Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare

by Bertram Fields

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.

Genres: History, Biography, Shakespeare, Nonfiction

308 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Bertram Fields is an American lawyer famous for his work in the field of entertainment law; he has represented many of the leading studios, as well as individual celebrities including Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Warren Beatty, James Cameron, Mike Nichols, Joel Silver, Tom Cruise, Dustin Hoffman, Mario Puzo, and John Travolta.

In addition to his work with the law (which includes teaching at Stanford Law School and giving occasional lectures at Harvard Law School), Fields also writes novels and non-fiction works.

In 2015, Fields published 'Destiny: A Novel Of Napoleon & Josephine.' (ISBN 978-0-9905602-0-3) This historical novel tells the story of the Emperor and his beautiful Creole lover. The novel was published by Marmont Lane.

In 2011, Bert Fields was awarded the Crystal Quill Award by the Shakespeare Center Of Los Angeles for his work on William Shakespeare.

In 2005 Fields published the non-fiction book Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare, which deals with the authorship of the plays and sonnets of William Shakespeare.

Having read English history for years as a hobby, and not satisfied with the books written about King Richard III, Fields spent four years researching and two years writing the non-fiction book 'Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes' (ISBN 0-06-039269-X), which was published in 1998.

Reviews

[Ben Stoddard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting ideas, but one can see the tinfoil poking out from beneath Mr Fields's scholarly cap. A lot of supposition and stretching of facts to make them cover his bases. That being said, it was written with a fair-handed admission that facts are obscure on both sides of the arguments and he does not make claims that are not backed up with it least some research.

At best this was entertaining, at worst it was a good review of historical events from the Bard's life.

[Quirkyreader · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have to give this book 5 stars.

I don' t agree with everything that the author has written but, he provides a good argument for his opinion

I did learn some interesting facts though. During the Elizabethian era the name "Shakespeare" had 82 different variations.

Also that Christopher Marlowe almost didn't graduate from Cambridge.

Reading this text also helped me bone up on some of my Elizabethian history.

The theories presented in this book will have deridders. But, we are given a unique perspective of what might have and could have been.

[Lucy McCoskey · Rating 4 out of 5]

an interesting whodunnit, as in who really wrote the Shakespeare plays. logically presented, including appropriate historical & literary clues. several candidates pass, several fail, including the "Stratford Man"

[Kaethe]

I have little patience for the anti-Stratford position and the reviews here are bad.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a deep hypocrisy at the heart of this book, one that is shared by many of its type among those who posit alternative theories for the authorship of Shakespeare's plays [1].  Throughout this book, the author heaps scorn and contempt upon the supposed 'man from Stratford,' perhaps because calling him by his given name, by any of their spellings, would be to appear to legitimize him as one of the greatest writers in the English language, something the author is unwilling to accept.  In addition, the author shows contempt for those of the 'Stratfordian' school by saying that their books are full of may have and must have, for adopting the language of supposition and assumption.  Unfortunately, he shows himself to be adopt the same language himself, along with plenty of "couldn't have" for all of the things he supposes that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon couldn't have written because of his humble background and his litigious and somewhat ungenerous nature as it is revealed in surviving documentary evidence.  Pots should not be insulting the swarthy color of kettles, nor should those in glass houses gleefully start stone-throwing contests.  Those engaged in speculative efforts, as this book is, should be charitable towards others engaged in the same task, out of professional courtesy if nothing else.

Despite the intense scorn the author feels both for William Shakespeare, about whom he has very little good to say, as well as those who believe that such a commoner and grasping social climber as he could write such elevated writings that show such a depth of understanding of human nature and a wide variety of fields, the author at least attempts to portray himself as evenhanded and fair-minded over the course of this book's almost 300 pages.  Part One of this book consists of a chapter that gives the historical context of Tudors and Stuarts.  The second part of the book consists of a lot of mostly short chapters that attempt to cast doubt that William Shakespeare was who he claimed to be.  The third part of the book looks at a host of other candidates, such as the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, William Stanley, Roger Manners, Queen Elizabeth, and the author's own preferred group/collaboration theories.  The last chapter sums up the author's case that he believes William Shakespeare served as a front man for one or more aristocrats with whom there was a collaboration between the high art of Shakespeare that has made it a classic and the sort of low arts of the stage that made it immediately popular with groundlings.

Ultimately, this book exists, and other books like it exist, because the author is a snob.  Every alternative theory for Shakespeare requires the existence of some sort of conspiracy.  Not wanting to think that a prickly and lowborn commoner was able to write in such an elevated fashion, the author and others of his ilk posit any kind of likely aristocratic candidate they can in order to believe that high art must be created by those who are highborn.  They believe that someone as common as the actor from the provincial market town of Stratford-upon-Avon could provide some savvy and profane lines to appeal to the prejudices of the ignorant masses, the sort that has long made people uncomfortable with unexpurgated Shakespeare plays, but that the nobility and excellence of Shakespeare's plays could not come from a relatively uneducated person from the sticks whose surviving handwriting is cramped.  As someone not very far unlike Shakespeare in terms of his background and cramped handwriting who tends to write very elevated writings, I find this sort of snobbery a mortal offense.  This book can be enjoyed as the wishful thinking of snobs, but it makes for very poor literary criticism.

[1] It should be fairly obvious that I am a bardophile.  See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

[Marilyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bertram Fields seems "middle of the road" or "straddling the fence" about the question "Did William Shakspere or Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon write the famous plays and poems attributed to him?" He's even-handed in saying, in effect, that most of the "evidence" does not prove that Will of Stratford did write the plays and it does not prove that he didn't. Perhaps he's a waffler; but he does say there is a case to answer, which is more than most Stratford supporters say. William Shakespeare the playwright knew more about Italy, falconry, Italian texts not translated into English, Ovid, the law, ships and sailors, the injustices of racism and the power structure of the aristocracy and the courtiers than the average man from a country town who did not go into a university or the Inns of Court. Now, could William Shakespere the actor from Stratford have got all that knowledge and the connections with elites like the Earl of Southampton? Did he, a miser and grain-hoarder who didn't pay his taxes several times, have the integrity and compassion seen in the plays of William Shakespeare the playwright? Fields says "Perhaps." here. "Perhaps not" there and leaves the impression that It Does Seem Odd.

[Ella (book.monkey) · Rating 3 out of 5]

It had some interesting, only read this for it's information on The Tempest, and in Shakespeares whole life it was a very small part.
The chapter about his sexuality was interesting.

[Caitlin P. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love a good mystery (or conspiracy theory), so this was quite interesting to me.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author makes the best choice from the chosen possibilities, but is not totally convincing. I recommend Shakespeare by Another Name by Mark Anderson, who claims that the two gentleman whom Fields claim collaborated for the works of Shake-speare (with a little help from others) never met each other or had any relationship to each other, or Shakespeare: The Evidence by Ian Wilson, who finds ample reasons to give the Stratford man his due. I kind of like the reasoning that Bacon and Jonson, who had become Bacon's secretary and a new won convert to Shakespeare love, are the ones responsible for keeping the hoax going after all the parties were dead, and paid off other persons to say that the Stratford man was Shake-speare, but why couldn't they do this also for Marlowe or Queen Elizabeth?

The problem I have is in saying that De Vere gave his consent for the actor and theatre man to edit the plays for the sake of the audience's approval, and to allow him Shaksper to put his own name on the entire catalog for this great service rendered. It seems like kind of a one-sided arrangement. After all, Oxford was rather poor wasn't he? It seems hard to accept that he couldn't make the changes himself and offer his work to others besides Shaksper for the sake of improving his financial hardships. What kind of hold could this actor exert on people who were above him in rank? I'd also like to see more research done on Mary Wroth, Emilia Lanier and Mary Sydney as possible female contributors to the Shake-speare colloboration rather than to just focus on Marlowe, Stanley, Rutland, and the other possible candidates that the author discussed here. It is doubtful that the truth will ever be known, but for someone who claims to be offering a thorough investigation, this one did not go quite as far as I would have liked. Many of the findings of the two other writers I mentioned were overlooked here. Bacon also seems to have his hands in everything, but no one is any longer willing to give him any credit for shaping the final edit or possibly composing some of the earlier material himself before he moved on to writing essays.

Even with the above criticism, Fields debunked a lot of theories that I had heard before, and seemed very impartial. The only fault I find is with the final solution. It just doesn't seem to be the only viable one.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book was written by a lawyer, and it is very obvious...
i can see this putting off readers because he really does hammer way at what is assumed...

so far i'm very much enjoying it...it's as if shakespeare's been put on trial for fraud and you're reading the pre-trial discovery of one of the lawyers...

i would have liked to see more references, he makes a lot of factual statements and paraphrases arguments without giving any sort of citation...this is a problem...

otherwise, it was very well argued and organized...i would recommend it to anyone who's interested in the "mystery" surrounding the authorship question...it won't go down as the definitive text on the subject, but fields makes some very astute observations that are worth reading...

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

No. This is not about athletes. It is about the "players" involved in the academic game of "Who was Shakespeare (or, as Fields refers to him, the "Stratford Man")? Following an examination of England at the time, the author discusses factors to be considered such as education, politics, and religion among others. Finally, he itemizes those who are possible candidates from Marlowe to Queen Elizabeth. No conclusions are reached as "After all, when we refer to reading, understanding, or loving "Shakespeare," we mean that great body of work, not the man who bore (or hid behind) that name.

[Kelli Callis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I appreciate the author's attempt to be objective, but it was a little hard to read pages of evidence, then have him dismiss it all with one sentence.

I'm lending it to a friend & I'm going to tell her to skip to the chapters about the potential authors. The stuff about the Stratford man goes on & on & on, and isn't very interesting. I kept thinking, "Maybe he was ill, that's why his signature on his will is illegible! Let's get back to Oxford!"

xoxo Oxford.

[PastAllReason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fields is known for being a "celebrity" lawyer in California. My expectations weren't high starting reading this book, however, I found it to be well-written and thoroughly researched.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading this book. I feel like my knowledge of many different areas grew immensly. It did feel a little long though.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough review of the issues surrounding the identity of Shakespeare.

[Kira · Rating 3 out of 5]

careful, Bertram. Your biases are showing!

[Alan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not always coherent book about whether "Stratford man" wrote plays or not.

[Kelly Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting theories