This book is in large part an attack on the orthodox "Stratfordian" academic 'establishment'; not however from the point of view of someone claiming that a person other than William Shakespeare of Stratford Upon Avon wrote the works of Shakespeare (an impression which the cover picture and title might give at first glance). Rather, Eric Sams accepts that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, so to speak, but claims that the account of the writer's early life and literary development promulgated by 'orthodox" 20th Century British Shakespeare scholars is basically eroneous, and distorted by fashionable, unproved theories. His main claim is that Shakespeare started acting on, and writing for, the stage, much earlier than most modern academics allow, that he wrote plays (and perhaps pamphlets) other than the 'canonical' plays (i.e. those plays included in the First Folio of 1623, plus "Pericles"), and that he frequently revised or rewrote his own plays. In the first few chapters of the book Sams speculates on Shakespeare's early background and upbringing in Stratford. Sams sometimes brings in quotes from the plays to support his view of Shakespeare's early life, and this is perhaps a bit problematic, but on the whole his contentions are pretty convincing, and he persuasively argues that the oral traditions about Shakespeare should be taken seriously, and not simply dismissed as gossip or folk-tales. Sams' main bugbear is probably the 'memorial reconstruction' theory, which holds that the so-called "bad quartos" are the botched piratings of Shakespeare's plays by unscrupulous actors. Sams contends that there is absolutely no evidence for this theory, and instead favours the simpler and more convincing proposition that these "bad quartos" are in fact early versions of these plays by Shakespeare himself, which he later revised. There is much more in this book than I have mentioned above, and it is definitely well worth reading.

1.Eric Sams' The Real Shakespeare constitutes a determined attempt to reconstruct the early part of the playwright's life. It shows Shakespeare not as a late developer but as an early starter who assiduously revised his work and who, in fact, was responsible for early dramas, including apparent source texts, not usually accepted as part of the conventional canon. Clearly the result of much work and contemplation of extant records and other details, The Real Shakespeare looks initially at biographical issues: a Roman Catholic Shakespeare leaves school, probably at the age of thirteen, to help with family farm chores, becomes involved (as a clerk) with the legal profession (hence the character of his hand-writing), marries Anne Hathaway (already pregnant), and departs soon after for London to escape the consequences (whipping, at the least) of poaching deer owned by the influential, anti-catholic Sir Thomas Lacy. In London, Sams asserts, Shakespeare makes his connection with the Shoreditch Theatre, working his way up the proverbial ladder as ostler, call-boy, prompter and soon becomes a Queen's Man far earlier than Schoenbaum et al. are inclined to allow (58). 2.Biographical issues, however, cannot be detached from literary matters (which particularly dominate the second part of the book), and Sams, in looking at the Bard's young life, also takes into account the work and comments of contemporaries (e.g., Marlowe, Greene, Nashe, Spenser, et al.), the Parnassus plays, and Willobie his Avisa (1594) before turning to the Sonnets, the association with the 3rd Earl of Southampton, and the problem of the dedication in the first edition. He then moves to a consideration of the "early style" and ascription of both the 1589 and 1603 (Q1) Hamlet to Shakespeare, as well as A Shrew (c.1588), The Troublesome Reign of King John (c.1588), the first part of the Contention...(1594), and The True Tragedies of Richard... (1595); also offered as possible candidates for canonical authority are Faire Em and Locrine (of which there is, indeed, pace Sams, p.166, a modern edition). Attention is also given to bad quartos and the matter of memorial reconstruction, source-plays, derivative plays, dating, "collaboration," so-called "stylometry," and handwriting (a script, Sams suggests, of a law clerk suggesting links to the hand of Edmund Ironside [c.1588]). Curiously, for this strongly argued book, which contends in a detailed way with the conclusions of much twentieth-century scholarship (references to contrary opinion are carefully included), there is no concluding chapter, and the reader is left to pull the threads together. However, by way of addendum, Sams provides a section headed "The Documents 1500-1594," 205 biographical details and citations in chronological order, which under-pin especially the reconstruction of the early (Schoenbaum's "lost") years; and a bibliography (with + and * marks denoting items which support or counter Sam's arguments). An index concludes the volume. 3.It is always important to review evidence for conventional knowledge, to challenge the validity of accepted views, and to suggest plausible solutions to bothersome problems. Yet, at times, the greater wisdom, unfortunately, lies in uncertainty, in being sure of what one can and cannot know, and in Shakespearean scholarship, the fields of speculation are rather broad. Given the available documentation, many readers will find some of Sams' arguments, while intriguing, still unconvincing and will prefer to rest with the more cautious approach of Schoenbaun, Vickers, Wells, and others. The academic community has not blindly or wilfully rejected solid evidence, and should not be reproached for what might appear, to some critics, to be tradition-bound precepts or unduly conservative empiricism. 4.Could Shakespeare have known about ostlers and law-clerks without being an ostler or a law-clerk? Probably? Did he write Locrine? Almost certainly not -- given the style, and if he did, why did he not revise it? If Shakespeare was the dedicated reviser Sams claims that he was, why did he not rework the questionable scenes in Titus and Pericles? Were all the source plays (e.g., King Lear and Famous Victories) really by Shakespeare? Doubt could enter here. Does revision necessarily or "normally" mean that the resulting work will manifest two separate styles? No, it does not; though the reference to the Brahms' piano trio (Op.8) on p.187 is interesting, it does not, I think sufficiently support the general point. And what is the difference between an "ordinary" reader of Shakespeare and other kinds of readers (105)? Is one to infer that academic readers and textual editors lose some sensitivity? 5.Certainly, Sams' The Real Shakespeare will shake the scholarly stage a little, which is not a bad thing. But I should guess that, when the tremors have subsided, many -- perhaps most -- of the props will be more or less where they were before and others, which would be nice to have -- some certainty about the early years, for instance -- will still be absent.

A wonderful story. Most Shakesphere books read like school text books but this book is novel like, completely holding my interest from cover to cover. Jeffrey Kahan makes you feel like you were there, as if you were part of these amazing events. I highly recommend this book to everyone who loves history and Shakesphere. I just couldn't put it down!

I'm fortunate enough to be a friend of Jeffrey Kahan, and bought the book originally for that reason. I have greatly enjoyed reading it, and was also privileged to hear him read portions of it at a local bookstore on Jan. 16, 1999. That said, the book stands on its own merits.

Jeffrey writes just as he speaks; his faintly ironic sense of humor comes through quite clearly in print. In addition, the story he tells includes such elements of good fiction as crime, blackmail, and sexual scandal. While these elements would make for good fiction, the story is true; William-Henry Ireland really did attempt to pass off his own play as one written by Shakespeare. The historical documentation and research stand up to the most critical of scrutiny.

I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys true history authors such as Alison Weir, mystery fiction, or historical fiction.

richard ii chronicles the events that began the so-called war of the roses, the 14th century civil war between two branches of the royal family. it focuses on the usurpation of the crown by henry bolingbroke (later henry iv). in snatching the crown from his cousin richard, henry 'leapt over' the legitimate heir, his teenage nephew. thence began the internicine feud. historically, the play is pretty accurate. richard is portrayed as a feckless, flamboyant man who believed he had a divine right to rule and forgot that his earthly powers rested on the support of his followers, who he abused and neglected. the play does focus on richard's personality, and he gets a lot of nice lines, but it also focuses on the plotting and scheming that makes this period such an intersting one. richard ii is the first part of shakspeare's history tetralogy that continues in henry the iv, parts 1 and 2, and concludes in henry v. all are well worth reading.

Richard II, the weak and unwise King of England, is trapped amongst a group of flattering sycophants. He unwisely meditates in a fight between Mowbray and Henry Bolingbroke. He exiles Mowbray for life and Bolingbroke for ten, later reduced on behalf of John of Gaunt to six years. John of Gaunt dies and Richard II confiscates his lands and titles for the sake of putting down Owen Glendower (Historically Owain Glyn Dwr)'s invasion of england. Meanwhile, Bolingbroke brings troops against Richard, assisted by Northumberland. To find out the ending, you should read it yourself. This was the first complete play I read by Shakespeare. The Folger Guides are so helpful!

Penn Leary has written an outstanding book that gives positive proof of the true authorship of the Shakespeare works. Anyone with an interest in either Shakespeare or ciphers will find this to be a fascinating book to read. His proof through his discovery of encripted ciphers in the Shakespeare works is well supported by both the Baconian society and scholars alike. Search the internet for 'Penn Leary' to find out more about this incredible discovery.

Through the science of Cryptanalysis, the name of Francis Bacon may be read as the First Word of Dialogue in the First Play in the First 1623 Edition of Shakespeare's Works, and in may other places. The writer is the author of a paper published in "Cryptologia," a respected Journal of Cryptography. Order from Amazon, $15. postpaid

I came across this book in the 'magic' section of a Tower Books store... (I mention this misplacement to let you know this book is hard to find even when it's in print.) The author devotes the first two or three slim chapters (all the chapters of this book are short but effectively enlightening) to Shakespeare's 'secret' (the structure of his plays as well as practical aspects of his religious art - call it 'alchemy,' but don't let that word turn you away, it's not a book on alchemy in the usual sense that word is used...) Then he devotes the next twelve chapters to twelve of Shakespeare's greatest plays (as well as the most mysterious plays) giving the reader very impressive, revelatory insights as to what these plays are about and what some of the various characters symbolize (for instance how some of the beautiful and charming female characters in the late 'romances' - Cymbeline, Winter's Tale... - represent the Heavenly Realm, etc...) and the general 'undercurrent' of themes that are meant to carry a viewer or reader through a universal drama of darkness to light... Suffice it to say this is not usual academic fare, but it is original and impressive and enlightening and it has the added grace of being concise...

Academics will wince. Many will throw the book down in anger. A few may even write angry letters to the publisher demanding that the book be recalled. After all the work they've done convincing the public that Shakespeare was a Marxist, feminist, proto-Nazi, homosexual, anti- smoker, imperialist here appears (or reappears) a little book suggesting that Shakespeare was just simply an inspired artist creating inspired art suggesting that there's something higher than the fully-accredited human being. This book is a to-the-point revelation of Shakespeare's Work's; justifiably forgettable when you go back to the plays themselves (as all books on Shakespeare should be forgotten when you go back to the plays themselves) but a revelation none-the-less. By itself it's worth all the books on Shakespeare in the New York Public Library; and it's a good aquisition for those interested in the esoteric side of life (what's NOT contained in Horatio's philosophy...).

I really wish my teachers had this book when I was in school. It would have made Shakespeare so much more fun to study. Going back to Shakespeare after reading Secrets of Acting Shakespeare, you can actualy see the stage directions with every word Shakespeare writes. When you know the stage directions Shakespeare wrote into his texts, Shakespeare's works become so much more fun to read. Patrick takes you through the way Shakespeare's plays were performed when Shakespeare was still alive, and leads you through the discoveries Patrick's actors made when he and his theater company started performing Shakespeare's plays the way Shakespeare wanted it done. Needless to say, this book is the best book on Shakespearian Acting I've ever read, and would recommend it to anyone who's even slightly interested in the Bard's works. I would also recommend Patrick Tucker's First Folio Monologue books for men and women. They're a crash course in the work Patrick covered in Secrets of Acting Shakespeare, and a great way to sink your teeth into Patrick's ideas.

-Christian, Improvactor.com

This is an exciting book about how Shakespeare's plays actually got on to the stage. The actors then were hardworking, often doing a different play each night, and there was no time for rehearsal as we know it today.
The actors learnt their parts from cue scripts, long scrolls showing the last few words of the previous speech and then their own. They had to be extra attentive or they might miss their entry. The Book-holder, or prompt, was the only person to have the entire text (a valuable document you didn't want anybody else to steal, no copyright in those days) was prominently on stage to see that things went right and, if a prompt was needed, it was given openly. The audience accepted this as part of the performance though anybody needing too many prompts would doubtless get some barracking.
The author, who clearly has a science background and knows how to present a logical case, shows that all the information needed is in the First Folio which is an actors' tool, not a dead piece of Eng Lit. 'you', 'thou' and 'thee' are not interchangeable but actually tell the actor where to stand in relation to others on the stage. Modern editions of Shakespeare have tidied the text up to be read by students; the First Folio had lines, half lines, capital letters in odd places, strange commas; but all actually telling the actor what to do.
The author has been working as a director for the last forty years or so and has refined his theories on the job. He has run The Original Shakespeare Company with many successful productions using his methods. He is wildly popular with his actors and the few productions he was allowed to do at The Globe, London, were sold out and enthusiastically received.
The academic world and theatre establishment are not so happy to see their entrenched theories challenged; and it must be extra annoying that he writes so well and is such a pleasure to read.

This is not a true book, but a delightful book-shaped treasure chest filled with wonderful things to explore the age of Shakespeare. New and complete, "Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age" contains a model of the Globe Theater to make; a Shakespearean timeline poster; Map of London from Shakespeare's time; Guide to the plays of Shakespeare; 32-page book about the immortal Bard; and a replica 16th-century printing set to make a personalized print poster (includes movable type and ink!!). This is a great gift for yourself and your favorite Shakespeare freak, young or old.

This is an excellent way to engage older children in exploring literature. There are activities as well as information on the life, times, and works of Shakespeare. It would be difficult for a child younger than nine or ten to complete the projects, but it would be excellent for an older child, especially as an introduction to one of Shakespeare's works. It allows a child to explore the time period as well as the theatre. It is well packaged in a very neat "book" with a drawer and compartments for the various parts; it is easy to store without losing the smaller parts. It even comes with a lock and key!

Rob Watson is probably the greatest mind in America. There is very little else I can say

With his sword, Macbeth hacks a passage through the enemy and unseams the traitor Macdonwald from the nave to the chops. He emerges from the battle like a man newborn (but into what?) and gets a new title: Thane of Cawdor. In *Coriolanus* Caius Martius runs through the gates ("gates" are a familiar Renaissance term for female genitalia) of Corioles, emerges very bloody and very triumphant and gets a new name: Coriolanus. Thus, goes Watson's provocative and compelling argument, both men cut themselves off from family names and through the violent action reminiscent of a self-inflicted C-section (remember Macbeth's hacking away at that fleshly passage) make themselves anew. Problems follow. Not merely because these men are ambitious, but because, as endless numbers of Elizabethan prodigal son tales point out (Watson has really done his research), you just can't get away from family. You're linked whether or not you like it, and, for that matter, whether or not you're a tragic hero or a college student who has to go home for Thanksgiving. Watson deals with other plays, but his treatment of these is most compelling and far more subtle than I can indicate here. This book won a prize when it came out: best book produced by Harvard University Press. The prize is well-deserved. Having read *Shakespeare and the Hazards of Ambition*, I have never been able to teach these plays in the same way again. This book almost lets the reader see too much -- it gives me the shivers. And it belongs on every serious scholar's shelf.

I learned a great deal from this book. It is well written, serious cultural history. I would recommend it strongly to anyone interested in the period, the Merchant of Venice,and English attitudes toward Jews.

The information in this book will astonish one regarding how deeply the English were obsessed with Jews. Because Jews were absent from England for three centuries the English had only the bible and their imagination to inform them about Jews. The Christian bible promoted negative attitudes and the belief that the messiah would come when all Jews became Christians brought up interesting complications that to this day disturb the Vatican! Christianity, the religion of love certainly produced plenty of hate. The analysis of Shylock is extremely interesting and contrary to what we learned in school. The author supplies verses from the original which are usually excluded from present day performances. I now have new insights into Shakespeare and English history.