Diana Price

This book poses a bit of a conundrum for me: Is it possible to like a work of non-fiction and enjoy reading it, while at the same time taking issue with - even vehemently disagreeing with - the content of the book?

In Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem, Diana Price explores the reasons why Anti-Stratfordians believe that the author most of us know as William Shakespeare was not the one man from Stratford that has been credited with the creation of Shakespeare's works.

Price goes through the arguments of why Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare one by one and creates a well-rounded overview of the Anti-Stratfordian tenets. She starts with differences of names in records, mentions of Shakespeare in the writing of his contemporaries, financial records, biographical dates, and the works themselves, dissecting the use of language, rhythm etc. for clues of authorship.

I am certainly no Shakespeare scholar, I have merely a passing interest, but overall I found the arguments really unconvincing, especially the ones based on financial records.

One one hand, Price argues that there are hardly any records to show that Shakespeare, the Stratford man, received any payment for literary work, which Price uses as evidence that the man in Stratford didn't write the plays (etc.). On the other hand, Price argues that there are few records of any payment for the literary works created by anyone. There seem to be records for payments from various patrons to the actors and theatrical groups, but there seems little differentiation between actors and writers.

Is this really all that surprising? At a time where printing had developed into an industry based on the sale of tangible goods but publishing had yet to establish itself because professional authorship as such was still in its infancy, why would we expect to see records of payments to authors? If printing produced tangible goods for sale (no advertising as yet) with no consideration given to authors, why would we expect theatrical players who had an even longer history of producing any known story with appeal to the crowds to make the distinction between writers and players?

Copyright was not introduced to the UK until 1710, so why would there be a need for recording a distinction of works, and for recording payment (as proof of payment)?

I don't get it.

What I also didn't get was the argument that the Shakespeare the London playwright would not have needed to become a landowner and business man in Stratford becasue surely his literary success would have secured him an income.

Literary success or success as an actor/producer/theatre owner was a risky and more so fleeting business. My question back to the author would really be why wouldn't a man supporting a growing family try to secure an income from a traditional source such as land and tenancies?

I really don't get the basis for most of the arguments in the book, actually, even if I'm only mentioning two here.

So why did I still enjoy reading this?

I think the answer is because the book did make me look at how we look at biographies, research, and the presentation of arguments. I liked that the author tried to go into quite a lot of detail of looking at records and questioning how we read biographies and how some biography writers forego original research and simply re-work secondary sources, sometimes without fact-checking, which can lead to contradictory statements of fact.

This is something I have come across in biographical work of other authors and other people on several occasions and it is a particular pet peeve of mine.

However, while I share Price's annoyance with lazy research and I liked her questioning the "facts" presented by several biographers, I had little time for her reasoning and production of evidence for any counter-theories.

Next up, I'll turn to Stanley Wells' short work on Why Shakespeare was Shakespeare for a - no doubt passionate - defense of the traditional view of Shakespearean biography.… (altro)

This is a calm and well-constructed analysis of the facts of Shakespeare's life and a fair and even handed appraisal of the "Shakespeare authorship problem". Mrs. Price has no axe to grind. She started the book with a view to disproving the seemingly ludicrous claim - that "Shakespeare" was not the author of the plays that bear his name - however like so many individuals who take the time to delve into the Stratfordian dogma she has found herself in a can of worms.

What she manages to do in a robust and intelligent way is prise the facts from the fiction that surrounds Shakespeare's life. She quotes; Mark Twain

"Shall I set down the rest of the Conjectures which constitute the giant Biography of William Shakespeare? It would strain the Unabridged Dictionary to hold them. He is a Brontosaur: nine bones and six hundred barrels of plaster of Paris."

Her "Unorthodox Biography" is a breath of fresh air and clarity, unorthodox also in that unlike the vast deluge of fabrication and supposition that seeps from the pens of his most fawning biographers, Mrs. Price sticks to the facts; an almost unique accomplishment for a biography of Shakespeare.

This book offers no challenges to those "true believers" convinced of Stratfordian claims or otherwise because she brings little “new evidence” to the debate. What she does do however is reshuffle the deck and discard a multitude of jokers, she also clearly points out the many marked cards inserted over the years by Stratfordian fundamentalists and wishful thinkers. Not so much new evidence as drawing attention to past perjury. What we have for the first time is perhaps an unstacked deck and an even playing field.

Mrs. Price’s lack of biographical fabrication, supposition, crackpot theorizing and distortion is a welcome respite from orthodox biographies and the long list of “alternative” authors. She fairly addresses Shakespeare’s alleged lack of education, lack of books or correspondence and a functionally illiterate family. It is not that these "facts" are in dispute but that orthodox biographies so often gloss over them to invent a rich and vibrant mythology from a few bare threads..

It is a scholarly work that might well invite peevish attacks from true believers, but it does an excellent job of separating the facts from the greater body of fiction that surrounds Shakespeare's life. In presenting those facts without embellishment Price allows the reader to make up his or her own mind. Something that should find favour on both sides of the authorship divide. The book is well researched, scholarly and erudite but its presentation might not be too welcome in the Stratford camp; it does suggest that the emperor, if not entirely naked, is at best wearing only a very small and shrinking fig leaf.… (altro)