Much Ado About Something A
Documentary Film by Mike Rubbo (April 2002).
"Diana Price has written one of the best books making the case against
Shakespeare, Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography.. It was an inspiration in
the final stages of making the film."
Greensboro News & Record (by Trudy Atkins, 22 July 2001): "In this unique biography,
Diana Price has researched every shred of evidence about the Stratford-born Shakspere,
analyzing and interpreting literary allusions as well. What makes her biography
unique is her examination of the same evidence for other writers of the Elizabethan and
Jacobean periods. Her research seems to point to an overwhelming conclusion: that someone
else wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare."
Choice (by D. Traister, May 2001):
"A deeply uninteresting exploration of a question that, for most scholars, is even
more deeply unnecessary. Collections with a focus on Shakespeare and a fetishistic
desire for "completeness" will acquire the book. So too might collections that
specialize in extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds."
Online Magazine and Resource for Academic Librarians (by
Rob Norton, Jan. 2001, Vol. 1, No. 6), Profilers'
"Price argues compellingly that there is little evidence
from life that the Stratfordian was the playwright William
Shakespeare and that most of what we do know of Shakspere would
make it impossible that he could have written plays and poetry
clearly aristocratic in context, vocabulary, and sensibility.
This book would be a good first stop for those seeking some
introduction into this controversy and allow them to proceed
intelligently to books written by those who have strong opinions
as to the real identity of the Bard."
Book News, Inc. (Portland, OR;
booknews.com): "Price jumps into the eternal controversy
with the unusual position of having no candidate to promote.
Based on a systematic comparative analysis with other literary
biographies, known biographical facts, and contemporary
commentary, she concludes that William Shakespeare was the pen
name of some anonymous aristocrat."
Library Journal (15 November 2000): "Gives the Shakespeare doubters
some very good ammunition. . . . Academic libraries should buy
this book for the debate it will spark and the in-depth detective
work it provides. Public libraries can safely pass."
Northern Ohio Live magazine (by Michael L. Hays,
April 2001): "The best unorthodox biography of Shakespeare in years. Well-researched and challenging . . . Price is the first to compare Shakespeare to a number of his
contemporaries with respect to personal literary evidence. Her conclusion:
He is unique in lacking any."
The Elizabethan Review
(by Warren Hope, 11/20/00): "Her book [is] unlike any book dealing
with the Shakespeare authorship question that has appeared in
years. ... [It] tackles the question of who William Shakspere of
Stratford actually was - a subject that has been too frequently
ignored by Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians alike. . . .
Price works that field admirably and the harvest is abundant."
For the full review, click on Hope.
The Plain Dealer
(Cleveland, OH, by Marianne Evett, 12/18/00): "Faulty
logic and lack of knowledge of the broader social and theatrical
milieu of the time undermine her argument. She uses a double
standard for evidence." For the author's response,
click on PlainDealerReview.
Back to top
Peer reviews & citations (2012/13 Paperback)
Stanley Wells reviews the paperback (“An Unorthodox and Non-definitive Biography”)
on Blogging Shakespeare 8 May 2013.
Diana Price responds to Stanley Wells’s review of
Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography:
I am grateful to Professor Stanley Wells for following up on Ros Barber’s challenge to him and Paul Edmondson (eds., Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy, Cambridge University Press, 2013, launched at the ‘Proving Shakespeare’ Webinar, Friday 26 April 2013). Barber criticized their collection of essays for failing to engage in the arguments presented in Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem ([SUB] Greenwood Press 2001; paperback 2013). As the first academic book published on the subject, it surely should have been addressed in essays relevant to Shakespeare’s biography. But better late than never.
In his review on Blogging Shakespeare (May 8, 2013), Prof. Wells takes issue with any number of details in my book, but he does not directly confront the single strongest argument I offer: the comparative analysis of documentary evidence supporting the biographies of Shakespeare and two dozen of his contemporaries. That analysis demonstrates that the literary activities of the two dozen other writers are documented in varying degrees. However, none of the evidence that survives for Shakespeare can support the statement that he was a writer by vocation.
Wells is aware of this argument; in the Webinar, he alludes to Andrew Hadfield’s counter-argument, as first expressed in Hadfield’s 60-second video on the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust website.
Question 16: Should we be concerned that there are gaps in [Shakespeare’s] historical record?
Hadfield repeats this explanation in his 2012 biography, Edmund Spenser: A Life (4).
. . . My favourite non-fact is that, although Thomas Nashe is, I think, the only English writer ever to have forced the
authorities to close down the theatres and printing presses, making him something of a celebrity, we do not know when or how he died.
Traces of Shakespeare, though scanty, do not require special explanation. Or, alternatively, we could imagine that a whole host of writers
who emerged in the late sixteenth century, were imposters.
And it is true: we do not know how or when Nashe died. But we do know that Nashe left behind:
a handwritten verse in Latin, composed during his university days. His letter to William Cotton . . . refers to his frustrations “writing for the stage and for the press.” A 1593 letter by Carey reports that “Nashe hath dedicated a book unto you [Carey’s wife] . . . Will Cotton will disburse . . . your reward to him.” Carey also refers to Nashe’s imprisonment for “writing against the Londoners.” (SUB, 118)
Hadfield claims that, as with Nashe’s life, there are similar “frustrating gaps” in the lives of, for example, Thomas Lodge and John Webster. But Lodge refers to his books in personal correspondence and in a dedication, expresses gratitude to the earl of Derby’s father, who “incorporated me into your house.” There are payments to Webster for writing plays, and he exchanged personal commendatory verses with his friends Thomas Heywood and William Rowley. There is no comparable literary evidence for Shakespeare.
Further contradicting his claim about the absence of literary evidence for Shakespeare and his contemporaries, Hadfield can cite solid literary evidence for Spenser. Such personal literary paper trails include his transcription of neo-Latin poetry in a book that he once owned, records of his education at Merchant Taylor’s and Pembroke Hall, and his handwritten inscription in a book he gave to Gabriel Harvey. There is no comparable evidence for Shakespeare.
Yet Wells takes comfort that Hadfield’s explanations are true. From the Webinar Wells introduces
Theorising Shakespeare’s authorship by Andrew Hadfield. . . . That chapter really is incredibly helpful, I think, because it’s, its about helping us all to relax about that fact that we shouldn’t be worried about there being gaps in the records of people’s lives, or, that the kinds of records that we would most wish to see in someone’s life don’t in fact survive and aren’t there.
But the absence of personal literary paper trails for Elizabethan or Jacobean writers of any consequence is not a common phenomenon; rather, the absence of any literary paper trails for Shakespeare’s biography is a unique deficiency.
In the Webinar, Wells expresses “no objection whatever to the validity of posthumous evidence.” Posthumous evidence can be useful, but it does not carry the same weight as contemporaneous evidence. Historians and critics alike make that distinction (see, e.g., here). Wells relies, as he must, on the posthumous testimony in the First Folio to prove that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. But even if he accepts the testimony in the First Folio at face value, no questions asked, no ambiguities acknowledged, he is still left with the embarrassing fact that Shakespeare is the only alleged writer of consequence from the time period for whom he must rely on posthumous evidence to make his case.
Wells has himself commented on the paucity of evidence. In his essay “Current Issues in Shakespeare’s Biography,” he admits that trying to write Shakespeare’s biography is like putting together “a jigsaw puzzle for which most of the pieces are missing” (5); he then cites Duncan-Jones who “in a possibly unguarded moment, said that Shakespeare biographies are 5% fact and 95% padding” (7). One difference, then, is that my work has no need for “guarded” moments, particularly as I re-evaluate that 5%.
Instead, of confronting the deficiency of literary evidence in the Shakespeare biography, Wells instead takes exception to particular statements and details in my book. For example, he criticizes my references to Shakespeare’s illiterate household in Stratford, while at the same time I acknowledge that daughter Susanna could sign her name. And yes, she did, once. She made one “painfully formed signature, which was probably the most that she was capable of doing with the pen” (Maunde Thompson, 1:294), but she was unable to recognize her own husband’s handwriting. Her sister Judith signed with a mark. That evidence does not support literacy in the household; it points instead to functional illiteracy.
In another criticism, Wells states that
Price misleadingly says that ‘there are ‘no commendatory verses to Shakespeare’, ignoring those printed in the First Folio as well as the anonymous prose commendation in the1609 edition of Troilus and Cressida and that by Thomas Walkley in the 1622 quarto of Othello.
In this criticism and elsewhere, Wells disregards the criteria used to distinguish between personal and impersonal evidence, explicit or ambiguous evidence, and so on. Such criteria are routinely used by historians, biographers, and critics (SUB, 309 and here) http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/Resources/CriteriaPages.pdf The prefatory material for Troilus and Othello necessitate no personal knowledge of the author and could have been written after having read or seen the play in question. (As pointed out above, the prefatory material in the First Folio is problematic, but the complexities require over a chapter in my book to analyze.)
“Price downplays William Basse’s elegy on Shakespeare … which circulated widely in manuscript – at least 34 copies are known – before and after it was published in 1633, and she fails to note that one of the copies is headed ‘bury’d at Stratford vpon Avon, his Town of Nativity’. Yes, and another version reads “On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare. He dyed in Aprill 1616.” There are various additional derivative titles.
I “downplay” this elegy for several reasons. Its authorship remains in question; it may have been written by John Donne, to whom it is attributed in Donne’s Poems of 1633. There is no evidence that either Basse or Donne knew Shakespeare. And yes, the elegy does exist in numerous manuscript copies; the one allegedly in Basse’s handwriting is tentatively dated 1626 and shows one blot and correction in an otherwise clean copy– suggesting that it might be a transcript.
The poem itself contains no evidence that the author was personally acquainted with Shakespeare. Whether by Donne or Basse, it is a posthumous and impersonal tribute, requiring familiarity with Shakespeare’s works, and, possibly, details on the funerary monument in Stratford. Wells and Taylor themselves cannot be certain which manuscript title (if any) represents the original (Textual, 163).
Wells concludes that “of course, she can produce not a single scrap of positive evidence to prove her claims; all she can do is systematically to deny the evidence that is there.” Questioning the evidentiary value of existing documentation is not the same thing as denying that documentation. It is true: I cannot prove that the man from Stratford was not the writer the title pages proclaim him to be, because one cannot prove a negative. However, I do demonstrate why there is an overwhelming probability that he did not write the works that have come down to us under his name. If he wrote the plays and poems, he would have left behind a few scraps of evidence to show that he did it, as did the two dozen other writers I investigated.
It is regrettable that Prof. Wells characterizes my book as an attempt to “destroy the Shakespearian case.” My book is an attempt to revisit the evidence and to reconstruct Shakespeare’s biography based on the evidence. Finally, I do not claim that my biography is “definitive.” But I think it is a step in the right direction.
Back to top
Professors Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson reply ("Beyond Doubt For All Time") on Blogging Shakespeare 13 May 2013.
Diana Price replies to Professors Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson (14 May 2013)
In their blog reply to my response to the BloggingShakespeare 8 May 2013 review of Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem (“Beyond Doubt For all Time,”
13 May 2013), Professors Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson acknowledge that writers from the time period are documented to varying degrees, some more, some less. They imply that Shakespeare is in
the “some less” category, so there are no grounds for suspicion. As Wells puts it, “The fact that some leave fuller records than others does not invalidate the records of those with a lower score.”
Based on surviving evidence that supports his activities as a writer, Shakespeare not only rates a “lower score,” he rates a score of zero.
At the time of his death, Shakespeare left behind over 70 documents, including some that tell us what he did professionally. Yet none of those 70+ documents support the statement that he was a
writer. From a statistical standpoint, this is an untenable position, as I have argued elsewhere:
Even the most poorly documented writers, those with less than a dozen records in total, still left behind a couple of personal literary paper trails. Based on the average proportions, I would conservatively have expected perhaps a third of Shakespeare’s records, or about two dozen, to shed light on his professional activities. In fact, over half of them, forty-five to be precise, are personal professional paper trails, but they are all evidence of non-literary professions: those of actor, theatrical shareholder, financier, real estate investor, grain-trader, money-lender, and entrepreneur. It is the absence of contemporary personal literary paper trails that forces Shakespeare’s biographers to rely — to an unprecedented degree — on posthumous evidence. (“Evidence For A Literary Biography,” Tennessee Law Review, 147)
While Wells and Edmondson acknowledge that Shakespeare is the only writer from the time period for whom one must rely on posthumous to make the case, Wells disputes my claim that Shakespeare left behind no evidence that he was a writer. The evidence he cites are “the Stratford monument and epitaphs, along with Dugdale’s identification of the monument as a memorial to ‘Shakespeare the poet’, Jonson’s elegy, and others” — all posthumous evidence.
On the distinction between contemporaneous and posthumous evidence or testimony, Wells states:
I do not agree (whatever ‘historians and critics’ may say) that posthumous evidence ‘does not carry the same weight as contemporaneous evidence.’ If we took that to its logical extreme we should not believe that anyone had ever died.”
But historians and biographers routinely cite documentary evidence (burial registers, autopsy reports, death notices, etc.) to report that someone died. Wells may disagree with “whatever ‘historians and critics’ may say,” but I employ the criteria applied by those “historians and critics” who distinguish between contemporaneous and posthumous testimony (e.g., Richard D. Altick & John J. Fenstermaker, H. B. George, Robert D. Hume, Paul Murray Kendall, Harold Love, and Robert C. Williams).
Jonson’s eulogy and the rest of the First Folio testimony is posthumous by seven years, and it is the first in print to identify Shakespeare of Stratford as the dramatist. Posthumous or not, this testimony therefore demands close scrutiny. And I find in the First Folio front matter numerous misleading statements, ambiguities, and outright contradictions. I am not alone. For example, concerning the two introductory epistles, Gary Taylor expresses caution about taking the “ambiguous oracles of the First Folio” at face value (Wells et al., Textual Companion, 18). Cumulatively, the misleading, ambiguous, and contradictory statements render the First Folio testimony, including the attribution to Shakespeare of Stratford, vulnerable to question.
From my earlier response:
Wells concludes that “of course, she can produce not a single scrap of positive evidence to prove her claims; all she can do is systematically to deny the evidence that is there.” Questioning the evidentiary value of existing documentation is not the same thing as denying that documentation. It is true: I cannot prove that the man from Stratford was not the writer the title pages proclaim him to be, because one cannot prove a negative.
Prof. Wells now counters that:
Price defends her attitude by saying ‘one cannot prove a negative case.’ Why not? It is surely possible to prove that for example Queen Elizabeth 1 was not alive in 1604 or that Sir Philip Sidney did not write King Lear or that Professor Price does not believe that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare.
There is affirmative evidence that Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. Even allowing for uncertainties in traditional chronology, King Lear was written years after Sidney died in 1586. David Hackett Fischer elaborates on the logical fallacy of “proving” a negative when no affirmative evidence exists (Historians’ Fallacies, 1970, p. 62), and it is in that sense that I state that “one cannot prove a negative.” If there were explicit affirmative evidence that Shakespeare wrote for a living, there could be no authorship debate.
Please note: I am not a professor.
Centerwall, Brandon S. “Who Wrote William Basse’s ‘Elegy on Shakespeare’?: Rediscovering A Poem Lost From the Donne Canon.” Shakespeare Survey 59 (2006)
Hackett, David Hackett. Historians’ Fallacies. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
Hadfield, Andrew. Edmund Spenser: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
─────. “60 Minutes with Shakespeare” at http://60-minutes.bloggingshakespeare.com/conference/
Price, Diana. “Evidence For A Literary Biography.” Tennessee Law Review 72 (fall 2004): 111-47. (accessible on this website)
‘Proving Shakespeare’ Webinar, Friday 26 April 2013, 6.30-7.30 BST. http://rosbarber.com/proving-shakespeare-webinar-transcript/ as of 9 May 2013.
Thompson, Edward Maunde. “Handwriting.” In Shakespeare’s England: An Account of the Life and Manners of his Age, 1:284-310. 2 vols. 1916. Reprint, London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
Wells, Stanley. “An Unorthodox and Non-definitive Biography” on Blogging Shakespeare (May 8, 2013)
─────. “Current Issues in Shakespeare’s Biography” 5-21). In The Footsteps of William Shakespeare, ed. Christa Jansohn. Lit Verlag, Munster 2005.
Wells, Stanley, Gary Taylor with John Jowett and William Montgomery. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. 1997. Reprinted with corrections, New York: Norton, 1987.
Peer reviews & citations (2001 Hardback)
University of Miami Law Review (Jan. 2003). "Could Shakespeare Think Like A Lawyer?: How Inheritance
Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question (by Thomas Regnier). "Diana Price's recent Shakespeare's
Unorthodox Biography ... meticulously demolishes the Stratfordian presumption."
Radio National Perspective,
Broadcasting Corporation (by Prof. Patrick
Buckridge, 25 March 2002). "At the core of Price's book is a demonstration of just how
exceptional Shakespeare's case
really is in comparison with his contemporaries in the theatre. ... Shakespeare's Unorthodox
Biography was published by Greenwood Press, a respected American publisher, in their academic series, "Contributions
in Drama and Theatre Studies." This in itself is a remarkable breakthrough for a viewpoint that has hitherto been strictly quarantined to that part of the book market where wacky theories about the secrets of the Pyramids or the secret sex life of Billy the Kid are canvassed freely and with no impact at all on serious scholarship.
It remains to be seen whether the book gets the serious attention it deserves."
Studies in English Literature (by William B. Worthen, 2002): Price "follows the typical trajectory of anti-Stratfordian writing [and] unfurls the usual wash of 'evidence'."
Shakespeare Bulletin (by Prof. Daniel L. Wright, winter 2002).
"Price's text revisits the
terrain of the Shakespeare authorship problem and sweeps away the detritus of conjecture.
In doing so, she clarifies our understanding of why some of the problems
related to Shakespeare are so vexing, contententious, and fascinating."
History Today (August 2001). The cover story, "Who Wrote
Shakespeare?" by Prof. William Rubinstein, examines the authorship
controversy and suggests five books, including
Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography for further reading.
Prof. Alan Nelson at
his web site
(3/01): "Diana Price knows how to put a
sentence together, but she does not know how to put an argument
together without engaging in special pleading: that is, taking
evidence that has an apparent signification, and arguing with all
her might that it does not fit the special case of William
Shakespeare for this or that special - and wholly arbitrary -
reason." For the author's response, click on Nelson.
Prof. Alan Nelson replied to my rebuttal on his website at
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ : "Leonard Digges composed a handwritten inscription directly concerning William Shakespeare and directly touching on literary matters. ... So close was Digges himself to Shakespeare that he called him not "Shakespeare," "William Shakespeare," or "Mr. Shakespeare," but - with singular affection and using his nick-name - "our Will Shakespeare". ... "our" is simply the plural of "my", entirely appropriate in a literary discussion among three close friends, Will Baker, James Mabbe, and Leonard Digges." For the author's response, click on
David Kathman, co-author with Terry Ross of The Shakespeare Authorship Web Site, contributed comments to "Shaksper," the on-line
orthodox discussion group, moderated by Prof. Hardy Cook: "Price's book presents a superficial appearance of scholarship which may
fool those not trained in the field, but in many ways this makes it more
dangerous than the more obviously wacko anti-Stratfordian tomes which
litter bookstore shelves." Although Mr. Kathman
explained that "Terry Ross and I have both been far too busy with more important matters
to write up a comprehensive response to Price (doing exciting real
scholarship is somehow much more fulfilling than refuting
pseudo-scholarship)," he endorsed a lengthy review by Tom Veal (a much expanded version
of his review on Amazon.com). Kathman directed "Shaksper"
subscribers to Veal's review, "which points
out just some of its multitudinous faults." Many of Veal's
criticisms are already addressed elsewhere on this website.
For additional material on his criticism concerning the Sir
Thomas More manuscript, click on More and page forward to pages 127-133.
One of Veal's
major criticisms is that I cite the Tudor "stigma of
print" to explain why an arisotcratic playwright would
need to conceal his identity. Veal cites The Shakespeare
Authorship Page, which contends that the "stigma of
print" is a myth. For the author's response, click on
Stigma of Print.
Back to top
A reader (Craig T. Niedzielski from Hermosa, Bataan, Philippines) on
www.amazon.com (dead link)
(1/21/02): "For readers without preconceptions, Ms. Price provides a scrupulously researched biography which does not, for once, depend upon page after page of "surely," "most probably," and "almost certainly." Reading a typical, orthodox biography is like chomping down on a fluff of cotton candy: t'ain't much there. This, by contrast, is USDA Select Beef, with something to bite into and chew over on every page. Do not let the premium price deter you. You get what you pay for, in this case a substantial work of scholarship.
For the still-hesitant prospective buyer, I strongly urge you to drop by Ms. Price's web site. There you will find reviews and responses, errata and addenda, and most importantly get a glimpse of the author's ability to defend her work. Just type in the title slash "author's home page" and let your browser do the rest.
In sum, a very well-researched, very readable book that gets Shakespearean scholarship off to a great start for the new millennium. My highest endorsement."
A reader (from Los Angeles, CA) on
www.amazon.com (dead link)
(1/9/01): "Essential for those who wish to come to
grips with the Shakespearean authorship problem, first as an
exposition of the anti-Stratfordian case, and second as a
reference work of the first order.... Price offers the most
comprehensive biographical analysis to date....There is a fair
amount of strictly new evidence. Second, much of the evidence
compiled will be new to readers of orthodox biographies, where it
is either missing or distorted. Third, reexamination of "old"
evidence reveals overlooked matter. Fourth, the treatment of the
subject by prior scholarship is itself revealing evidence. Very
few persons will come away from a reading of Price's book without
having learned much of its subject."
A reader (Edward Thomas Veal) on
www.amazon.com (11/29/00 and 1/18/01): This
"case against the Stratford man ... amounts to
nothing more substantial than bile and overheated air."
Further, in Part 2, "time and time again, Miss Price,
instead of seeking to refute inconvenient analyses, pretends that
they don't exist. For the author's response, click on AmazonReview.
For additional material on his criticism concerning the Sir
Thomas More manuscript, click on More and scroll forward to pages 127-133.
Edward Thomas Veal has posted a lengthy review on his website.
Many of his criticsms are already addressed in responses elsewhere
on this website. For a response to his criticism concerning the "stigma of print,"
Stigma of Print.
A reader (TMT from Wheeling, WV) on
(2/03/01): "I recommend you read it to see what the
fuss is all about."
A reader (JT from Detroit, MI) on
(1/15/01): "A fine mystery, and some fine sleuthing
A reader (from Santa Fe, NM) on
(1/13/01): "Readers who are passionately attached
to the traditional attribution will get nothing from this book
and will rail against it, and this book is not meant for them. It
is meant for open-minded readers who are willing to let go of
previous assumptions and received wisdom, and to look at old
evidence in a new light. I count myself among these.... This book
is the best presentation I've yet seen as to WHY it does not add
A reader (Ron Song Destro) on
(2/07/01): "Filled with new information and an
accurate analysis of the flaws found in traditional Shakespearean
scholarship. I recommend it heartily."
A reader (Spotsmom) on
www.amazon.com (11/11/00): "A learned
and readable exposition of the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy."
A reader (JMT) on Barnes and Noble
(11/21/00): An "easy-to-read and
well presented explanation of the role of William Shaksper in the
world of Elizabethan letters."
Back to top
The De Vere Society newsletter (by
Arthur Challinor, January 2001): "One of the most impressive
factors about this book is that it does not overreach. Knowing
that one will never overturn orthodox scholarship by argument
which is intellectually shoddy or suspect, she will not be led by
the heart. ... The challenge is there and it is formidable. The
breadth of the author's research is impressive."
Shakespeare Oxford Society
newsletter (by Richard F. Whalen, fall 2000): "Price
declines to discuss who might be the true author of Shakespeare's
works. ... If Will Shakspere was not the author, then who was
this aristocrat she keeps mentioning?"
Errata & Additions |
All Contents Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Diana Price
All Rights Reserved