What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature
A thrillingly provocative 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, vexed, 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 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. 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.
An irresistible work of literary detection , 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, vexed, 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 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. 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.
An irresistible work of literary detection , 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.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published May 9, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
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.
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!
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.
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/...
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.
May 14, 2023
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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)!
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.
May 8, 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 this an incredibly important question. 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 is 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.
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.
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...
May 24, 2023
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 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 20, 2023
All students of Shakespeare should be required to read Elizabeth Winkler’s book Shakespeare was a Woman and Other Heresies before studying the works so they can better understand them. She offers a history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question which, as she says, has been ignored by generations of scholars. This question puts an historical perspective to Shakespeare unlike anything else.
Lawyers, Supreme Court Justices, actors, and scholars from many generations are cited in order to provide a broader perspective on why people think there is a hidden author behind the most produced plays in history.
She gives us more than just a history of the controversy but reasons why the traditional tale of the rural businessman from Stratford upon Avon who made good is deeply flawed. She also delves into how the rise of the English department as a discipline is closely tied to colonialism and the false idea that British/Western culture is superior to all others. Sociologists and anthropologists will find a rich source to mine in those parts of her book.
Her writing is casual yet authoritative engaging the reader with a familiar, easy-going style without sacrificing journalistic integrity.
Lucid and insightful, Winkler takes us on a fascinating journey to the center of the controversy. From staunch protectors of the Stratford story like Sir Stanley Wells to the delightfully acerbic wit of Post-Stratfordian Alexander Waugh, there is a cast of characters who tell us their stories. Winkler gives them what time they gave her, revealing their understanding on the subject of who wrote the works of Shakespeare. She gives us her own voyage into the deep well that is the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
In one chapter we travel with her to the home of Sir Mark Rylance, the first director of the Globe Theatre in London where the actor and his wife entertain her and us with anecdotes and how they became involved in the question. Of all the chapters, it is one of the best.
Do not be fooled, however, this book is not just about a literary mystery worthy of Poirot or Sherlock Holmes. It is about academic honesty and the search for truth in a more than 400 year old puzzle. It is a refreshing antidote to the fake news that surrounds us since she teaches how to look at evidence using her objective and critical eye.
Winkler’s book will astound, perplex, and hopefully convince many readers to abandon the flimsy story that a rural businessman became the best writer in the English language. Her history of the authorship question suggests that we should look again at the timeless stories and poems without the bias laid upon it by academics who should know better than to tell us how to interpret them. This is the true heart of Winkler’s ground-breaking book.
She gives us back a Shakespeare we can read and enjoy for ourselves.
Lawyers, Supreme Court Justices, actors, and scholars from many generations are cited in order to provide a broader perspective on why people think there is a hidden author behind the most produced plays in history.
She gives us more than just a history of the controversy but reasons why the traditional tale of the rural businessman from Stratford upon Avon who made good is deeply flawed. She also delves into how the rise of the English department as a discipline is closely tied to colonialism and the false idea that British/Western culture is superior to all others. Sociologists and anthropologists will find a rich source to mine in those parts of her book.
Her writing is casual yet authoritative engaging the reader with a familiar, easy-going style without sacrificing journalistic integrity.
Lucid and insightful, Winkler takes us on a fascinating journey to the center of the controversy. From staunch protectors of the Stratford story like Sir Stanley Wells to the delightfully acerbic wit of Post-Stratfordian Alexander Waugh, there is a cast of characters who tell us their stories. Winkler gives them what time they gave her, revealing their understanding on the subject of who wrote the works of Shakespeare. She gives us her own voyage into the deep well that is the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
In one chapter we travel with her to the home of Sir Mark Rylance, the first director of the Globe Theatre in London where the actor and his wife entertain her and us with anecdotes and how they became involved in the question. Of all the chapters, it is one of the best.
Do not be fooled, however, this book is not just about a literary mystery worthy of Poirot or Sherlock Holmes. It is about academic honesty and the search for truth in a more than 400 year old puzzle. It is a refreshing antidote to the fake news that surrounds us since she teaches how to look at evidence using her objective and critical eye.
Winkler’s book will astound, perplex, and hopefully convince many readers to abandon the flimsy story that a rural businessman became the best writer in the English language. Her history of the authorship question suggests that we should look again at the timeless stories and poems without the bias laid upon it by academics who should know better than to tell us how to interpret them. This is the true heart of Winkler’s ground-breaking book.
She gives us back a Shakespeare we can read and enjoy for ourselves.
May 22, 2023
Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature
Smart, witty, and eminently readable account of one woman's journey through the wonderful world of Stratfordian sausage.
The author speaks for herself at the L.A. Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable on April 8, 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJPM-...
Smart, witty, and eminently readable account of one woman's journey through the wonderful world of Stratfordian sausage.
The author speaks for herself at the L.A. Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable on April 8, 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJPM-...
May 21, 2023
Addicting and extraordinary
May 13, 2023
This is the most impressive book I've read in the field of Shakespeare authorship studies since Oxfords Voices by Robert Prechter.
Without question the best primer on the history and current state of the Shakespeare authorship question available. It not only covers how questions have arisen that challenge the Stratfordian belief system, it provides objective treatment of reactionary academics' responses (and avoidance strategies) when awkward facts and questions are presented.
Bravo Ms. Winkler!
Without question the best primer on the history and current state of the Shakespeare authorship question available. It not only covers how questions have arisen that challenge the Stratfordian belief system, it provides objective treatment of reactionary academics' responses (and avoidance strategies) when awkward facts and questions are presented.
Bravo Ms. Winkler!
May 24, 2023
About 2/3 through. Much ado about nothing. "Lord, what fools these mortals be." Dick Cavett's line on the Shakespeare controversy is my favorite: "Shakespeare's plays were written by another man named William Shakespeare."
The author quotes a Shakespeare biographer, "Like most things written about Shakespeare, this is pure speculation." The same can be said for this book.
The author quotes a Shakespeare biographer, "Like most things written about Shakespeare, this is pure speculation." The same can be said for this book.
May 11, 2023
"Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."
This was what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman, but it applies just as well if not better to Elizabeth Winkler.
I'm still going on through the first chapter, but I just have to blow off some steam because I'll go crazy over the number of lies of omission and commission if I don't.
Winkler begins with a sort of prologue that does have a functional use for her argument. She wants to use the lawsuit over a bequest made to support search for original Shakespeare manuscripts that would 'prove' Francis Bacon's authorship as a proxy for the evidence for Shakespeare. She wants to use the fact that the court found that the bequest was sound—as the court was practically bound to do if the testator wasn't provably insane—as if it were a rejection of the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship. That way she never has to bring any up and discuss it.
Instead, she can start by presenting a series of 'questions' that are all carefully designed to give the impression that Shakespeare's authorship is doubtful, but when looked at closely have nothing to do with authorship. For example, she claims that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate, evidently basing the claim on nothing more than what one person wrote over a century ago, and only about Susanna Hall's handwriting and Judith Quiney leaving a mark. But aside from the fact that one can disagree with experts—that is what this book is about, isn't it?—and conclude that there's nothing wrong with Susanna Hall's signature, there's also no record of a woman of Susanna Hall's class being taught to sign her name by rote. Signing with a mark wasn't disparaged at this time, therefore there seems little sense in Susanna Hall being taught to sign her name, especially since women had practically no legal authority in their own right in this era. What was she supposed to have been signing with her specially practiced signature? If it weren't for the fact of male deaths in her family — her husband Dr. John Hall's in the first instance, and her daughter Elizabeth's husband in the second — we almost certainly wouldn't have the two signatures we do. And even if Susanna Hall couldn't sign more than her name and Judith could only sign with a mark, that does not prove they were illiterate in an age when reading and writing were taught as separate skills. For Susanna's ability to read, we need only point to the fact that Dr. John Hall made her executrix of his will: an odd thing to do if she couldn't read its provisions! She was also capable of describing a book belonging to her late husband to a prospective buyer even though it was in Latin, she probably wrote the epitaph for Anne Shakespeare (or Judith did), and her own epitaph describes her as "witty [i.e., learned] above her sex". Incidentally, it also goes on to add that "something of Shakespeare was in that", showing that Shakespeare was still regarded in the year 1649 as a byword for cleverness.
But let's assume that all of this evidence that Elizabeth Winkler didn't trouble herself to present doesn't exist, and that Shakespeare's daughters were as ignorant as Winkler wishes them to have been. What of it? What is the relevance to Shakespeare's authorship? Nothing. It might put her nose out of joint to find out that Shakespeare wasn't the feminist hero she wants to make him—ironic, then, how she will later in the chapter talk about scholars creating Shakespeares in their own image, but projection seems to be a strong underlying theme of this book—but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been an author. Female literacy was not regarded as being as important as male literacy, so Shakespeare simply could have been a man of his times. It's also not very clear to me how a man living in London was supposed to have personally overseen his daughters' education back in Stratford. Was he supposed to home-school them over Skype?
She also makes a big deal about his will not containing any reference to his works, but why should it when there was no such thing as intellectual property in the 17th century? The only protections that existed in this field were for printers, who were able to establish their priority by having their entries enrolled in the Stationers' Register. By the way, there are numerous entries of Shakespeare plays, some with authorial attributions to the man himself, but you won't learn this from Winkler's introductory chapter, nor will you learn about the title page attributions, the entries in the Revels Accounts, some of which also attribute the work to Shakespeare, or the fact that every contemporary who bothered to speak on the subject identified Shakespeare as an author—by name, by rank (gentleman), by profession (actor), and by home town (Stratford). And why should you? That 1964 court case makes all these facts moot, right?
And why no books? There are loads of authors who left detailed instructions about what to do with their books, we are informed. But, in fact, if you consult Playhouse Wills: 1558 - 1642 by E. A. J, Honigmann and Susan Brock, you will find that out of fifteen playwrights (including Shakespeare), only three left any books in their wills: William Bird, Samuel Rowley, and Arthur Wilson. None of them were major players on the early modern theatre scene. When the relevant comparison is made—playwright to playwright—the absence of books in the will is seen as the norm rather than the exception.
She even has the gall to ask why "At his death, only half of his plays had been published. Did he have no concern for their preservation?" The answer to that question is as apparent as the nose on her face: since there were no intellectual property protections for authors, the only way a theatre company could keep plays under their own control was to not print them. Consequently, most early modern plays are lost plays, most likely never published in the first place. Once again, these questions have easy answers if you actually look at the relevant period without putting your conspiracy-theory lenses on. That's why it's so galling to see her pretend as if these questions have never been addressed and pose serious issues for mainstream scholars. This is garbage. These Authorship 101 arguments have been refuted for decades.
And this is just the second page. It's exhausting to see so much drivel shot at you and have so little room for refuting all the lies.
Later in the chapter, Winkler mentions a 2018 "online course" without revealing to the readers that it was a complete rout for the anti-Shakespearian side.
She speaks of Shakespeare evincing an understanding of feminine psychology that she claims is "apparently lacking in his fellow playwrights". Apparently? Hasn't she read his fellow playwrights? If she had, she might have found that one of his fellow dramatists, John Fletcher, wrote a feminist response to The Taming of the Shrew titled The Woman's Prize; or, The Tamer Tamed. (Incidentally, watching her trying to twist The Taming of the Shrew into a feminist play was one of the most painful parts of reading her original article in The Atlantic.) She might have seen the cross-dressing Moll Cutpurse of Thomas Middleton's The Roaring Girl or the sympathetic figure of Beatrice-Joanna Alonzo in The Changeling by Middleton and William Rowley, who goes to extremes to win the man she loves and ends up plunging herself into despair. Or what of the noble Sophonisba of The Wonder of Women by John Marston? She could have seen the frank and sexually aware Evadne of The Maid's Tragedy by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. Or she could have seen the sympathetic women of John Webster's tragedies like the eponymous The Duchess of Malfi and Vittoria Corombona and the jilted Isabella in The White Devil. Highly striking, individual, and differentiated female characters often appear in the drama of the era. But these are by has-beens and also-rans. Anti-Shakespearians aren't interested in second-best; they're aiming for the guy at the top, so they don't believe they have to read any other works by other authors, even if this is vital to contextualizing just how supposedly 'unique' or 'learned' Shakespeare is. And she certainly doesn't quote from his contemporaries about Shakespeare's alleged knowledge. She doesn't want the rubes to know that Shakespeare was regarded as notably unlearned in his day, hishowing how far one may go "by the dim light of nature". Definitely don't point out that the author of The Return from Parnassus has Richard Burbage as a character unfavorably contrasting the university men with the plays of "our fellow [i.e. fellow actor] Shakespeare" because the university writers' plays were too learned.
She claims that "In the Renaissance, they [women] had an even greater incentive: appearing in print as a woman carried a moral stigma", but she didn't note that the candidate she was offering for consideration in her Atlantic article did publish under her own name. Emilia Lanier published Salve Deus Rex Iudaeorum in 1611.
She then said, "The Atlantic responded by commissioning a range of responses to my article", but neglects to mention the fact that The Atlantic also had to run three major corrections and that the inaccuracies in it were the reason they solicited these rebuttals (with a nod to 'equal time' by having one of them be the Shakespeare-denying actor Mark Rylance). She also uses this opportunity to whine about the critics of her original article. She is much offended by Oliver Kamm's article in the online magazine Quillette, accusing him twice of "associat[ing her] with Holocaust deniers", when in fact if you read the linked essay you will see that Kamm quotes another person, the theatre professor Scott McCrea, author of The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question saying that "Denial of Shakespeare follows exactly the same flawed reasoning as Holocaust denial, though obviously it lacks the same moral dimension."
She pretends to be correct James Shapiro, an actual Shakespeare expert, by saying that The Tragedy of Mariam was "the only original play published by a woman in Renaissance England" and that this publication was "only under her initials, E. C., a detail that itself suggested the existence of the stigma". This is a lie by omission. First, by making a point of originality, she neglects to mention that other women did have their plays published under their own name in this era, such as the translation of Antoninus that was published in 1592 and attributed to the Countess of Pembroke on its title page, more than 20 years before Cary's play. Furthermore, she's using legerdemain to keep you distracted from what she claimed earlier: the alleged stigma was about anything being in print under a woman's name, therefore anything that a woman published under her own name counts. So we can also throw in Emilia Lanier's collection of poetry mentioned above, Rachel Speght's pamphlet A Mouzell [Muzzle] for Melastomus, Mary Wroth's prose romance Urania, etc., etc., etc. Winkler is erasing a substantial body of early modern women's writing, which makes hers a very strange sort of 'feminism'. But I digress. The final lie of omission is that on the title page of The Tragedy of Mariam, it's not just "E. C." but "Written by that learned, vertuous, and truly noble Ladie, E. C." Hang on, didn't she claim that the fact it was published under Cary's initials was a suggestion of the stigma against women's writings being in print? But here we have an explicit statement that the E. C. in question is a noble lady! She then points out that The Tragedy of Mariam is a closet-drama, as if anyone doubted it. Women didn't write for the public stage in this era, but instead wrote closet-dramas for private performance or reading. They weren't allowed to act, so they had no entrée into the public theatres. That's one cogent reason why Shakespeare likely wasn't a woman. That's why the Restoration-era is the first era in which women like Aphra Behn, Susanna Centlivre, etc. began writing for the public stage in Britain.
Comically, given the fact that it's written in this book, she writes "If I had known in advance just how brutal the attacks would be, I would probably have pulled the article." So does she expect the reviewers of her book to be any gentler? Or is she perhaps misleading the reader into believing her an uncommitted and shell-shocked naif? Well, the fact that Elizabeth Winkler sat on the closing panel on "Gender, Shakespeare and Authorship" at the Shakespeare Authorship Trust's [an anti-Shakespearian organization] annual conference in 2018, a year before her Atlantic article came out suggests that she went into this with eyes slightly more open than she's letting on.
She quotes Carol Symes on the "plausible evidence" allegedly supporting Shakespeare authorship-denial, but doesn't press her for any evidence. We're just evidently supposed to take Symes' word that the evidence exists because she says so, and yet Winkler is the one who characterizes Shakespeare studies a "religion" with "high priests". I can't think of anything more religious, oracular, and authoritarian than being expected to just believe there is "plausible evidence" for some other Shakespeare author just because they said so. Perhaps Winkler will remedy this absence of discussion of evidence in later chapters, but I'm not sanguine, since there is no documentary evidence or contemporary testimony supporting any other author for the Shakespeare canon than William Shakespeare himself (barring co-authorship mentions for John Fletcher, but since William Shakespeare is credited as the other co-author, Fletcher's contributions don't preclude Shakespeare's). Nor is there any stylometric evidence that shows that any aristocratic "candidate" had any part in Shakespeare's oeuvre, which might serve in place of contemporary documentary or testimonial evidence. (There is some slight evidence that Christopher Marlowe may have had a hand in Shakespeare's early history Henry VI, but this is not good news for the Marlovians because if his hand can be distinguished from Shakespeare and shown to be absent from any later plays, then it refutes rather than establishes Marlowe as an authorship candidate of the whole canon. Thus the Marlovians have been forced to deny this to preserve Marlowe as the Bard. Truly an irony worth savoring.)
Symes attributes the resistance to Shakespeare authorship-denial as being the result of wanting to remain at the top of Shakespeare studies, but this is utter nonsense. Even if their fondest wish came true and someone else was found to be the author of Shakespeare, the experts on Shakespeare today would still retain their expertise. They'd have still read more deeply into Shakespeare and other early modern playwrights than anybody else. This just goes to the heart of a fantasy of the anti-Shakespearians that all criticism must be biographical. But that kind of criticism went out with the daguerreotype and ladies' finishing schools. The majority of academic work that legitimate Shakespeare experts do would not be affected one jot if Shakespeare were found to be the Earl of Oxford or the boy who cleaned his boots. It's almost embarrassing to read an academic say something so out-of-touch with the field.
There are moments of extreme projection, like when Winkler writes "There is only adherence to the belief, which operates like a kind of religious fundamentalism. It cannot be challenged." But that's exactly how one would describe anti-Shakespearianism: it's a completely closed loop. They start off by tossing out all of the evidence that Shakespeare wrote his works on the principle that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and then they seek to invalidate all the contemporary testimony by arguing either that the people who said Shakespeare was an author were either deluded or lying to keep the conspiracy alive. She objects to the term "conspiracy theory" for this, but there can be no other word because the anti-Shakespearians have offered no other explanation for the extensive references to Shakespeare as an author and why no one at the time attributed the works 'properly'.
She then goes onto introduce us to Michael Dudley, but merely identifies him as "a university librarian". She doesn't reveal to the reader that Dudley is a committed Oxfordian—a person who believes that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare—since that wouldn't suit her agenda of trying to make it seem like he's an impartial critic of the discourse.
Then she treats us to the highly entertaining fiction spun around an alleged conversation she allegedly had with a Renaissance specialist. This anonymous person allegedly wrote, "Yes, of course 'Shakespeare' could be a pen name or a scam or a committee of Bacon/Marlowe/Oxford/Henry/Neville, etc." and you can just sense the "but..." coming. However, since this is a private correspondence between Winkler and her anonymous author, we can't check up on what was actually said. Since she's already lied so many times, I can't take her word for something I'm in no position to check myself. Whatever her correspondent was then going to go on to say, Winkler isn't interested because it doesn't suit her agenda. Instead, she spins this acknowledgement of a bare possibility as a 'concession'. If the best argument she has for Shakespeare-denial is that it doesn't implicate an impossible logical paradox, then I think Shakespeare is safe.
That's where I gave up, and I'm only 2/3rds of the way through the chapter. I've barely started on the book and yet I've found enough lies and spin to fill a complete review. I despair.
This was what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman, but it applies just as well if not better to Elizabeth Winkler.
I'm still going on through the first chapter, but I just have to blow off some steam because I'll go crazy over the number of lies of omission and commission if I don't.
Winkler begins with a sort of prologue that does have a functional use for her argument. She wants to use the lawsuit over a bequest made to support search for original Shakespeare manuscripts that would 'prove' Francis Bacon's authorship as a proxy for the evidence for Shakespeare. She wants to use the fact that the court found that the bequest was sound—as the court was practically bound to do if the testator wasn't provably insane—as if it were a rejection of the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship. That way she never has to bring any up and discuss it.
Instead, she can start by presenting a series of 'questions' that are all carefully designed to give the impression that Shakespeare's authorship is doubtful, but when looked at closely have nothing to do with authorship. For example, she claims that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate, evidently basing the claim on nothing more than what one person wrote over a century ago, and only about Susanna Hall's handwriting and Judith Quiney leaving a mark. But aside from the fact that one can disagree with experts—that is what this book is about, isn't it?—and conclude that there's nothing wrong with Susanna Hall's signature, there's also no record of a woman of Susanna Hall's class being taught to sign her name by rote. Signing with a mark wasn't disparaged at this time, therefore there seems little sense in Susanna Hall being taught to sign her name, especially since women had practically no legal authority in their own right in this era. What was she supposed to have been signing with her specially practiced signature? If it weren't for the fact of male deaths in her family — her husband Dr. John Hall's in the first instance, and her daughter Elizabeth's husband in the second — we almost certainly wouldn't have the two signatures we do. And even if Susanna Hall couldn't sign more than her name and Judith could only sign with a mark, that does not prove they were illiterate in an age when reading and writing were taught as separate skills. For Susanna's ability to read, we need only point to the fact that Dr. John Hall made her executrix of his will: an odd thing to do if she couldn't read its provisions! She was also capable of describing a book belonging to her late husband to a prospective buyer even though it was in Latin, she probably wrote the epitaph for Anne Shakespeare (or Judith did), and her own epitaph describes her as "witty [i.e., learned] above her sex". Incidentally, it also goes on to add that "something of Shakespeare was in that", showing that Shakespeare was still regarded in the year 1649 as a byword for cleverness.
But let's assume that all of this evidence that Elizabeth Winkler didn't trouble herself to present doesn't exist, and that Shakespeare's daughters were as ignorant as Winkler wishes them to have been. What of it? What is the relevance to Shakespeare's authorship? Nothing. It might put her nose out of joint to find out that Shakespeare wasn't the feminist hero she wants to make him—ironic, then, how she will later in the chapter talk about scholars creating Shakespeares in their own image, but projection seems to be a strong underlying theme of this book—but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been an author. Female literacy was not regarded as being as important as male literacy, so Shakespeare simply could have been a man of his times. It's also not very clear to me how a man living in London was supposed to have personally overseen his daughters' education back in Stratford. Was he supposed to home-school them over Skype?
She also makes a big deal about his will not containing any reference to his works, but why should it when there was no such thing as intellectual property in the 17th century? The only protections that existed in this field were for printers, who were able to establish their priority by having their entries enrolled in the Stationers' Register. By the way, there are numerous entries of Shakespeare plays, some with authorial attributions to the man himself, but you won't learn this from Winkler's introductory chapter, nor will you learn about the title page attributions, the entries in the Revels Accounts, some of which also attribute the work to Shakespeare, or the fact that every contemporary who bothered to speak on the subject identified Shakespeare as an author—by name, by rank (gentleman), by profession (actor), and by home town (Stratford). And why should you? That 1964 court case makes all these facts moot, right?
And why no books? There are loads of authors who left detailed instructions about what to do with their books, we are informed. But, in fact, if you consult Playhouse Wills: 1558 - 1642 by E. A. J, Honigmann and Susan Brock, you will find that out of fifteen playwrights (including Shakespeare), only three left any books in their wills: William Bird, Samuel Rowley, and Arthur Wilson. None of them were major players on the early modern theatre scene. When the relevant comparison is made—playwright to playwright—the absence of books in the will is seen as the norm rather than the exception.
She even has the gall to ask why "At his death, only half of his plays had been published. Did he have no concern for their preservation?" The answer to that question is as apparent as the nose on her face: since there were no intellectual property protections for authors, the only way a theatre company could keep plays under their own control was to not print them. Consequently, most early modern plays are lost plays, most likely never published in the first place. Once again, these questions have easy answers if you actually look at the relevant period without putting your conspiracy-theory lenses on. That's why it's so galling to see her pretend as if these questions have never been addressed and pose serious issues for mainstream scholars. This is garbage. These Authorship 101 arguments have been refuted for decades.
And this is just the second page. It's exhausting to see so much drivel shot at you and have so little room for refuting all the lies.
Later in the chapter, Winkler mentions a 2018 "online course" without revealing to the readers that it was a complete rout for the anti-Shakespearian side.
She speaks of Shakespeare evincing an understanding of feminine psychology that she claims is "apparently lacking in his fellow playwrights". Apparently? Hasn't she read his fellow playwrights? If she had, she might have found that one of his fellow dramatists, John Fletcher, wrote a feminist response to The Taming of the Shrew titled The Woman's Prize; or, The Tamer Tamed. (Incidentally, watching her trying to twist The Taming of the Shrew into a feminist play was one of the most painful parts of reading her original article in The Atlantic.) She might have seen the cross-dressing Moll Cutpurse of Thomas Middleton's The Roaring Girl or the sympathetic figure of Beatrice-Joanna Alonzo in The Changeling by Middleton and William Rowley, who goes to extremes to win the man she loves and ends up plunging herself into despair. Or what of the noble Sophonisba of The Wonder of Women by John Marston? She could have seen the frank and sexually aware Evadne of The Maid's Tragedy by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. Or she could have seen the sympathetic women of John Webster's tragedies like the eponymous The Duchess of Malfi and Vittoria Corombona and the jilted Isabella in The White Devil. Highly striking, individual, and differentiated female characters often appear in the drama of the era. But these are by has-beens and also-rans. Anti-Shakespearians aren't interested in second-best; they're aiming for the guy at the top, so they don't believe they have to read any other works by other authors, even if this is vital to contextualizing just how supposedly 'unique' or 'learned' Shakespeare is. And she certainly doesn't quote from his contemporaries about Shakespeare's alleged knowledge. She doesn't want the rubes to know that Shakespeare was regarded as notably unlearned in his day, hishowing how far one may go "by the dim light of nature". Definitely don't point out that the author of The Return from Parnassus has Richard Burbage as a character unfavorably contrasting the university men with the plays of "our fellow [i.e. fellow actor] Shakespeare" because the university writers' plays were too learned.
She claims that "In the Renaissance, they [women] had an even greater incentive: appearing in print as a woman carried a moral stigma", but she didn't note that the candidate she was offering for consideration in her Atlantic article did publish under her own name. Emilia Lanier published Salve Deus Rex Iudaeorum in 1611.
She then said, "The Atlantic responded by commissioning a range of responses to my article", but neglects to mention the fact that The Atlantic also had to run three major corrections and that the inaccuracies in it were the reason they solicited these rebuttals (with a nod to 'equal time' by having one of them be the Shakespeare-denying actor Mark Rylance). She also uses this opportunity to whine about the critics of her original article. She is much offended by Oliver Kamm's article in the online magazine Quillette, accusing him twice of "associat[ing her] with Holocaust deniers", when in fact if you read the linked essay you will see that Kamm quotes another person, the theatre professor Scott McCrea, author of The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question saying that "Denial of Shakespeare follows exactly the same flawed reasoning as Holocaust denial, though obviously it lacks the same moral dimension."
She pretends to be correct James Shapiro, an actual Shakespeare expert, by saying that The Tragedy of Mariam was "the only original play published by a woman in Renaissance England" and that this publication was "only under her initials, E. C., a detail that itself suggested the existence of the stigma". This is a lie by omission. First, by making a point of originality, she neglects to mention that other women did have their plays published under their own name in this era, such as the translation of Antoninus that was published in 1592 and attributed to the Countess of Pembroke on its title page, more than 20 years before Cary's play. Furthermore, she's using legerdemain to keep you distracted from what she claimed earlier: the alleged stigma was about anything being in print under a woman's name, therefore anything that a woman published under her own name counts. So we can also throw in Emilia Lanier's collection of poetry mentioned above, Rachel Speght's pamphlet A Mouzell [Muzzle] for Melastomus, Mary Wroth's prose romance Urania, etc., etc., etc. Winkler is erasing a substantial body of early modern women's writing, which makes hers a very strange sort of 'feminism'. But I digress. The final lie of omission is that on the title page of The Tragedy of Mariam, it's not just "E. C." but "Written by that learned, vertuous, and truly noble Ladie, E. C." Hang on, didn't she claim that the fact it was published under Cary's initials was a suggestion of the stigma against women's writings being in print? But here we have an explicit statement that the E. C. in question is a noble lady! She then points out that The Tragedy of Mariam is a closet-drama, as if anyone doubted it. Women didn't write for the public stage in this era, but instead wrote closet-dramas for private performance or reading. They weren't allowed to act, so they had no entrée into the public theatres. That's one cogent reason why Shakespeare likely wasn't a woman. That's why the Restoration-era is the first era in which women like Aphra Behn, Susanna Centlivre, etc. began writing for the public stage in Britain.
Comically, given the fact that it's written in this book, she writes "If I had known in advance just how brutal the attacks would be, I would probably have pulled the article." So does she expect the reviewers of her book to be any gentler? Or is she perhaps misleading the reader into believing her an uncommitted and shell-shocked naif? Well, the fact that Elizabeth Winkler sat on the closing panel on "Gender, Shakespeare and Authorship" at the Shakespeare Authorship Trust's [an anti-Shakespearian organization] annual conference in 2018, a year before her Atlantic article came out suggests that she went into this with eyes slightly more open than she's letting on.
She quotes Carol Symes on the "plausible evidence" allegedly supporting Shakespeare authorship-denial, but doesn't press her for any evidence. We're just evidently supposed to take Symes' word that the evidence exists because she says so, and yet Winkler is the one who characterizes Shakespeare studies a "religion" with "high priests". I can't think of anything more religious, oracular, and authoritarian than being expected to just believe there is "plausible evidence" for some other Shakespeare author just because they said so. Perhaps Winkler will remedy this absence of discussion of evidence in later chapters, but I'm not sanguine, since there is no documentary evidence or contemporary testimony supporting any other author for the Shakespeare canon than William Shakespeare himself (barring co-authorship mentions for John Fletcher, but since William Shakespeare is credited as the other co-author, Fletcher's contributions don't preclude Shakespeare's). Nor is there any stylometric evidence that shows that any aristocratic "candidate" had any part in Shakespeare's oeuvre, which might serve in place of contemporary documentary or testimonial evidence. (There is some slight evidence that Christopher Marlowe may have had a hand in Shakespeare's early history Henry VI, but this is not good news for the Marlovians because if his hand can be distinguished from Shakespeare and shown to be absent from any later plays, then it refutes rather than establishes Marlowe as an authorship candidate of the whole canon. Thus the Marlovians have been forced to deny this to preserve Marlowe as the Bard. Truly an irony worth savoring.)
Symes attributes the resistance to Shakespeare authorship-denial as being the result of wanting to remain at the top of Shakespeare studies, but this is utter nonsense. Even if their fondest wish came true and someone else was found to be the author of Shakespeare, the experts on Shakespeare today would still retain their expertise. They'd have still read more deeply into Shakespeare and other early modern playwrights than anybody else. This just goes to the heart of a fantasy of the anti-Shakespearians that all criticism must be biographical. But that kind of criticism went out with the daguerreotype and ladies' finishing schools. The majority of academic work that legitimate Shakespeare experts do would not be affected one jot if Shakespeare were found to be the Earl of Oxford or the boy who cleaned his boots. It's almost embarrassing to read an academic say something so out-of-touch with the field.
There are moments of extreme projection, like when Winkler writes "There is only adherence to the belief, which operates like a kind of religious fundamentalism. It cannot be challenged." But that's exactly how one would describe anti-Shakespearianism: it's a completely closed loop. They start off by tossing out all of the evidence that Shakespeare wrote his works on the principle that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and then they seek to invalidate all the contemporary testimony by arguing either that the people who said Shakespeare was an author were either deluded or lying to keep the conspiracy alive. She objects to the term "conspiracy theory" for this, but there can be no other word because the anti-Shakespearians have offered no other explanation for the extensive references to Shakespeare as an author and why no one at the time attributed the works 'properly'.
She then goes onto introduce us to Michael Dudley, but merely identifies him as "a university librarian". She doesn't reveal to the reader that Dudley is a committed Oxfordian—a person who believes that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare—since that wouldn't suit her agenda of trying to make it seem like he's an impartial critic of the discourse.
Then she treats us to the highly entertaining fiction spun around an alleged conversation she allegedly had with a Renaissance specialist. This anonymous person allegedly wrote, "Yes, of course 'Shakespeare' could be a pen name or a scam or a committee of Bacon/Marlowe/Oxford/Henry/Neville, etc." and you can just sense the "but..." coming. However, since this is a private correspondence between Winkler and her anonymous author, we can't check up on what was actually said. Since she's already lied so many times, I can't take her word for something I'm in no position to check myself. Whatever her correspondent was then going to go on to say, Winkler isn't interested because it doesn't suit her agenda. Instead, she spins this acknowledgement of a bare possibility as a 'concession'. If the best argument she has for Shakespeare-denial is that it doesn't implicate an impossible logical paradox, then I think Shakespeare is safe.
That's where I gave up, and I'm only 2/3rds of the way through the chapter. I've barely started on the book and yet I've found enough lies and spin to fill a complete review. I despair.
May 12, 2023
Hoping the author doesn't mind, here's what I wrote her, by way of review:
Dear Elizabeth Winkler:
As an Oxfordian believer since 1984 (strange, trying and failing to avoid faith-based terms!)
I was quick to pick up a copy of your article [on Emilia Bassano as a possible Shakespeare] in The Atlantic, and have been waiting eagerly for your Shakespeare Was a Woman, knowing the anticipation was keen in the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship.
And your book does not disappoint. On the entire authorship controversy, it delivers the
maximum amplitude with the keenest insights and the fastest-moving sentences I've seen yet.
Two or three times, long ago now, I would drop everything and make the long drive
to Pasadena to hear Ruth Loyd Miller speak on Oxford at the Huntington. She used
to give copies of Charlton Ogburn's book as graduation presents, and that fact has
always made me curious about what book might be the ideal introduction to the
Shakespeare controversy. For Oxfordians, Ogburn, Looney, Captain Bernard Ward, Margo
Anderson? As wonderful as all these are, each presents issues of bulk, readability, information over- or underload, or hindrances of writing style.
But I'm thinking now yours may be that ideal book. What impresses me most
about your approach is that motifs aired in the opening chapters get pressed
into service in subsequent chapters: the discussion of anagrams, allonyms [used to
disguise writers keen to stay out of trouble] and so on. Also that you're able to depict prominent Oxfordians with all their foibles yet never lose the reader's growing sympathy for the "heretic" viewpoint. And there is empathy for Sir Stanley Wells as the aging knight still battling for his eroding cause, so even the foolishness of the Stratford case is tied to comprehensible drives
in all humans.
I could wish a little more attention had been paid to Oxfordian Percy Allen and his
genuinely impressive scholarship, now in James Warren's seven assembled volumes.
Yes, the Dynastic Succession Theory (Jim's term) is not the most obvious "selling point"
for the Oxford campaign, but much of it was worked out according to Allen's
sense of where the evidence led (and of what matters had been suppressed).
The seances came later (though he had long had spiritualist beliefs, I think).
Anyhow, I realize you may not even be a "credentialed" Oxfordian
as much as a conscientious reporter aiming at fairness for multiple
authorship schools. But the fairness and determination to see an investigation
through are palpable. All in all, yours is an absolutely terrific book—it should flutter
the Volscians—er—Stratfordians in their Corioli (a.k.a. Disney-on-Avon)!
Dear Elizabeth Winkler:
As an Oxfordian believer since 1984 (strange, trying and failing to avoid faith-based terms!)
I was quick to pick up a copy of your article [on Emilia Bassano as a possible Shakespeare] in The Atlantic, and have been waiting eagerly for your Shakespeare Was a Woman, knowing the anticipation was keen in the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship.
And your book does not disappoint. On the entire authorship controversy, it delivers the
maximum amplitude with the keenest insights and the fastest-moving sentences I've seen yet.
Two or three times, long ago now, I would drop everything and make the long drive
to Pasadena to hear Ruth Loyd Miller speak on Oxford at the Huntington. She used
to give copies of Charlton Ogburn's book as graduation presents, and that fact has
always made me curious about what book might be the ideal introduction to the
Shakespeare controversy. For Oxfordians, Ogburn, Looney, Captain Bernard Ward, Margo
Anderson? As wonderful as all these are, each presents issues of bulk, readability, information over- or underload, or hindrances of writing style.
But I'm thinking now yours may be that ideal book. What impresses me most
about your approach is that motifs aired in the opening chapters get pressed
into service in subsequent chapters: the discussion of anagrams, allonyms [used to
disguise writers keen to stay out of trouble] and so on. Also that you're able to depict prominent Oxfordians with all their foibles yet never lose the reader's growing sympathy for the "heretic" viewpoint. And there is empathy for Sir Stanley Wells as the aging knight still battling for his eroding cause, so even the foolishness of the Stratford case is tied to comprehensible drives
in all humans.
I could wish a little more attention had been paid to Oxfordian Percy Allen and his
genuinely impressive scholarship, now in James Warren's seven assembled volumes.
Yes, the Dynastic Succession Theory (Jim's term) is not the most obvious "selling point"
for the Oxford campaign, but much of it was worked out according to Allen's
sense of where the evidence led (and of what matters had been suppressed).
The seances came later (though he had long had spiritualist beliefs, I think).
Anyhow, I realize you may not even be a "credentialed" Oxfordian
as much as a conscientious reporter aiming at fairness for multiple
authorship schools. But the fairness and determination to see an investigation
through are palpable. All in all, yours is an absolutely terrific book—it should flutter
the Volscians—er—Stratfordians in their Corioli (a.k.a. Disney-on-Avon)!
May 12, 2023
The Slate reviewer heads his assessment "It is long past time to retire the pernicious, anti-historical, dumb search for who “really” wrote Shakespeare’s plays."
This is the right response to new work from Shakespeare Truthers like Winkler.
Three important things have happened recently, none of which seem to feature very prominently here.
The British Library, curator of the Hand D manuscript has abandoned the last vestige of academic caution on its front of house website and now describes it as "Shakespeare's Handwriting". It's authorial, canonical and linked to the signatures by professional paleographic analysis. It's not just Shakespeare, anyway. It's some of his best work, repurposed in Coriolanus after being rejected by the censor. It's what every Shakespeare truther has feared.
Another blow for truthers is that complex, algorithm-based stylometry has moved on and can address whole oeuvres thanks to the vast increase in computer resources. Early English Books Online V3 (EEBO) now has every word tagged with metadata, such as part of speech. Algorithms can now analyse the elements of style. Two years ago, Lancaster University finished an even more polished and complete resource for the whole of Bankside theatre. The lens we can use to look at the universe of authorship issues now has much, much higher resolution. It can separate Marlowe from Shakespeare. The insubstantial pageants from less likely candidates for the canon have melted into thin air, leaving not a rack behind.
More prosaically, in an attempt to deflate their balloons of speculation, the small group of people still engaged in argument with Shakespeare Truthers have boiled down a prima facie case which links Shakespeare of Stratford to the First Folio in a couple of hundred words and nine items of linked evidence. It's been available for rebuttal, all evidence included, for four years and has received none so far.
Winkler's mean-spirited book, her treatment of Stanley Wells particularly. is itself merely an attempt to apply lipstick to a corpse.
This is the right response to new work from Shakespeare Truthers like Winkler.
Three important things have happened recently, none of which seem to feature very prominently here.
The British Library, curator of the Hand D manuscript has abandoned the last vestige of academic caution on its front of house website and now describes it as "Shakespeare's Handwriting". It's authorial, canonical and linked to the signatures by professional paleographic analysis. It's not just Shakespeare, anyway. It's some of his best work, repurposed in Coriolanus after being rejected by the censor. It's what every Shakespeare truther has feared.
Another blow for truthers is that complex, algorithm-based stylometry has moved on and can address whole oeuvres thanks to the vast increase in computer resources. Early English Books Online V3 (EEBO) now has every word tagged with metadata, such as part of speech. Algorithms can now analyse the elements of style. Two years ago, Lancaster University finished an even more polished and complete resource for the whole of Bankside theatre. The lens we can use to look at the universe of authorship issues now has much, much higher resolution. It can separate Marlowe from Shakespeare. The insubstantial pageants from less likely candidates for the canon have melted into thin air, leaving not a rack behind.
More prosaically, in an attempt to deflate their balloons of speculation, the small group of people still engaged in argument with Shakespeare Truthers have boiled down a prima facie case which links Shakespeare of Stratford to the First Folio in a couple of hundred words and nine items of linked evidence. It's been available for rebuttal, all evidence included, for four years and has received none so far.
Winkler's mean-spirited book, her treatment of Stanley Wells particularly. is itself merely an attempt to apply lipstick to a corpse.
May 10, 2023
Shakespeare "Experts" Exposed as Frauds
Many of us trust Shakespeare scholars as the experts who know beyond doubt that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Winkler's book comes as a real shock, showing just how little solid evidence Shakespeareans really have. Winkler comes across as far more dedicated to learning the truth about Shakespeare than defenders of the traditional authorship theory have been. She has dug deep into the centuries of evidence to take a fresh look at this old controversy.
I've read many books on this topic, and Winkler's is the best by far. She is utterly brilliant as a researcher, and she writes compellingly. Not content merely to acquaint herself with the written literature on this topic, she used her superb interviewing skills to engage directly with several leading Shakespeare scholars. One feels a measure of compassion for them as they gradually realize they have been cornered by a superior intellect. Their efforts to invoke their academic authority end up sounding pathetic, as they are woefully unable to use the critical thinking skills they are supposed to be teaching their undergraduate students. Instead, they appeal to tradition, cherry-picking only that information they can interpret to favor their preconceptions about who wrote Shakespeare. And their ad hominem attacks on authorship skeptics are shameful.
The Shakespeare "experts" receive failing grades in this book. So, if not the Merchant of Stratford, who was the real Shakespeare? Winkler, in contrast with the Shakespeare scholars, is content to offer a few alternative candidates to her readers, allowing us to investigate this compelling question for ourselves.
P.S. You'll get a more accurate impression of the book's contents if you reverse its title and subtitle.
Many of us trust Shakespeare scholars as the experts who know beyond doubt that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Winkler's book comes as a real shock, showing just how little solid evidence Shakespeareans really have. Winkler comes across as far more dedicated to learning the truth about Shakespeare than defenders of the traditional authorship theory have been. She has dug deep into the centuries of evidence to take a fresh look at this old controversy.
I've read many books on this topic, and Winkler's is the best by far. She is utterly brilliant as a researcher, and she writes compellingly. Not content merely to acquaint herself with the written literature on this topic, she used her superb interviewing skills to engage directly with several leading Shakespeare scholars. One feels a measure of compassion for them as they gradually realize they have been cornered by a superior intellect. Their efforts to invoke their academic authority end up sounding pathetic, as they are woefully unable to use the critical thinking skills they are supposed to be teaching their undergraduate students. Instead, they appeal to tradition, cherry-picking only that information they can interpret to favor their preconceptions about who wrote Shakespeare. And their ad hominem attacks on authorship skeptics are shameful.
The Shakespeare "experts" receive failing grades in this book. So, if not the Merchant of Stratford, who was the real Shakespeare? Winkler, in contrast with the Shakespeare scholars, is content to offer a few alternative candidates to her readers, allowing us to investigate this compelling question for ourselves.
P.S. You'll get a more accurate impression of the book's contents if you reverse its title and subtitle.
May 10, 2023
A combination of Winkler's reaction to the strong negative reaction to her Atlantic article, and a predictable wander through a topic that really can't be taken seriously nearly two centuries since it was invented.
Winkler casts aside any pretense of journalistic neutrality, describing herself as a "naked, undisguised wolf" as she approached her interview with eminent Shakespeare scholar Sir Stanley Wells. The elderly Professor Wells invited her to his home in Stratford-upon-Avon for their interview, and offered her tea when she arrived. A mind-reader as well as a journalist, Winkler tells us that Wells is harboring "instinctive contempt" for "anti-Shakespeareans." Or perhaps he was wary of an interview that was scheduled as a cynical pro forma confrontation by a "wolf" intent on blowing down the little pig's house. To his credit, Sir Stanley granted the interview, despite knowing that Winkler had an agenda.
If Sir Stanley assumed the worst about Winkler's intentions for the interview, he wasn't wrong. Rather than provide the content of their discussion at this point of the book, she dives into a screed about the rise of English literature studies, because she believes that to understand Sir Stanley's career and accomplishments in his more than ninety years, one must understand "the rise of the English Department."
To me this episode reveals a lot about how Winkler approached this book. Chip on shoulder, she proceeds to troll scholars like Wells who've literally forgotten more about Shakespeare, his life and works, than Winkler will ever know.
And what did Winkler study in college? English literature, of course.
Winkler casts aside any pretense of journalistic neutrality, describing herself as a "naked, undisguised wolf" as she approached her interview with eminent Shakespeare scholar Sir Stanley Wells. The elderly Professor Wells invited her to his home in Stratford-upon-Avon for their interview, and offered her tea when she arrived. A mind-reader as well as a journalist, Winkler tells us that Wells is harboring "instinctive contempt" for "anti-Shakespeareans." Or perhaps he was wary of an interview that was scheduled as a cynical pro forma confrontation by a "wolf" intent on blowing down the little pig's house. To his credit, Sir Stanley granted the interview, despite knowing that Winkler had an agenda.
If Sir Stanley assumed the worst about Winkler's intentions for the interview, he wasn't wrong. Rather than provide the content of their discussion at this point of the book, she dives into a screed about the rise of English literature studies, because she believes that to understand Sir Stanley's career and accomplishments in his more than ninety years, one must understand "the rise of the English Department."
To me this episode reveals a lot about how Winkler approached this book. Chip on shoulder, she proceeds to troll scholars like Wells who've literally forgotten more about Shakespeare, his life and works, than Winkler will ever know.
And what did Winkler study in college? English literature, of course.
May 9, 2023
Shakespeare was a Woman is a delightful dive into the contentious topic of who wrote Shakespeare, a controversy that has roiled the academic waters for almost 200 years. Winkler does the impossible job of presenting the top arguments for the leading candidates – from Sir Francis Bacon and Mary Sidney to Christopher Marlowe and the Earl of Oxford - but lets readers decide which case is most compelling.
She also mines the academic response to this “paradigm shift” in the humanities, which has generated insults, quarantines and much black comedy. Finally, Winkler educates us about the dangers of intellectual taboos and untruths which, left untreated, easily spread like viruses through a society, making it impossible to sort out lies from the truth. The book is a delight to read since Winkler is a gifted writer who offers readers an insightful take on a literary whodunit that is also an intellectual scandal.
She also mines the academic response to this “paradigm shift” in the humanities, which has generated insults, quarantines and much black comedy. Finally, Winkler educates us about the dangers of intellectual taboos and untruths which, left untreated, easily spread like viruses through a society, making it impossible to sort out lies from the truth. The book is a delight to read since Winkler is a gifted writer who offers readers an insightful take on a literary whodunit that is also an intellectual scandal.
April 16, 2023
Fascinating combination of literary history and journalism. Winkler exposes what amounts to a scandal in academia, in which Shakespeare studies is dominated by completely incurious scholars and biographers who deliberately ignore evidence that doesn't comport with their preconceptions about the mythical "Bard of Avon." Several of the interviews in this book with Stratfordian academics are literally jaw-dropping in what they reveal about their refusal to deal with contemporary accounts that indicate that Shakespeare was known to be a pseudonym at the time -- essentially being negligent in their epistemic duty to inquire. Deeply researched and compellingly argued, this is one of the best books out there on the Shakespeare authorship question.
March 8, 2023
I had no idea this would be such a page turner. It was hard to set it down.
I picked this up hoping for an intellectual experiment and possibly a few fun takeaways, but chapter after chapter left me hungry for more. Winkler does not force a particular answer, but examines the very nature and history of the question. Beautifully written, stunningly thorough and surprisingly funny. I'm officially forcing everyone in my life to read this because I need to discuss. Thoroughly recommend.
I picked this up hoping for an intellectual experiment and possibly a few fun takeaways, but chapter after chapter left me hungry for more. Winkler does not force a particular answer, but examines the very nature and history of the question. Beautifully written, stunningly thorough and surprisingly funny. I'm officially forcing everyone in my life to read this because I need to discuss. Thoroughly recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews