What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare: The Evidence: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Man and His Work
A first-time-in-paperback reissue, this full-fledged biography takes on all of the famous Shakespearean debates, from whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote his plays to speculation regarding his sexuality to the mysterious curse he set upon his own grave. This lively and provocative book weaves together the most complete, objective, and readable account of Shakespeare's life ever written. Includes 24 pages of illustrations.
512 pages, Paperback
First published September 8, 1993
4 people are currently reading
73 people want to read
About the author
Ian Wilson
239 books27 followersAuthor of historical and religious books. He was born in Clapham, south London, but now lives in Brisbane, Australia, with his wife, Judith and their two sons, Adrian and Noel.
Wilson is most well known for his research on the Shroud of Turin.
Wilson is most well known for his research on the Shroud of Turin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
February 9, 2010
I found this well-illustrated and well-researched book hard to put down. It reads like a detective novel. Like the title says, Mr. Wilson examines the evidence of Shakespeare’s life and tries to construct a reasonable account of what probably, or may have, happened. In doing so Mr. Wilson paints a vivid picture of what living in Elizabethan England was like; and that is what I liked most about this book.
And yet I also found this book flawed for two reasons and, therefore, somewhat lacking in credibility.
First: Mr. Wilson assumes that Southampton is the” beloved” young man of the sonnets. In doing so, the author dismisses or doesn’t even consider the evidence that Pembroke maybe be the “beloved.“
Second: This is most negative portrayal of Elizabeth I have ever read. Mr. Wilson paints her as being a complete tyrant toward Catholics, even though so many respected historians portray her as being moderate and reasonable.
To me it’s a mystery why Mr. Wilson can’t seem to acknowledge that England was close to a bloody, religious war, and that foreign and domestic forces were trying to overthrow Elizabeth.
(A civil war certainly would have put an end to Elizabethan theatre, and to Shakespeare’s career as a playwright.)
Mr. Wilson doesn’t offer any literary criticism of the plays; and that is fine with me. (There is so much criticism elsewhere.) Instead we are treated to credible speculation about the current events that may have inspired Shakespeare to write certain plays.
And yet I also found this book flawed for two reasons and, therefore, somewhat lacking in credibility.
First: Mr. Wilson assumes that Southampton is the” beloved” young man of the sonnets. In doing so, the author dismisses or doesn’t even consider the evidence that Pembroke maybe be the “beloved.“
Second: This is most negative portrayal of Elizabeth I have ever read. Mr. Wilson paints her as being a complete tyrant toward Catholics, even though so many respected historians portray her as being moderate and reasonable.
To me it’s a mystery why Mr. Wilson can’t seem to acknowledge that England was close to a bloody, religious war, and that foreign and domestic forces were trying to overthrow Elizabeth.
(A civil war certainly would have put an end to Elizabethan theatre, and to Shakespeare’s career as a playwright.)
Mr. Wilson doesn’t offer any literary criticism of the plays; and that is fine with me. (There is so much criticism elsewhere.) Instead we are treated to credible speculation about the current events that may have inspired Shakespeare to write certain plays.
February 3, 2019
This is one of the best biographies of Shakespeare I've read. It isn't a literary study of his plays and poetry, and it doesn't pretend to be. It is far more of an exploration into what evidence concerning Shakespeare exists and what can be surmised from the little tidbits of information we have. Was he Catholic? Who was the 'lovely boy' of his sonnets? Who was his patron? How did he come by his knowledge of the Court? Who was the Dark Lady? What was his relationship with his wife really like?
Unfortunately, as with so much about Shakespeare, a lot of it guesswork and surmising, and you rarely get a real feel for the man himself, but that's a peril of all Shakespeare biographies. I've read this three times now, and that's rare for a biography with me, and a mark of how good it is. It's a little bit dated now, being twenty years old, but the questions surrounding Shakespeare still linger, and this book is as good a response as any.
Unfortunately, as with so much about Shakespeare, a lot of it guesswork and surmising, and you rarely get a real feel for the man himself, but that's a peril of all Shakespeare biographies. I've read this three times now, and that's rare for a biography with me, and a mark of how good it is. It's a little bit dated now, being twenty years old, but the questions surrounding Shakespeare still linger, and this book is as good a response as any.
March 20, 2022
A solid effort which quietly debunks a lof of nonsense written by those who favour his plays written by other people. Contested Will by James Shapiro covers the same ground better, but it is an enjoyable read.
April 19, 2023
Rather disappointed in this; Wilson has the habit of jumping from thought to thought in no reasonable order. In the end, there's not too much evidence there sorry to say.
August 13, 2020
I would like to give this book a higher rating, but the title and introduction are misleading. If you are looking for a book that seriously explores the question of Shakespeare’s authorship mystery, this book will disappoint you. That said, it has been and continues to be an interesting read about how the cultural and political environment of the times informed and shaped the writings attributed to Shakespeare.
In the introduction, Wilson goes to some length to acknowledge the authorship controversy, which has a long history. He describes numerous contrarian theories and some of their logic, but does so in a sequence that ends with the most farfetched and silly, easily dismissing those. This rhetorical method is thus used to diminish all the contrarian theories at once. This is unfair and set off my alarms about bias and intellectual rigor.
Then Wilson goes on to claim that his review of the problem will be based only on the FACTS. This works for only several pages, as indeed there are so few facts available on Shakespeare (of Stratford). By about page 60 of this nearly 500 page book, Wilson has already abandoned the facts, resorting instead to a form of reverse logic, whereby the writings attributed to Shakespeare are used as evidence of what the Stratford man's background might have been, how educated he must have been, or what he might have been doing in Stratford or London at any given time. But this casts no light on who wrote the plays or sonnets. (For example, that the Stratford Shakespeare might have been a lawyer’s clerk as a young man - simply because of all the lawyering going on in his plays. There is zero factual evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was ever in the employ of a lawyer.).
Ironically, the scant actual hard evidence that Wilson does acknowledge about Shakespeare (of Stratford) confirms suspicions that he could not have written the plays or poetry. For example, that only a few signatures of his exist, or that Shakespeare is not known to have written any private correspondence to anyone (not least his literary peers), or that no foul papers have ever been found. Then, many of Wilson’s paragraphs beg the question... e.g. how could Shakespeare have had such an intimate friendship with a noble (like Southampton), required to explain various details in the plays, when the much simpler explanation is: a noble close to, or even Southampton himself might have written the plays. On the whole, regarding the authorship question... to the extent that Wilson is trying to argue in favor of the Stratfordian (mainstream) viewpoint, the book becomes very quickly utterly unconvincing.
Despite this initial disappointment, I am continuing to read the book. If you set aside the question of Shakespeare’s authorship, it is quite an interesting read, illuminating a wealth of impressions about the economic, social, and cultural environment in Shakespeare’s era, and the political web of intrigues amongst the nobility. I’m only 150 pages in now, felt compelled to leave this review... and I’m continuing my reading for the historical interest.
[July 17 edited for clarity]
In the introduction, Wilson goes to some length to acknowledge the authorship controversy, which has a long history. He describes numerous contrarian theories and some of their logic, but does so in a sequence that ends with the most farfetched and silly, easily dismissing those. This rhetorical method is thus used to diminish all the contrarian theories at once. This is unfair and set off my alarms about bias and intellectual rigor.
Then Wilson goes on to claim that his review of the problem will be based only on the FACTS. This works for only several pages, as indeed there are so few facts available on Shakespeare (of Stratford). By about page 60 of this nearly 500 page book, Wilson has already abandoned the facts, resorting instead to a form of reverse logic, whereby the writings attributed to Shakespeare are used as evidence of what the Stratford man's background might have been, how educated he must have been, or what he might have been doing in Stratford or London at any given time. But this casts no light on who wrote the plays or sonnets. (For example, that the Stratford Shakespeare might have been a lawyer’s clerk as a young man - simply because of all the lawyering going on in his plays. There is zero factual evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was ever in the employ of a lawyer.).
Ironically, the scant actual hard evidence that Wilson does acknowledge about Shakespeare (of Stratford) confirms suspicions that he could not have written the plays or poetry. For example, that only a few signatures of his exist, or that Shakespeare is not known to have written any private correspondence to anyone (not least his literary peers), or that no foul papers have ever been found. Then, many of Wilson’s paragraphs beg the question... e.g. how could Shakespeare have had such an intimate friendship with a noble (like Southampton), required to explain various details in the plays, when the much simpler explanation is: a noble close to, or even Southampton himself might have written the plays. On the whole, regarding the authorship question... to the extent that Wilson is trying to argue in favor of the Stratfordian (mainstream) viewpoint, the book becomes very quickly utterly unconvincing.
Despite this initial disappointment, I am continuing to read the book. If you set aside the question of Shakespeare’s authorship, it is quite an interesting read, illuminating a wealth of impressions about the economic, social, and cultural environment in Shakespeare’s era, and the political web of intrigues amongst the nobility. I’m only 150 pages in now, felt compelled to leave this review... and I’m continuing my reading for the historical interest.
[July 17 edited for clarity]
March 10, 2015
The Stratfordian view, which in conjunction with Dennis Kay's Shakespeare: His Life, Work, And Era (1992), that I finished reading earlier this year, that provides a counter argument to the Marlovian and De Vere theories of authorship.
Basically, Shakespeare (not Shakeshafte as Kay conjectured) was the son of a wealthy wool merchant and illegal money lender of Stratford-on-Avon, who was also a Catholic as key evidence that turned up later on reveals. The son is the author of his own plays and poetry, and can be considered a closet Catholic who managed to separate his political stances in the plays from his own religious beliefs, making him a humanist who was able to see all sides of an issue, rather than party to a conspiracy that hid the real, unknown author from view who had some personal axe to grind.
The intro and first two chapters started slowly and didn't give much evidence of anything to look forward to, but starting in chapter three the author delivered everything you would need to be convinced of the Stratfordian authorship and more. Wilson draws the curtain back and lets you see the details of what most likely occurred including who the secret patron for his early plays was and other mysteries that have alluded detection by most, including the events surronding his death and early retirement.
You don't want to read or see a Shakespeare play before reading this expose on the man who is for all times. Brilliant sleuthing!
Basically, Shakespeare (not Shakeshafte as Kay conjectured) was the son of a wealthy wool merchant and illegal money lender of Stratford-on-Avon, who was also a Catholic as key evidence that turned up later on reveals. The son is the author of his own plays and poetry, and can be considered a closet Catholic who managed to separate his political stances in the plays from his own religious beliefs, making him a humanist who was able to see all sides of an issue, rather than party to a conspiracy that hid the real, unknown author from view who had some personal axe to grind.
The intro and first two chapters started slowly and didn't give much evidence of anything to look forward to, but starting in chapter three the author delivered everything you would need to be convinced of the Stratfordian authorship and more. Wilson draws the curtain back and lets you see the details of what most likely occurred including who the secret patron for his early plays was and other mysteries that have alluded detection by most, including the events surronding his death and early retirement.
You don't want to read or see a Shakespeare play before reading this expose on the man who is for all times. Brilliant sleuthing!
March 23, 2011
This is one of the best biographies of Shakespeare I've read. It isn't a literary study of his plays and poetry, and it doesn't pretend to be. It is far more of an exploration into what evidence concerning Shakespeare exists and what can be surmised from the little tidbits of information we have - was he Catholic? Who was the 'lovely boy' of his sonnets? Who was the Dark Lady? What was his relationship with his wife really like?
Unfortunately, as with so much about Shakespeare, a lot of it guesswork and surmising, and you rarely get a real feel for the man himself, but that's a peril of all Shakespeare biographies. I've read this twice now, and that's rare for a biography with me, and a mark of how good it is.
Unfortunately, as with so much about Shakespeare, a lot of it guesswork and surmising, and you rarely get a real feel for the man himself, but that's a peril of all Shakespeare biographies. I've read this twice now, and that's rare for a biography with me, and a mark of how good it is.
January 11, 2013
I am a little surprised that Wilson's book is not regarded as highly as some of the other books on Shakespeare. In Goodreads, for example, it is not considered among the top books on Shakespeare. Perhaps some people are put off by his dwelling upon Shakespeare's Catholicism which most other modern biographers seem willing to concede as plausible to quite likely. Nonetheless, this book is engaging, and I would recommend it to anyone wanting to explore some of the "mysteries" in the title, but who does not want to read a cycle of standard biographies.
November 14, 2008
Well researched book dealing with the Authorship controversy. The author seems to have a fairly objective look at the subject. I can not deny his efforts and believe that he raises some interesting points.
August 22, 2010
Read this a while ago ... a lot of the reviews about this book aren't very good but I think it is a good intro into the world of Shakespeare. I've read a lot of people complain about the authors conjecture, but I enjoyed this nonetheless.
June 6, 2012
stopped book because it all became a bit much; but it's a fascinating story and amazing how well researched it is.
facts all laid out, not really an opinion.
facts all laid out, not really an opinion.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews