54 of 69 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Warning: Filled with blatant inaccuracies, April 4, 2005
This review is from: Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare (Hardcover)
If you're really interested in the Shakespeare authorship question, this is a terrible book to start with. Fields seems to have simply taken claims that he found in various anti-Stratfordian works and organized them into something like a narrative, though it's difficult to tell, because he provides no bibliography and only rarely mentions other authors. (Even when he does mention another writer, he is often confused; thus, the index contains separate entries for "Charles Ogburn" and "Charlton Ogburn", though both references should be to Charlton Ogburn.) For the most part, Fields accepts these anti-Stratfordian claims at face value, even though many of them can be shown to be either flat-out false or blatantly misleading.
For example, in his conclusion (p. 281), Fields asks, "And, if Shakespeare was the Stratford man, why do Henslowe's records fail to list any payment to him for his plays, at least some of which played at Henslowe's Rose?". But as Irvin Matus pointed out more than a decade ago in *Shakespeare: IN FACT* (a book Fields does not appear to have read), Shakespeare's plays only played at the Rose in 1592-94, when Henslowe was not recording authors' names; by the time Henslowe started recording payments to playwrights in 1596-97, Shakespeare was with the Lord Chamberlain's Men, Henslowe's chief rivals in London, and there is no reason to expect any mention of Shakespeare in the Diary.
On the same page, Fields expresses amazement that no examples of Shakespeare's handwriting survives other than six signatures, concluding that, "Evidently, not a scrap exists; and it would not be unreasonable to conclude that not a scrap ever existed, or that, if the Stratford man left writings of any kind, someone set out to eliminate them." This displays an astounding ignorance of the extreme rarity of theatrical manuscripts from Shakespeare's day, and the rarity of any handwriting from middle-class people such as Shakespeare. The only handwriting that survives from Christopher Marlowe is a single signature; the only handwriting that survives from the prolific John Fletcher is a signature and a few words; no certain example of John Webster's handwriting survives, not even a signature. Evidently Fields would conclude that these men could not write either, or that there was a conspiracy to destroy their writings; if not, he is displaying a rather distressing double standard.
On the next page, Fields repeats the well-worn anti-Stratfordian chestnut that "no one spoke out on the death of the Stratford man in [1616]", and asks, "Where were the outpourings of grief that followed the deaths of even lesser-known writers?" Here, again, Fields exhibits a rather depressing ignorance of the historical context. In the early 17th century, only socially important people such as noblemen (and sometimes church leaders) received printed tributes immediately after their death; tributes for lesser folk such as playwrights circulated in manuscript, often for years, before sometimes making their way to print. There were a great many manuscript tributes to Shakespeare after his death, and the most widespread of these, William Basse's poem, specifies in its title that "he died in April 1616". The first datable tribute to Shakespeare in print appeared in 1620, four years after his death, followed by the tributes in the First Folio three years after that. The seven years before the printed tributes in the First Folio was, by far, the shortest such period for any English playwright up to that time; the first printed poetic tribute to Francis Beaumont did not appear until 13 years after his death, and the first to John Fletcher did not appear until 14 years after his death.
This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the inaccuracies to be found in this book. Fields does appear to believe what he is saying, but readers should be warned not to take any of his historical claims at face value.
Dave Kathman
djk1@ix.netcom.com
The Shakespeare Authorship Page
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
No Bibliography, April 8, 2005
This review is from: Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare (Hardcover)
After reading a couple of chapters of this book, I noticed many inaccurate statements and decided to check the author's references for the authority for these statements. I discovered that there is no bibliography or chapter notes of any kind. How can someone purport to write a serious historical commentary, especially a pursuasive commentary on a highly debated subject, without listing any sources?
Continuing this theme, you will note throughout the book that the author, when criticizing a Stratfordian view, often states that the Stratfordian view is possible, but "there is no evidence" to support such view. The author, however, feels free to make various anti-Strat statements which he fails to back-up with any credible evidence. In other words, he goes out of his way to state that viewpoints contrary to his are not supported by evidence, and then proceeds to make his points without citing to any specific evidence.
If your are truly interested in this subject, and want to read a book that is actually well researched (and actually contains a bibliography), read "Who Wrote Shakespeare" by John F. Mitchell. Don't waste your time with this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Amateurish, but universities are to cowardly to touch subject, October 8, 2005
This review is from: Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare (Hardcover)
There are better works on "alternative Shakespeares" out there, but this one is presented as a lawyer's argument, and makes interesting reading.
Since Shakespeare studies are finally in the safe-keeping of the major universities, and since the academicians therein lack the courage to pursue this obviously pressing question, we have to read works like this and those by other amateurs like Sobran. Don't hold your breath for Alison Weir or anyone with a literature Ph.D. to take the leap, and start losing their grants.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
