What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature
An “extraordinarily brilliant” and “pleasurably naughty” (André Aciman) investigation into the Shakespeare authorship question, exploring how doubting that William Shakespeare wrote his plays became an act of blasphemy…and who the Bard might really be.
The theory that Shakespeare may not have written the works that bear his name is the most horrible, unspeakable subject in the history of English literature. Scholars admit that the Bard’s biography is a “black hole,” yet to publicly question the identity of the god of English literature is unacceptable, even (some say) “immoral.”
In Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies , journalist and literary critic Elizabeth Winkler sets out to probe the origins of this literary taboo. Whisking you from London to Stratford-Upon-Avon to Washington, DC, she pulls back the curtain to show how the forces of nationalism and empire, religion and mythmaking, gender and class have shaped our admiration for Shakespeare across the centuries. As she considers the writers and thinkers—from Walt Whitman to Sigmund Freud to Supreme Court justices—who have grappled with the riddle of the plays’ origins, she explores who may perhaps have been hiding behind his name. A forgotten woman? A disgraced aristocrat? A government spy? Hovering over the mystery are Shakespeare’s plays themselves, with their love for mistaken identities, disguises, and things never quite being what they seem.
As she interviews scholars and skeptics, Winkler’s interest turns to the larger problem of historical truth—and of how human imperfections (bias, blindness, subjectivity) shape our construction of the past. History is a story, and the story we find may depend on the story we’re looking for.
“Lively” ( The Washington Post ), “fascinating” (Amanda Foreman), and “intrepid” (Stacy Schiff), Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies will forever change how you think of Shakespeare…and of how we as a society decide what’s up for debate and what’s just nonsense, just heresy.
The theory that Shakespeare may not have written the works that bear his name is the most horrible, unspeakable subject in the history of English literature. Scholars admit that the Bard’s biography is a “black hole,” yet to publicly question the identity of the god of English literature is unacceptable, even (some say) “immoral.”
In Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies , journalist and literary critic Elizabeth Winkler sets out to probe the origins of this literary taboo. Whisking you from London to Stratford-Upon-Avon to Washington, DC, she pulls back the curtain to show how the forces of nationalism and empire, religion and mythmaking, gender and class have shaped our admiration for Shakespeare across the centuries. As she considers the writers and thinkers—from Walt Whitman to Sigmund Freud to Supreme Court justices—who have grappled with the riddle of the plays’ origins, she explores who may perhaps have been hiding behind his name. A forgotten woman? A disgraced aristocrat? A government spy? Hovering over the mystery are Shakespeare’s plays themselves, with their love for mistaken identities, disguises, and things never quite being what they seem.
As she interviews scholars and skeptics, Winkler’s interest turns to the larger problem of historical truth—and of how human imperfections (bias, blindness, subjectivity) shape our construction of the past. History is a story, and the story we find may depend on the story we’re looking for.
“Lively” ( The Washington Post ), “fascinating” (Amanda Foreman), and “intrepid” (Stacy Schiff), Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies will forever change how you think of Shakespeare…and of how we as a society decide what’s up for debate and what’s just nonsense, just heresy.
432 pages, Paperback
First published May 9, 2023
327 people are currently reading
10836 people want to read
About the author
Elizabeth Winkler
2 books129 followersElizabeth Winkler is a journalist and critic whose work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, and The Economist, among other publications. She received her undergraduate degree from Princeton University and her master’s in English literature from Stanford University. Her essay “Was Shakespeare a Woman?”, first published in The Atlantic, was selected for The Best American Essays 2020.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 374 reviews
August 6, 2024
A few months back, this article popped up on my feed: London Library accused of hosting events claiming Shakespeare could have been a woman
A literary fight?
Grab your popcorn; I’m going in!
Before getting out the pitchforks and hurling interesting insults, the author, Elizabeth Winkler, poses the question that shouldn’t the rational, the intellectual, the academic first listen to the evidence and evaluate it?
Yes, Ms. Winkler, we have been thoroughly shamed.
Winkler discusses how the quest for truth is difficult because many artifacts and literary “treasures” have turned out to be forgeries. People looking to make a quick buck are eager to provide exactly what scholars desire. One forger in particular “found” two undiscovered Shakespeare plays.
In terms of schooling, it is most likely that William Shakespeare attended the local provincial grammar school until about age 15.
So how did Will acquire the knowledge demonstrated in his plays?
Where did Will learn French and Italian? Where did he learn his legal expertise and knowledge of Italian cities?
Winkler discusses a few candidates who could have been Shakespeare or contributed to his work.
This book asserts that Shakespeare is the second most quoted book, only trailing the Bible.
Given the recent literary scandals (ahem Neil Gaiman), there are a few questions: Should works be divorced from their author? What if Shakespeare was subject to the cancel culture of modern days, his works unpublished as a result of a tarnished reputation? Should these immortal works, echoing into the future to shape countless generations be forever silenced?
PS Jodi Picoult is publishing on August 20, 2024, By Any Other Name, which is a book about Shakespeare being written by a woman. It is almost as if the hands of fate are gently guiding me to study Shakespeare. Why fight it?
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Hardcover Text – Free from Troy Public Library
Audiobook – Free through Libby
Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook Insta
A literary fight?
Grab your popcorn; I’m going in!
Before getting out the pitchforks and hurling interesting insults, the author, Elizabeth Winkler, poses the question that shouldn’t the rational, the intellectual, the academic first listen to the evidence and evaluate it?
Yes, Ms. Winkler, we have been thoroughly shamed.
Winkler discusses how the quest for truth is difficult because many artifacts and literary “treasures” have turned out to be forgeries. People looking to make a quick buck are eager to provide exactly what scholars desire. One forger in particular “found” two undiscovered Shakespeare plays.
In terms of schooling, it is most likely that William Shakespeare attended the local provincial grammar school until about age 15.
So how did Will acquire the knowledge demonstrated in his plays?
Where did Will learn French and Italian? Where did he learn his legal expertise and knowledge of Italian cities?
Winkler discusses a few candidates who could have been Shakespeare or contributed to his work.
This book asserts that Shakespeare is the second most quoted book, only trailing the Bible.
Given the recent literary scandals (ahem Neil Gaiman), there are a few questions: Should works be divorced from their author? What if Shakespeare was subject to the cancel culture of modern days, his works unpublished as a result of a tarnished reputation? Should these immortal works, echoing into the future to shape countless generations be forever silenced?
PS Jodi Picoult is publishing on August 20, 2024, By Any Other Name, which is a book about Shakespeare being written by a woman. It is almost as if the hands of fate are gently guiding me to study Shakespeare. Why fight it?
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Hardcover Text – Free from Troy Public Library
Audiobook – Free through Libby
Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook Insta
August 2, 2023
Let's start with the positives: I can't fault the writer for her style of writing. She's an incredibly engaging writer which made the book an easy read.
I'm a Bardologist who nearly went down the Shakespeare studies route for my Masters programme many years ago at the Shakespeare Institute. I've always been curious as to why people question the writer's legitimacy. It's genuinely something I knew nothing about, and I was prepared to learn something new.
Reader: I learned nothing other than that all the "evidence" against Shakespeare is the author of the works relies on nitpicking written letters and pulling at straws from the slight turn of phrases documented in random written accounts from people who never interacted with the bard. The lack of legitimacy for this author's research is evidenced by the fact there isn't a resources page featuring an extensive list of peer-reviewed academic resources that she cited because... she didn't use any.
For that very simple reason, there's no academic credibility to this work, and she completely ignored all the evidence we have for Shakespeare being the writer of his works (alongside some unnamed co-authors). The primary evidence lies in the plays themselves: they are thematically, linguistically and stylistically congruent. There is more congruency between his works than between JK Rowling and Robert Galbraith's works, but we don't see Winkler arguing they're not written by the same author. Winkler conveniently ignored all the evidence which debunked her conspiratorial claims and laid stake in some of the easiest "debunkable" facts. Just for one example (this book is filled with them), Winkler writes all about how:
1. There's no record of Shakespeare being literate or attending school! His daughters were not literate, so he couldn't have been. Surely a literate man would have taught his own daughters' literacy?!
Answer: Well... there are no records of him attending school because... no records have survived from the King’s Free School, the Stratford grammar school he would have attended. So the fact that there is no record of his attending is immaterial because no one is recorded as having gone there at that time. Additionally, his daughters were raised by their mother, Anne Hathaway, not Shakespeare. He wouldn't have been around as they grew up, working in London whilst they lived in Stratford, and an illiterate mother is likely not the best literacy teacher to her daughters. However, that being said, reading is not the same as writing in these times: many people could read but not write, so whilst his daughters never wrote anything, it doesn't mean they never read. I thought that answer was a bit obvious, but hey-ho, Winkler didn't want to see it that way.
The book is like that the whole way through. There's no relaying of any evidence because there isn't any: she goes on a lot about her contempt for Shakespearean merchandise in Stratford-Upon-Avon, as if that debunks the legitimacy of his literary and authorial potency, and acts as if she doesn't come from a country that sells presidential merchandise...
Winkler paints herself as a snarky victim with a highly distasteful know-it-all attitude which screams of an intellectual inferiority complex which isn't justified - she's an incredibly well-spoken (written) woman with a masterful educational background worthy of admiration. But perhaps those institutions are to blame for her conceitedness and potential insecurities, which are alarmingly potent in her writing, especially regarding other academics.
I felt very uncomfortable with her labelling academics who refused to speak with her as cowards unable to answer the questions she had for them and were thus avoiding her. No, with all due respect: why should an academic engage with someone who has never read or engaged with academic material proving the existence of something they are blindly set on disproving without any evidence? That would be like a flat-earther accusing a NASA scientist of being a coward for not having coffee with them - why engage with someone who isn't willing to read about the facts and instead only looks at the conspiratorial outliers? It's not worth their time. They, the academics, HAVE read both: the conspiratorial stuff and the academic work and evidence. Why should they engage with someone willfully ignorant of all the material available when they're done all the work themselves? Also, her "joking" of tracking down Greenblatt during his vacation time so she could corner him into an interview -- UNHINGED behaviour. It came across as incredibly unprofessional and emotionally immature, which again doesn't scream academically stable but more journalistic personal hit piece.
We have zero evidence of someone else writing Shakespeare's plays. Winkler provides no evidence that someone else wrote his plays or that he didn't write his plays. However, we have mountains of extensive factual recorded evidence that he did, all of which Winkler conveniently ignored and excluded. Additionally, it's evident that Winkler is projecting a contemporary understanding of authorship, publishing, theatre, reading, and playwriting rather than employing an Elizabethan understanding of these topics - the two are entirely different contexts. This suggests that Winkler has done little to no reading of the cultural and societal expectations, understandings and workings of these topics in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period, which, again, strikes against the academic credibility of this work.
Winkler "just wants to ask questions" rather than actually make an argument. This is because she can't make an argument: were she to present an argument, she would be immediately refuted, so instead, she, like all conspiracy theorists, relies on challenging facts like "But how do we know the world is flat? Have you gone up to space? I thought not."
This book is basically Winkler doing that, only with Shakespeare. She ignores all the evidence and "asks questions", but even the little contradictions and "weird things people said back in the day" are easily disproven, explained and debunked with a simple Google search, let alone the mountains of academic articles and books which detail the evidence for Shakespeare that she has evidently never read. Otherwise, she would have presented counterarguments to those papers and presented evidence to the contrary.
Note to self: always check if a non-fiction book lacks a comprehensive, detailed and extensive list of peer-reviewed academic works cited before purchasing. Otherwise, assume they did the bare minimum other than reading the internet.
I'm a Bardologist who nearly went down the Shakespeare studies route for my Masters programme many years ago at the Shakespeare Institute. I've always been curious as to why people question the writer's legitimacy. It's genuinely something I knew nothing about, and I was prepared to learn something new.
Reader: I learned nothing other than that all the "evidence" against Shakespeare is the author of the works relies on nitpicking written letters and pulling at straws from the slight turn of phrases documented in random written accounts from people who never interacted with the bard. The lack of legitimacy for this author's research is evidenced by the fact there isn't a resources page featuring an extensive list of peer-reviewed academic resources that she cited because... she didn't use any.
For that very simple reason, there's no academic credibility to this work, and she completely ignored all the evidence we have for Shakespeare being the writer of his works (alongside some unnamed co-authors). The primary evidence lies in the plays themselves: they are thematically, linguistically and stylistically congruent. There is more congruency between his works than between JK Rowling and Robert Galbraith's works, but we don't see Winkler arguing they're not written by the same author. Winkler conveniently ignored all the evidence which debunked her conspiratorial claims and laid stake in some of the easiest "debunkable" facts. Just for one example (this book is filled with them), Winkler writes all about how:
1. There's no record of Shakespeare being literate or attending school! His daughters were not literate, so he couldn't have been. Surely a literate man would have taught his own daughters' literacy?!
Answer: Well... there are no records of him attending school because... no records have survived from the King’s Free School, the Stratford grammar school he would have attended. So the fact that there is no record of his attending is immaterial because no one is recorded as having gone there at that time. Additionally, his daughters were raised by their mother, Anne Hathaway, not Shakespeare. He wouldn't have been around as they grew up, working in London whilst they lived in Stratford, and an illiterate mother is likely not the best literacy teacher to her daughters. However, that being said, reading is not the same as writing in these times: many people could read but not write, so whilst his daughters never wrote anything, it doesn't mean they never read. I thought that answer was a bit obvious, but hey-ho, Winkler didn't want to see it that way.
The book is like that the whole way through. There's no relaying of any evidence because there isn't any: she goes on a lot about her contempt for Shakespearean merchandise in Stratford-Upon-Avon, as if that debunks the legitimacy of his literary and authorial potency, and acts as if she doesn't come from a country that sells presidential merchandise...
Winkler paints herself as a snarky victim with a highly distasteful know-it-all attitude which screams of an intellectual inferiority complex which isn't justified - she's an incredibly well-spoken (written) woman with a masterful educational background worthy of admiration. But perhaps those institutions are to blame for her conceitedness and potential insecurities, which are alarmingly potent in her writing, especially regarding other academics.
I felt very uncomfortable with her labelling academics who refused to speak with her as cowards unable to answer the questions she had for them and were thus avoiding her. No, with all due respect: why should an academic engage with someone who has never read or engaged with academic material proving the existence of something they are blindly set on disproving without any evidence? That would be like a flat-earther accusing a NASA scientist of being a coward for not having coffee with them - why engage with someone who isn't willing to read about the facts and instead only looks at the conspiratorial outliers? It's not worth their time. They, the academics, HAVE read both: the conspiratorial stuff and the academic work and evidence. Why should they engage with someone willfully ignorant of all the material available when they're done all the work themselves? Also, her "joking" of tracking down Greenblatt during his vacation time so she could corner him into an interview -- UNHINGED behaviour. It came across as incredibly unprofessional and emotionally immature, which again doesn't scream academically stable but more journalistic personal hit piece.
We have zero evidence of someone else writing Shakespeare's plays. Winkler provides no evidence that someone else wrote his plays or that he didn't write his plays. However, we have mountains of extensive factual recorded evidence that he did, all of which Winkler conveniently ignored and excluded. Additionally, it's evident that Winkler is projecting a contemporary understanding of authorship, publishing, theatre, reading, and playwriting rather than employing an Elizabethan understanding of these topics - the two are entirely different contexts. This suggests that Winkler has done little to no reading of the cultural and societal expectations, understandings and workings of these topics in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period, which, again, strikes against the academic credibility of this work.
Winkler "just wants to ask questions" rather than actually make an argument. This is because she can't make an argument: were she to present an argument, she would be immediately refuted, so instead, she, like all conspiracy theorists, relies on challenging facts like "But how do we know the world is flat? Have you gone up to space? I thought not."
This book is basically Winkler doing that, only with Shakespeare. She ignores all the evidence and "asks questions", but even the little contradictions and "weird things people said back in the day" are easily disproven, explained and debunked with a simple Google search, let alone the mountains of academic articles and books which detail the evidence for Shakespeare that she has evidently never read. Otherwise, she would have presented counterarguments to those papers and presented evidence to the contrary.
Note to self: always check if a non-fiction book lacks a comprehensive, detailed and extensive list of peer-reviewed academic works cited before purchasing. Otherwise, assume they did the bare minimum other than reading the internet.
January 26, 2023
A stunning investigation into the fervor of institutional belief that is both whip-smart and compulsively readable. I will be taking this book to the streets!
February 1, 2024
I dedicate this review to Dick the Marie Antoinette of Embassy Row, the original Shakes-Karen.
Every Shakespearean denialist acts as if they’re the first Shakespearean denialist and they always come down from that high feeling that they’re cleverer than everyone else insisting that the dismissals they’ve suffered are elements of some conspiracy. ‘Oh! It’s the Shakespearean Tourism Industry!’ ‘Oh! It’s professors and their tenure!’ ‘Oh! It’s elitism in academia!’
‘Oh! It’s censorship!’
Oh! It’s actually none of those things! But, I get ahead of myself.
Elizabeth Winkler’s main assertion is that Shakespearean denialism is entirely forbidden.
Accordingly, you might be forgiven for not having heard of The Atlantic-that obscure, underground zine with a circulation of just under a half million which published Elizabeth Winkler’s first article on the subject. You might also be unfamiliar with the indie-publisher Simon and Schuster who published this book. They’re regrettably headquartered in some provincial square called “Rockefeller Center.” Certainly these two examples prove Winkler’s assertion that this subject is forbidden to talk about. If not these then I found a bibliography from an antique land listing an insubstantial 8300 entries purely on the Oxfordian proposition.
In what should tug at the hearts of even the most stuffy, uptight scholar Elizabeth Winkler interviews denialist Richard Waugaman at the latter’s private-social club in D.C. She describes this hovel as “a beaux arts mansion surrounded by embassies and diplomatic residences.” But, even in this squalor the indignities never cease… Poor Richard Waugaman was forced to start his own literary club to discuss the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays on a Thursday! At his own private social club! In the nation’s capital! You must then empathize with the poor man when he accuses Shakespearean scholars of being “‘the literary elite!’”
Times are tough, you understand, for a plutocrat with an opinion.
“Let he who has been forced to discuss Shakespearean authorship in their own private club, on Embassy Row in Washington D.C. on a Thursday cast the first stone!”
-The Book of Marie Antoinette
Going from there an interesting theme within the book is how the people who disagree with Winkler also just happen to be on the wrong side of luxury.
The artifacts at the Shakespeare Birthplace trust are described as “the rubbish relic heap.”
Stanley Wells’ home is described as “slightly shabby…”
The church where Shakespeare’s monument is located is “cluttered.”
When appearance does not meet ‘opulence,’ but the subject otherwise agrees with her she excuses them. Alexander Waugh’s wrinkled attire is alright because he’s like Puck. Roger Stritmatter is “monkish,” and Bohemian.
But, it’s improper to say that anti-Shakespeareans are snobbish. That’s a slur. They might write snobbish things, have snobbish opinions, are very wealthy people, and don’t think that poor people can write, but, how dare you!
How dare anyone! In fact.
“‘I’m just asking questions,’ I said. ‘Is it bad to ask questions?’”
Stanley Wells and I both agree that it is not bad to ask questions.
For Elizabeth Winker… well, it depends.
Where there is almost no doubt amongst Shakespeareans and anti-Shakespeareans is that this book emerged as a result of her article in The Atlantic getting panned worse than Battlefield Earth.
I did not see all the responses to that article- and I don’t doubt that some of the criticism might have been out of bounds. This is the internet after all. But a lot of them were not out of bounds. A lot of them raised important points that were not considered by Winkler. She does not mention any of these. In her recollection every criticism was unfounded and a personal attack. In one particular instance she states that journalist Oliver Kamm “associated [her] with Holocaust deniers.” This is false. Oliver Kamm showed me all of the exchanges he had with Winkler’s article and he never associates her with Holocaust Deniers. He says that she uses the same logic as Holocaust deniers- which is true.
Now, Elizabeth Winkler is not a Holocaust denier. She is not an apologist for The Final Solution. But, like various Holocaust deniers she begins the same way ‘Is it bad to ask questions?’ and then having opened up the door for herself promptly seals it.
Only she is allowed to ask questions.
Only anti-Shakespeareans are.
Though she resents the implications of being associated with anti-vaxxers the book’s centerpiece begins with an exceedingly cringy variation of the anti-vaxxer motto: “I was knocking on Stanley Wells’ door simply as a naked, undisguised wolf.”
It took a while for my eyes to come back down. I’d rolled them so far into my head I saw my frontal lobe. It is a Pearl Harbor of a sentence and not just as one that will live in infamy. Elizabeth Winkler also writes:
“When a journalist becomes an enemy, it is usually after the fact- after the interview, WHEN THE SUBJECT, WHO ASSUMES YOUR EMPATHY, discovers that you haven’t written what he wanted you to write.” [emphasis my own]
That’s a fucking creepy thing to say.
I get how you’d want to conceal your motives if you were an embedded journalist. But, Winkler is not embedded. By this point she had already identified herself as an anti-Shakespearean. Stanley Wells knew as much. Put that sentence alongside this from the end of that same chapter:
“Naturally, then, those who attacked the authorship, attacked the Birthplace, seemed to him ‘malicious’ and ‘evil minded’ enemies, for they were attacking not only the faith but also his integrity.”
Remember, she described herself as “a wolf” and admitted that she was going to manipulate him in order to gain his trust and would then write something he would not want her to write. That sounds malicious. The feelings that she ascribes to Wells about her and other denialists are entirely correct by her own admission. Yet, she doesn’t read people very well at all.
She took Wells’ clear discomfort at the whole situation as him being uninformed when it’s pretty apparent he just wanted it all to be done with. When he sent her a kind email afterwards she responded, not with gratitude, but with texts she said he should read. She was then surprised he didn’t respond back to her.
Later she feels that Stephen Greenblatt was purposely avoiding her after their Zoom meeting- despite him being a very busy man. She believes that James Shapiro lied about wanting to discuss Shakespeare with her and she hints that it’s because he’s not nearly as smart as he thinks he is and not because she deliberately misrepresented herself to Stanley Wells, and ignored his wishes.
Ultimately, this is a book about Elizabeth Winkler with some bits of Shakespeare to fluff it up. Unfortunately, the general impression of Elizabeth Winkler is that she needs to get over herself, and also she’s kind of creepy. Aside from the comments she made regarding the interview with Stanley Wells, there’s another scene where she and Alexander Waugh have a laugh over Stanley Wells’ discomfort in a past interview (that apparently Alex Waugh watches quite often), then there’s the part where she briefly considers surreptitiously following Stephen Greenblatt to Italy and ambushing him for an interview.
This is why Shakespeareans decline to talk about the authorship.
It’s not censorship.
It’s not forbidden.
It’s not taboo.
Anti-Shakespeareans have just asked the same questions over, and over for 160 years; received the exact same answers over that time; consider any reciprocating questions illegitimate, but consider stalking appropriate.
Postscript. 5/28/23
Ever since my wife died in 2022 my attention span has gone to hell. In the immediate aftermath I couldn’t concentrate on a sentence much less a paragraph, a page, a chapter, or a book. Consequently, as long as I have been literate I have never spent so little time reading as I had last year. 2023 has been a bit of a recovery- but I still can’t read, or pay attention as well as I could in the past. Elizabeth Winkler has done the impossible. I keep finding myself returning to this book Columbo-like, “Oh! and another thing!” I haven’t hated a book this much since Atlas Shrugged and for about the same reasons.
Elizabeth Winkler is that paternalistic, patronizing, liberal who comes upon topics too late, with plenty of arrogance and entitlement, but little patience- the Clintonian alchemy of making reactionary policies “progressive,” progressive policies “impossible,” and true left wing politics targets for regime change. It mostly consists of learning the verbs, and nouns but ignoring their substance.
Take the inside cover description:
“Whisking readers from London to Stratford-upon-Avon to Washington, DC, she pulls back the curtain to show how the forces of nationalism and empire, religion and mythmaking, gender and class have shaped our admiration for Shakespeare across the centuries.”
Cover blurbs have been rightly criticized for giving the book away, but equally annoying is the cover blurb that bears no resemblance to the text it bestrides. I wonder if this was the proposal Winkler had prepared before the book was complete because, it doesn’t describe the finished book.
Each of the topics mentioned, “nationalism,” “empire,” “gender,” “class,” “myth making” have been points of study in their own right producing far better books than this (the delightfully titled Shakesqueer has some stellar essays on gender and sexuality). Winkler uses “empire,” and “nationalism” as cheap digs against Stanley Wells’ age, knighthood, and CBE. “Gender” is used solely to disparage the criticism she received for her Atlantic article. Winkler compares Shakespearean scholars to pagan priests worshiping mythological deities but then unintentionally exposes the ridiculous faith behind the anti-Shaxxers who hold fast to beliefs long since disproven. She has an inherent contempt for poverty and the working class. Her harshest criticisms are phrased in classist sneers. Her warmest compliments sound like Burke’s praise for the ancien regime.
At best she makes simple connections. Yeah, the primary books of the British Empire were the King James Bible and the Shakespearean Canon. That’s not a new observation. The Victorians themselves admitted as much. Welcome to English Lit 101.
At worst she implies a grandiose vision that the patriarchy can be toppled, the Raj forgiven, the English language…uh…something…by simply replacing William Shakespeare from Stratford with any one of the alternative Shakespeares she lists. “It’s alright!” she says to the maimed Congolese from Lord Leverhume’s plantation, “We made it right! Shakespeare was actually a woman!”
Post-postscript 6/11/23…
It doesn’t matter if I quote from the book.
It doesn’t matter if I cite page numbers.
It doesn’t matter if I translated it to Linear-B, translated it back again, highlighted and dogeared every page.
‘yOu DiDn’T rEaD tHe BoOk! ;)’
“Open-mindedness” is tossed around a lot in regards to Shakespearean Denialism. It is the cause of and solution to the glaring and insurmountable lack of evidence for any one other than Bill Shakespeare of Stratford having written the works of William Shakespeare. If one questions Shakespearean scholars it’s “open-mindedness.” If one toys with the idea of following a Shakespearean scholar on their vacation it’s “open-mindedness.” If one has never been exposed to Shakespeare before and adopts every single claim in this book without question it’s “open-mindedness.”
If one questions the questioners it’s a LACK of “open mindedness.”
If one reads the book, looks for a list of works cited, and finds nothing but a disorganized nest of quotations, an occasional title, little to no corroborating information…well, let’s just say that it’s a lack of something that rhymes with “smopen schmindedness.”
Now, I hate Orwell. I truly do. I hate him because he hates his readers and so he bludgeons them senseless because “open-mindedness” is definitely not what he wants to encourage. There are no “whataboutisms…” for Oceania, right? No one is going to seriously write that Orwell meant Oceania as a complex society of positives and negatives. It’s pretty clear that this is not a society with any plus sides. Despite that there’s a whole Eurasian landmass of literary criticism “What did Orwell REALLY mean?” like it’s some pompous novel that isn’t about three inches deep… Alas, there’s that lack of “open mindedness” in me.
Despite that- and I do hate myself to say it- open mindedness as Winkler and her fans have it-is an exercise in doublethink.
“Closed-mindedness is Open-Mindedness!”
The adherent will accept only one thing. If you read the book then you would be an adherent. If you aren’t an adherent then you didn’t read the book.
All of that “mAkE uP yOuR oWn MiNd!” “freezepeach!”, “Healthy debate!”, and yes, “open mindedness” is all for formality’s sake. If it were serious, my disagreement would be accepted, even encouraged by Shakespearean Denialists. That of course has not happened. The “spirit of free inquiry” is a decidedly one way street.
Obituary-post-postscript 6/28/23
It is an immutable law of the cosmos that whomever describes themselves as a wolf, and specifically as an “undisguised wolf,” is inherently incapable of weathering, much less accepting, the slightest bit of criticism. I was never a Twilight fan but I guess part of Jacob’s appeal was the character writing to editors about how they reviewed his book wrong, blocking people on Twitter who even slightly disagree, and creating a Goodreads account solely to upvote all the positive reviews…
I am personally a failed author. Everything that I have ever submitted for publication has been rejected. Despite that I know the unspoken rules after publication which are:
1. DO NOT READ THE REVIEWS!
2. DO NOT RESPOND TO THE REVIEWS!
No one ever looks good responding to each bit of criticism and to avoid that temptation just don’t read them.
Alas, in response to Emma Smith’s review of her book Elizabeth Winkler writes:
“Professor Smith seems to have misunderstood the book. It’s a portrait of a fractious, muddled controversy by a journalist…”
Not to be blunt but, who gives a shit?
Her book was reviewed in the Spectator by a particularly brilliant scholar. It’s free publicity.
Not to be blunter still but, fuck off.
Emma Smith is a Prize Fellow at All Souls College. Emma Smith authenticated a newly discovered First Folio. She didn’t like your book Shakes-Karen. Just because someone didn’t like your book doesn’t mean they “didn’t understand it.” Fucking deal.
I don’t think Elizabeth Winkler has ever been seriously criticized in her entire life, and it shows.
Shakespearean Denialism is full of monstrous egomaniacs and they’ve gained another.
Update 7/23/23...
Four fanbases produce the most toxic fans: Donald Trump, libertarianism, Star Wars, and Shakespearean Denialism. I'm always surprised by the last. I shouldn't considering how often it's happened yet it still feels silly. A fake Goodreads account has suggested that I apologize to Elizabeth Winkler for this review. I maintain that I'll write a positive review of a book if I like that book and so it stands.
Every Shakespearean denialist acts as if they’re the first Shakespearean denialist and they always come down from that high feeling that they’re cleverer than everyone else insisting that the dismissals they’ve suffered are elements of some conspiracy. ‘Oh! It’s the Shakespearean Tourism Industry!’ ‘Oh! It’s professors and their tenure!’ ‘Oh! It’s elitism in academia!’
‘Oh! It’s censorship!’
Oh! It’s actually none of those things! But, I get ahead of myself.
Elizabeth Winkler’s main assertion is that Shakespearean denialism is entirely forbidden.
Accordingly, you might be forgiven for not having heard of The Atlantic-that obscure, underground zine with a circulation of just under a half million which published Elizabeth Winkler’s first article on the subject. You might also be unfamiliar with the indie-publisher Simon and Schuster who published this book. They’re regrettably headquartered in some provincial square called “Rockefeller Center.” Certainly these two examples prove Winkler’s assertion that this subject is forbidden to talk about. If not these then I found a bibliography from an antique land listing an insubstantial 8300 entries purely on the Oxfordian proposition.
In what should tug at the hearts of even the most stuffy, uptight scholar Elizabeth Winkler interviews denialist Richard Waugaman at the latter’s private-social club in D.C. She describes this hovel as “a beaux arts mansion surrounded by embassies and diplomatic residences.” But, even in this squalor the indignities never cease… Poor Richard Waugaman was forced to start his own literary club to discuss the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays on a Thursday! At his own private social club! In the nation’s capital! You must then empathize with the poor man when he accuses Shakespearean scholars of being “‘the literary elite!’”
Times are tough, you understand, for a plutocrat with an opinion.
“Let he who has been forced to discuss Shakespearean authorship in their own private club, on Embassy Row in Washington D.C. on a Thursday cast the first stone!”
-The Book of Marie Antoinette
Going from there an interesting theme within the book is how the people who disagree with Winkler also just happen to be on the wrong side of luxury.
The artifacts at the Shakespeare Birthplace trust are described as “the rubbish relic heap.”
Stanley Wells’ home is described as “slightly shabby…”
The church where Shakespeare’s monument is located is “cluttered.”
When appearance does not meet ‘opulence,’ but the subject otherwise agrees with her she excuses them. Alexander Waugh’s wrinkled attire is alright because he’s like Puck. Roger Stritmatter is “monkish,” and Bohemian.
But, it’s improper to say that anti-Shakespeareans are snobbish. That’s a slur. They might write snobbish things, have snobbish opinions, are very wealthy people, and don’t think that poor people can write, but, how dare you!
How dare anyone! In fact.
“‘I’m just asking questions,’ I said. ‘Is it bad to ask questions?’”
Stanley Wells and I both agree that it is not bad to ask questions.
For Elizabeth Winker… well, it depends.
Where there is almost no doubt amongst Shakespeareans and anti-Shakespeareans is that this book emerged as a result of her article in The Atlantic getting panned worse than Battlefield Earth.
I did not see all the responses to that article- and I don’t doubt that some of the criticism might have been out of bounds. This is the internet after all. But a lot of them were not out of bounds. A lot of them raised important points that were not considered by Winkler. She does not mention any of these. In her recollection every criticism was unfounded and a personal attack. In one particular instance she states that journalist Oliver Kamm “associated [her] with Holocaust deniers.” This is false. Oliver Kamm showed me all of the exchanges he had with Winkler’s article and he never associates her with Holocaust Deniers. He says that she uses the same logic as Holocaust deniers- which is true.
Now, Elizabeth Winkler is not a Holocaust denier. She is not an apologist for The Final Solution. But, like various Holocaust deniers she begins the same way ‘Is it bad to ask questions?’ and then having opened up the door for herself promptly seals it.
Only she is allowed to ask questions.
Only anti-Shakespeareans are.
Though she resents the implications of being associated with anti-vaxxers the book’s centerpiece begins with an exceedingly cringy variation of the anti-vaxxer motto: “I was knocking on Stanley Wells’ door simply as a naked, undisguised wolf.”
It took a while for my eyes to come back down. I’d rolled them so far into my head I saw my frontal lobe. It is a Pearl Harbor of a sentence and not just as one that will live in infamy. Elizabeth Winkler also writes:
“When a journalist becomes an enemy, it is usually after the fact- after the interview, WHEN THE SUBJECT, WHO ASSUMES YOUR EMPATHY, discovers that you haven’t written what he wanted you to write.” [emphasis my own]
That’s a fucking creepy thing to say.
I get how you’d want to conceal your motives if you were an embedded journalist. But, Winkler is not embedded. By this point she had already identified herself as an anti-Shakespearean. Stanley Wells knew as much. Put that sentence alongside this from the end of that same chapter:
“Naturally, then, those who attacked the authorship, attacked the Birthplace, seemed to him ‘malicious’ and ‘evil minded’ enemies, for they were attacking not only the faith but also his integrity.”
Remember, she described herself as “a wolf” and admitted that she was going to manipulate him in order to gain his trust and would then write something he would not want her to write. That sounds malicious. The feelings that she ascribes to Wells about her and other denialists are entirely correct by her own admission. Yet, she doesn’t read people very well at all.
She took Wells’ clear discomfort at the whole situation as him being uninformed when it’s pretty apparent he just wanted it all to be done with. When he sent her a kind email afterwards she responded, not with gratitude, but with texts she said he should read. She was then surprised he didn’t respond back to her.
Later she feels that Stephen Greenblatt was purposely avoiding her after their Zoom meeting- despite him being a very busy man. She believes that James Shapiro lied about wanting to discuss Shakespeare with her and she hints that it’s because he’s not nearly as smart as he thinks he is and not because she deliberately misrepresented herself to Stanley Wells, and ignored his wishes.
Ultimately, this is a book about Elizabeth Winkler with some bits of Shakespeare to fluff it up. Unfortunately, the general impression of Elizabeth Winkler is that she needs to get over herself, and also she’s kind of creepy. Aside from the comments she made regarding the interview with Stanley Wells, there’s another scene where she and Alexander Waugh have a laugh over Stanley Wells’ discomfort in a past interview (that apparently Alex Waugh watches quite often), then there’s the part where she briefly considers surreptitiously following Stephen Greenblatt to Italy and ambushing him for an interview.
This is why Shakespeareans decline to talk about the authorship.
It’s not censorship.
It’s not forbidden.
It’s not taboo.
Anti-Shakespeareans have just asked the same questions over, and over for 160 years; received the exact same answers over that time; consider any reciprocating questions illegitimate, but consider stalking appropriate.
Postscript. 5/28/23
Ever since my wife died in 2022 my attention span has gone to hell. In the immediate aftermath I couldn’t concentrate on a sentence much less a paragraph, a page, a chapter, or a book. Consequently, as long as I have been literate I have never spent so little time reading as I had last year. 2023 has been a bit of a recovery- but I still can’t read, or pay attention as well as I could in the past. Elizabeth Winkler has done the impossible. I keep finding myself returning to this book Columbo-like, “Oh! and another thing!” I haven’t hated a book this much since Atlas Shrugged and for about the same reasons.
Elizabeth Winkler is that paternalistic, patronizing, liberal who comes upon topics too late, with plenty of arrogance and entitlement, but little patience- the Clintonian alchemy of making reactionary policies “progressive,” progressive policies “impossible,” and true left wing politics targets for regime change. It mostly consists of learning the verbs, and nouns but ignoring their substance.
Take the inside cover description:
“Whisking readers from London to Stratford-upon-Avon to Washington, DC, she pulls back the curtain to show how the forces of nationalism and empire, religion and mythmaking, gender and class have shaped our admiration for Shakespeare across the centuries.”
Cover blurbs have been rightly criticized for giving the book away, but equally annoying is the cover blurb that bears no resemblance to the text it bestrides. I wonder if this was the proposal Winkler had prepared before the book was complete because, it doesn’t describe the finished book.
Each of the topics mentioned, “nationalism,” “empire,” “gender,” “class,” “myth making” have been points of study in their own right producing far better books than this (the delightfully titled Shakesqueer has some stellar essays on gender and sexuality). Winkler uses “empire,” and “nationalism” as cheap digs against Stanley Wells’ age, knighthood, and CBE. “Gender” is used solely to disparage the criticism she received for her Atlantic article. Winkler compares Shakespearean scholars to pagan priests worshiping mythological deities but then unintentionally exposes the ridiculous faith behind the anti-Shaxxers who hold fast to beliefs long since disproven. She has an inherent contempt for poverty and the working class. Her harshest criticisms are phrased in classist sneers. Her warmest compliments sound like Burke’s praise for the ancien regime.
At best she makes simple connections. Yeah, the primary books of the British Empire were the King James Bible and the Shakespearean Canon. That’s not a new observation. The Victorians themselves admitted as much. Welcome to English Lit 101.
At worst she implies a grandiose vision that the patriarchy can be toppled, the Raj forgiven, the English language…uh…something…by simply replacing William Shakespeare from Stratford with any one of the alternative Shakespeares she lists. “It’s alright!” she says to the maimed Congolese from Lord Leverhume’s plantation, “We made it right! Shakespeare was actually a woman!”
Post-postscript 6/11/23…
It doesn’t matter if I quote from the book.
It doesn’t matter if I cite page numbers.
It doesn’t matter if I translated it to Linear-B, translated it back again, highlighted and dogeared every page.
‘yOu DiDn’T rEaD tHe BoOk! ;)’
“Open-mindedness” is tossed around a lot in regards to Shakespearean Denialism. It is the cause of and solution to the glaring and insurmountable lack of evidence for any one other than Bill Shakespeare of Stratford having written the works of William Shakespeare. If one questions Shakespearean scholars it’s “open-mindedness.” If one toys with the idea of following a Shakespearean scholar on their vacation it’s “open-mindedness.” If one has never been exposed to Shakespeare before and adopts every single claim in this book without question it’s “open-mindedness.”
If one questions the questioners it’s a LACK of “open mindedness.”
If one reads the book, looks for a list of works cited, and finds nothing but a disorganized nest of quotations, an occasional title, little to no corroborating information…well, let’s just say that it’s a lack of something that rhymes with “smopen schmindedness.”
Now, I hate Orwell. I truly do. I hate him because he hates his readers and so he bludgeons them senseless because “open-mindedness” is definitely not what he wants to encourage. There are no “whataboutisms…” for Oceania, right? No one is going to seriously write that Orwell meant Oceania as a complex society of positives and negatives. It’s pretty clear that this is not a society with any plus sides. Despite that there’s a whole Eurasian landmass of literary criticism “What did Orwell REALLY mean?” like it’s some pompous novel that isn’t about three inches deep… Alas, there’s that lack of “open mindedness” in me.
Despite that- and I do hate myself to say it- open mindedness as Winkler and her fans have it-is an exercise in doublethink.
“Closed-mindedness is Open-Mindedness!”
The adherent will accept only one thing. If you read the book then you would be an adherent. If you aren’t an adherent then you didn’t read the book.
All of that “mAkE uP yOuR oWn MiNd!” “freezepeach!”, “Healthy debate!”, and yes, “open mindedness” is all for formality’s sake. If it were serious, my disagreement would be accepted, even encouraged by Shakespearean Denialists. That of course has not happened. The “spirit of free inquiry” is a decidedly one way street.
Obituary-post-postscript 6/28/23
It is an immutable law of the cosmos that whomever describes themselves as a wolf, and specifically as an “undisguised wolf,” is inherently incapable of weathering, much less accepting, the slightest bit of criticism. I was never a Twilight fan but I guess part of Jacob’s appeal was the character writing to editors about how they reviewed his book wrong, blocking people on Twitter who even slightly disagree, and creating a Goodreads account solely to upvote all the positive reviews…
I am personally a failed author. Everything that I have ever submitted for publication has been rejected. Despite that I know the unspoken rules after publication which are:
1. DO NOT READ THE REVIEWS!
2. DO NOT RESPOND TO THE REVIEWS!
No one ever looks good responding to each bit of criticism and to avoid that temptation just don’t read them.
Alas, in response to Emma Smith’s review of her book Elizabeth Winkler writes:
“Professor Smith seems to have misunderstood the book. It’s a portrait of a fractious, muddled controversy by a journalist…”
Not to be blunt but, who gives a shit?
Her book was reviewed in the Spectator by a particularly brilliant scholar. It’s free publicity.
Not to be blunter still but, fuck off.
Emma Smith is a Prize Fellow at All Souls College. Emma Smith authenticated a newly discovered First Folio. She didn’t like your book Shakes-Karen. Just because someone didn’t like your book doesn’t mean they “didn’t understand it.” Fucking deal.
I don’t think Elizabeth Winkler has ever been seriously criticized in her entire life, and it shows.
Shakespearean Denialism is full of monstrous egomaniacs and they’ve gained another.
Update 7/23/23...
Four fanbases produce the most toxic fans: Donald Trump, libertarianism, Star Wars, and Shakespearean Denialism. I'm always surprised by the last. I shouldn't considering how often it's happened yet it still feels silly. A fake Goodreads account has suggested that I apologize to Elizabeth Winkler for this review. I maintain that I'll write a positive review of a book if I like that book and so it stands.
May 7, 2023
Very well done and ultimately quite fun to read. At times this felt like a travelogue through Renaissance England’s most touristy sites; sometimes it was a transcript of aggressive and pretentious academic catfighting; sometimes it was thoughtful close-reading of famous poetry. Examining Shakespeare across each dimension felt fresh and engaging.
While it is true that Winkler’s thesis is fundamentally anti-Stratfordian, it is also clear that the project of this book is journalism, not activism. I learned a ton while reading this. More importantly, I savored the feeling of not knowing — of being swept up in a centuries-old mystery, of turning the evidence behind each candidate over in my mind. You might be tricked into thinking there is a conclusive answer about the authorship question to be found in this book. Instead, we are treated to alternate histories that each seem more plausible than the last. Ambiguity! Contradiction! Doubt! We think of “the academics” as the enlightened people who cut through uncertainties to find the truth on behalf of the masses. Instead, Winkler trusts her readers to take in the facts and make meaning themselves.
While it is true that Winkler’s thesis is fundamentally anti-Stratfordian, it is also clear that the project of this book is journalism, not activism. I learned a ton while reading this. More importantly, I savored the feeling of not knowing — of being swept up in a centuries-old mystery, of turning the evidence behind each candidate over in my mind. You might be tricked into thinking there is a conclusive answer about the authorship question to be found in this book. Instead, we are treated to alternate histories that each seem more plausible than the last. Ambiguity! Contradiction! Doubt! We think of “the academics” as the enlightened people who cut through uncertainties to find the truth on behalf of the masses. Instead, Winkler trusts her readers to take in the facts and make meaning themselves.
May 10, 2023
Elizabeth Winkler is a professional journalist with an impressive CV, including The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc. When she was unfairly trashed for exploring the Shakespeare authorship question with one of the alternative candidates, she proceeded to do a journalistic investigation, interviewing top Shakespearean scholars on both sides of the question (e.g. Greenblatt, Garber, Waugh, Stritmatter) as well as presenting the case for the top candidates other than Shakspere of Stratford. She lets the reader decide based on her interviews with prominent scholars and with summaries of bios for the top candidates. The book is highly entertaining, as well as extremely informative, and reads like a detective story. It is very enlightening to hear what major scholars on both sides have to say. It’s not as black and white as assumed. It’s also very telling that Shapiro, who attacked her viciously for her Atlantic article, refused to meet with her, despite his public invitation to her to do so. Winkler adeptly reveals the problems traditional academics fail to address. More and more academic studies studies are revealing the political sophistication of these plays and making the traditional authorship theory less and less plausible.
April 16, 2023
Brilliant response from Elizabeth Winkler to the furore caused by her Atlantic article raising the Shakespeare Authorship question. Her elegant and easy to read journey through 400 years of myth, scholarship, and fiction highlights the key evidence, exposes weaknesses in old arguments, and raises pertinent questions about how the greatest poems and plays of the English language came to be written. This book clears the gap between the life and the works, between the assumed and the evident, and makes the case for critical thinking to be applied to the biography of Shakespeare - and why some people are tired of the question and wish it would go away. Great read.
May 16, 2023
I came into this read with no background knowledge on the debate and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Winkler is an excellent writer, and this reads like a clever, literary wander through the most obscure Internet forum debates from the early aughts only everyone really does have PhDs. The personalities she interviews are wonderfully weird, and the quasi religious fervour she unpacks is really interesting. No spoilers, but the ending was perfect. 5 stars, read it even if you're not in the weeds on the Shakespeare stuff.
June 16, 2023
The 1-star reviews of this book are insane. I suggest reading them during a slow work day for a nice time.
February 12, 2023
The myths of Shakespeare are so deeply ingrained that I didn't realize how many of the things I "know" may not be correct. Winkler makes an excellent case that the Shakespeare we read may not be the Shakespeare of Avon, and she makes it very clear that not every anti-Stratsfordian is a crank.
This is a clearly partisan book, and this is a clearly partisan and deeply emotional issue for Shakespearean scholars. I don't fault the partisanship, but I would wish that Elizabeth Winkler were not so dismissive of those she met and interviewed. I don't doubt the accuracy of her reporting, but I do think that she doesn't always come across well. (It's one thing to be irreverent and a bit impatient with opposing scholars, but do I need to know that the poor tour guide at Mary Sidney's house, confronted by a Shakespearean scholar with Very Specific Questions, had "very English teeth"?)
Having said that, my professors, who I still esteem greatly, didn't seem to be troubled much by the idea of the real Shakespeare, and I feel that I missed out. I want to know more. I am not convinced but I am intrigued, and I will keep digging for myself. To me, that makes this book successful--I am hooked and I want to know more.
This is a clearly partisan book, and this is a clearly partisan and deeply emotional issue for Shakespearean scholars. I don't fault the partisanship, but I would wish that Elizabeth Winkler were not so dismissive of those she met and interviewed. I don't doubt the accuracy of her reporting, but I do think that she doesn't always come across well. (It's one thing to be irreverent and a bit impatient with opposing scholars, but do I need to know that the poor tour guide at Mary Sidney's house, confronted by a Shakespearean scholar with Very Specific Questions, had "very English teeth"?)
Having said that, my professors, who I still esteem greatly, didn't seem to be troubled much by the idea of the real Shakespeare, and I feel that I missed out. I want to know more. I am not convinced but I am intrigued, and I will keep digging for myself. To me, that makes this book successful--I am hooked and I want to know more.
May 7, 2023
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the eARC of this novel. 4.5/5 stars.
I knew the Shakespeare authorship debate was a thing, but I hadn't ever really looked into it. I knew there were a lot of theories, and I knew we didn't know a lot about Shakespeare....but this book y'all...holy crap. This book is neither for Shakespeare nor is it against him, but Winkler does a phenomenal job exploring ALL of the different theories -- even some wildly obscure and absurd ones. Winkler is also a reporter, so it's told not only in an easily digestible format, but it's done without a literary analysis lens (or a typical leaning toward believing in Shakespeare). There's history and conspiracy and some information that will absolutely blow your mind. I had to stop at some points and reconsider everything I had ever learned and taught about Shakespeare.
Now, there were some chunks where I felt my eyeballs skimming the pages, so it is dense in material. It also felt like it abruptly ended. Winkler goes on this journey - a literal journey - to discover these different theories and it just ends on a chapter where the person interviewed believes in neither side of the coin. There is no summary or final thoughts...it just ends?
Otherwise, phenomenal.
I knew the Shakespeare authorship debate was a thing, but I hadn't ever really looked into it. I knew there were a lot of theories, and I knew we didn't know a lot about Shakespeare....but this book y'all...holy crap. This book is neither for Shakespeare nor is it against him, but Winkler does a phenomenal job exploring ALL of the different theories -- even some wildly obscure and absurd ones. Winkler is also a reporter, so it's told not only in an easily digestible format, but it's done without a literary analysis lens (or a typical leaning toward believing in Shakespeare). There's history and conspiracy and some information that will absolutely blow your mind. I had to stop at some points and reconsider everything I had ever learned and taught about Shakespeare.
Now, there were some chunks where I felt my eyeballs skimming the pages, so it is dense in material. It also felt like it abruptly ended. Winkler goes on this journey - a literal journey - to discover these different theories and it just ends on a chapter where the person interviewed believes in neither side of the coin. There is no summary or final thoughts...it just ends?
Otherwise, phenomenal.
March 7, 2023
Promoting an anti-intellectual and classist conspiracy theory is not feminism. It's ignorance. Willful ignorance. I recommend Isaac Butler's thread on the subject: https://twitter.com/parabasis/status/...
May 21, 2023
A fascinating read. Elizabeth Winkler boldly pushes against traditional boundaries of gender and identity to show that meaning can be constructed in many different ways. Perfect for the Bard lovers and the Bard naysayers alike. Keeps you thinking and wondering.
Just like Kathryn Kressmann Taylor whose works were written under her husbands name as who would believe, honor or revere what a woman wrote back then.
Just like Kathryn Kressmann Taylor whose works were written under her husbands name as who would believe, honor or revere what a woman wrote back then.
April 24, 2023
Thank you to Goodreads for an ARC. Shakespeare belongs to the world, yet he remains distinctly British. To doubt his brilliance, originality and artistry, and authorship of a library of classics is blasphemy to many in the arts and academia. The author of this literary exploration learned that first hand. Her book is an often-witty exploration of the idolatry (Bardolatry) and sometimes exploitation of elusive genius. Along the way we meet a fascinating assemblage of characters, from the fusty academic to the curmudgeon. From Supreme Court justices to an Oscar winning actor. The acerbic Alexander Waugh-grandson of Evelyn-is a delight over lunch, during a walk, and over wine. So brew a pot of tea, nibble a biscuit (or a strawberry tart if you're with Mark Rylance), and journey through the tackiness of Stratford and the defense of a writer raised by the nineteenth century to Christ like status in Western culture and art. I never really gave the questions much thought, but now, let's say I defer to John Keats.
June 13, 2023
A brilliant look at the question the theory that Shakespeare might not be the true author of the works that his name is attached to..This is an informative entertaining trip through history in the never ending search for the answer.So interesting so well researched serious but still very entertaining.Thanks to Simon&schuster for my gifted copy
June 18, 2023
Brilliant. Enthralling. An important reminder to always be questioning.
May 22, 2023
An absolutely brilliant overview of all the theories surrounding the author of Shakespeare's plays and who they were, without pushing any one theory over the others, and making it clear that while nothing seems to be known for sure, the reason there are so many mysteries and so many questions is, of course, that there is a lot to question about the authorship of the plays.
The interviews with scholars and the references to historical figures' opinions of the question were equally fascinating. It seems that even Virginia Woolf was afraid of the dangers of questioning the Bard's godliness. Highly recommended.
The interviews with scholars and the references to historical figures' opinions of the question were equally fascinating. It seems that even Virginia Woolf was afraid of the dangers of questioning the Bard's godliness. Highly recommended.
April 19, 2024
This book has officially turned me into a conspiracy theorist. I’ve been Shakespeare-pilled.
Winkler lays out a compelling case for why the man from Stratford might not have authored the works that bear his name. It’s clear that she’s done an immense amount of journalistic and scholarly research.
Even more compelling is the way Shakespeare scholars are depicted as digging in their heels and rejecting all attempts at questioning the Bard’s identity. Winkler explores the reasons why Shakespeare has become so key to British and literary identity that questioning the official history is seen as heresy.
I was thoroughly entertained, and I learned a lot!
Winkler lays out a compelling case for why the man from Stratford might not have authored the works that bear his name. It’s clear that she’s done an immense amount of journalistic and scholarly research.
Even more compelling is the way Shakespeare scholars are depicted as digging in their heels and rejecting all attempts at questioning the Bard’s identity. Winkler explores the reasons why Shakespeare has become so key to British and literary identity that questioning the official history is seen as heresy.
I was thoroughly entertained, and I learned a lot!
June 29, 2023
This is deeply researched, extremely accessible and truly just fun to read. It’s the book I wish existed when I was a curious and skeptical English undergrad in a sea of Strafordian bros. It feels insane that when the whole point of academia is research and pushing the narrative forward that there’s a whole camp of people who just like to lay about with their heads in the sand. I hope they see the light. Except for James Shapiro. He can stay mad.
May 10, 2023
This fresh, entertaining investigation into the Shakespeare Authorship Question is remarkably clear-eyed, considering the assault Winkler withstood from the Stratfordian community in 2019 when she published The Atlantic article on the subject. Her respect for the interview process comes across very well, and, it is clear that the requisite research necessary to ask the correct, probing questions was accomplished. The reader, by the end of the book, will have a comprehensive understanding of how the taboo came about, and a sense for why the taboo is undermining the full understanding of all that Shakespeare represents. I highly recommend this book for English Departments everywhere that have strong opinions about the SAQ, to ignore it is an ostrich-like dereliction of duty, and an act of bad faith representation of Shakespeare, especially since it is crystal clear that Elizabeth Winkler adores the works and deeply desires to know the author(s)!
June 8, 2023
I didn't know this topic existed, nor that I would care about it, but what a fun literary mystery! The stubbornness and, frankly, laziness of the traditionalists is frustrating to read, but the author does a great job of breaking down why they defend their stance. Except for Shapiro. He sounds like a prick.
May 12, 2023
I saw the author speak at Politics and Prose last night. She was a very good speaker. This book is on an interesting topic and it is very well written.
June 18, 2023
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. As someone who previously hadn’t spent time pondering the Shakespeare authorship question I found it fascinating that leading English literature departments and experts have such an aversion to considering alternative authors besides William of Stratford. Early on the author Elizabeth Winkler provides compelling grounds to doubt that long held attribution for Shakespeare’s works.
A theme throughout is the nature of belief. Some academics stick to the standard attribution of William of Stratford out of what seems fervent loyalty to tradition and preserving the institutions that rely on that story; others advocate passionately for their potential author (sometimes to the detriment of their social standing, careers, and financial stability); while a third contingent embrace agnosticism on the authorship question. To me the latter group shows up as the most reasonable given all the unknowns, and their reasons for being in that camp are more varied than you might expect. For historian Carol Symes it’s out of the assumption that Shakespeare’s works were a collaborative effort and that some of the co-authors will never be identified (especially any females due to “the undocumented nature of women’s work” back in the day). For Marjorie Garber it’s with the postmodern mindset that the works are worthy of all of our attention and debates of authorship are an unnecessary distraction.
Fittingly, the book’s journey concludes with the concept of “negative capability”, an acceptance of uncertainties “without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.” While some may be disappointed to not get a more definitive conclusion of who Winkler believes to be the true author, the exploration of possible explanations is what makes it a fulfilling read.
For many of us it has been a long while since English literature classes, and Winkler brings us the best of that experience, dropping in choice lines from Shakespeare, entertaining vignettes from the historical sources she has culled, and colorful highlights from her interviews with experts of all different persuasions. One explanation for the pleasure of ruminating on the authorship question comes from Stratford skeptic Alexander Waugh: “The more odious one finds the modern world, the more relaxing and comforting it is just to dwell in the imagination of the 1590s.” It is fascinating to glimpse the personalities of those who have chosen to dwell on the happenings of that era.
I found it interesting, but not surprising that proponents of authors for Shakespearean works tend to fall on class lines. Oxford fans like pedigreed Waugh fancy an aristocratic author, while others actively dislike the idea that such a privileged individual would be the author. Others gravitate to “underdog” contenders of lesser means like Marlowe and females like Marie Sidney when they associate themselves with having an underdog’s hardscrabble journey. The personal attachments of those who are arguing on behalf of each of the potential authors made me more skeptical of their theories.
Fun detours abound along the way given how steeped modern society is in Shakespeare references. A favorite one features Samuel Clemens (later to be known as Mark Twain) routinely challenging his captain over 1300 miles of the Mississippi River on the authorship question until the captain shuts him up, angry that anyone might question his idol’s writing credentials.
Regardless of who you conclude authored the works credited to Shakespeare by the end of the book, you certainly won’t doubt Winkler’s investigative skills and flair for bringing together good stories.
A theme throughout is the nature of belief. Some academics stick to the standard attribution of William of Stratford out of what seems fervent loyalty to tradition and preserving the institutions that rely on that story; others advocate passionately for their potential author (sometimes to the detriment of their social standing, careers, and financial stability); while a third contingent embrace agnosticism on the authorship question. To me the latter group shows up as the most reasonable given all the unknowns, and their reasons for being in that camp are more varied than you might expect. For historian Carol Symes it’s out of the assumption that Shakespeare’s works were a collaborative effort and that some of the co-authors will never be identified (especially any females due to “the undocumented nature of women’s work” back in the day). For Marjorie Garber it’s with the postmodern mindset that the works are worthy of all of our attention and debates of authorship are an unnecessary distraction.
Fittingly, the book’s journey concludes with the concept of “negative capability”, an acceptance of uncertainties “without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.” While some may be disappointed to not get a more definitive conclusion of who Winkler believes to be the true author, the exploration of possible explanations is what makes it a fulfilling read.
For many of us it has been a long while since English literature classes, and Winkler brings us the best of that experience, dropping in choice lines from Shakespeare, entertaining vignettes from the historical sources she has culled, and colorful highlights from her interviews with experts of all different persuasions. One explanation for the pleasure of ruminating on the authorship question comes from Stratford skeptic Alexander Waugh: “The more odious one finds the modern world, the more relaxing and comforting it is just to dwell in the imagination of the 1590s.” It is fascinating to glimpse the personalities of those who have chosen to dwell on the happenings of that era.
I found it interesting, but not surprising that proponents of authors for Shakespearean works tend to fall on class lines. Oxford fans like pedigreed Waugh fancy an aristocratic author, while others actively dislike the idea that such a privileged individual would be the author. Others gravitate to “underdog” contenders of lesser means like Marlowe and females like Marie Sidney when they associate themselves with having an underdog’s hardscrabble journey. The personal attachments of those who are arguing on behalf of each of the potential authors made me more skeptical of their theories.
Fun detours abound along the way given how steeped modern society is in Shakespeare references. A favorite one features Samuel Clemens (later to be known as Mark Twain) routinely challenging his captain over 1300 miles of the Mississippi River on the authorship question until the captain shuts him up, angry that anyone might question his idol’s writing credentials.
Regardless of who you conclude authored the works credited to Shakespeare by the end of the book, you certainly won’t doubt Winkler’s investigative skills and flair for bringing together good stories.
August 6, 2023
Update - stooped 8/6 after arguing with an Oxfordian outside Shakespeare in the Park
I attended a book talk for "Shakespeare Was A Woman And Other Heresies" at the Strand, having pre-paid for both the talk and the book. Normally, after talks, I take my pre-signed editions to be personalized and have a brief chat with the author. This was the first book in some time where that did not occur.
I found myself becoming annoyed at the topic during the talk but pledged to actually read the book and see if my perceived grievance was as present on the page as it was audibly. What followed was 400 pages of codswallop as it pertained to the authorship question.
My biases will be plain: I am a Stratfordian. Shakespeares' plays were written by Shakespeare. A human being born to lower circumstances can, through the sheer power of imagination, transform the world without the benefit of being an Oxbridge educated scholar or an Earl.
All that being said, Elizabeth Winkler's book is the personification of an angry blog post about a group of scholars disliking your article in The Atlantic. The Authorship Question is by no means the taboo that she presents it - yes, there are several incredibly influential scholars, actors, Justices who ascribe to it. None are shunned from society for having done so. Mark Rylance's "I Am Shakespeare" played at the Old Vic last year. You can't claim it to be a massive taboo when there are several show trials orchestrated by prominent members of society around the topic.
My primary grievance is the "just asking questions" nature of the inquiry. That the sheer act of questioning a commonly held position makes you somehow the better person. Yes, you wrote an article in the Atlantic that some people on the internet were mean to you for. The article was then edited by the publication three times to reflect the commentary of actual experts in the field. Clearly, that pained you. And these experts still, for the most part, found time to sit down and discuss things with you. But they did not owe you this - Stephen Greenblatt was not required to discuss things with you, nor was he personally avoiding you over a period where he was busy. NOR SHOULD YOU EVER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO STALK A PERSON WHO YOU ARE TRYING TO INTERVIEW ON THEIR VACATION.
But when you're just asking questions, others are allowed to question you as well. So they're free to ask things like "why is it that in your discussion of Oxford, you neglect to mention his death date until a good 15 pages in?" Or "why is it so hard to believe that someone can actually die from a knife to the eye? Are you unaware of the concept of cerebral hemorrhaging?" Or "Why is it that searching for hidden allusions to the words Oxford or de Vere sounds so much like looking for hidden messages in the Bible, or worse, Elon Musk's Twitter feed?"
So yes, I can just ask questions too. I wish I hadn't been as uncomfortable in hearing Ms. Winkler's book talk as I was, as I may have saved myself the $25 and used it to purchase a paperback copy of "Will In The World" and a drink. Now instead I'm left with a copy of a book that I don't really want, debating if it is kinder to just shelve it and inevitably discard it on my next move or to stoop it and unleash it on some other poor individual in Brooklyn.
I attended a book talk for "Shakespeare Was A Woman And Other Heresies" at the Strand, having pre-paid for both the talk and the book. Normally, after talks, I take my pre-signed editions to be personalized and have a brief chat with the author. This was the first book in some time where that did not occur.
I found myself becoming annoyed at the topic during the talk but pledged to actually read the book and see if my perceived grievance was as present on the page as it was audibly. What followed was 400 pages of codswallop as it pertained to the authorship question.
My biases will be plain: I am a Stratfordian. Shakespeares' plays were written by Shakespeare. A human being born to lower circumstances can, through the sheer power of imagination, transform the world without the benefit of being an Oxbridge educated scholar or an Earl.
All that being said, Elizabeth Winkler's book is the personification of an angry blog post about a group of scholars disliking your article in The Atlantic. The Authorship Question is by no means the taboo that she presents it - yes, there are several incredibly influential scholars, actors, Justices who ascribe to it. None are shunned from society for having done so. Mark Rylance's "I Am Shakespeare" played at the Old Vic last year. You can't claim it to be a massive taboo when there are several show trials orchestrated by prominent members of society around the topic.
My primary grievance is the "just asking questions" nature of the inquiry. That the sheer act of questioning a commonly held position makes you somehow the better person. Yes, you wrote an article in the Atlantic that some people on the internet were mean to you for. The article was then edited by the publication three times to reflect the commentary of actual experts in the field. Clearly, that pained you. And these experts still, for the most part, found time to sit down and discuss things with you. But they did not owe you this - Stephen Greenblatt was not required to discuss things with you, nor was he personally avoiding you over a period where he was busy. NOR SHOULD YOU EVER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO STALK A PERSON WHO YOU ARE TRYING TO INTERVIEW ON THEIR VACATION.
But when you're just asking questions, others are allowed to question you as well. So they're free to ask things like "why is it that in your discussion of Oxford, you neglect to mention his death date until a good 15 pages in?" Or "why is it so hard to believe that someone can actually die from a knife to the eye? Are you unaware of the concept of cerebral hemorrhaging?" Or "Why is it that searching for hidden allusions to the words Oxford or de Vere sounds so much like looking for hidden messages in the Bible, or worse, Elon Musk's Twitter feed?"
So yes, I can just ask questions too. I wish I hadn't been as uncomfortable in hearing Ms. Winkler's book talk as I was, as I may have saved myself the $25 and used it to purchase a paperback copy of "Will In The World" and a drink. Now instead I'm left with a copy of a book that I don't really want, debating if it is kinder to just shelve it and inevitably discard it on my next move or to stoop it and unleash it on some other poor individual in Brooklyn.
May 14, 2023
This is a must-read book for anyone who loves the works of Shakespeare. Follow the author on an objective journalistic pursuit for the answer to the mythical reverence society maintains for the Bard, and why the mere suggestion of questions regarding the origins of Shakespeare can be so dangerous to raise. Winkler's storytelling is adventurous, thoughtful, compelling, honest, humorous, and revealing. Enjoy! And good luck putting it down...
July 24, 2023
Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature. Elizabeth Winkler. Simon & Schuster, 2023. 416 pages.
In 2019, journalist Elizabeth Winkler published what she thought was a rather innocuous article exploring a recent theory about a woman writing some of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. Within hours of publication, she was shocked by the volume of vitriolic comments on social media that attacked her personally and demanded an immediate retraction. She was likened to Holocaust deniers and anti-vaxers. The attacks came from dedicated Stratfordians - those who hold without doubt the opinion that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the sole author. Looking into it, she discovered that the entrenched Stratfordian establishment had always engaged in threats and ridicule to discredit anyone who dares to question their facts, that is, those who engaged. Most refused to even engage in discussion or debate on the topic. The most revered living Shakespearean scholar in the UK, Sir Stanley Wells, has gone on record saying that questioning history was “immoral” and anyone doubting Shakespeare’s authorship was mentally ill. Winkler decided that she had a book to write.
Starting with the fact that we know almost nothing about Shakespeare, Winkler discovers that most “biographies” are unverified legends and conundrums. His parents and daughters were illiterate, yet his female characters are considered the best written female characters ever created by a man. There is no evidence he ever attended any school or left England, yet his plays reveal detailed knowledge of history, geography, law, myth, and languages. No one ever really talked about him as a writer in his lifetime or noticed when he died, yet other authors who are totally unknown today were publicly lauded for weeks after their deaths. Unlike his peers, his will and personal inventory make no mention of books, unfinished works, or publishing rights.Authorship questions have been investigated for centuries, with good reason. There is much more reason to doubt William Shakespeare’s sole authorship than to accept it.
This is one of my favorite reads so far this year and might be my favorite read of the year at year’s end. Winkler does a magnificent job of exploring the controversy and the most likely candidates and theories.
In 2019, journalist Elizabeth Winkler published what she thought was a rather innocuous article exploring a recent theory about a woman writing some of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. Within hours of publication, she was shocked by the volume of vitriolic comments on social media that attacked her personally and demanded an immediate retraction. She was likened to Holocaust deniers and anti-vaxers. The attacks came from dedicated Stratfordians - those who hold without doubt the opinion that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the sole author. Looking into it, she discovered that the entrenched Stratfordian establishment had always engaged in threats and ridicule to discredit anyone who dares to question their facts, that is, those who engaged. Most refused to even engage in discussion or debate on the topic. The most revered living Shakespearean scholar in the UK, Sir Stanley Wells, has gone on record saying that questioning history was “immoral” and anyone doubting Shakespeare’s authorship was mentally ill. Winkler decided that she had a book to write.
Starting with the fact that we know almost nothing about Shakespeare, Winkler discovers that most “biographies” are unverified legends and conundrums. His parents and daughters were illiterate, yet his female characters are considered the best written female characters ever created by a man. There is no evidence he ever attended any school or left England, yet his plays reveal detailed knowledge of history, geography, law, myth, and languages. No one ever really talked about him as a writer in his lifetime or noticed when he died, yet other authors who are totally unknown today were publicly lauded for weeks after their deaths. Unlike his peers, his will and personal inventory make no mention of books, unfinished works, or publishing rights.Authorship questions have been investigated for centuries, with good reason. There is much more reason to doubt William Shakespeare’s sole authorship than to accept it.
This is one of my favorite reads so far this year and might be my favorite read of the year at year’s end. Winkler does a magnificent job of exploring the controversy and the most likely candidates and theories.
June 13, 2023
In Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies, author Elizabeth Winkler has done a tremendous service to generations old and new of Shakespeare scholars who refuse to submit to official doctrine about Shakespeare, otherwise called Bardolatry. In an important article of June 2019 in The Atlantic, Winkler challenged the high priesthood of Stratford-on-Avon with an article laying out a possible case for poet-musician Emilia Bassano Lanyer as a “Shakespeare” candidate, or as a contributor to the Shakespeare canon.
That Lanyer could easily have taken a hand in the great plays is not far-fetched; she published a book of her own poetry, Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum, violating a taboo against women, let alone court women, publishing their poetry, and sounding a proto-feminist note that seems to prefigure—guess who?—Emilia in Shakespeare’s Othello (“No, I will speak as liberal as the north: / Let heaven and men and devils, let them all, / All, all, cry shame against me, yet I'll speak“).
The reception of Winkler’s article was everything an anti-, or post-Stratfordian has long learned to expect; praises for her article were soon overtaken by catcalls from the priestly professoriate (“conspiracy theories,” “Holocaust denial”) and more vicious responses from Twitter and Internet trolls. Despite feeling stunned by the vitriol, Winkler quickly determined to write the present book, gaining interviews or access to Stratfordians, Oxfordians, Marlovians, and other disputants in the great controversy, which Winkler likens to religious warfare. The fact that at least one interviewee, an established university professor, insisted on being quoted anonymously attests to the strength of the academic taboo against expressing doubts about the upward-striving, rags-to-riches lad from Stratford village.
Winkler is a diligent reporter and a fine writer; anyone with a lasting or beginning interest in an alternate “Shakespeare” of immense learning, travel in Italy, and a poet-dramatist’s sense of vocation will be quickly absorbed in her narrative, a guided tour of the controversy. While she interviews Marlovian Ros Barber, Oxfordians Richard and Elisabeth Waugaman, Roger Stritmatter, and Alexander Waugh, among others, and draws trenchant comments from them all, her own contribution is noteworthy.
Winkler phrases familiar arguments against the Stratford lad so adroitly that they often read like fresh research: I can’t think of anyone who has so skillfully compressed the case for Edward Alleyn, not Will Shakspere of Stratford, as the “upstart crow” derided by playwright Robert Greene (though “Greene” himself may actually be writer Henry Chettle). And, though I am still absorbing the contents, one thing that strikes me is how Winkler’s later chapters often cross-relate to matters she has aired early on: in Chapter Three, she points out that—contrary to the priesthood’s assertions of “no mystery, nothing to see here”—Elizabethan authors felt compelled to hide or half-conceal their names in elaborate anagrams; for print, Nicholas Breton scrambled his name to read “Salohcin Treboun,” while poet Fulke Greville left name-clues in an anonymous poem (“For Greiv-ill, pain, forlorn estate doe best decipher me”), and the clues also give a good glimpse of his poetical character.
The full force of Winkler’s point will be felt in Chapter Eight, when, interviewing Oxfordian Alexander Waugh, she draws him into discussing one of his crucial discoveries, that Polimanteia, a book of 1595, contains a printed margin note, “Sweet Shak-speare,” next to a sentence including “‘Oxford’ and the oddly hyphenated phrase “courte-deare-verse,” which yields the unscrambled “our-de-vere-a-secret,” that is, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. These anagrams and other relatively “simple ciphers” ring authentic, quite unlike the over-elaborate Baconian ciphers of the 19th century.
No brief survey of the dispute between priestly, often arrogant Stratfordians and confident anti-Stratford “heretics” can do full justice to all aspects of the controversy. Winkler is respectful of such scholars as John Thomas Looney, the first Oxfordian, and Charlton Ogburn, whose 1984 book The Mysterious William Shakespeare resulted in a famous moot court “trial” (Shakspere v. Oxford) before three Supreme Court Justices. I could wish that she had paid closer attention to the 1930s scholar Percy Allen, whom she notes only as a late-in-life attender of seances and other “contacts” with the departed spirits of Shakspere, Oxford, Bacon, and others.
James A. Warren has recently brought Allen’s truly epochal works back into print with modern-day introductions; a glance through Allen’s The Plays of Shakespeare & Chapman in Relation to French History will reveal that Allen anticipated many of Elisabeth Waugaman’s valuable researches and arguments by decades. I could also wish that the efforts of Warren, Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, and other Oxfordians had made an appearance in Winkler’s pages.
But, compared to Winkler’s fresh insights, fearless discussions, and fast-moving sentences, these cavils are relatively minor. Stratfordian priests, watch out: Elizabeth Winkler is on the prowl, and she’s coming for you.
That Lanyer could easily have taken a hand in the great plays is not far-fetched; she published a book of her own poetry, Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum, violating a taboo against women, let alone court women, publishing their poetry, and sounding a proto-feminist note that seems to prefigure—guess who?—Emilia in Shakespeare’s Othello (“No, I will speak as liberal as the north: / Let heaven and men and devils, let them all, / All, all, cry shame against me, yet I'll speak“).
The reception of Winkler’s article was everything an anti-, or post-Stratfordian has long learned to expect; praises for her article were soon overtaken by catcalls from the priestly professoriate (“conspiracy theories,” “Holocaust denial”) and more vicious responses from Twitter and Internet trolls. Despite feeling stunned by the vitriol, Winkler quickly determined to write the present book, gaining interviews or access to Stratfordians, Oxfordians, Marlovians, and other disputants in the great controversy, which Winkler likens to religious warfare. The fact that at least one interviewee, an established university professor, insisted on being quoted anonymously attests to the strength of the academic taboo against expressing doubts about the upward-striving, rags-to-riches lad from Stratford village.
Winkler is a diligent reporter and a fine writer; anyone with a lasting or beginning interest in an alternate “Shakespeare” of immense learning, travel in Italy, and a poet-dramatist’s sense of vocation will be quickly absorbed in her narrative, a guided tour of the controversy. While she interviews Marlovian Ros Barber, Oxfordians Richard and Elisabeth Waugaman, Roger Stritmatter, and Alexander Waugh, among others, and draws trenchant comments from them all, her own contribution is noteworthy.
Winkler phrases familiar arguments against the Stratford lad so adroitly that they often read like fresh research: I can’t think of anyone who has so skillfully compressed the case for Edward Alleyn, not Will Shakspere of Stratford, as the “upstart crow” derided by playwright Robert Greene (though “Greene” himself may actually be writer Henry Chettle). And, though I am still absorbing the contents, one thing that strikes me is how Winkler’s later chapters often cross-relate to matters she has aired early on: in Chapter Three, she points out that—contrary to the priesthood’s assertions of “no mystery, nothing to see here”—Elizabethan authors felt compelled to hide or half-conceal their names in elaborate anagrams; for print, Nicholas Breton scrambled his name to read “Salohcin Treboun,” while poet Fulke Greville left name-clues in an anonymous poem (“For Greiv-ill, pain, forlorn estate doe best decipher me”), and the clues also give a good glimpse of his poetical character.
The full force of Winkler’s point will be felt in Chapter Eight, when, interviewing Oxfordian Alexander Waugh, she draws him into discussing one of his crucial discoveries, that Polimanteia, a book of 1595, contains a printed margin note, “Sweet Shak-speare,” next to a sentence including “‘Oxford’ and the oddly hyphenated phrase “courte-deare-verse,” which yields the unscrambled “our-de-vere-a-secret,” that is, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. These anagrams and other relatively “simple ciphers” ring authentic, quite unlike the over-elaborate Baconian ciphers of the 19th century.
No brief survey of the dispute between priestly, often arrogant Stratfordians and confident anti-Stratford “heretics” can do full justice to all aspects of the controversy. Winkler is respectful of such scholars as John Thomas Looney, the first Oxfordian, and Charlton Ogburn, whose 1984 book The Mysterious William Shakespeare resulted in a famous moot court “trial” (Shakspere v. Oxford) before three Supreme Court Justices. I could wish that she had paid closer attention to the 1930s scholar Percy Allen, whom she notes only as a late-in-life attender of seances and other “contacts” with the departed spirits of Shakspere, Oxford, Bacon, and others.
James A. Warren has recently brought Allen’s truly epochal works back into print with modern-day introductions; a glance through Allen’s The Plays of Shakespeare & Chapman in Relation to French History will reveal that Allen anticipated many of Elisabeth Waugaman’s valuable researches and arguments by decades. I could also wish that the efforts of Warren, Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, and other Oxfordians had made an appearance in Winkler’s pages.
But, compared to Winkler’s fresh insights, fearless discussions, and fast-moving sentences, these cavils are relatively minor. Stratfordian priests, watch out: Elizabeth Winkler is on the prowl, and she’s coming for you.
June 12, 2023
Fascinating! The "authorship question" is well-researched and presented with care, consideration, and a bit of cheek. Ms. Winkler is a genius writer, and I thoroughly enjoyed her delving into this mystery. The authorship question may never be solved, but what's more interesting is how scholars and subject matter experts are affronted by the mere question! It seems to uncover something deeper, the key at the heart of the issue...our fear of challenging our own beliefs. Thank you for the wonderful read. Looking forward to your next endeavor.
June 29, 2023
A triumph! I loved the insights on the history of literary production and the introduction to the colorful cast of characters engaged in the authorship question. You wouldn't think a book so full of quotes from Shakespeare and his scholars would be page-turning, but I was eager to get in bed with this every night and follow the mystery.
July 30, 2023
Who is Shakespeare? Does it matter? Is it important to keep investigating the author of all of those plays and sonnets? This book examines the researchers and scholars who still believe these are incredibly important questions. There are the Stratfordians, who conservatively believe that William Shakespeare is exactly as his name suggests. There are Oxfordians who believe the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s work. There are Baconians and Marlovians. There are even those who are convinced that a woman had to be holding the pen. It is a fascinating exploration of whether or not the author even matters or does the work stand on its own without needing to know the history of the person who wrote it. I really enjoyed reading this book. I think the author does a fabulous job of letting us know why it is important to keep examining history and not just accepting facts that don’t add up. There are a lot of quotes and those from the 1500’s are especially grueling, but overall it didn’t take away from my enjoyment of this work.
I received this digital Advance Review Copy from the publisher via NetGalley.
I received this digital Advance Review Copy from the publisher via NetGalley.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 374 reviews