review: Price: "If we had the sort of evidence for Shakespeare that we have for his colleagues--that is, straightforward, contemporaneous, and *personal* literary records for the man who allegedly wrote Shakespeare's plays--there would be no authorship debate."

Rating:
Summary: Exploring the Authorship Question
Review: This book is a learned and readable exposition of the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy. For those who didn't even know there was a "question", this well-researched and easy-to-read book lays out the reasons why the traditional attributions of "The Canon" to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon stands on shaky ground. Diana Price takes each bit of "evidence" for the Stratford man and shows why it is fallacious or based on faulty logic. Even the novice will find this book easy to follow! The author does not propose a solution to the mystery of who wrote the poems, plays and sonnets, but she leaves the door open to others who think they may have the answer. By the end of this book, the reader will be looking for another candidate for the title of "The Bard".