1.0.0

Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography by © Diana Price

New Evidence of an Authorship Problem

HOME

Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography New Evidence of an Authorship Problem All Contents Copyright © 2001-2020 Diana Price - All Rights Reserved HOME

PAPERBACK EDITION $19.95 / £13.95 Available at www.amazon.com www.amazon.co.uk Hardback Edition available at www.amazon.com For queries to the author, email

Price reviews Shakespeare Beyond Doubt Media coverage of the new paperback edition Keir Cutler’s Shakespeare Crackpot video on YouTube (June 2014) Quote from an Interview with Shakespeare Scholar and Editor Stanley Wells [09/27/2013] Professor Wells discussed the Shakespeare authorship controversy, speaking and pronouncing Shakespeare, and editing Shakespeare’s texts.



“The best scholarly book by a non-Shakespearean is Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography, by Diana Price[5]. I wrote several blogs recently[6] trying to refute her claims in that book. She knows a great deal; it’s just a great shame that her knowledge is put to such ignoble ends. The anti-Shakespeareans are not necessarily ignorant people, some of them know a great deal. Nevertheless there’s something in their psyches that compels or persuades them to deny what seem to me to be obvious truths.

…

This Brunel University in England, although they claim they’re not anti-Shakespearean, nevertheless has given honorary degrees to Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance and Vanessa Redgrave. They give honorary degrees to the three anti-Shakespeareans who are most prominent in the public eye.



Some of them come out in favor of a particular candidate, and it’s interesting that Derek Jacobi was Marlowe until a few years ago until he was paid for being in the film about the earl of Oxford. Mark [Rylance] is more circumspect. He’s more happy nowadays just to take the view that it wasn’t Shakespeare. Diana Price is the same. Her book does not propound any specific candidate, it’s just saying that the evidence is against Shakespeare of Stratford.”

THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003

LETTERS

The Door’s Open

To the Editor:

The singular fact is that after 400 years, the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays remains an open question – no side has been able to close the sale. The greatest strength of the case for the man from Stratford is his incumbency, but no understanding of that case is complete without reference to Diana Price’s “Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography.”

Wayne Shore

San Antonio





Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography : New Evidence of an Authorship Problem This book re-opens the Authorship Question with an arsenal of new information and powerful arguments. It is the first major authorship book since 1916 without an ideological bias, the first to introduce new evidence, and the first to undertake a systematic comparative analysis with other literary biographies. It was released in 2001 as no. 94 in Greenwood Press’s academic series, “Contributions in Drama and Theatre Studies,” making it the first book on the subject to be published in a peer-reviewed series. The updated paperback edition is now available. Among the new evidence and arguments introduced in this book: Comparative analysis of literary papers trails for Shakespeare and two dozen of his contemporaries

Analysis of documentation showing that Shakespeare was a theatrical financier and business agent

Introduction of Sir William Dugdale’s drawing, ca. 1634, of Shakespeare’s funerary monument in Stratford-on Avon

Comparative analysis and interpretation of Groatsworth of Wit and Vertue’s Commonwealth

Analysis of Jonson’s “De Shakespeare Nostrati” and the significance of Jonson’s classical sources Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography proposes that William Shakespeare of Stratford was a successful entrepreneur, financier, play broker, businessman, theater shareholder, real estate tycoon, commodity trader, money-lender, and actor, but not a dramatist. It further proposes that the works of “William Shakespeare” were written by an unnamed gentleman. This book exposes logical fallacies and contradictions in the traditional accounts of Shakespeare’s whereabouts; his professional activities; his personality profile; chronology; autobiographical “echoes” in the plays; the dramatist’s education and cultural sophistication; circumstances of publication of the plays and poetry; and in particular, the testimony of playwright Ben Jonson. Citations are drawn almost entirely from orthodox sources. The book includes 33 illustrations, a bibliography, and an index.

For an interview with the author, visit PBS Frontline’s website. Price has been seen in two documentaries for TV, Last Will. And Testament , broadcast in 2012-2014 on various PBS affiliates, and Claus Bredenbrock’s 2013 The Naked Shakespeare , produced for the Florian Film Group and broadcast on various (European) ARTE affiliates. Her research paper, “Hand D and Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Literary Paper Trail,” was published in March 2016 by the University of Florence’s Journal of Early Modern Studies (JEMS 5). She contributed a chapter titled “My Shakspere: ‘A Conjectural Narrative’ Continued” published in My Shakespeare: The Authorship Controversy, ed. William Leahy, in March 2018. Her research is presented in the Feb. 2019 online journal, Critical Stages 18. Price has published a variety of articles on related topics in peer-reviewed journals and magazines. Her article “Reconsidering Shakespeare’s Monument” (The Review of English Studies, 1997) introduced the first known image of Shakespeare’s funerary monument. Price debated Prof. Donald Foster in The Shakespeare Newsletter (1996 and 1997), and her articles are cited in Counterfeiting Shakespeare by Brian Vickers (September 2002) and Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza in Shakespeare Quarterly (June 1997). Her essay proposing a solution to Philip Henslowe’s puzzling annotation “ne” appeared in Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama (2003), and her article “Evidence for A Literary Biography” was published in the fall 2004 issue of the Tennessee Law Review (2004). Her review of Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy, ed. Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) is posted on Amazon US, Amazon UK, and, with full bibliography, here. She has lectured at Shakespeare’s Globe in London, the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Tennessee Law School, Cleveland Public Library, California State University (LA), Cleveland State University, the University of North Carolina (Greensboro), John Carroll University, Griffith University (Brisbane), the Cleveland Renaissance/Early Modern Seminar, as well as numerous civic organizations. For a detailed résumé, click here. For queries to the author, email

The Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography FaceBook page is a place to discuss the book, see news about the book, and learn about Diana Price’s research and publications on controversial topics in Shakespeare studies.

Much Ado About Something A Documentary Film by Mike Rubbo (April 2002). “Diana Price has written one of the best books making the case against Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography.. It was an inspiration in the final stages of making the film.” Greensboro News & Record (by Trudy Atkins, 22 July 2001): “In this unique biography, Diana Price has researched every shred of evidence about the Stratford-born Shakspere, analyzing and interpreting literary allusions as well. What makes her biography unique is her examination of the same evidence for other writers of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods. Her research seems to point to an overwhelming conclusion: that someone else wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare.” Choice (by D. Traister, May 2001): “A deeply uninteresting exploration of a question that, for most scholars, is even more deeply unnecessary. Collections with a focus on Shakespeare and a fetishistic desire for “completeness” will acquire the book. So too might collections that specialize in extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds.” Academia: an Online Magazine and Resource for Academic Librarians (by Rob Norton, Jan. 2001, Vol. 1, No. 6), Profilers’ Pick: “Price argues compellingly that there is little evidence from life that the Stratfordian was the playwright William Shakespeare and that most of what we do know of Shakspere would make it impossible that he could have written plays and poetry clearly aristocratic in context, vocabulary, and sensibility. This book would be a good first stop for those seeking some introduction into this controversy and allow them to proceed intelligently to books written by those who have strong opinions as to the real identity of the Bard.” Book News, Inc. (Portland, OR; booknews.com): “Price jumps into the eternal controversy with the unusual position of having no candidate to promote. Based on a systematic comparative analysis with other literary biographies, known biographical facts, and contemporary commentary, she concludes that William Shakespeare was the pen name of some anonymous aristocrat.” Library Journal (15 November 2000): “Gives the Shakespeare doubters some very good ammunition…. Academic libraries should buy this book for the debate it will spark and the in-depth detective work it provides. Public libraries can safely pass.” Northern Ohio Live magazine (by Michael L. Hays, April 2001): “The best unorthodox biography of Shakespeare in years. Well-researched and challenging … Price is the first to compare Shakespeare to a number of his contemporaries with respect to personal literary evidence. Her conclusion: He is unique in lacking any.” The Elizabethan Review (by Warren Hope, 11/20/00): “Her book [is] unlike any book dealing with the Shakespeare authorship question that has appeared in years. … [It] tackles the question of who William Shakspere of Stratford actually was - a subject that has been too frequently ignored by Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians alike… . Price works that field admirably and the harvest is abundant.” For the full review, click on Hope. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH, by Marianne Evett, 12/18/00): “Faulty logic and lack of knowledge of the broader social and theatrical milieu of the time undermine her argument. She uses a double standard for evidence.” For the author’s response, click on Response to Plain Dealer. Back to top of page

Peter Happé reviews the paperback in Notes & Queries (Feb. 2015) 142-145 [reviewed with Katherine Duncan-Jones’s Shakespeare: Upstart Crow to Sweet Swan 1592–1623 ]. Extract: These two studies share much material about Shakespeare’s life and work but their objectives and their methods are sharply contrasted…



Price writes a polemic which is engaged in promoting a view of Shakespeare’s life and examining evidence about it, whether in its support or in rejection of such a view…



Because the material she reviews and the evidence she adduces and discusses are so wide ranging the book is interesting and stimulating. It is apparent that many questions might be asked about the details which have grown up around the life of Shakespeare… .



In spite of the polemical approach to some of these issues the book does point to and leave open for further examination a considerable number of fascinating problems generated in the canon and the life of Shakespeare…



The discussion of whether Hand D in Sir Thomas More is Shakespeare’s is intriguing in view of the limited basis for comparison of attested samples of Shakespeare’s handwriting which are so few. These are but a sample of the questions which Price raises and one might hope that they will stimulate further enquiry. Don Rubin reviews Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? (ed. Waugh and Shahan), which cites the literary paper trails comparative analysis from Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography ( Critical Stages vol. 9, Feb 2014): It is a woman, ironically, who lands the strongest shot of the battle, who sends the Stratford man to the canvas with exactly that: “documentary evidence,” evidence that no one on the Wells’ team seems able to stand up and refute. This solidest of evidentiary blows references authorship scholar Diana Price and her own extraordinary book (Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography). It is Price who brings into the battle some two dozen dramatists from the period. A core part of the Shahan book, she looks at each writer in terms of education, correspondence concerning literary matters, proof of being paid to write, relationships to wealthy patrons, existence of original manuscripts, documents touching on literary matters, commendatory poems contributed or received during their lifetimes, documents where the alleged writer was actually referred to as a writer, evidence of books owned or borrowed, and even notices at death of being a writer. Such evidence, we find out, exists in some or even all of these categories for each of the writers studied. For the Stratford man, however, not a single check in a single category. Stratford comes up blank.



The Wells team is silent here… Stanley Wells reviews the paperback (“An Unorthodox and Non-definitive Biography”) on Blogging Shakespeare 8 May 2013. Diana Price responds to Stanley Wells’s review of Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography



I am grateful to Professor Stanley Wells for following up on Ros Barber’s challenge to him and Paul Edmondson (eds., Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy, Cambridge University Press, 2013, launched at the ‘Proving Shakespeare’ Webinar, Friday 26 April 2013). Barber criticized their collection of essays for failing to engage in the arguments presented in Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem ([SUB] Greenwood Press 2001; paperback 2013). As the first academic book published on the subject, it surely should have been addressed in essays relevant to Shakespeare’s biography. But better late than never. In his review on Blogging Shakespeare (May 8, 2013), Prof. Wells takes issue with any number of details in my book, but he does not directly confront the single strongest argument I offer: the comparative analysis of documentary evidence supporting the biographies of Shakespeare and two dozen of his contemporaries. That analysis demonstrates that the literary activities of the two dozen other writers are documented in varying degrees. However, none of the evidence that survives for Shakespeare can support the statement that he was a writer by vocation. Wells is aware of this argument; in the Webinar, he alludes to Andrew Hadfield’s counter-argument, as first expressed in Hadfield’s 60-second video on the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust website. Question 16: Should we be concerned that there are gaps in [Shakespeare’s] historical record? … My favourite non-fact is that, although Thomas Nashe is, I think, the only English writer ever to have forced the authorities to close down the theatres and printing presses, making him something of a celebrity, we do not know when or how he died. Traces of Shakespeare, though scanty, do not require special explanation. Or, alternatively, we could imagine that a whole host of writers who emerged in the late sixteenth century, were imposters. Hadfield repeats this explanation in his 2012 biography, Edmund Spenser: A Life (4). And it is true: we do not know how or when Nashe died. But we do know that Nashe left behind: a handwritten verse in Latin, composed during his university days. His letter to William Cotton … refers to his frustrations “writing for the stage and for the press.” A 1593 letter by Carey reports that “Nashe hath dedicated a book unto you [Carey’s wife] … Will Cotton will disburse … your reward to him.” Carey also refers to Nashe’s imprisonment for “writing against the Londoners.” (SUB, 118) Hadfield claims that, as with Nashe’s life, there are similar “frustrating gaps” in the lives of, for example, Thomas Lodge and John Webster. But Lodge refers to his books in personal correspondence and in a dedication, expresses gratitude to the earl of Derby’s father, who “incorporated me into your house.” There are payments to Webster for writing plays, and he exchanged personal commendatory verses with his friends Thomas Heywood and William Rowley. There is no comparable literary evidence for Shakespeare. Further contradicting his claim about the absence of literary evidence for Shakespeare and his contemporaries, Hadfield can cite solid literary evidence for Spenser. Such personal literary paper trails include his transcription of neo-Latin poetry in a book that he once owned, records of his education at Merchant Taylor’s and Pembroke Hall, and his handwritten inscription in a book he gave to Gabriel Harvey. There is no comparable evidence for Shakespeare. Yet Wells takes comfort that Hadfield’s explanations are true. From the Webinar Wells introduces Theorising Shakespeare’s authorship by Andrew Hadfield… . That chapter really is incredibly helpful, I think, because it’s, its about helping us all to relax about that fact that we shouldn’t be worried about there being gaps in the records of people’s lives, or, that the kinds of records that we would most wish to see in someone’s life don’t in fact survive and aren’t there. But the absence of personal literary paper trails for Elizabethan or Jacobean writers of any consequence is not a common phenomenon; rather, the absence of any literary paper trails for Shakespeare’s biography is a unique deficiency. In the Webinar, Wells expresses “no objection whatever to the validity of posthumous evidence.” Posthumous evidence can be useful, but it does not carry the same weight as contemporaneous evidence. Historians and critics alike make that distinction (see, e.g., here). Wells relies, as he must, on the posthumous testimony in the First Folio to prove that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. But even if he accepts the testimony in the First Folio at face value, no questions asked, no ambiguities acknowledged, he is still left with the embarrassing fact that Shakespeare is the only alleged writer of consequence from the time period for whom he must rely on posthumous evidence to make his case. Wells has himself commented on the paucity of evidence. In his essay “Current Issues in Shakespeare’s Biography,” he admits that trying to write Shakespeare’s biography is like putting together “a jigsaw puzzle for which most of the pieces are missing” (5); he then cites Duncan-Jones who “in a possibly unguarded moment, said that Shakespeare biographies are 5% fact and 95% padding” (7). One difference, then, is that my work has no need for “guarded” moments, particularly as I re-evaluate that 5%. Instead, of confronting the deficiency of literary evidence in the Shakespeare biography, Wells instead takes exception to particular statements and details in my book. For example, he criticizes my references to Shakespeare’s illiterate household in Stratford, while at the same time I acknowledge that daughter Susanna could sign her name. And yes, she did, once. She made one “painfully formed signature, which was probably the most that she was capable of doing with the pen” (Maunde Thompson, 1:294), but she was unable to recognize her own husband’s handwriting. Her sister Judith signed with a mark. That evidence does not support literacy in the household; it points instead to functional illiteracy. In another criticism, Wells states that: Price misleadingly says that ‘there are ‘no commendatory verses to Shakespeare’, ignoring those printed in the First Folio as well as the anonymous prose commendation in the 1609 edition of Troilus and Cressida and that by Thomas Walkley in the 1622 quarto of Othello. In this criticism and elsewhere, Wells disregards the criteria used to distinguish between personal and impersonal evidence, explicit or ambiguous evidence, and so on. Such criteria are routinely used by historians, biographers, and critics (SUB, 309 and here). The prefatory material for Troilus and Othello necessitate no personal knowledge of the author and could have been written after having read or seen the play in question. (As pointed out above, the prefatory material in the First Folio is problematic, but the complexities require over a chapter in my book to analyze.) “Price downplays William Basse’s elegy on Shakespeare … which circulated widely in manuscript – at least 34 copies are known – before and after it was published in 1633, and she fails to note that one of the copies is headed ‘bury’d at Stratford vpon Avon, his Town of Nativity’. Yes, and another version reads “On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare. He dyed in Aprill 1616.” There are various additional derivative titles. I “downplay” this elegy for several reasons. Its authorship remains in question; it may have been written by John Donne, to whom it is attributed in Donne’s Poems of 1633. There is no evidence that either Basse or Donne knew Shakespeare. And yes, the elegy does exist in numerous manuscript copies; the one allegedly in Basse’s handwriting is tentatively dated 1626 and shows one blot and correction in an otherwise clean copy– suggesting that it might be a transcript. The poem itself contains no evidence that the author was personally acquainted with Shakespeare. Whether by Donne or Basse, it is a posthumous and impersonal tribute, requiring familiarity with Shakespeare’s works, and, possibly, details on the funerary monument in Stratford. Wells and Taylor themselves cannot be certain which manuscript title (if any) represents the original (Textual, 163). Wells concludes that “of course, she can produce not a single scrap of positive evidence to prove her claims; all she can do is systematically to deny the evidence that is there.” Questioning the evidentiary value of existing documentation is not the same thing as denying that documentation. It is true: I cannot prove that the man from Stratford was not the writer the title pages proclaim him to be, because one cannot prove a negative. However, I do demonstrate why there is an overwhelming probability that he did not write the works that have come down to us under his name. If he wrote the plays and poems, he would have left behind a few scraps of evidence to show that he did it, as did the two dozen other writers I investigated. It is regrettable that Prof. Wells characterizes my book as an attempt to “destroy the Shakespearian case.” My book is an attempt to revisit the evidence and to reconstruct Shakespeare’s biography based on the evidence. Finally, I do not claim that my biography is “definitive.” But I think it is a step in the right direction. Professors Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson reply ("Beyond Doubt For All Time") on Blogging Shakespeare 13 May 2013. Diana Price replies to Professors Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson (14 May 2013) In their blog reply to my response to the Blogging Shakespeare 8 May 2013 review of Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem (“Beyond Doubt For all Time,” 13 May 2013), Professors Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson acknowledge that writers from the time period are documented to varying degrees, some more, some less. They imply that Shakespeare is in the “some less” category, so there are no grounds for suspicion. As Wells puts it, “The fact that some leave fuller records than others does not invalidate the records of those with a lower score.” Based on surviving evidence that supports his activities as a writer, Shakespeare not only rates a “lower score,” he rates a score of zero. At the time of his death, Shakespeare left behind over 70 documents, including some that tell us what he did professionally. Yet none of those 70+ documents support the statement that he was a writer. From a statistical standpoint, this is an untenable position, as I have argued elsewhere: Even the most poorly documented writers, those with less than a dozen records in total, still left behind a couple of personal literary paper trails. Based on the average proportions, I would conservatively have expected perhaps a third of Shakespeare’s records, or about two dozen, to shed light on his professional activities. In fact, over half of them, forty-five to be precise, are personal professional paper trails, but they are all evidence of non-literary professions: those of actor, theatrical shareholder, financier, real estate investor, grain-trader, money-lender, and entrepreneur. It is the absence of contemporary personal literary paper trails that forces Shakespeare’s biographers to rely — to an unprecedented degree — on posthumous evidence. (“Evidence For A Literary Biography,” in Tennessee Law Review, 147) While Wells and Edmondson acknowledge that Shakespeare is the only writer from the time period for whom one must rely on posthumous to make the case, Wells disputes my claim that Shakespeare left behind no evidence that he was a writer. The evidence he cites are “the Stratford monument and epitaphs, along with Dugdale’s identification of the monument as a memorial to ‘Shakespeare the poet’, Jonson’s elegy, and others” — all posthumous evidence. On the distinction between contemporaneous and posthumous evidence or testimony, Wells states: I do not agree (whatever ‘historians and critics’ may say) that posthumous evidence ‘does not carry the same weight as contemporaneous evidence.’ If we took that to its logical extreme we should not believe that anyone had ever died.” But historians and biographers routinely cite documentary evidence (burial registers, autopsy reports, death notices, etc.) to report that someone died. Wells may disagree with “whatever ‘historians and critics’ may say,” but I employ the criteria applied by those “historians and critics” who distinguish between contemporaneous and posthumous testimony (e.g., Richard D. Altick & John J. Fenstermaker, H. B. George, Robert D. Hume, Paul Murray Kendall, Harold Love, and Robert C. Williams). Jonson’s eulogy and the rest of the First Folio testimony is posthumous by seven years, and it is the first in print to identify Shakespeare of Stratford as the dramatist. Posthumous or not, this testimony therefore demands close scrutiny. And I find in the First Folio front matter numerous misleading statements, ambiguities, and outright contradictions. I am not alone. For example, concerning the two introductory epistles, Gary Taylor expresses caution about taking the “ambiguous oracles of the First Folio” at face value (Wells et al., Textual Companion, 18). Cumulatively, the misleading, ambiguous, and contradictory statements render the First Folio testimony, including the attribution to Shakespeare of Stratford, vulnerable to question. From my earlier response: Wells concludes that “of course, she can produce not a single scrap of positive evidence to prove her claims; all she can do is systematically to deny the evidence that is there.” Questioning the evidentiary value of existing documentation is not the same thing as denying that documentation. It is true: I cannot prove that the man from Stratford was not the writer the title pages proclaim him to be, because one cannot prove a negative. Prof. Wells now counters that: Price defends her attitude by saying ‘one cannot prove a negative case.’ Why not? It is surely possible to prove that for example Queen Elizabeth 1 was not alive in 1604 or that Sir Philip Sidney did not write King Lear or that Professor Price does not believe that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare. There is affirmative evidence that Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. Even allowing for uncertainties in traditional chronology, King Lear was written years after Sidney died in 1586. David Hackett Fischer elaborates on the logical fallacy of “proving” a negative when no affirmative evidence exists (Historians’ Fallacies, 1970, p. 62), and it is in that sense that I state that “one cannot prove a negative.” If there were explicit affirmative evidence that Shakespeare wrote for a living, there could be no authorship debate. Please note: I am not a professor. Bibliography Centerwall, Brandon S. “Who Wrote William Basse’s ‘Elegy on Shakespeare’?: Rediscovering A Poem Lost From the Donne Canon” Shakespeare Survey 59 (2006). Hackett, David Hackett. Historians’ Fallacies. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Hadfield, Andrew. Edmund Spenser: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. ─────. “60 Minutes with Shakespeare” at http://60-minutes.bloggingshakespeare.com/conference/ Price, Diana. “Evidence For A Literary Biography” in Tennessee Law Review 72 (fall 2004): 111-47. (accessible here) ‘Proving Shakespeare’ Webinar, Friday 26 April 2013, 6.30-7.30 BST. http://rosbarber.com/proving-shakespeare-webinar-transcript/ as of 9 May 2013. Thompson, Edward Maunde. “Handwriting” In Shakespeare’s England: An Account of the Life and Manners of his Age, 1:284-310. 2 vols. 1916. Reprint, London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Wells, Stanley. “An Unorthodox and Non-definitive Biography” on Blogging Shakespeare (May 8, 2013) ─────. “Current Issues in Shakespeare’s Biography” 5-21). In The Footsteps of William Shakespeare, ed. Christa Jansohn. Lit Verlag, Munster 2005. Wells, Stanley, Gary Taylor with John Jowett and William Montgomery. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. 1997. Reprinted with corrections, New York: Norton, 1987. Back to top of page

University of Miami Law Review (Jan. 2003). “Could Shakespeare Think Like A Lawyer?: How Inheritance Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question” (by Thomas Regnier). “Diana Price’s recent Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography … meticulously demolishes the Stratfordian presumption.” Radio National Perspective, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (by Prof. Patrick Buckridge, 25 March 2002). “At the core of Price’s book is a demonstration of just how exceptional Shakespeare’s case really is in comparison with his contemporaries in the theatre. … Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography was published by Greenwood Press, a respected American publisher, in their academic series, “Contributions in Drama and Theatre Studies.” This in itself is a remarkable breakthrough for a viewpoint that has hitherto been strictly quarantined to that part of the book market where wacky theories about the secrets of the Pyramids or the secret sex life of Billy the Kid are canvassed freely and with no impact at all on serious scholarship. It remains to be seen whether the book gets the serious attention it deserves.” Studies in English Literature (by William B. Worthen, 2002): Price “follows the typical trajectory of anti-Stratfordian writing — [and] unfurls the usual wash of ’evidence’.” Shakespeare Bulletin (by Prof. Daniel L. Wright, winter 2002). “Price’s text revisits the terrain of the Shakespeare authorship problem and sweeps away the detritus of conjecture. In doing so, she clarifies our understanding of why some of the problems related to Shakespeare are so vexing, contententious, and fascinating.” History Today (August 2001). The cover story, “Who Wrote Shakespeare?” by Prof. William Rubinstein, examines the authorship controversy and suggests five books, including Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography for further reading. Prof. Alan Nelson at his website (which is no longer available) (3/01): “Diana Price knows how to put a sentence together, but she does not know how to put an argument together without engaging in special pleading: that is, taking evidence that has an apparent signification, and arguing with all her might that it does not fit the special case of William Shakespeare for this or that special - and wholly arbitrary - reason.” For the author’s response, click on Nelson. Prof. Alan Nelson replied to my rebuttal on his website at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ (which is no longer available): “Leonard Digges composed a handwritten inscription directly concerning William Shakespeare and directly touching on literary matters. … So close was Digges himself to Shakespeare that he called him not “Shakespeare," “William Shakespeare,” or “Mr. Shakespeare,” but - with singular affection and using his nick-name - “our Will Shakespeare". … “our” is simply the plural of “my", entirely appropriate in a literary discussion among three close friends, Will Baker, James Mabbe, and Leonard Digges.” For the author’s response, click on Response to Prof. Alan Nelson. David Kathman, co-author with Terry Ross of The Shakespeare Authorship Website, contributed comments to “Shaksper,” the on-line orthodox discussion group, moderated by Prof. Hardy Cook: “Price’s book presents a superficial appearance of scholarship which may fool those not trained in the field, but in many ways this makes it more dangerous than the more obviously wacko anti-Stratfordian tomes which litter bookstore shelves.” Although Mr. Kathman explained that “Terry Ross and I 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),” he endorsed a lengthy review by Tom Veal (a much expanded version of his review on Amazon.com). Kathman directed “Shaksper" subscribers to Veal’s review, “which points out just some of its multitudinous faults.” Many of Veal’s criticisms are already addressed elsewhere on this website. For additional material on his criticism concerning the Sir Thomas More manuscript, click on More and page forward to pages 127-133. One of Veal’s major criticisms is that I cite the Tudor “stigma of print” to explain why an arisotcratic playwright would need to conceal his identity. Veal cites The Shakespeare Authorship Page, which contends that the “stigma of print” is a myth. For the author’s response, click on Stigma of Print. Back to top of page

The Tudor stigma of print is a factor in my discussion of Shakespeare’s authorship. I discuss the matter in chapter 12 to explain why an aristocratic author would wish to conceal his or her identity, either in anonymity or behind a pen name. This essay responds to those critics who challenge the very existence of a Tudor “stigma of print” and further assert that my alleged failure to support my claims with adequate evidence is symptomatic of slipshod scholarship. It is my perception that Tudor aristocrats did not wish to be perceived as interested in earning money for professional work. That was the province of the commercial class, and earning money by writing was viewed as professional activity. The stigma of print therefore affected what the aristocrat wrote and whether it was published. Tudor England was still largely a manuscript culture, and “the recognized medium of communication was the manuscript, either in the autograph of the author, or in the transcription of a friend” (Marotti, Donne, 4). The transmission of manuscript into print was influenced by a socially-imposed stigma of print which affected some genres much more than others. It had less effect, for example, on the publication of pious or didactic works, learned translations, historical treatises, or the like. Such educational or devotional tracts had no taint of commercialism. More to the point here, any nobleman good enough to write professionally could not be seen to be doing so. I argue that in the social caste system of Tudor England, aristocrats chose not to publish certain genres considered commercial, such as satires, broadsides, or plays written for the public stage, or frivolous genres, such as poetry. Some of these distinctions are covered in chapter 12, where I cite the evidence concerning the dramatic writing of the earls of Derby and Oxford. This essay is to augment the evidence in that chapter and respond to recent criticism. David Kathman and Terry Ross, authors of The Shakespeare Authorship Home Page, propose that the stigma of print is an anti-Stratfordian fantasy. As far as I can tell, their challenge relies entirely upon a 1980 article by Stephen May, Tudor Aristocrats and the Mythical “Stigma of Print," which is reproduced on the website with accompanying commentary: As May demonstrates, “Tudor aristocrats published regularly.” The “stigma of print” is a myth. May does concede that there was for a time a “stigma of verse” among the early Tudor aristocrats, “but even this inhibition dissolved during the reign of Elizabeth until anyone, of whatever exalted standing in society, might issue a sonnet or play without fear of losing status.” This essay first appeared in Renaissance Papers. (Kathman & Ross) More recently, in a review on Amazon and on his own website, Tom Veal has attempted to provide some more meat on the bone, although his reliance on The Shakespeare Authorship Home Page is evident. In his dismissal of my scholarship, David Kathman recommended Veal’s criticism to the orthodox discussion group, “Shaksper” (Feb. 8, 2002): I hope you’ll allow me to direct SHAKSPER readers to a lengthy review of Ms. Price’s book which points out just some of its multitudinous faults:



http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id115.htm



Terry Ross and I 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), but last year Terry wrote up some rather lengthy responses to specific points and posted them at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. [links via Google; see Bibliography below]



Price’s book presents a superficial appearance of scholarship which may fool those not trained in the field, but in many ways this makes it more dangerous than the more obviously wacko anti-Stratfordian tomes which litter bookstore shelves. See the above review and posts for a small fraction of the problems with it. Following Kathman’s endorsement of Veal’s review, I decided to begin to respond to major points of criticism, and the allegedly “mythical” stigma of print seemed a good place to start. I disagree with Prof. May’s conclusion for several reasons. One, the very evidence that he cites to demonstrate why the “myth” of the stigma of print was first postulated is, in my view, evidence of a genuine social dynamic. Among that evidence is The Arte of English Poesie (1589): Now also of such among the Nobilities or gentrie as to be very well seene in many laudable sciences, and especially in making or poesie, it is so come to passe that they have no courage to write, & , if they have, yet are loath to be a knowen of their skill., So as I know very many notable Gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably, and suppressed it agayne, or els suffred it to be publisht without their owne names to it: as if it were a discredit for a Gentleman to seeme learned and to show him selfe amorous of any good Art. (Elizabethan Critical Essays :2:22).



And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong up an other crew of Courtly makers, Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties owne servaunts, who have written excellently well as it would appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke with the rest; of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford. Thomas Lord of Bukhurst, when he was young, Henry Lord Paget, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir Walter Rawleigh, Master Edward Dyar, Maister Fulke Grevell, Gascon, Britton, Turberuille and a great many other learned Gentlemen, whose names I do not omit for envie, but to avoyde tediousneffe, and who have deserved no little commendation. (Elizabethan Critical Essays :2:63-64). The stigma of print, as discussed here, especially applies to verse. It is worth noting that the author of The Arte of English Poesie chose to remain anonymous himself. May concludes that there was a “stigma of verse” but no general “stigma of print.” I would infer, then, that the stigma of print, such as it was, was confined to the genre of poetry. By extension, other genres, regardless of worth or respectability (including plays, whether verse or prose), must have remained unaffected. But that scenario does not, in my view, sufficiently distinguish between either social class or genre, nor does it explain the absence of creative works published by the nobility. George Pettie offers testimony to a general reluctance of the Tudor gentleman to betray his learning by writing and publishing anything, even serious matter, and his statements support the existence of a stigma of print. Pettie adopts some typical poses to explain his own appearance in print: A Petite Palace is prefaced by three letters that fictitiously describe how it came to press against the will of its author. In the first, “To the Gentle Gentlewoman Readers,” one “R. B.” recounts his role in the “faithless enterprise,” claiming that he named the work after Painter’s Palace of Pleasure. Having heard Pettie give the stories “in a manner ex tempore ” on many “private occasions" and having learned that he had then written them down, R. B. apparently begged the manuscript from his friend, promising to keep it for private use. But fervent admiration for the opposite sex drove R. B. to “transgress the bounds of faithful friendship” and publish the stories for the “common profit and pleasure” of readers “whom by my will I would have only gentlewomen.



In the second prefatory letter -- supposed to have accompanied the manuscript when Pettie confided it to his treacherous friend -- Pettie asks R. B. to keep the manuscript secret because “divers discourses touch nearly divers of my near friends.” The third letter is from the printer, who claims to know neither Pettie nor R. B. but to have been given the manuscript by a third party. Alarmed by the “too wanton” nature of the work, the printer then “gelded” it of “such matters as may seem offensive.” Authorial disavowal of an intention to publish was not uncommon in the late sixteenth century; such a stance represents an attempt to circumvent the class derogation attached to print. But Pettie’s second work, The Civil Conversation, maintains the fiction that his first was published without his permission.” (Juliet Fleming, Dictionary of Literary Biography 136: Sixteenth-Century British Nondramatic Writers . Ed. David A. Richardson. The Gale Group, 1994.) In Pettie’s preface to his translation of The Civile Conversation, we read further: “a trifling woorke of mine [Pettie Palace ] (which by reason of the lightnesse of it, or at the least of the keeper of it, flewe abroade before I knewe of it). … I thought it stood mee upon, to purchase to my selfe some better fame by some better worke, and to countervayle my former Vanitie, with some formal gravitie. …for the men which wyll assayle me, are in deede rather to be counted friendly foes, then deadly enemies, as those who wyll neyther mislyke with me, nor with the matter which I shall present unto them, but tendryng, as it were, my credite, thynke it convenient that such as I am (whose profession should chiefly be armes) should eyther spende the tyme writing Bookes, or publyshe them being written. Those which mislyke studie or learning in Gentlemen, are some fresh water Souldiers, who thynke that in warre it is the body which only must beare the brunt of all, now knowyng that the body is ruled by the minde, and that in all doubtfull and daungerour matters: but having shewed els where how necessarie learning is for Souldiers, I ad only, that if we in England shall frame our selves only for warre, yf we be not very well Oyled, we shall hardly keepe our selves from rusting, with such long continuance of peace. … Those which myslike that a Gentleman should publish the fruites of his learning, are some curious Gentlemen, who thynke it most commendable in a Gentleman, to cloake his arte and skill in every thing, and to seeme to doo all things of his owne mother witte as it were: … they wyll at the seconde woorde make protestation that they are no Schollers: whereas notwithstanding they have spent all theyr time in studie. Why Gentlemen is it a shame to shewe to be that, which it is a shame not to be? In divers thynges, nothynge to good as Learning. Pettie defends the idea of publishing serious work, although he explains that he is publishing Civile Conversations to make up for the triviality of Pettie Palace. There is of course no reason for Pettie to recite such an exercise if there was no stigma attached to publishing in the first place. Pettie’s words also suggest perceived distinctions between serious and not-so-serious genres. May cites numerous publications to demonstrate the non-stigma of print, but most of these works could not be characterized either as frivolous or as commercial. Some even include apologies for poetry (such as Sir John Harington, who writes in the preface to his translation of Ariosto: “Some grave men misliked that I should spend so much good time on such a trifling worke as they deemed a Poeme to be” ( Elizabethan Critical Essays, 2:219). According to McClure, Harington “despised the professional man of letters. … In an age when the writing of verse was a gentleman’s pastime, he employed his talents for the entertainment of himself and his friends": “I near desearvd that gloriows name of Poet; / No Maker I … / Let others Muses fayn; / Myne never sought to set to sale her writing” (Epigrams, 34). (Note also that when his translation was first published, Harington had no title.) Creative poems were considered literary trifles or frivolous toys, which accounts for the reluctance to be seen writing poetry as a full-time occupation. In contrast translations and closet dramas were educational and suitable for study. But plays written for the public stage were worse than frivolous. They were commercial, and public theater itself was often viewed as downright disreputable. Nevertheless, if there was no stigma of print, or if any authorial shyness was just an affectation, then we should expect to identify various members of the nobility who published their poems and plays, with or without apology. On the other hand, if there was a stigma of print, we should expect to find some sort of correlation between social rank, genre, and publishing, i.e., the higher the social rank of the author, the more reluctance to publish; and the more frivolous or commercial the genre, the more reluctant the author. According to Arthur Marotti, “literary communication was socially positioned and socially mediated: styles and genres were arranged in hierarchies homologous with those of rank, class, and prestige” (Marotti, “Patronage,” 1). One would therefore expect to see the effect of the stigma of print on something of a sliding scale, having even an exponential effect on publishing as we climb the social ladder. At the top end, we should expect find very few, if any, of the nobility choosing to publish anything. Of those few books that might be published with authorization, the genre should be serious, educational, political, or devotional. Then, as we descend the social ladder, we should expect less serious genres to appear, with or without authorization, or with apology. And when at last we find self-proclaimed poets or dramatists (or satirists or fiction writers) freely and openly publishing their creative work, we should be looking at the lowest rungs of the gentry and the commoners, the would-be’s, the aspiring amateurs, the professionals affecting the conduct of the gentleman-amateur. And that is exactly what we find. Many members on the top rungs of the Tudor aristocracy had outstanding reputations as poets. But none of them published their creative work. The earl of Surrey’s attributed poems were published in miscellanies after his death. So were Thomas, [Baron] Lord Vaux’s. The earl of Oxford published nothing during his lifetime. Further down the social ladder were Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Edward Dyer, and Sir Fulke Greville, all of whom also earned reputations as writers. None of them published their work, either. Like those of their social betters, the relatively few poems that appeared in print turned up in miscellanies. So here we have just what we should expect if there were a stigma of print. All these poets established literary reputations either on works transmitted orally, circulated in manuscript, or in miscellanies published by someone with access to those circulating manuscripts. It is not until one descends to the aspiring gentlemen, the would-be’s, those seeking preferment, and of course the newly emerging class of professionals (e.g., Greene and Nashe) that one finds unrestrained (and even then often apologetic) efforts to publish. May acknowledges that “To all appearances the code [of the stigma] was upheld by the next generation of courtier poets, insofar as Sidney, Dyer, Ralegh, and the earl of Essex, among the more prominent Elizabethan courtiers, likewise made no provision to publish their works.” But it is that appearance of conformity to the social code -- that very failure to publish -- by the highest-ranking poets of reputation in Elizabethan and Stuart England that demonstrates the stigma of print. The stigma of print is manifested first and foremost with the nobility, and is gradually diluted as we descend the social ladder. The members of the nobility in Tudor and early Stuart England are relatively few in number, and their ventures into publishing almost nil. Most of the plays written by aristocrats were closet dramas, not intended to be performed, and more properly categorized as learned translations or political treatises. Even so, nearly all the closet dramas that were published were either unauthorized or were printed posthumously. The Countess of Pembroke was the highest ranking aristocrat who published a (possibly authorized) play, and it was closet drama. The earl of Derby wrote plays for common players, but none survive, at least not under his own name. If other aristocrats wrote plays for the public stage, history does not record what those plays were, and none were published with attribution. William Alexander was a Scot and had no title when he published his four closet dramas. Greville recorded his reluctance to see any of his plays published, even posthumously. Many of the works May cites to deny a stigma of print are political, pious, or didactic works and translations, which, as we move down the social ladder, were published with less restraint and, even so, often with apology by the upper classes. And those aristocrats (e.g., Oxford or Raleigh) who contributed prefatory material to other men’s work were appearing in the role of patron, which did not constitute a social breach. May concludes that “the substantial number of upper-class authors who published during the sixteenth century effectively discredits any notion of a generally accepted code which forbade publication, since noblemen and knights, courtiers and royalty, trafficked with the press in ever-increasing numbers.” But this is contradicted not only by Pettie’s testimony but also by the publishing record. No member of the Tudor nobility published poetry, plays, satires, or the like. May’s examples include authors from the Caroline period (e.g., the Cavendishes or Fanshawe), too late to be relevant to the period. He also lumps the top rungs of the aristocracy in with the middle and lower gentry and even those yet to receive their title. The only verse pamphlet by Sir John Beaumont was published when he was less than 20 years old, and he did not become a “Sir” until just before he died. Thomas Sackville had no title when Gorboduc was published. Finally, we have the testimony of dozens of untitled writers who aspired to the code of the gentlemen-amateurs, who wished to wash the money and printer’s ink off their hands. Ca. 1603, Samuel Daniel wrote: About a year since, upon the great reproach given to the Professors of Rime and the use thereof, I wrote a private letter, as a defense of mine owne undertakings in that kinde, to a learned Gentleman, a great friend of mine, then in Court. Which I did rather to confirm my selfe in mine owne courses, and to hold him from being wonne from us, then with any desire to publish the same to the world" (A Defense of Rhyme, in Elizabethan Critical Essays :2:357). Here we see Daniel posturing to emulate the code of the aristocracy. Like Daniel, numerous writers apologized for publishing their work, and since there is an absence of published work by the top-ranking aristocrats, I conclude that these apologies were not entirely affectations. I now wish to relate all this to Veal’s specific criticism, which relies heavily on Kathman and Ross’s web page. Following is the section of Veal’s review relevant to the “stigma of print": As in other anti-Stratfordian works, the “stigma of print” looms large in Miss Price’s picture of Elizabethan society. It is vital to her position, because it furnishes her sole explanation of why the real Shakespeare hid his authorship. Elizabethan gentlemen wrote for others in their social circle with no thought of seeing their compositions in print. Custom prohibited the upper class gentleman from having any profession at all, writing included. To publish for public consumption was the business of the paid professional, not the gentleman. [218] The “stigma” theory, devised in the 19th Century to explain why so few Tudor aristocrats published their works, has fallen out of favor for the simple reason that the phenomenon that it sought to explain did not really exist. As Steven May, the leading authority on Elizabethan courtier poets, has demonstrated, those Elizabethan gentlemen who wrote at all (a small minority) published quite a bit and were not disgraced thereby. Miss Price ignores Professor May’s article in her book, though she claims on her website to have read it (one of many instances in which she deals with uncongenial analysis by averting her eyes). More importantly, she makes no effort to examine the directly pertinent question: Would an Elizabethan or Jacobean courtier who wrote plays have had any strong motive to hide his authorship?



The case for a “stigma” is much weakened by the fact that persons of high station did in fact write, or attempt to write, for the theater. Sir Thomas Sackville, a cousin of the Queen and later a baron and earl, co-authored Gorboduc, the first noteworthy Elizabethan tragedy. It was printed under his name in about 1570, evidently from a manuscript that he supplied. Two plays by William Cavendish, earl of Newcastle, were presented at Blackfriars, London’s most popular theater, in the early 1640’s. Manuscripts, dated about 1600, survive of several dramas written by Lord William Percy, a younger son of the earl of Northumberland, for production by the Children of Paul’s. Noble authors whose works never, so far as we know, reached the stage include Fulk Greville, Lord Brooke, Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (translator of a blood-and-thunder French tragedy) and William Alexander, earl of Stirling. Many of these pieces are conventionally labeled “closet dramas", but, unlike Goethe’s Faust or Hardy’s The Dynasts, they are not unactable epics or novels in dialogue. Their form and structure differ not at all from popular drama. The “stigma of print" in Tudor England was not “devised” in the 19th century. According to May, it was Edward Arber who first wrote about the Tudor stigma of print, but then Arber is merely the first to have noticed the phenomenon. Far from having fallen out of fashion, the “stigma of print” remains an integral part of literary studies today. The landmark study on this subject is J.W. Saunders’s 1951 essay “The Stigma of Print.” I also refer to his related article, “From Manuscript to Print,” and The Profession of English Letters. According to Saunders, the professional poet had “his eye on personal profit,” whereas the gentleman-amateur “attempted to keep poetry within private genteel circles and attached to appearance in print a formidable social stigma ("Stigma,” 155; “Manuscript,” 509). Saunders considered some of the mystifications that cloaked the well-born author in print, as well as some of the apologies and disclaimers that appeared when a work escaped into print: “Underlying many of the quotations … is a certain moral hesitation about the value of the imaginative literary arts, lyric poetry, drama, and so on, in which the Court excelled" (Profession, 60), so here Saunders touches on the frivolous nature of poetry, fiction, and drama. Many Tudor gentlemen describe writing poetry as vain or foolish (e.g., Spenser’s “ydle rimes … The labor of lost time” (FQ, verse to Burghley); or Thomas Blenergasset’s “learned men, yet none which spende their tyme so vainely as in Poetrie” (Mirrour for Magistrates, cit. by Saunders, “Manuscript,” 512). According to Richard Helgerson, “as a plaything of youth, a pastime for idle hours, poetry might be allowed. … But as an end in itself, as the main activity of a man’s life, poetry had no place. … For the courtier, poetry could be only an avocation, never a vocation” ("Role,” 550). Pettie articulated this value in the preface cited above. It is this value system that underlies the aristocrat’s reluctance to be published. Helgerson also notes that while “the amateurs avoided print; the laureates sought it out.” He views Sidney as “that most nearly laureate of amateur poets” ("Laureate,” 201, 202), and of course, Sidney published none of his work during his lifetime. Concerning characteristics common to both poetry and drama, Helgerson writes elsewhere: If playwriting could so easily be made to occupy the place more commonly taken in an amateur career by verse-making, it was because both were supposed to be equally frivolous. Neither private verse nor public drama made the claim to literary greatness that distinguishes the laureate and his work. The courtly amateur claimed to write only for his own amusement and that of his friends; the professional, for money and the entertainment of the paying audience (“Laureate,” 206). Helgerson has described two principal factors behind the stigma of publishing plays written for the public theaters; they were perceived as commercial and frivolous. Among other 20th century authorities who have incorporated the concept of the stigma of print into their studies are: F.B. Williams, who writes that “the death of Sir John Harington in November, 1612, removed the courtly taboo against the publication of his epigrams, which had gained wide repute in manuscript “("Feathers,” 1,021).

Hyder Edward Rollins, who notes the while “more impressive names, more really fine poets, were connected with The Phoenix Nest than with any previous anthology, … not a single author is definitely named. … In those days, to have made a parade of one’s poetical compositions [i.e., in print] would have been vulgar" (Phoenix, xvi).

Arthur Marotti, who writes that “Gentlemen-amateurs avoided what J.W. Saunders has called the “stigma of print” by refusing to publish their verse, publishing it anonymously, or (accurately or inaccurately) disclaiming responsibility for its appearance in book form” (Donne, 3).

David Riggs, who writes that “Gentleman still regarded poetry as a form of elegant recreation. They wrote for themselves, or circulated their poems in manuscript among their friends, but shunned the medium of print” (Jonson, 228).

Robert Lacey, who writes that Raleigh and his friends “wrote their poems for private circulation, not for publication … It was considered most infra dig [beneath one’s dignity] for a gentleman to allow what he wrote to be distributed through commercial publication” (Raleigh, 130).

Richard Dutton, who writes that “Another notable aristocratic mark was the aversion to print, with its connotations of artisan labor and writing for money” (“Birth,” 88).

The editors of works of the Countess of Pembroke, who propose that one reason so little of her work survives “may have been her reluctance to put her original works into print, despite her boldness in printing her translations under own name. … The stigma of print was, as Harold Love observes, ’particularly hard on women writers.’ … Manuscript circulation was the preferred form of circulation” (Hannay, 54). These citations demonstrate that current scholarship accepts the stigma of print as a genuine phenomenon. However, the above cited authorities generally discuss the stigma in connection with poetry (but occasionally prose or drama). Let us now consider the works of aristocratic dramatists. Veal claims that the aristocratic plays that were published in Tudor or Stuart England “are conventionally labeled ’closet dramas’ [but] … they are not unactable epics or novels in dialogue. Their form and structure differ not at all from popular drama.” Closet drama is not intended for performance, but it is not the actability of the plays that is at issue. It is the question of whether the aristocrat wrote plays to be performed on the public stage and published them with attribution. The purpose, the intended audience, and the venue are all of concern. So, let us consider the published works that, according to Veal, demonstrate that there was no stigma of print. To arrive at a judgment, at least two factors need to be examined, (1) genre, and (2) circumstances of publication, including irregularities, signs of piracy or unauthorized publication, disclaimers, and so on. Thomas Sackville : Gorboduc Sackville (1536-1608) was son of Sir Richard Sackville, became Lord Buckhurst in 1567, and the earl of Dorset in 1604. Gorboduc was acted in 1562 at the Inner Temple, published in 1565, and reprinted in 1570 and 1590. At the time of publication, Sackville had no title, so its publication is irrelevant to the discussion. Nevertheless, the 1565 edition was pirated (see Chambers, Stage 3:457 or Brooks, Printing, 30-31). According to the title page of the 1570 edition, the play was “written about nine years ago by the right honorable now Lord Buckhurst, and by T. Norton,” “was never intended by the authors thereof to be published,” and the original publisher obtained the play from “some yongmans hand that lacked a little money and much discretion.” There’s the disclaimer that demonstrates the stigma of print, in this case invoked perhaps since by 1570 one of its authors did have a title. William Cavendish Cavendish (1592-1676), the earl of Newcastle’s plays from the 1640s are too late to be relevant to the discussion. Lord William Percy Percy (1575-1648) was the third son of the 8th earl of Northumberland. The surviving plays in question are preserved in manuscripts that bear the initials “W.P., Esq.” According to Chambers (Stage, 3:464-65), Percy’s “authorship appears to be fixed by a correspondence between an epigram in the MS. to Charles Fitzgeffry with one Ad Gulielmum Percium in Fitzgeoffridi Affaniae (1601).” It is not know if they were ever performed at St. Paul’s, but it is certain that they were never printed during the author’s lifetime. The first play was not printed until 1824. Percy’s plays therefore cannot be cited to dispute the stigma of print. Sir Fulke Greville : Mustapha Greville (1554-1828) was knighted in 1603 and created Baron Brooke in 1621. Mustapha is a closet drama (May, Courtier, 167). According to M.E. Lamb, Mustapha is “overtly political in purpose and show[s] more concern in reforming the state than the stage” (“Myth,” 201). In the Dictionary of Literary Biography, Charles Larson writes: Always the gentleman amateur, Greville never permitted any of his writings to be published while he was alive, and it was probably a considerable annoyance to him when an unauthorized printing of Mustapha appeared in 1609. His was not a drama written for the popular theater, and, indeed, he claimed in the Life of Sidney never to have had any intention of having his plays staged under any circumstances: “I have made these Tragedies, no Plaies for the Stage…. But he that will behold these Acts upon their true Stage, let him look on that Stage wherein himself is an Actor, even the state he lives in, and for every part he may perchance find a Player, and for every Line (it may be) an instance of life.” This is one of the most explicit statements extant on the theory of Elizabethan closet drama, and it is important to put a positive face on it: Greville most certainly does approve of drama as a literary form. Staged plays might be merely entertainment and thus the fit recipients of the attacks that the Puritans were waging against the theater at that moment, but the drama as a literary text engages the mind seriously and leads to important discoveries about the nature of life. In particular, Greville “had difficulty writing ideological drama that is credible as dramatic literature. Of course, one should recall that he did not intend these plays for the stage" (Larson, DLB). Mustapha was published without attribution. Even May describes the edition of Mustapha as “surreptitious" (Courtier, 325). Greville’s own surviving papers tell us explicitly about his ambivalence and reluctance to have any of his works published, even posthumously: “These pamphlets [i.e., his plays] which having slept out my own time, if they happen to be seene herafter, shall at their own peril rise upon the stage when I am not.” Mary Sidney Herbert : Antonie Mary (1561-1621), countess of Pembroke, was Sir Philip Sidney’s sister and a distinguished member of the nobility. According to the editors of her Works, the countess’s translation of Garnier’s Marc Antoine “emphasized political commentary” (Hannay, 38). It is classified as a “closet drama” (May, Courtier, 167), and “with its discussion of moral issues presented in set speeches rather than stage action, the genre would have been particularly suited to reading aloud by the assembled guests at an English country house like Wilson. Marc Antoine was successfully staged in France; however, there is no record that Pembroke’s translation was ever performed, even at Wilton” (Hannay, 41; see also Bergeron, “Women,” 70). Further, “the genre was also particularly suited for women who desired to write plays but would not be permitted to write for the public arena” (Hannay, 41). Hannay et al. assume the countess authorized publication of her translation. May cautiously states that “the countess probably [emphasis added] authorized the publication of Antonie because it illustrated the precepts of dramatic tragedy formulated in [her brother’s] Defense … and asserted that a good ruler seeks to be loved rather than feared by his subjects” (May, Courtier, 167). William Alexander : The Monarchicke Tragedies William Alexander (1567-1640) was tutor to Prince Henry and came down to London from Scotland when James acceded the throne. He was raised to the rank of viscount in 1630 and to the earldom in 1633. His four historical tragedies on classical subjects, Darius, Alexander, Caesar, and Croesus, were first published at the beginning of James I’s reign and issued collectively as The Monarchicke Tragedies. Alexander’s four tragedies are closet dramas. The only entry for him in the Dictionary of Literary Biography appears, significantly, in the volume of 17th century British Nondramatic [emphasis added] Poets. Beckett writes that “The plays in The Monarchicke Tragedies were never intended for the stage, as its dedication to King James makes clear. Each deals with the dangers of ambition in a monarch, and each is both didactic and sententious.” According to Lamb, “the grave political advice which fills his cumbersome Monarchicke Tragedies, dedicated to the new English king, strongly suggest a desire to establish himself as a wise counselor, not as a budding playwright” ("Myth,” 200). The circumstances of publication are straightforward, but at time of publication, he had no title. So again, this is irrelevant to the stigma of print as it affected the aristocracy. Veal’s final criticism: Of crucial importance too was the attitude of the monarch. Although plays were considered scarcely better than pornography in Puritan circles, those were not the sentiments that prevailed at the fons honoris. Elizabeth and James were theatrical enthusiasts. The Queen saw six to ten plays in an average season, the King twice as many. Virtually all of those works were drawn from the repertories that the leading professional companies presented in London. Contrary to what Miss Price imagines [264], there was, during the period of Shakespeare’s activity, no special category of “court plays” distinct from the commercial theater. There is, in short, no credible reason to think that a late Tudor aristocrat would have suffered at all from being known as the mind behind some of the most popular dramas of the day. Veale must have missed the distinction between writing plays for academic, private, or royal venues, and being recognized as having written and published a commercial play. In addition, it was one thing to patronize a play at court; it was another to be seen as the author who wrote for public consumption. CONCLUSION Although writing closet drama was a respectable pastime, few aristocratic authors published their dramas. The countess of Pembroke “probably" authorized the publication of Antonie , but the circumstances remain unclear. Young master Percy’s plays were not published during his lifetime. Alexander wrote his plays, not for the stage, but to convince King James that he was fit to serve as a counselor to a monarch, and at the time that he did publish, he was newly arrived from Scotland and had no title. Gorboduc and Mustapha were printed without authorization, and at the time of publication, Sackville had no title. In my book, I build the case that the works of Shakespeare were written by an unnamed nobleman, and that the stigma of print was a contributing factor to the appearance of another man’s name on the works. Having reconsidered the stigma of print in light of the criticism from Mssrs. Veal and Kathman, I have no reason to amend anything on this topic in my book. If the works of Shakespeare were written by an aristocrat, then that aristocrat had good reason to conceal his identity. In short, there is ample evidence to demonstrate the Tudor “stigma of print.” Today, literary critics continue to incorporate the phenomenon into their studies, and it remains a factor relevant to the Shakespeare authorship question. POSTSCRIPT: According to Veal, “a bevy of gentlemen of rank wrote the prefatory verses to Spenser’s Faerie Queene, “but he has that back-to-front. Spenser addressed prefatory verses to a bevy of aristocrats, not they to him. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beckett, Robert D. “William Alexander” in the Dictionary of Literary Biography 121: Seventeenth-Century British Nondramatic Poets, ed. M. Thomas Hester. The Gale Group, 1992. Bergeron, David M. “Women as Patrons of English Renaissance Drama.” In Readings in Renaissance Women’s Drama: Criticism, History, and Performance 1594-1998. Ed. S.P. Cerasano and Marion Wynne-Davies. London: Routledge, 1998. Brooks, Douglas A. From Playhouse to Printing House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. 1961. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923. Dutton, Richard. “The Birth of the Author.” In Elizabethan Theater: Essays in Honor of S. Schoenbaum, ed. R.B. Parker and S. P. Zitner, 71-92. Newark: University of Delaware Press. 1996. Elizabethan Critical Essays. Ed. G. Gregory Smith. 2 vols. 1904. Reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Google links to hlas.: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2170434049d & hl=en & selm=Pine.GSO.4.21.0102140745410.13025-100000%40mail & rnum=6 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en & selm=Pine.GSO.4.33.0103031045520.18548-100000%40mail Hannay, Margarget P., Noel J. Kinnamon, and Michael G. Brennan, ed. The Collected Works of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Helgerson, Richard. “The Elizabethan Laureate: Self-Presentation and the Literary System.” ELH 46:2 (summer 1979): 193-220. ─────. “Role of the Poet.” Entry in Spenser Encyclopedia. Ed. A. C. Hamilton. University of Toronto Press, 1990. Jones, Norman, and Paul Whitfield White. “ Gorboduc and Royal Marriage Politics.” English Literary Renaissance 26:1 (winter 1996): 3-16. Kathman, David and Terry Ross. The Shakespeare Authorship Home Page : http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/ Lacey, Robert. Sir Walter Raleigh. New York: Atheneum, 1974. Lamb, Mary Ellen. “The Countess of Pembroke’s Patronage,” English Literary Renaissance 12 (spring 1982): 162-79. ─────. “The Myth of the Countess of Pembroke” in The Yearbook of English Studies 11 , London: Modern Humanities Research Assoc., London, 1981: 194-202. Larson, Charles. “Sir Fulke Greville," Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 62: Elizabethan Dramatists. A Bruccoli Clark Layman Book. Edited by Fredson Bowers, University of Virginia. The Gale Group, 1987. Marotti, Arthur F. John Donne, Coterie Poet. The Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1986. ─────. “Patronage, Poetry, and Print.” The Yearbook of English Studies: Politics, Patronage and Literature in England 1558-1658 , Special Number 21, (1991): 1-26. May, Steven W. “Tudor Aristocrats and the Mythical ’Stigma of Print.’" Renaissance Papers, 1980 (on-line at "The Shakespeare Authorship home page ). ─────. The Elizabethan Courtier Poets: the Poems and Their Contexts. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1991. McClure, Norman Egbert.The Epigrams of Sir John Harington., Philadelphia, 1926. Oxford Companion to English Literature. Ed. Margaret Drabble. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Saunders, J.W. "The Stigma of Print.” Essays in Criticism 1, 139-164. 1968. Reprint; Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger N.V., 1951. ─────. “From Manuscript to Print.” Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society 6 (1951): 507-28. ─────. The Profession of English Letters. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964. Spenser, Edmund. The Faerie Queene. Ed. Ernest Rhys. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1910. Readings in Renaissance Women’s Drama: Criticism, History, and Performance 1594-1998. London: Routledge, 1998. Riggs, David. Ben Jonson: A Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Rollins, Hyder Edward. Introduction to The Phoenix Nest 1593. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931. Shakespeare Authorship Home Page. http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/. Veal, Tom. “Stromata" website: http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id19.htm Back to top of page

Typographical Errors in the Paperback Edition Reader Tony Minchin catches the following typos (for this relief much thanks): p. 78: “Gullio is a conceited paymasters” should read “Gullio is a conceited paymaster” p. 133: “while no foul papers survive” should read “although no foul papers survive” p. 156: “the silence in the historic record” should read “the silence in the historical record" Errata and additions (for the paperback edition of 2013) p. 67: The absence of “gent.” in the 1601 burial entry for John leads to speculation that William passed himself off as newly armigerous, although technically, he would have been entitled to style himself a gentleman only after his father had died (see Lewis, 1:212). John Shakspere was buried on 8 September 1601. William Shakspere was styled “gent” in a deed for the Globe theatre property dated 7 October 1601. Tom Reedy points out that son William was entitled to the honorific “Mr” when father John’s application was approved, making the entry in the 23 August 1600 SR the first instance in which son William styled himself “Mr.” I stand corrected. For a full response to Mr. Reedy concerning the implications this correction has for Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography, click here. Errata and additions (for the hardback edition of 2001) pp. 139-40: Re: John Weever’s “curious” omission in his 1631 publication, Ancient Funerall Monuments of Shakspere’s epitaphs. On an e-discussion group, David Kathman pointed out that Weever included only a small portion of the contents of his notebook in his 1631 publication, that no epitaphs from Warwickshire were included, so the omission of Shakspere’s epitaphs is hardly “curious.” I stand corrrected (see Honigmann, Weever, 63). p. 162: In the epitaph, “ With in this monuement Shakespeare” should read “With in this monument Shakspeare.” p. 189: I write that two references were made in the Shakespeare First Folio to “moniment,” both times spelled with an “i,” and that the spelling of the word “moniment” (i.e. in the sense of records or written work) signals the pun on “monument” (i.e., in the sense of a statue or memorial). In particular, Jonson’s line, “thou art a moniment without a tomb,” suggests a double meaning. The line can mean that (1) Shakespeare is memorialized by his body of work, not by a tomb -- witness Shakespeare’s own sonnet 81: “Your monument shall be my gentle verse”; and (2) Shakspere’s Stratford monument was originally supposed to sit on top of the tomb itself, but since it does not, it is a monument without a tomb. Terry Ross has pointed out that the spelling of the words “moniment” and “monument” were interchangeable in Shakespeare’s day, so Ben Jonson’s pun on the word in his First Folio eulogy (“thou art a moniment without a tomb) is not signaled by drawing attention to the letter “i.” Jonson’s ambiguity therefore relies on the context, not the spelling. p. 197: The sentence concerning Jonson’s denigration of Shakespeare’s source for Comedy of Errors is in error. The following would replace that sentence: In his Conversations with Drummond, Jonson referred to the plot device, specifically confusion and mistaken identity resulting from a double set of twins, found in Plautus’s Amphitruo. Jonson rejected Amphitruo as a viable source for a play, because he did not think the roles of the twins could be convincingly cast. While Shakespeare’s principal source for Comedy of Errors was Plautus’s Menaechmi, Shakespeare was also indebted for part of his plotting to Amphitruo. Implicit in Jonson’s rejection of Amphitruo as a viable source for a play is criticism of Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors. (Amphitruo is a Roman, not a Greek play.) p. 26: “Quandam [sundry]” should read “Quandam [former]” p. 50: In the 5th line from the bottom, “addresses” should read “addressees” p. 203: In the marginal note, “Ingeriorum” should read “Ingeniorum.” p. 307: In the entry for Harvey, #2 should read: letter to Sir Robert Cecil, referring to “sundrie royale Cantos” being readied for publication (Stern, Harvey, 51). p. 310: In the entry for Middleton, # 7 should read: “no evidence.” The verse from Richards was published posthumously. (The corresponding checkmark on p. 303 should be deleted.) p. 310-11: In the entry for Lyly, # 2 and #6 should read: “I may … write prayers instead of plays - prayers for your long and prosperous life and a repentence that I have played the fool so long” (1598 petition to the Queen, Lyly, ed. Bond, 1:64-65). p. 312: In the entry for Watson, # 8 should read: “no evidence” Watson’s and Marlowe’s arrest after a fracas sheds no light on a literary exchange. (The corresponding checkmark on p. 305 should be deleted.). p. 337: The entry for Andrew Hannas should read: Hannas, Andrew. “From Thence to Honor Thee”:/ To ‘Small Latine’ T’is the Key.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of The Shakespeare Oxford Society, Cleveland, OH, 1992. Additions (to chart of personal literary paper trails) p. 308: In the entry for Samuel Daniel, add to #3 (“paid to write”): payment to “Danyell the Poet” in the earl of Hertford’s accounts (John Pitcher, “Samuel Daniel, the Hertfords, and A Question of Love,” Review of English Studies 35 [1984], 449-462); a corresponding checkmark can be added to category #3 on p. 303. p. 308: In the entry for Samuel Daniel, add to #10 (“notice at death as a writer”): letter dated 7 Feb. 1620 by William Alexander to William Drummond: “am glad that you exercise your Muse, since Samuel Daniel is dead”; Daniel was buried in October 1619 (William Drummond, The Works of William Drummond, Edinburgh, 1711, p. 151); a corresponding checkmark can be added to category #10 on p. 303. p. 308: In the entry for George Peele, add to #7 (“commendatory verse”: “William Gager’s verses for Peele’s translation of Iphigenia, in which Gager acknowledges their friendship and encourages “my Peele” (David H. Horne, The Life and Minor Works of George Peele. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952; 1:42-46); a corresponding checkmark can be added to category #7 on p. 303. p. 308: In the entry for George Peele, add to #9 (“evidence of books”): “James Peele Clerke is allowed bokes by order of the Gouv’nors for George his sonne who is in the Gram Skole” (P.H. Cheffaud, George Peele ; Paris: Librairie Felix Alcan, 1913; p. 8 n); a corresponding checkmark can be added to category #9 on p. 303. p. 310: In the entry for John Marston, add to #2 (“record of correspondence, especially concerning literary matters”): letter to Sir Gervase Clifton concerning Marston’s masque, pleading his “excuse for not yett sending the booke. First with my owne hand I wrott one coppye; for all the rest which I hadd caused to be transcribed were given and stolne from me att my Lord Spencer’s. Then with all suddeine care I gave my coppy unto a scrivener…” (W.H. Grattan Flood, “A John Marston Letter," Review of English Studies 4 [January 1928]: 86-87; see also Robert E. Brettle, “The ‘Poet Marston’ Letter to Sir Gervase Clifton, 1607,” Review of English Studies 4 [April 1928]: 212-14); a corresponding checkmark can be added to category #2 on p. 303. Back to top of page

The De Vere Society newsletter (by Arthur Challinor, January 2001): “One of the most impressive factors about this book is that it does not overreach. Knowing that one will never overturn orthodox scholarship by argument which is intellectually shoddy or suspect, she will not be led by the heart. … The challenge is there and it is formidable. The breadth of the author’s research is impressive.” Shakespeare Oxford Society newsletter (by Richard F. Whalen, fall 2000): “Price declines to discuss who might be the true author of Shakespeare’s works. … If Will Shakspere was not the author, then who was this aristocrat she keeps mentioning?"

A reader (Craig T. Niedzielski from Hermosa, Bataan, Philippines) on www.amazon.com (dead link) (1/21/02): “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 website. 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.” A reader (from Los Angeles, CA) on www.amazon.com (dead link) (1/9/01): “Essential for those who wish to come to grips with the Shakespearean authorship problem, first as an exposition of the anti-Stratfordian case, and second as a reference work of the first order…. Price offers the most comprehensive biographical analysis to date….There is a fair amount of strictly new evidence. Second, much of the evidence compiled will be new to readers of orthodox biographies, where it is either missing or distorted. Third, reexamination of “old" evidence reveals overlooked matter. Fourth, the treatment of the subject by prior scholarship is itself revealing evidence. Very few persons will come away from a reading of Price’s book without having learned much of its subject.” A reader (Edward Thomas Veal) on www.amazon.com (11/29/00 and 1/18/01): This “case against the Stratford man … amounts to nothing more substantial than bile and overheated air.” Further, in Part 2, “time and time again, Miss Price, instead of seeking to refute inconvenient analyses, pretends that they don’t exist. For the author’s response, click on Response to an Amazon.com reader review. For additional material on his criticism concerning the Sir Thomas More manuscript, click on More and scroll forward to pages 127-133. Edward Thomas Veal has posted a lengthy review on his website. Many of his criticsms are already addressed in responses elsewhere on this website. For a response to his criticism concerning the “stigma of print," click on Stigma of Print. A reader (TMT from Wheeling, WV) on www.amazon.com (2/03/01): “I recommend you read it to see what the fuss is all about.” A reader (JT from Detroit, MI) on www.amazon.com (1/15/01): “A fine mystery, and some fine sleuthing as well.” A reader (from Santa Fe, NM) on www.amazon.com (1/13/01): “Readers who are passionately attached to the traditional attribution will get nothing from this book and will rail against it, and this book is not meant for them. It is meant for open-minded readers who are willing to let go of previous assumptions and received wisdom, and to look at old evidence in a new light. I count myself among these…. This book is the best presentation I’ve yet seen as to WHY it does not add up.” A reader (Ron Song Destro) on www.amazon.com (2/07/01): “Filled with new information and an accurate analysis of the flaws found in traditional Shakespearean scholarship. I recommend it heartily.” A reader (Spotsmom) on www.amazon.com (11/11/00): “A learned and readable exposition of the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy.” A reader (JMT) on Barnes and Noble (11/21/00): An “easy-to-read and well presented explanation of the role of William Shaksper in the world of Elizabethan letters.” Back to top of page

Prof. Alan Nelson’s review was originally posted on his website at socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ but is no longer accessible at the link. Following is the text of his review, with the author’s response (indented and blue). Diana Price’s Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography (2001) Diana Price knows how to put a sentence together, but she does not know how to put an argument together without engaging in special pleading: that is, taking evidence that has an apparent signification, and arguing with all her might that it does not fit the special case of William Shakespeare for this or that special - and wholly arbitrary - reason. Take the fact that Ben Jonson writes a poem of dedication to the “memory of my beloved, the author, Mr. William Shakespeare”; or the fact that Jonson reported that he had offended “the Players” who thought he had insulted their “friend” Shakespeare. Jonson explains, “I loved the man, and do honor his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any.” Master William Shakespeare, whom Jonson also calls “Sweet Swan of Avon,” associating him with Stratford upon Avon for any but the wilfully deaf, is thus the recipient of a greater expression of friendship than any contemporary author. Price cannot of course accept this evidence, so she must find some way to discredit it: such evidence is necessarily ironic, or satiric, or deliberately misleading, or written after Shakespeare’s death: note that there is always some reason why evidence does not count in the case of William Shakespeare. Of course, one could make up a set of special rules for any other author of the period: why could there not have been two Edmund Spensers, one real but stupid (since any evidence that he was a writer cannot be allowed to count), another the pseudonym for some aristocrat? Prof. Nelson apparently believes that I have succeeded in establishing a set of rules that somehow contrive to exclude all evidence proving that Shakespeare’s vocation was writing, while at the same time admitting such evidence for any other alleged writers. His criticism is perhaps more indicative of an entrenched faith in Shakespeare’s biography than it is descriptive of my methods of analysis. I need not invent any arbitrary rules to admit or disqualify literary evidence for Edmund Spenser. Despite the fact that there were several Edmund Spensers in Elizabethan England, there is no question about the poet Edmund Spenser’s literary career. Spenser left behind professional evidence of his occupation of writing, and that evidence is explicit, unambiguous, and contemporaneous; some of it is cited in the appendix in my book. It is the absence of any comparably explicit contemporaneous evidence for Shakespeare that is unique to his biography. If there is a case to be made for special pleading, it is that routinely exercised by the orthodox biographer. Biographers have made exceptions to their own rules in order to admit, transmute, or create evidence for Shakespeare to support his career as a playwright. In order to do that, they have (page numbers are to my book) used impersonal evidence as personal evidence (see p. 138)

used ambiguous evidence as explicit evidence (see pp. 45-46)

used theatrical evidence as literary evidence (see pp. 104-7)

attempted to invent evidence (click on More and page forward to pages 127-133.) A close examination of the documentary evidence for Shakspere [spelling chosen to indicate the man from Stratford] shows that his literary biography relies on posthumous evidence, rather than on any solid contemporaneous evidence. In the genre of literary biographies for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd string Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, that is a unique phenomenon. In the course of his commentary on my book, Prof. Nelson has himself engaged in special pleading, by selectively departing from the standards otherwise evident in the genre of literary biographies, as I demonstrate below. The argument which is most important to Price concerns the “literary trail” which she thinks must necessarily have been left by any author of the time … why she thinks so is never fully explained. Prof. Nelson must have missed some introductory material in Chapter 1, including Gerald Eades Bentley’s comments concerning “letters to or from or about William Shakespeare” or “diaries or accounts of his friends.” According to Bentley, it is “personal material of this sort which provides the foundation of most biographies” (Handbook, 4-5). Prof. Nelson must have also missed the opening paragraphs to Chapter 8, which read in part: “Biographers construct their narratives around documentary evidence. Some types of documentation are of a general character, such as christening, marriage, or tax records. Such records tell us that someone was born or paid taxes, but they do not necessarily tell us about the person’s profession. Other types of evidence, however, are specific to a vocation or make incidental reference to an occupation. … Shakspere’s biography is presumably about a writer. … a man of letters may be expected to leave behind personal records that reveal his chosen vocation.” That expectation turns out to be reasonable. Each of the 24 other writers in the survey did leave behind such personal records that attest to their vocation of writing. Shakspere is the only one who did not. She attaches ten categories to the trail, and rates each of many authors “Yes” or blank … never “Possibly” or “Probably.” To nobody’s surprise, Shakespeare receives a blank in every category … but would you have expected otherwise? Yes, one would expect otherwise, IF Shakspere was the writer we are told that he was. If I can find hard documentary evidence for everyone else, why should biographers need to make an exception for Shakspere, i.e., admit evidence that has to be qualified with a “possibly” or a “maybe”? Shakespeare’s work was, presumably, pre-eminent in its own time, and one should therefore expect the author’s personal literary paper trails to be up there, qualitatively speaking, with others of the first rank, namely, Ben Jonson and Edmund Spenser. He certainly should not be less well-documented than, say, George Peele, John Webster, or John Fletcher. The ten categories represent a subset of the larger category of evidence which I define in my book as “personal literary paper trails.” The goal of the analysis is to test evidence that may support the fundamental assumption that “he was a writer.” Therefore, each piece of contemporaneous evidence is tested to determine whether it is (a) personal, and (b) related to literary activity and interests. If it satisfies both tests, it qualifies as a personal literary paper trail. Since I don’t have the patience to go into every tired but discredited argument, every instance of special pleading, and every incorrect statement or overlooked document in her book, I will simply give my own answers to Price’s list of “paper-trail” topics: 1. Evidence of Education: Yes. Since his father was an alderman and burgess of Stratford, Shakespeare would certainly have attended the school at Stratford which was given active support by the aldermen and burgesses of Stratford for the education of their sons. On the other hand, we know for a dead certainty that Shakespeare did not attend the university (nor did Jonson): this is made clear by the Cambridge Parnassus play of about 1600. There is no evidence of Shakspere’s education, and Prof. Nelson has not cited any. Prof. Nelson apparently has not understood that my comparative analysis is concerned with documentary evidence. His assumption that Shakspere “would certainly have attended school” based on his father’s civic standing, is not the equivalent of documentary evidence of an education. In contrast, I cite documentary evidence to support the educational training of Nashe, Spenser, Kyd, Marlowe, and Middleton, among others. There is no comparable evidence for Shakspere. 2. Record of correspondence, especially concerning literary matters: Yes, a letter was addressed to Shakespeare by Richard Quiney (1598). (The letter is not about literature, and therefore does not qualify for Price’s “especially” clause, but it does indicate that Mr. William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was capable of reading a letter addressed to him and was thus literate). Quiney’s letter to Shakspere concerning borrowing money is not evidence of Shakspere’s literary career; rather, it is good evidence that Shakspere was regarded as a man with financial resources. In contrast, a letter to Drummond by Drayton discussing his progress on Polyolbion is solid personal literary evidence. Quiney’s letter to Shakspere also compares poorly to Samuel Daniel’s letter to Robert Cecil, (1605), apologizing for “making the stage the speaker of my lines,” or his letter to the earl of Devonshire, 1604, explaining that “in this matter of Philotas … first I told the Lordes I had written 3 Acts of this tragedie.” There is no comparable evidence for Shakspere. Incidentally, I do not argue that Shakspere was illiterate. On the contrary, on pp. 234-35, I argue that Shakspere did achieve basic literacy. However, inferring that Shakspere could read a letter does not prove that he was a literary giant. I doubt that even Prof. Nelson would use Quiney’s letter to argue that Shakspere was a literary giant. 3. Evidence of having been paid to write: Yes. The fact that he dedicated a second book to the earl of Southampton is evidence that he received a reward for having written the first; moreover, he was paid for an impresa in 1613, clearly as an author, since Burbage was a painter and would have done the artwork. (It must be said, however, that Shakespeare as a fellow of his company of actors would probably not have been paid directly for his plays, which instead brought him money through the commercial success which they guaranteed to his company.) There is no documentary evidence that Shakspere was rewarded by Southampton, or ever met him. In contrast, the earl of Leicester’s accounts show a payment to “Robert Grene that presented a booke to your lordship vli.” In a letter by Sir George Carey to his wife, we read that “nashe hath dedicated a booke unto you with promis of a better, will cotton will disburs vls or xx nobles in yowr rewarde to him.” The earl of Northumberland’s accounts show a payment to “to one Geo. Peele, a poett, as my Lord’s liberality 3£.” There is no comparable evidence for Shakspere concerning rewards from his potential patron. Despite Prof. Nelson’s assertion, the wording in the second dedication to Southampton is not evidence that patronage was received, as I go to some length to demonstrate. The dedication is couched in typically formulaic language, suggesting that the poet had heard reports of the prospective patron’s presumably generous disposition. So I reject the Lucrece dedication as evidence that Shakspere obtained patronage, but this is not, as Prof. Nelson asserts, an arbitrary disqualification. Rather, this issue provides a good example of special pleading by the orthodox in defense of Shakspere’s literary biography. By accepting the Lucrece dedication as evidence that Shakspere obtained patronage from Southampton, Prof. Nelson attempts to transmute an impersonal dedication into a personal one, thus upgrading its evidentiary value. Perhaps it is useful to take the time here to show how another biographer dealt with this question of personal vs. impersonal dedications. In his Thomas Kyd: Facts and Problems, Arthur Freeman was considering whether Kyd did or did not know personally his dedicatee, the Countess of Sussex. Freeman analyzed the language Kyd used to address her: All these phrases, especially the ‘service’ and ‘honourable favours past’, indicate that Kyd was personally acquainted with the Countess, and that he had been in a position to receive her favours earlier – presumably before his imprisonment. Boas comments that ‘Kyd may be merely alluding to some token of good will which she extended to him as to other men of letters, including Greene, who dedicated to her his Philomela ’. But the fact is that the ‘other men of letters’ who dedicated books to the Countess at this period did not know her personally, by their own testimony, and Kyd, by his, did. Greene presented her Philomela in 1592 because he was ‘humbly devoted to the Right honourable Lord Fitzwalters your husband’, but the Countess herself he knew by repute only. Likewise the publisher William Bailey, who dedicated a book of lute music to her in 1596, writes of ‘your Honourable Ladyship, whom I have heard so well reported of.’ (Freeman, 33) In the dedication to Lucrece, Shakespeare writes that “the warrant I have of your Honourable disposition” made his poem “assured of acceptance.” In other words, Shakespeare had heard reports of Southampton’s presumably generous disposition, just as Bailey writes of “your Honourable Ladyship, whom I have heard so well reported of.” Freeman is demonstrating the same standard to test personal vs. impersonal evidence. One must suspend this standard in order to use the Lucrece dedication as evidence that Shakspere succeeded in gaining patronage from, or personally knew Southampton. With respect to the impresa payment, the document in question provides inadequate evidence with which to draw any conclusion with confidence. The record does not contain the first name of the payee (although the association with Burbage lends weight to the assumption that William is indeed the payee), but unlike the payment to Burbage “for painting and making it,” there is no specification as to the capacity in which “Mr. Shakspeare” was paid, whether it was to write a motto, fashion an equestrian accessory, or act as agen