Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
CDN$ 12.27
  • List Price: CDN$ 17.00
  • You Save: CDN$ 4.73 (28%)
FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25.
Only 1 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by
Gift-wrap available.
Contested Will: Who Wrote... has been added to your Cart
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 3 images

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? Paperback – Apr 19 2011

See all 10 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"
"Please retry"
CDN$ 12.27
CDN$ 2.12 CDN$ 0.29 Gifts for Mom
CDN$ 12.27 FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25. Only 1 left in stock (more on the way). Ships from and sold by Gift-wrap available.

Frequently Bought Together

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? + A Year In The Life Of William Shakespeare: 1599
Price For Both: CDN$ 25.63

Buy the selected items together

Product Details

  • Paperback: 352 pages
  • Publisher: Simon & Schuster; Reprint edition (April 19 2011)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1416541632
  • ISBN-13: 978-1416541639
  • Product Dimensions: 14 x 2.3 x 21.4 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 318 g
  • Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #133,799 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Product Description


The New Yorker

"Shapiro is an engaging and elegant guide . . . a masterful work of literary history, an empathetic chronicle of eccentricity, and a calmly reasoned vindication of 'the Stratford man.'"
—Kevin O'Kelly, The Boston Globe

"James Shapiro is an erudite Shakespearean and a convincing one. . . . A bravura performance."
—Saul Rosenberg, The Wall Street Journal

"It is authoritative, lucid and devastatingly funny, and its brief concluding statement of the case for Shakespeare is masterly."
—John Carey, The Sunday Times (London)

About the Author

James Shapiro is the Larry Miller Professor of English at Columbia University, where he has taught since 1985. He is the author of several books, including 1599 and Contested Will, and is the recipient of many awards and fellowships. Shapiro is a Governor of the Folger Shakespeare Library. He lives in New York with his wife and son.

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most helpful customer reviews

Format: Paperback
I used to be what I guess you could call a casual Baconian. Without having read into the authorship debate in the slightest it was quite easy to pick up on casual references in the media. It was also a good flight of fancy to imagine the man who essentially invented the scientific method could also be the genuine source of what is the jewel in England's cultural crown. However, thanks to James Shapiro's book I am now pretty firmly of the belief that the glovers' son from Stratford was the true author of the plays.

In the book Shapiro examines the arguments for two of the leading candidates in the authorship debate, Francis Bacon and Edward De Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. Only when you study the arguments for these guys do you realise how nonsensical they are. Arguments that William Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him (authorship which had not been challenged until the late Eighteenth Century) are based on the assumption that to have written the plays the author must have been a nobleman, familiar with the law and life in the Elizabethan court, with a university education, attributes, from what the documentary evidence indicates, that certainly cannot be applied to the glovers' son from Stratford. This would only be true if in the writing the plays the author was being autobiographical and wrote from experience never mind the fact that Elizabethan autobiography essential didn't exist outside ecclesiastical writings.

Finally Shapiro makes the argument for Shakespeare himself, detailing references to Shakespeare by contemporary authors such as Ben Jonson and recent textual studies into co-authorship, including five of Shakespeare's last ten plays, which strongly undermines the Oxfordian case.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) 25 reviews
17 of 20 people found the following review helpful
Sweep away this madness... Aug. 13 2013
By Kirk McElhearn - Published on
Format: Paperback
I'd always ignored the so-called Shakespeare authorship question, because I think it's irrelevant. I don't care who wrote Shakespeare's plays, because it's the plays that count, not the man. But I decided to read James Shapiro's Contested Will out of curiosity about how the theory that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare took hold.

It so happens that I'm familiar with a lot of the backstory - the rise of biblical criticism and the questioning of who Homer was - that serve as a foundation to the earliest anti-Stratfordian theories. It's easy to understand how, in the early 19th century, people who felt this approach so important could be convinced that another great author was not who he seemed. But as time went by, this became a story of lies, deceit and forgery, as well as convoluted conspiracy theories.

Deep down, it seems that there are two essential elements that come into play. The first is that, according to skeptics, there is no way the son of a glover could have written so eloquently about so many things. His limited education could not have enabled him to write such profound plays. As if in the nature vs. nurture argument, only nurture counts. This has been proven wrong with many artists, musicians and authors who came from humble beginnings, so it seems like a moot point, and surprises me that so many people bring up this point to deny Shakespeare's legitimacy.

The second element is the belief, which became prevalent in the romantic period, that all art is personal; that art reflects personal experiences. If this is the case, the skeptics say, then Shakespeare, who never visited Italy, could not have written about Italy. This argument seems childish to me; could a writer who has never visited Mars write about that planet? Could one who wasn't alive in the middle ages write a novel about the period? It's obvious that Shakespeare was a cosmopolitan man, in contact with people who traveled, and a few discussions in a pub would have given him enough information to write about Italy, or any other country.

Of the many possible alternate Shakespeares, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, has become the most accepted candidate. This has as much to do with books being published about him as it does with the oddity of the theories behind his authorship. Since he died in 1604, before Shakespeare wrote many of the plays, there is much massaging of evidence to prove that he was the one. He would have, the Oxfordians say, written the plays before his death, and had Shakespeare "write" them over time. Elaborate ciphers are used to find hidden messages in the texts of Shakespeare's plays, pointing to Oxford. Yet this would have required a massive conspiracy reaching as far as typesetters and printers...

Contested Will looks at the various anti-Stratfordian theories, but also their genesis, and shows how these theories developed, as well as how they are all wrong. Read it if you're interested in the history of ideas, and how a conspiracy theory of this type could take root.
44 of 58 people found the following review helpful
A fascinating book about the frailty of human beings who yearn to believe strange things. June 29 2010
By Robert S. Hanenberg - Published on
Verified Purchase
There is something about Shakespeare scholarship which engenders greatness: Greenblatt, Kermode, Wells, Shapiro, Bate, Bloom--these are not dry scholars, but deep thinkers, writers of powerful prose, all with a profound sense of life in other times. None of them believes that someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works.

But there is a long tradition that Francis Bacon or Edward deVere (or many others) wrote Shakespeare's works, and that somehow generations of scholars have been fooled. Why anyone would think anything so preposterous on the face of it, has always interested me. I once put it down to snobbery, that the son of a glove-maker from Stratford could not have been smart enough to write such plays.

But it is more complicated than this. Shapiro's main idea is that many people want to believe that such great writing has to be based on experience, and Shakespeare could not have had the experiences which led to the poems and plays.

Shapiro is a scholar of Shakespeare, but in this book he had to treat many times and subjects, from 19th century positivism to Freud, and had to try to explain why such great thinkers as Mark Twain, Henry James and Sigmund Freud believed that someone else wrote Shakespeare. Surprisingly, Shapiro is respectful of what others would call lunacy. To explain one phase of the movement, which purported to find hidden codes in the plays, he explains how the development the telegraph and Morse code infused the culture of the times.

Shakespeare's poetry is of such extraordinary depth and beauty that it seems that it could only have been written by a man of letters, not an actor. But at the end of the book, Shapiro shows how Shakespeare was above all a man of the theater, and his plays are full of evidence which supports this. We know enough now about the business of operating an Elizabethan theater that we can describe in some detail how Shakespeare was an actor, playwright and businessman of his time. We can see how his plays changed in subject and style when his company moved to an indoor theater, how he wrote plays specifically to use the talents of certain actors, and how he collaborated with others to churn out copy when necessary.

A fascinating book about the frailty of human beings who yearn to believe strange things.
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
An innoculation for anti-Stratford fever Oct. 11 2013
By Jax - Published on
Verified Purchase
I have had an interest--not intense, but ongoing--in the "Shakespeare didn't write it" controversy since I was in college, learning that I would probably not make a good English teacher, after all. Similarly, I have had an occasional interest in the question of Homer's authorship. I ran across a book, "North of Shakespeare,", by Dennis McCarthy, which put forward a candidate I had not seen mentioned previously, to wit, Thomas North, the translator of Plutarch. McCarthy's thesis was a sort of hybrid, in much the same way as Tycho Brahe's attempt to save a geocentric universe was a hybrid. Tycho Brahe suggested that the planets did revolve around the Sun, just as Copernicus had theorized, but the Sun revolved around the Earth, as Ptolemy had said. It was not a popular theory. So, turning back to Shakespeare, Dennis McCarthy suggests that Shakespeare really did write, in some sense of that term, the plays credited to him in his lifetime--i.e., the "bad" quartos, the plays that are considered spurious, etc.,--but he was just an adapter for the stage of the real plays, the works of literary genius, which were written by Thomas North. Now, "North of Shakespeare" was published after "Contested Will" so one might think that the earlier book couldn't refute the arguments of the later one. But one would be wrong. The value of "Contested Will" is that it shows that the anti-Stratfordians--the ones who deny that Shakespeare was a literary genius--all tend to make the same kind of dubious assumptions, such as the necessity of a strong auto-biographical element in any composition of fiction; and all tend to underrate the extent to which plays back then were crafted by more than one author. The crafting of the plays with co-authors shouldn't diminish one's respect for Shakespeare's literary genius, but it should diminish or eliminate bardolatry, the tendency to treat the author of Shakespeare's plays as a god, or at least a demi-god, whoever you think wrote them. As it turns out, "North of Shakespeare" follows the same script that is used by prior authors to show that the Earl of Oxford, or Bacon, or whoever, wrote Shakespeare. "Contested Will" doesn't settle every controversy; it doesn't answer every question; it won't specifically refute every allegation: but anybody who wants to argue that William Shakespeare of Stratford wasn't the author of his plays really needs to come up with a novel line of argument.
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Shake & Bake (& Oxford) Oct. 10 2013
By ReasonableGoatPerson - Published on
Format: Paperback
"Who wrote Shakespeare?" Good question, I thought. And so I read the book.

Shapiro believes Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. But not everyone does. Two of the loudest camps of naysayers are the Baconians and the Oxfordians, arguing pro-Francis Bacon and the Earl of Oxford respectively. In this book the reader learns the origins of how these two came to be suspected of being the "real" author, as well as learning about some (possibly) surprising people who have doubted; and then the reader learns how and why Shapiro firmly believes that we've always had the right man-- Will S did in fact write those plays and poems. I'll say this: the evidence pro-W.S. is pretty darn persuasive.

If you're hoping to get a good handle on the reasons for favoring the two alternative candidates, this isn't the book for that. It concentrates more on the people advancing the theories-- why these theories may have attracted them-- than the content of the theories. Of course various points in their arguments do come up, but it isn't the main thing. Still, well worth reading.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
A Terrific Confirmation for Will as Will March 2 2015
By Amazon Customer - Published on
Verified Purchase
This is a wonderful book written with gusto and humor by the academic, James Shapiro. After being subjected to facile commentary aired by PBS, who has that program and so many more of which to be ashamed, Shapiro's work reminded me of all that is right in the world...even in academia. It must be an honor and inspiration to hear Shapiro lecture. For a straightforward yet somehow thrilling recap of the reality of William Shakespeare and his contemporaries, read this book.