Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  • Cited by 7
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
April 2013
Print publication year:
2013
Online ISBN:
9781139084352

Book description

Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare? The authorship question has been much treated in works of fiction, film and television, provoking interest all over the world. Sceptics have proposed many candidates as the author of Shakespeare's works, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford. But why and how did the authorship question arise and what does surviving evidence offer in answer to it? This authoritative, accessible and frequently entertaining book sets the debate in its historical context and provides an account of its main protagonists and their theories. Presenting the authorship of Shakespeare's works in relation to historiography, psychology and literary theory, twenty-three distinguished scholars reposition and develop the discussion. The book explores the issues in the light of biographical, textual and bibliographical evidence to bring fresh perspectives to an intriguing cultural phenomenon.

Reviews

'Until now no book has provided the comprehensive evidence necessary to satisfy those 'Reasonable Doubters'.'

James Shapiro - Columbia University, and author of Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?

'The Shakespeare debate has never been hotter.'

Source: London Evening Standard

'This book helpfully pulls together irrefutable evidence that Shakespeare really was Shakespeare.'

Source: New Statesman

'Well conceived and energetic.'

Source: The Times Literary Supplement

'… salutary …'

Source: Standpoint

'Shakespeare Beyond Doubt shows, once more, that the fickle authorship controversy still exists not because there is no evidence that Shakespeare was Shakespeare but because anti-Shakespeareans refuse to acknowledge it and prefer the creative route of constructing an imaginary and speculative truth. History does not work like that. It is not a Hollywood movie.'

Source: The Huffington Post

'Thorough, rigorous, scholarly, and a lot of fun.'

Source: History Today

'The range of evidence, from dialect, through manuscript analysis, to stagecraft, makes it a wonderfully rounded introduction to the period, as well as to the playwright.'

Judith Flanders Source: The Times Literary Supplement

'This excellent collection, edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells, assumes that it is possible to engage with the doubters in an honest, honourable, and constructive dialogue.'

Source: Quarto

'… a most useful volume …'

Source: The New Criterion

'The achievement here is substantial. Edmondson and Wells have curated an impressive collection that leaves few stones unturned and sets out a weighty case that defies easy rebuttal.'

Source: Cahiers Élisabéthains

‘All the essays are brief and accessible. Often summarising their own groundbreaking research, the contributors accomplish a two-fold task: they expose the feebleness of the anti-Shakespeareans’ contentions and simultaneously provide accounts of the most recent developments in various branches of Shakespeare studies, whose scope and interest go well beyond the authorship question.’

Laura Talarico Source: Memoria di Shakespeare: A Journal of Shakespearean Studies

‘The volume’s distinguished editors, Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells, have assembled a tight volume that both addresses the questions at the heart of the so-called authorship controversy and discusses the phenomenon in critically sophisticated ways.’

Curtis Perry Source: SEL: Studies in English Literature 1500–1900

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×

Contents


Page 1 of 2



Page 1 of 2


A selected reading list
For Shakespeare's authorship
Chambers, E. K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930).
Elliott, Ward E. Y. and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘And Then There Were None: Winnowing the Shakespeare Claimants’, Computers and the Humanities 30 (1996–7), pp. 191–245.
Elliott, Ward E. Y. and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘Oxford by the Numbers: What are the Odds That the Earl of Oxford could have Written Shakespeare's Poems and Plays’, Tennessee Law Review 72:1 (2004), pp. 323–453.
Kathman, David and Ross, Terry. ‘The Shakespeare Authorship Page: Dedicated to the Proposition That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare’.
Matus, Irvin Leigh. Shakespeare, in Fact (New York: Continuum, 1994).
Schoenbaum, S.Shakespeare's Lives (London: Oxford University Press, 1970; new, revised edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
Authorship as a cultural phenomenon
Churchill, Reginald Charles. Shakespeare and His Betters: A History and Criticism of the Attempts Which Have Been Made to Prove Shakespeare's Works Were Written by Others (London: Max Reinhardt, 1958).
Friedman, William F. and , Elizebeth S.The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined: An Analysis of Cryptographic Systems Used as Evidence that Some Author other than William Shakespeare Wrote the Plays Commonly Attributed to him (Cambridge University Press, 1957).
Gibson, Harry Norman. The Shakespeare Claimants: A Critical Survey of the Four Principal Theories Concerning the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays (London: Methuen; New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962).
Shapiro, James. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (London: Faber and Faber, 2010).
Authorship and collaboration
Hope, Jonathan. ‘Applied Historical Linguistics: Socio-Historical Linguistic Evidence for the Authorship of Renaissance Plays’, Transactions of the Philological Society 88 (1990), pp. 201–26.
The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays: A Socio-Linguistic Study (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Jackson, MacDonald P. ‘Determining Authorship: A New Technique’, Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 41 (2002), pp. 1–14.
Defining Shakespeare: ‘Pericles’ as Test Case (Oxford University Press, 2003).
A Lover's Complaint Revisited’, Shakespeare Studies 32 (2004), pp. 267–94.
Vickers, Brian. Shakespeare, A Lover's Complaint, and John Davies of Hereford (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Jackson, MacDonald P. ‘“A Lover's Complaint”, Cymbeline, and the Shakespeare Canon: Interpreting Shared Vocabulary’, Modern Language Review 103.3 (2008), pp. 621–38.
The Authorship of “A Lover's Complaint”: A New Approach to the Problem’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 102 (2008), pp. 285–313.
An Appendix to ‘The Authorship of “A Lover's Complaint”: A New Approach to the Problem”: A Control Test’. BibSite: .
‘Shakespeare or Davies? A Clue to the Authorship of “A Lover's Complaint”’, Notes and Queries 56.1 (2009), pp. 62–3.
Vickers, Brian. Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford University Press, 2002).
Coauthors and Closed Minds’, Shakespeare Studies 36 (2008), pp. 101–13.
Anti-Shakespearian studies
Bacon, Delia Salter. The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded (London: Groombridge and Sons, 1857).
Donnelly, Ignatius. The Great Cryptogram: Francis Bacon's Cipher in the So-Called Shakespeare Plays (Chicago, New York and London: R. S. Peale & Company, 1888).
Looney, J. Thomas. ‘Shakespeare’ Identified in Edward de Vere the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1920).
Zeigler, Wilbur Gleason. It Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret of Three Centuries (Chicago: Donohue, Henneberry, and Co., 1895).

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.