What Was Shakespeare Really Like?

by Stanley Wells

Sir Stanley Wells is one of the world's greatest authorities on William Shakespeare. Here he brings a lifetime of learning and reflection to bear on some of the most tantalising questions about the poet and dramatist that there are. How did he think, feel, and work? What were his relationships like? What did he believe about death? What made him laugh? This freshly thought and immensely engaging study wrestles with fundamental debates concerning Shakespeare's personality and life. The mysteries of how Shakespeare lived, whom and how he loved, how he worked, how he produced some of the greatest and most abidingly popular works in the history of world literature and drama, have fascinated readers for centuries. This concise, crystalline book conjures illuminating insights to reveal Shakespeare as he was. Wells brings the writer and dramatist alive, in all his fascinating humanity, for readers of today.

Genres: Shakespeare, Nonfiction, History, Biography

130 pages, Hardcover

Published September 28, 2023

About the author

Stanley William Wells, CBE, is a Shakespeare scholar and Chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

Reviews

[ancientreader · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Goodreads header above the editing pane I see says "by Stephen Fry," which fortunately is not the case, because as much as I like Fry in many of his moods, Golden-Calfing Shakespeare ("a depth, scale, and poetic power and insight that no playwright, novelist, film director, or screenwriter has since come close to") isn't one of them, and the disclaimer in the next paragraph ("He and his works are famous for exhausting superlatives, and tiresome declamations of his genius [like mine] are of no help") is, as Fry himself admits, no help. We must all think Shakespeare Is Best, or else. There's something a little desperate about such insistence, not least because (as Fry again admits, and stop it already, Stephen, you're not doing any good here) it just puts people off if they're already disposed to think that Shakespeare is a load of boring bunk. Which, uh, he isn't, as obviously I think since I requested this ARC in the first place.

Thankfully, although Stanley Wells has devoted his entire intellectual life to Shakespeare and for all I know does worship him, the manner of this little book is down-to-earth. It derives from four lectures Wells gave remotely during the first year of the pandemic, so there are a few recapitulations, the kind of thing that comes with the territory when you heard the previous installment last week. This is trivial; what matters is that Wells wears his learning lightly, is not ashamed to pun, and sits on the admiration side of the divide between admiration and worship.

There being relatively little solid information about Shakespeare's life, Wells speculates a fair amount -- but he's good at it. Was Shakespeare law-abiding, for example? Wells points out that most of his fellow playwrights did time for offenses ranging from murder to debt, whereas it appears that Shakespeare got in (mild) trouble twice, once likely for being tanked and rowdy, another time for not paying his taxes promptly. But no prosecutions are recorded. In combination with other established facts (his ownership of property, etc.), this makes a pretty good basis for believing that he was at least outwardly conventional.

What did Shakespeare look like? His peers took note of others' good looks, their long red hair, their gigantic bellies, and so on, but no one seems to have had much to say about Shakespeare's appearance -- so, Wells says, he was probably unremarkable. That might have seemed like a stretch at first, but Shakespeare was a known, admired, prominent figure, someone whose appearance would (surely?) have elicited comment if there was much to comment on.

Shakespeare as team player: he had collaborators, he revised the plays for performance, he wrote to his actors' talents. (This discussion led to one of Wells's most interesting points, about the paucity of female characters in the plays. Women and girls had to be played by adolescent boys, and adolescent boys with enough emotional maturity to portray, say, a grieving adult woman would have been thin on the ground. "Chronic Shortage of Boy Actors Syndrome," Wells calls this. Some historical novelist has absolutely got to take note of this passage, because in it Wells also points out that "both As You Like It and Twelfth Night, for instance, written close together, call for a well-matched pair of accomplished boys to play respectively the substantial roles of Rosalind and Celia and of Viola and Olivia." God, but I want to know more about those boys -- who were they, what was their relationship with each other and with the playwright, what became of them after their voices broke?)

For my money, the best chapter here is the one on the sonnets. Wells puts them in context with the vogue for sonnet sequences, makes a good case for Shakespeare having intended them as private meditations, and has a lot of plausible things to say about what they reveal of Shakespeare's emotional and sexual life. By contrast, Don Paterson's Reading Shakespeare's Sonnets is a lot of fun but takes the poems as so straightforwardly and literally autobiographical that it's ultimately unconvincing overall even though he's usually an insightful analyst of the individual sonnets.

And yet here I am dinging a star. This is for two reasons. One, the epilogue starts out strong, with a discussion of how Shakespeare studies, as a field, has historically neglected performance (Wells points out that staging and acting are themselves forms of literary criticism), but winds up as a recitation of, basically, Wells's resume. It's not that Wells comes off as bragging, exactly -- he's so eminent that nothing he can say about his professional life can count as bragging -- but honestly, who cares about the umpteenth award he's gotten? I'm sure there was some purpose to including all this detail, not that I know what that purpose might have been. I drifted off.

My second reason for dinging that fifth star is Wells' frankly peculiar silence about The Taming of the Shrew (I'd really like some help finding a non-poisonous reading of that play, or at least a discussion of its poisonousness) and his failure to supply or even point to any serious discussion of The Merchant of Venice (ditto, though Wells does nod to the anti-Semitism). How's this for obliviousness: "It’s fair enough, in my opinion, to get young students to learn selected passages by heart, and even to read with them more or less self-contained extracts, such as the witches’ scenes from Macbeth, or filleted versions of individual plays – perhaps the Shylock scenes from The Merchant of Venice, or the taming scenes from The Taming of the Shrew." I mean, sure, if you want to put kids off Shakespeare entirely; I didn't read Merchant till I was an adult, but boy do I remember the distress I felt as a high school sophomore reading Taming of the Shrew.

Still, if you're even halfway interested in Shakespeare's plays, or in theater generally, or in what even was up with those sonnets, What Was Shakespeare Really Like? is a great pleasure. I just advise skipping the foreword and bailing out of the afterword when the CV kicks in.

Many thanks to NetGalley and Cambridge University Press for the ARC.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

You can't go wrong with Stanley Wells; thorough discussion of the life of the Bard; at times a bit tedious but Wells tries keeping things lively by choosing a questioning approach. On the subject be sure to check these excellent biographies, and there are many!, of the man from Stratford; Is Shakespeare Dead?, Soul of the Age: A Biography of the Mind of William Shakespeare, The Genius of Shakespeare, Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare and this may be my favourite; The Lodger Shakespeare: His Life on Silver Street.

[Oscar Jelley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not exactly virtuosic criticism, but a decent essay on what little we can justifiably claim about Shakespeare based on his work and the few scraps of biographical evidence we possess, made more interesting by Wells' willingness to draw definite (if inevitably contestable) conclusions about Shax's life and character. I remember someone saying that no-one would want to read a biography of Don Delillo, because all he likes to do is sit at his desk and write. Sexual exploits aside, Wells' Shakespeare seems similar. Still, this did its job, in that it made me impatient to (re)read the plays in the coming months - maybe in chronological order, as is suggested here. When you hit 25 you have to start doing these things.

[William Stafford · Rating 5 out of 5]

The world’s foremost Shakespeare fanboy and academician, Sir Stanley Wells tickles the brain cells with this slender volume discussing what old Bill may have been like as a person. Of course it’s all conjecture, extrapolated from the works and from scanty historical documents. Yet Professor Wells makes a convincing case. (For my part, all I know for sure is that Shakespeare must have been a witty fellow - you can’t write Beatrice without possessing her wit yourself.) A quick and illuminating read

[Maree · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sir Stanley Wells has been writing about Shakespeare for much of his 93 years on the planet, and I've always enjoyed the way he is able to communicate his passion for the subject at various levels - to advanced scholars, students of all ages, and the general public. He is one of the all-time great editors and scholars in the field of Shakespeare Studies, and his latest book, What Was Shakespeare Really Like?, is based on some of his popular lectures.

Here we get four chapters, each headed by a question about Shakespeare's "true self," that are a bit more personal than many other Shakespeare books without being an in-depth biological study:
- What Manner of Man Was He?
- How Did Shakespeare Write a Play?
- What Do the Sonnets Tell Us about Their Author?
- What Made Shakespeare Laugh?

I especially enjoyed the chapter on the sonnets, where Wells gives a great summary of what we know and what we don't know about how they came to be published. He also does a quick and dirty exegesis of some of the most controversial sonnets in the sequence. Each chapter gets to the point quickly and doesn't lean too hard on the speculation that scholars are often left with, due to the limited certainty we have about many aspects of Shakespeare's life and relationships.

The poignant epilogue here sees Sir Stanley revisit his entire career, express appreciation for his many mentors and collaborators, and seem to say a fond farewell to the world of Shakespeare studies.

This is a very accessible and readable book for general audiences and those who are curious about Shakespeare's life and work.

[Annarella · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned a lot about the human being called William Shakespeare, how he lived and a lot of other information.
It's a fascinating book, well written and engrossing.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine

[Harry Balden]

tldr: horny but felt bad about it

[elif kalafat · Rating 3 out of 5]

can’t believe they don’t really know anything about shakespeare — yet they search him for centuries, write endless papers, and teach him to every english-speaking student. and still, nothing solid. just theories. hilarious.

but gotta love the fact that some people are able to dedicate over 90 years of their lives to studying one person and even make money out of it. passion? oh, absolutely. something i couldn’t quite find myself lol.

[June Price · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lettice Shakespeare (sister of William Shakespeare)
11th Great-Grandmother

Those were the words that jumped out at me recently while reviewing my family's family tree. It isn't that I didn't know this link already but it reminded me that I had this book in my TBR stack, albeit way down the list given it's publication day isn't for some time. Nevertheless, I decided, "Why not?" and bumped it right to the top of my list. I'm glad I did.

Author Stanley Wells, who I discovered should probably be referred to as Sir Stanley Wells, prepared these lecture notes just as covid restrictions went into place. The plan was to deliver them in person at the headquarters of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. That obviously couldn't happen so he ultimately presented them online. This is the slightly edited/updated print version of those video lectures which are currently available online. You may best know Stephen Fry, who does the foreword, as half of the comedy duo of Fry and Laurie, where he partners with Hugh Laurie, although he has a host of other credits including, cough-cough, performing on stage in works of Shakespeare. Check out that photo of him as Malvolio. Anyway, enough about them. On to the real star of the story, William Shakespeare. If you're reading this, you've obviously heard of him.

Seriously, this was a fascinating look at Shakespeare the man. I liked that Wells kept it simple, relying on fact, not wild hunches. Is he in agreement with other experts? No. Not always. Heck, Even the late Prince Phillip didn't agree with him. Ancestor or not, I'm no Shakespeare expert, so I generally had no true opinion on anything. Oh, okay, I had no clue about much of the info shared. Wells uses source material and the words of not just other experts but those of contemporaries of Shakespeare as well as Shakespeare's own works to illustrate his conclusions. There are even photos, well captioned, I'll note, and a lengthy list of books referred to in his lectures as well as an index for the book. If you're a fan of Shakespeare, you'll definitely enjoy the ample use of his written works, even the controversial sonnets.

Nope, not giving away details. Read the blurb. Buy the book. I think you'll like the man that emerges and find his likely creative pattern interesting. Not a dry read by any stretch of the imagination, which I'd sorta feared. Shakespeare had to juggle so many demands, even the availability of certain things, like a trapdoor, in the theatre, not to mention be aware of the limits and skills of his players as well as numbers, usually no more than fourteen. I'm sure most know all roles in Shakespeare's day were performed by men, but even then some had more than one role to play, which had to be a major drain on energy, both physical and emotional. Shakespeare loved puns and word play, so just coping with multiple character lines to learn was surely time consuming.

Bottom line, this is a book that will be finding a permanent place on my shelf. How delightful to find out the very human side of my celebrated ancestor. His words still have the power to stir us. Thanks #NetGalley and #CambridgeUniversityPress for this insight into a man few of us, related or not, truly know. Proud to call him an ancestor.

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don’t be frightened—this is an immensely readable book by one of the world’s pre-eminent Shakespeare experts.

We all long to know more about Shakespeare the man, because his achievement is so great, his insights to the human mind and heart so profound, and because we have so little reliable information about him. This has led to speculation, some of it wild. Wells’s book aims to set the record straight.

He does this by combining the sparse facts that have come down to us about the man with a close and highly discriminating examination of his work. He doesn’t assume that Shakespeare believed every bit of dialog he gave to his characters. The only literature that Wells believes expresses Shakespeare’s own feelings are some of the sonnets. He uses his knowledge of Shakespeare’s life to separate the sonnets he wrote for general consumption from those he wrote to express his personal feelings.

Using Shakespeare’s output as clues, Wells follows his development, emphasizing that people change over the course of their lives. His plays show that he was pragmatic, writing to suit the needs of his drama troupe—the number of actors he had at his command, the chronic shortage of boys to play the women’s parts, the strengths and weaknesses of individual actors, etc. He traces Shakespeare’s artistic development, such as the “relatively amateurish” plotting of his first play and the “masterly construction” of one written just a few years later, or the low humor of his earlier work and the far more subtle humor of his later work. He points out his ability to empathize with the suffering of animals, which was highly unusual for the time. He was sympathetically amused by human idiosyncrasy and charitable to morally dubious characters. Wells believes—again, on the strength of the plays—that he distrusted “a severely rationalistic” view of life and felt more at home with “skeptical irrationality.” He finds a recurrent concern with diminution and the coming together of opposites.

I would have liked to see more of this kind of deduction—what Shakespeare was thinking on the basis of what he wrote. For instance, the later plays show a preoccupation with the relationship between fathers and daughters, especially the father’s difficulty of relinquishing his girl to another man when she marries. Shakespeare was the father of two daughters, both of whom were of marriageable age at the time he wrote these plays (King Lear, The Tempest, etc.). One of them married during his lifetime; the other, not until after his death. But Wells is extremely cautious about this. He reserves his conclusions about Shakespeare’s inner thoughts to the evidence of some of the sonnets.

What makes this book so readable is the fact that it was initially written as a series of lectures. Covid scuttled that, and he later expanded the text for publication. But the result is a book that anyone can enjoy.

Thanks to Cambridge University Press and NetGalley for an advance copy of this book.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

From years of teaching Hamlet to waves of college freshmen, I have confronted the age-old mystery of exactly who authored Shakespeare's plays. My answer is somewhat long winded, but here it comes: none of Shakespeare's plays were published during his lifetime. This is not to say that none were ever printed; indeed, some of his plays were produced as rehearsal scripts, of which each actor received a copy that spelled out only his lines. It wasn't until seven years after his death that a printed collection known as the First Folio appeared. This collection was assembled and edited by John Heminges and Henry Condell, the last surviving members of Shakespeare's acting troupe known as The King's Men. Neither Heminges nor Condell were young when they published the First Folio. As such, they had to rely on memory to fill in the blanks produced by the absence of complete scripts. At the ripe old age of 62, I can sympathize with the idea that different voices appear responsible for some of the passages from his plays. After all, I would not want to reply on my memory to complete sketches that were commenced fifteen to twenty years ago.

Scholarship generated by Shakespearian aficionados evoke an even greater mystery: For a man of such immense celebrity, so revered and so famous for his sonnets as well as his plays--why do we know so little about him? If indeed all of his works are the product of a single mind...who was the man in possession of that mind? Stanley Wells is here to address these mysteries as well as they can be.

Wells' text only stretches 114 pages, and wisely so. Wells does not rely on conjecture or on wishful thinking. He derives his conclusions from verifiable sources: What Shakespeare's contemporaries said about him, the structure of his plays as his writing evolved, the acute emotions expressed in his sonnets--as well as the circumstances behind the publication of them--and what modern readers can discern about his sense of humor. Wells does not claim to know the absolute truth; he tenaciously sticks to empirical evidence produced by both Shakespeare and his peers. Wells knows that his conclusions are not unassailable, but he also goes to great lengths to point out the portions of the remaining works that support his conclusions.

I am no scholar, professional or otherwise, of Shakespeare. I have not read all (or even most) of his plays, and none of his sonnets whatsoever. But I find in Wells' writing a comrade spirit: one who enjoys Shakespeare as a foundation for performance. His ideas make sense. But even if they didn't...the sources Wells cites are all we have. He explains his conclusions clearly and fairly, and in a voice that fans of the Bard can easily understand.

[Rebecca Reid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stanley Wells is one of the world’s premier Shakespearean scholars, with, as he discusses in his epilogue, more than 80 years of experience of studying, teaching, reading, and watching Shakespeare. His newest book is an exploration of the man: What Was Shakespeare Really Like? (Cambridge University Press, September 2023). He writes about Shakespeare by considering the historical facts that are known, as well as the assumptions that can be made based on the sonnets and plays he wrote.


When I was an English major, I loved interpreting literature from a variety of perspectives. That’s why a book like this so deeply appeals to me. Wells’s combination of analyzing Shakespeare personality from the perspective of the author’s life as well as the writing itself was fascinating. He highlights that Shakespeare’s writing shows his flexibility with change and improvisation, as well as his meticulous ability to develop an elaborate plot and characters. He has an broad range of writing talent, and it clearly has developed as he gained experience. He was a polyglot and he was familiar with unique places in the world. He could write with a slapstick sense of humor, hoping to please his patrons and viewers, but his preferred humor was likely more specific for everyday life. Further, although it’s clear Shakespeare was driven by an internal compulsion to write.

It has been a long time since Shakespeare was alive, and so much about life in his era and about his life specifically has been lost. But much can be insinuated based on the facts we do know and the memorable words he created within his lifetime. Wells provides four main questions he hoped to answer as he reviewed the historical facts from Shakespeare’s life as well as the details found in his plays and poems.

What manner of man was he?
How did Shakespeare write a play?
What do the sonnets tell us about the author?
What made Shakespeare laugh?

With an epilogue about his own history of Shakespearean study, Wells ties together his commentary with the conclusion that Shakespeare, despite his well-renown in his day and ours, was a “private man.” The bottom line is that Shakespeare’s writing is still universal today because he was so “deeply immerse in the life of his time, so vulnerable to temptation and open experience.” After reading Well’s reviews of Shakespeare and his plays, I too feel a desire to recognize this universality of experience as I revisit the man’s created worlds.

I voluntarily read and reviewed an advance review copy of this book provided by the publisher via NetGalley. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

[Andrea Wenger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book delves into the enduring mysteries surrounding Shakespeare's life and creative genius, engaging with questions that have captivated readers for centuries. It explores enigmas about his relationships, lifestyle, and literary craftsmanship in order to illuminate Shakespeare's essence and unveil the man behind his masterful works.

With a strong reliance on the text of Shakespeare's works, this book combines history and supposition to paint a picture of what Shakespeare's life might have been like. Unfortunately, the author's position that Shakespeare's sonnets were autobiographical tainted this otherwise useful book. This assertion is baffling and demonstrates a profound ignorance of how the creative process works. Is it possible that the sonnets are autobiographical? Sure. There's nothing implausible about the idea that a man who worked in the theater and spent much of his time away from home might have engaged in extramarital affairs with both men and women. But to suggest that the sonnets are evidence of such affairs is nonsensical. Shakespeare's literary imagination far exceeded his personal experience. Ultimately, Shakespeare's personal life is mostly unknown and unknowable, and the author of this book is grasping at straws in an attempt to prove otherwise.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

[Kipi (the academic stitcher) · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Sir Stanley Wells has spent his entire professional life knee deep in Shakespeare in one way or another. This short book provides a brief overview of Shakespeare the man and the playwright. I didn't find anything especially new here, but it was an interesting read, nevertheless. He has opinions about the Bard that other scholars don't share, but since there is so little first-hand information about the man himself, most of what is written about him is opinion and conjecture, so the title is a little misleading. Without some great discovery such as a diary or something that has remained hidden for four hundred years, I'm not sure that we will ever know what William Shakespeare was really like.

Even though this book is pretty short, it took me a month to get through it as I didn't find it compelling enough to want to pick it up every evening. Honestly, my favorite part about the book was the cover. It's a great one!

Thank you to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for the advanced reader copy.

#WhatwasShakespeareReallyLike #NetGalley

[Sheila Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wells presents interesting ideas about one of the most famous playwrights of all time. Based on years of scholarly research. Wells works to humanize a mythic entity. He acknowledges little is known about Shakespeare’s life, but he gleans his perceptions from the poet’s work. He points to sonnets or scenes from the plays to justify his believes. He also pulls information about Shakespeare from his peers and colleagues. The chapter about his sonnets is engaging and shows a progression of growth from Shakespeare as he matured. Additionally, the chapter about Shakespeare’s humor paints the playwright as an intentionally cheeky fellow. Fortunately, Wells considers his audience, and we are not presented with a high-brow look at Shakespeare. Wells endures that his book is accessible to a broad audience.

[Ilia · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun little essay on an impossible question. The beginning is a little frustrating, with Wells setting out the bounds of what we can know about Shakespeare without providing huge detail about what that tells us we do know. There’s a long series of paragraphs beginning with ‘we can think about’ without clarifying what he does think about it. Thankfully at the very end, he does circle back to say what he does actually think Shakespeare was like, which you can agree or disagree with as you like. Most interesting for me was the chapter on the sonnets, which makes a compelling case that they do provide a insight into Shakespeare’s private troubles, rather than just being exercises in assuming the voices of different characters.

[Randal White · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would recommend this book to anyone who has ever wondered about just who William Shakespeare was. The author has presented a short, concise, and informative look into Shakespeare. Easily readable, full of fun facts, I was left with the feeling that I had somehow had a magical portal into Shakespeare's mind. I ended up wondering why, in all my years of education, didn't any of my instructors teach any of this? It would have made reading Shakespeare's writings so much more enjoyable. Perhaps if there are any teachers reading this review, they could assign this book alongside their discussions of Shakespeare.

[sase · Rating 3 out of 5]

it wasn't as fancy as i had expected. still a solid work though. i really enjoyed reading shakespeare's plays back in college but i don't really remember we spent a lot of time reading and talking about his sonnets. that's way reading all about his personality through sonnets was great. but still we really don't know who he was. that is extraordinary. all what experts could do is to speculate. although all the comments and speculation about his personality through his works are brilliant in the book, i did not really enjoy them because i did want to see some facts.

[Katie Mac · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received an eARC of this book from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

I would have loved to hear Stanley Wells read this as it was originally intended because it feels dense in parts as a written text. I did appreciate Wells' take on Shakespeare's sense of humor, though, and his analysis of his love poems was an entertaining read--reminded me of the more fun parts of grad school.

[Nancy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book contains four essays based on lectures given by the author. The topics are Shakespeare's manner, how he wrote a play, what the sonnets tell about Shakespeare, and what made Shakespeare laugh. I would have enjoyed the book more if I were more familiar with ALL the plays and sonnets, which I am not. In addition, I felt that most of the text was, perhaps naturally, based on theory instead of facts.

[Nick Shears · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading for anyone with any interest in what sort of person Shakespeare might have been. How did he write, what made him laugh, what sort of person was he?
Easily digestible, regardless of your level of prior knowledge, this is written clearly and only 114 pages long (plus a fascinating epilogue about Stanley Wells’ eight decades of dedication to an enjoyment of Shakespeare’s works).
I shall reread this more than once.

[Bardfilm · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoroughly enjoyable take on Shakespeare for a general, interested audience. The writing is compelling, and the scholarship is nothing to be sneezed at. As does every Shakespeare scholar who takes on the task, Wells goes a bit wonky when talking about the sonnets, but that’s the one thing to take with a grain of salt in the entire book. I wish I could give four and a half stars—it’s not a five, but it’s not quite a four, either.

[Alina · Rating 3 out of 5]

This compact work is well written (minus all the missing commas) and Sir Wells asks (mostly) interesting questions, but there’s just not enough evidence to work with. The best part may be the end, when we get neat (enough in this field) answers to the titular question. I also appreciated the list of books at the end.

[Tom · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting book but it requires the reader to have a somewhat good knowledge of Shakespeare prior to reading. I would have liked more of a back story and a little less academic style review.

[Michael P. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Will write about this one in my "Talking Books Update" in SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER.

[Jade Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Easy to read and very informative. I don't think it's a one-stop-shop per se, but definitely a great starting point.

[Terry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very great scholarship presented in a very readable style.