AccueilGroupesDiscussionsPlusTendances
Site de recherche
Ce site utilise des cookies pour fournir nos services, optimiser les performances, pour les analyses, et (si vous n'êtes pas connecté) pour les publicités. En utilisant Librarything, vous reconnaissez avoir lu et compris nos conditions générales d'utilisation et de services. Votre utilisation du site et de ses services vaut acceptation de ces conditions et termes.

Résultats trouvés sur Google Books

Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.

Chargement...

Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare

par Bertram Fields

MembresCritiquesPopularitéÉvaluation moyenneMentions
1523179,539 (3.56)4
For centuries scholars have debated the true identity of the author of the magnificent body of poems and plays attributed to William Shakespeare. The majority of academics and other "Shakespeare authorities" have accepted the idea that the author was indeed one William Shakspere, the historical figure who hailed from Stratford-upon-Avon, acted on the London stage, and co-owned a successful theater company. And yet many credible voices -- including Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Benjamin Disraeli, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Walt Whitman -- have challenged the conventional wisdom, casting irresolvable doubts on the Stratford man and proposing alternatives from rival playwrights Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe to Queen Elizabeth herself. Now, in this provocative and convincing new book, historian and attorney Bertram Fields reexamines the evidence and presents a stunning, and highly plausible, new theory of the case -- an unconventional approach that will change, once and for all, how we think about the question, "Who was Shakespeare?" With an attorney's mastery of four centuries of evidence and argument, Fields revisits all the critical facts and unanswered questions. With thirty-six plays, two long narrative poems, and 154 sonnets to his name, why did Shakespeare leave behind not a single word of prose or poetry in his own hand? Is it really possible that the Stratford man -- who had a grade school education at best -- possessed the depth and scope of knowledge reflected in the work? Shakespeare the author used Latin and Greek classical works with familiarity and ease, and drew upon Italian and French works not yet translated into English. Was there a single man in the English theater with such breadth and range of knowledge -- a man who also knew the etiquette and practices of nobility, the workings of the law, and the tactics of the military and navy? Is it possible that any culture had produced a figure with both the poet's lofty ideals and empathetic humanity, and the streetwise, boisterous theatrical sense of the crowd-pleasing playwright?' Or -- as Fields asks in his tantalizing conclusion -- was this not one man at all, but a magnificent collaboration between two very different men, a partnership born in the roiling culture of Elizabethan England, and protected for centuries by the greatest conspiracy in literary history? Blending biography and historical investigation with vibrant scholarship and storytelling, Players revolutionizes our understanding of the greatest writer -- or writers -- in our history.… (plus d'informations)
Aucun
Chargement...

Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre

Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre.

» Voir aussi les 4 mentions

4 sur 4
I've always been interested in the Shakespeare "authorship question." First off, I think the actor from Avon was the author of the plays, but I like conspiracy theories and watching otherwise sane people bend the silliest tidbits of evidence to fit their hypotheses. This is a breeze of a book to read, and is written for a general audience. Fields gives the background of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras and tries, as best as he can, to give both sides of the issue. The problem is, however, that it is apparent he doesn't think the Stratford actor was the playwright, and sometimes he is inconsistent with his logic. Thus, the Stratford actor couldn't have asked British travellers for information about Italy, but someone like Bacon could have asked a soldier about military information. Et cetera. There are several such examples where there are perfectly plausible explanations in favor of the Stratford man that are dismissed, but similar arguments, in fact silly ones, are made in favor of the other candidates. The problem with these "Shakespeare must have been a nobleman" types is that there is much in the plays that is coarse and low, there are scores of references to agriculture, which the Stratford man was probably intimately familiar with, and any allusions to "noble" pursuits could have been learned by a writer, and was intended to be understood by a mass audience. For instance, Fields makes much of the references to falconry. According to Fields, this means the plays were not written by the lowly Stratford man, but a nobleman. He discounts the theory that the actor could have learned these facts. But wouldn't it be silly for a playwright to make references to falconry metaphors the groundlings would not have understood? I mean, I've never owned a yacht, but I understand sailing metaphors. Right?

I ramble.

Still, all in all, a neat book if it can be found cheaply, and a superb introduction to the subject. I wish I could give this book four stars, but I can not. Why? First, the editorial decision to make everything brown. The text, the images, everything. But more egregious is that though it is obviously well researched, there are no footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography, which makes this book nearly useless as a reference work. ( )
  tuckerresearch | May 11, 2011 |
Who was Shakespeare really? The debate about whether the man from Stratford truly wrote the works attributed to the Bard has raged for centuries. In this work Fields seeks to objectively present the evidence for and against each of the candidates.

The author is a lawyer, and the legal style was quite blatant to me after my first semester of legal education. This was structured very like the memos I'm supposed to be writing. Fields does a good job of presenting the evidence objectively and fairly representing the many theories surrounding the author. Being Stratfordian (both because I don't go in for the conspiracy theories surrounding most of the other candidates and because I don't want to lose the romantic idea of 'Shakespeare in Love') I had never paid much attention to the cases for many of the other candidates. I learned a lot without having to slog through various dogmatic books. He did say some rather unpleasant things about Kit Marlowe (who is severely underrated), but it didn't rise to the obnoxious level of Greenblatt, so I was ok.

Actually, the most engaging part of the book is the description of the historical context in the beginning. The least interesting (and most unnecessarily complicated) is his theory presented at the end. I felt like Fields dwelled on the variants in spelling of the Stratford actor's name and that of the playwright FAR too much given the fluidity of spelling during the time in question. Harping about whether or not the actor pronounced himself with a long or a short 'a' as some sort of evidence that they were different people grew tiresome very quickly. And I certainly don't see why he quoted FREUD of all people in support of Oxford as Shakespeare. (Seriously, Freud? The man was clearly delusional.) But it was a good read, though best broken down over a few days. It can grow tedious if taken in too large doses. ( )
  Caramellunacy | Feb 14, 2008 |
Everyone should read this to see what the stratfordians and the anti-strats have been arguing about all these years, then decide for yourself who and what to believe.

Read the Full Review here: http://www.epinions.com/content_195061780100 ( )
  jc_hall | Mar 7, 2007 |
This book lays out the arguments for various authorships very objectively. Author’s analysis of some of the plays is way off base, but this is not a book you would read when doing research on Shakespeare’s work. It fact, you will it no help at all in the area.. It is presented in very straight forward lawyer like manner separating the 'facts' taken for granted from the real actual know facts about Shakespeare's life. This is what makes it so valuable for research on the authorship question. ( )
  Cynfrank | Jan 4, 2007 |
4 sur 4
aucune critique | ajouter une critique
Vous devez vous identifier pour modifier le Partage des connaissances.
Pour plus d'aide, voir la page Aide sur le Partage des connaissances [en anglais].
Titre canonique
Titre original
Titres alternatifs
Date de première publication
Personnes ou personnages
Lieux importants
Évènements importants
Films connexes
Épigraphe
Dédicace
Premiers mots
Citations
Derniers mots
Notice de désambigüisation
Directeur de publication
Courtes éloges de critiques
Langue d'origine
DDC/MDS canonique
LCC canonique

Références à cette œuvre sur des ressources externes.

Wikipédia en anglais

Aucun

For centuries scholars have debated the true identity of the author of the magnificent body of poems and plays attributed to William Shakespeare. The majority of academics and other "Shakespeare authorities" have accepted the idea that the author was indeed one William Shakspere, the historical figure who hailed from Stratford-upon-Avon, acted on the London stage, and co-owned a successful theater company. And yet many credible voices -- including Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Benjamin Disraeli, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Walt Whitman -- have challenged the conventional wisdom, casting irresolvable doubts on the Stratford man and proposing alternatives from rival playwrights Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe to Queen Elizabeth herself. Now, in this provocative and convincing new book, historian and attorney Bertram Fields reexamines the evidence and presents a stunning, and highly plausible, new theory of the case -- an unconventional approach that will change, once and for all, how we think about the question, "Who was Shakespeare?" With an attorney's mastery of four centuries of evidence and argument, Fields revisits all the critical facts and unanswered questions. With thirty-six plays, two long narrative poems, and 154 sonnets to his name, why did Shakespeare leave behind not a single word of prose or poetry in his own hand? Is it really possible that the Stratford man -- who had a grade school education at best -- possessed the depth and scope of knowledge reflected in the work? Shakespeare the author used Latin and Greek classical works with familiarity and ease, and drew upon Italian and French works not yet translated into English. Was there a single man in the English theater with such breadth and range of knowledge -- a man who also knew the etiquette and practices of nobility, the workings of the law, and the tactics of the military and navy? Is it possible that any culture had produced a figure with both the poet's lofty ideals and empathetic humanity, and the streetwise, boisterous theatrical sense of the crowd-pleasing playwright?' Or -- as Fields asks in his tantalizing conclusion -- was this not one man at all, but a magnificent collaboration between two very different men, a partnership born in the roiling culture of Elizabethan England, and protected for centuries by the greatest conspiracy in literary history? Blending biography and historical investigation with vibrant scholarship and storytelling, Players revolutionizes our understanding of the greatest writer -- or writers -- in our history.

Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque

Description du livre
Résumé sous forme de haïku

Discussion en cours

Aucun

Couvertures populaires

Vos raccourcis

Évaluation

Moyenne: (3.56)
0.5
1
1.5
2 1
2.5 1
3 5
3.5 1
4 6
4.5
5 2

Est-ce vous ?

Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing.

 

À propos | Contact | LibraryThing.com | Respect de la vie privée et règles d'utilisation | Aide/FAQ | Blog | Boutique | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliothèques historiques | Critiques en avant-première | Partage des connaissances | 204,626,498 livres! | Barre supérieure: Toujours visible