Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare FROM THE PUBLISHER
"For centuries scholars have debated the true identity of the author of the magnificent body of poems and plays attributed to William Shakespeare. The majority of academics and other "Shakespeare authorities" have accepted the idea that the author was indeed one William Shakespeare, the historical figure who hailed from Stratford-upon-Avon, acted on the London stage, and co-owned a successful theater company. And yet many credible voices - including Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Benjamin Disraeli, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Walt Whitman - have challenged the conventional wisdom, casting irresolvable doubts on the Stratford man and proposing alternatives from rival playwrights Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe to Queen Elizabeth herself." "Now, in this book, historian and attorney Bertram Fields reexamines the evidence and presents a new theory of the case - an unconventional approach that will change, once and for all, how we think about the question, "Who was Shakespeare"?" "Fields revisits all the critical facts and unanswered questions. With thirty-six plays, two long narrative poems, and 154 sonnets to his name, why did Shakespeare leave behind not a single word of prose or poetry in his own hand? Is it really possible that the Stratford man - who had a grade school education at best - possessed the depth and scope of knowledge reflected in the work? Shakespeare the author used Latin and Greek classical works with familiarity and ease, and drew upon Italian and French works not yet translated into English. Was there a single man in the English theater with such breadth and range of knowledge - a man who also knew the etiquette and practices of nobility, the workings of the law, and the tactics of the military and navy? Is it possible that any culture had produced a figure with both the poet's lofty ideals and empathetic humanity, and the streetwise, boisterous theatrical sense of the crowd-pleasing playwright?" Or - as Fields asks in his
FROM THE CRITICS
Publishers Weekly
Fields (Royal Blood), a high-profile, L.A.-based entertainment lawyer, makes his case in the debate about who Shakespeare really was. Fields doesn't make any original contribution to the controversy; instead, he gives a digest of assorted arguments on both sides, though he sides with the anti-Stratford school. Fields examines the surviving evidence about William Shakespeare, whom he refers to as "the Stratford man." The scattered documentary proofs leave Fields free to conclude that, unlike the great-spirited author of the great works bearing his name, Shakespeare was "acquisitive, selfish, petty, mean-spirited, litigious, and narrow." Fields ascribes all the best qualities to the poems and plays, including The Merchant of Venice, which he reads (in tune with Al Pacino's recent performance) in an unconvincingly pro-Semitic vein. The book's final third presents the cast of alternate candidates for the works' authorship: Edward de Vere, the earl of Oxford (Fields's own favorite); Francis Bacon; Christopher Marlowe; William Stanley, the earl of Derby; Roger Manners, earl of Rutland; and even Elizabeth I. Fields concludes by hypothesizing that de Vere, a talented poet, anonymously collaborated with Shakespeare (a theatrical professional) on the plays; Fields attributes the low humor and objectionable opinions to the Stratford man and the lofty ideals to his idealized nobleman. In light of Stephen Greenblatt's elegant biography identifying the Stratford man as the great playwright, this won't carry much weight with either scholars or readers. (Mar. 15) Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
Hollywood entertainment lawyer Fields (Royal Blood, 1998; aka D. Kincaid, The Lawyer's Tale, 1992, etc.) dabbles in literary criticism by sifting through the elusive evidence of Shakespeare's probable identity, in a compelling work for the lay reader, woefully lacking in documentation. Two puzzling identities fail to square in this long-standing literary mystery: The "Stratford man," as Fields calls him, who hailed from provincial Stratford-upon-Avon, probably didn't receive more than a grammar school education, married young and left his family to become an actor of some repute in London before returning home to die in relative obscurity in 1616; and the author of the Shakespeare canon, who demonstrated a vast knowledge of foreign lands, history, languages, military and legal affairs, and arcane and insider usages available only to the aristocracy. Patiently, Fields lines up the key issues in the debate-the Stratford man's will, the mysteriously funded Stratford monument, the publication of the First Folio in 1623-and attacks them from both sides, the "Stratfordians" versus the "anti-Strats," scholars who've been obsessed with this very matter throughout the centuries and whom Fields names occasionally, though without offering specific works or notes. After a blazing excursus through Stuart Tudor history, he examines the evidence of what the Stratford man knew versus what Shakespeare knew, the Stratford man's nearly illiterate handwriting, the sexual orientations of the two, and their "outlook" on religion, politics and life in general. The Stratford man makes a poor showing, indeed, and though Fields claims to withhold judgment until all the evidence is in, he makes a most striking casefor Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. He also presents cogent chapters on other plausible candidates, even Queen Elizabeth. His theory of the true authorship is dazzling but fails to consider how, with so many conspirators in the mix, the truth could have been kept from leaking. Amateurish, sure, but if with this, Fields can turn America's attention from entertainment gossip to Shakespeare, more power to him.