Last Word on Shakespeare Conspiracy Theories?

"[H]ow could a man who had only a grammar-school education and spoke Latin and a little Greek possibly have written something as bad as All’s Well That Ends Well?"

-Eric Idle, satirically sticking it to the "Oxfordians" in a recent New Yorker.

He continues: "Queen Elizabeth, who was obviously a man, conspired to have Shakespeare named as the author of his plays....It was obviously an upper-class twit who wished to disguise his identity so that Vanessa Redgrave could get a job in her old age."

Hit Me With Your Best Shot, Oxfordians

I'm pleased naturally with the multiplicity of comments on my last post on the anti-Shakespeare movie, Anonymous.  And I can't help notice that those who--for some reason, in this day and age--have sworn to defend the good name of Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford, have been doing their Googling and ended up at my site to spread their propaganda and say bad things about debunker-debunker James Shapiro wherever they can.

Welcome to my blog, folks! Nice to meet you.

Just glancing at your comments, though, I see the same old lazy debating points that have never convinced me before and still don't. So I'm inviting you to step up your game and really show me why I should take your arguments seriously. You probably don't think I have an open mind, but one thing I do respect is evidence. So while I have always been perfectly satisfied that the plays of William Shakespeare were written by the guy who everyone in his own time said wrote them (namely, one William Shakespeare)... I'd like to think I'm objective enough as a scholar and theatre historian to at least evaluate your evidence fairly.

So here is my challenge to you, Oxfordians: show us what you got.  Tell us what you think is the ONE most decisive piece of evidence that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford wrote these plays. Not that he could have. But that he absolutely did and is the only person who could have.

Notice: I did not say tell us why you think William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon didn't write what's credited to him. Because even if you somehow could prove that negative, that doesn't mean De Vere did write them, does it? So you must argue in the affirmative, not the negative.

Some take your best shot, conspiracy theorists. I'll take on each comment point by point and promise to grant credence to anything I find actually credible. And if it's not credible to me, I'll tell you exactly why in rational argument. Not just because I'm some stupid Bard-idolator, ok?

Shakespeare Conspiracy Action Flick Hits the Screens...and the Schools

The Shakespeare-denying swashbuckler Anonymous, certainly Hollywood's oddest premise for an action flick in ages, is about to open wide and thankfully some scholars are getting out there to stop the bullshit.

James Shapiro continues his crusade against such pseudo-academic misinformation in yesterday's Times, drawing attention to the potential wide reach of the film's message beyond the cinema:

Roland Emmerich's film “Anonymous,” which opens next week, “presents a compelling portrait of Edward de Vere as the true author of Shakespeare’s plays.” That’s according to the lesson plans that Sony Pictures has been distributing to literature and history teachers in the hope of convincing students that Shakespeare was a fraud. A documentary by First Folio Pictures (of which Mr. Emmerich is president) will also be part of this campaign.  So much for “Hey, it’s just a movie!” 

Daily Beast's Chris Lee has more:

The studio (Sony) plans to concurrently release Last Will. & Testament, a documentary about the authorship debate, through First Folio Pictures (a production shingle whose president is none other than Roland Emmerich) and has been providing materials to educators that encourage teachers to “make this thought-provoking new film part of your class plan.” 

Yes, and make your class part of our subsidiary box office profits!

A corporate spokesman for Sony responded to a request for information about the scope of its marketing push into schools with a statement: “The objective for our Anonymous program, as stated in the classroom literature, is ‘to encourage critical thinking by challenging students to examine the theories about the authorship of Shakespeare’s works and to formulate their own opinions.’ The study guide does not state that Edward de Vere is the writer of Shakespeare’s work, but it does pose the authorship question which has been debated by [wackjobs] [armchair historians] scholars for decades."

In other words..."teach the controversy."

Remember this next time you hear about "privatizing" education.

Last word goes to Prof. Simon Schama:

None of [the controversy] would matter very much were there not something repellent at the heart of the theory, and that something is the toad, snobbery—the engine that drives the Oxfordian case against the son of the Stratford glover John Shakespeare. John was indeed illiterate. But his son was not, as we know incontrovertibly from no fewer than six surviving signatures in Shakespeare’s own flowing hand, the first from 1612, when he was giving evidence in a domestic lawsuit.

The Earl of Oxford was learned and, by reports, witty. But publicity -materials for Anonymous say that Shakespeare by comparison went to a mere "village school" and so could hardly have compared with the cultural richness imbibed by Oxford. The hell he couldn’t! Stratford was no "village," and the "grammar school," which means elementary education in America, was in fact a cradle of serious classical learning in Elizabethan England. By the time he was 13 or so, Shakespeare would have read (in Latin) works by Terence, Plautus, Virgil, Erasmus, Cicero, and probably Plutarch and Livy too. One of the great stories of the age was what such schooling did for boys of humble birth.

Yes, it's called Renaissance Humanism. Look it up.

Just to be clear, I am not very disturbed that some Hollywood schlockmeisters want to attempt some highbrow genre picture. Movies spread all kinds of nutty theories (from JFK to The DaVinci Code) and we've survived.  But I'm with Shapiro on the schools thing. Again, not that I blame Sony for trying. But beware if desperate and/or gullible teachers or principals take them up on their revisionist product placement scheme.

Earl of Oxford: Kicking Ass and Taking Pseudonyms

'Swounds!  Get a load of the latest action flick from Hollywood action/disaster-flick director Roland ("Independence Day") Emmerich:

The film, penned by John Orloff, stars Tony Award winner Vanessa Redgrave (Long Day's Journey Into Night) and West End actor Rhys Ifans (A Midsummer Night's Dream, Under Milk Wood, Volpone) in a story centered around the true author behind the works of William Shakespeare.

Redgrave portrays Queen Elizabeth I during the Essex Rebellion. Ifans plays Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who is not only the incestuous lover of the Queen, but also the man behind the classic works.

I'm sorry-- the what of the Queen???

Yes, one of my favorite "Oxfordian" theories is that de Vere was either the son and/or lover of Elizabeth I.

You'd think it would be hard enough just to prove he wrote Shakespeare's plays, wouldn't you?  Ah, but that's only if one is limited by "proof."

Shakespeare-debunker debunker James Shapiro had at the film in LA Times recently.

I hardly think the Oxfordian cause is aided, by the way, by the support of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nor by NPR's Renee Montagne-- yet another reason not to listen to the super-lame and culturally retarded "Morning Edition."

PS. The only good that may come of the film (opening this October) is the fake Globe Theatre they built and are now auctioning off to enterprising troupes. Or bored millionaires with big back yards.

James Shapiro's "Contested Will"

Longtime readers of this blog may remember how arguing with Shakespeare authorship deniers used to be a common feature.  Luckily for you and me alike, that's now subsided. 

But I have been massively enjoying James Shapiro's definitive account of this whole mess in his latest book, Contested Will.  It is significant because it is the first time a bona fide Shakespeare scholar has really held forth on this topic, and not been afraid to engage--and calmly refute and decimate--longstanding rumors, myths, and flawed theories.

I've only just begun reading and skimming through it but let me share some highlights so far.  First, here's Shapiro explaining why legit academics can and should engage these fringe claims:

More than one fellow Shakespearean was disheartened to learn that I was committing my energies to it [the authorship controversy], as if somehow I was wasting my time and talent, or worse, at risk of going over to the dark side.  I became increasingly interested in why this subject remains virtually taboo in academic circles, as well as in the consequences of this collective silence.  One thing is certain: the decision by professor to all but ignore the authorship question hasn't made it disappear.  If anything, more people are drawn to it than ever.  And because prominent Shakespeareans...have all but surrendered the field, general readers curious about the subject typically learn about it through the books and websites of those convinced that Shakespeare could never have written the plays.

Or to put it another way: think of the "birthers."  Yes, it's risky to dignifiy them with a response...but do you really want their claims to be the only ones out there when someone Googles "obama + birth + certificate"?

What Shaprio proceeds to do, for about 300 highly readable pages, is simply narrate the history of all the various claims throughout the years and show how they were all founded on some combination of misinformation, faulty historical reasoning, outright forgery and fraud, if not all of the above.  In conclusion, he offers what seems a great primer on just what the basic facts of Shakespeare's life are, why it is we don't know more, and how that doesn't in anyway "disqualify" him from having authored the plays that have always born his name.

One misperception that fuels the fires of doubt is a kind of "presentist" assumption about obsession with private life and the celebrity of authors today applying to all times:

Shakespeare did not live, as we do, in an age of memoir.  Few at the time kept diaries or wrote personal essays (only thirty or so English diaries survive from Shakespeare's lifetime, and only a handful are in any sense personal; despite the circulation and then translation of Montainge's Essays in England, the genre attracted few followers and fizzled out by the early seventeenth century, not to be revived in any serious way for a hundred years).  Literary biography was still in its infancy; even the word "biography" hadn't yet entered the language and wouldn't until the 1660s.  By the time popular interest began to shirt from the works themselves to the life of the author, it was difficult to learn much about what Shakespeare was like.  Now that those who knew him were no longer alive, the only credible sources of information were letters, literary manuscripts, or official documents, and these either were lost or remained undiscovered.

(emphases added)
By laying out the historical circumstances so clearly--one of the benefits of reading a scholar actually trained in the study of the period, not some amateur professional from another discipline playing armchair Elizabethan, like most of the conspiracy theorists--Shapiro reminds us of basic facts that show there are very good reasons we know so little about Shakespeare's life, as opposed to some DaVinci-Code-esque conspiracy.

Take this issue of biographical interest in Shakespeare beginning only in the later 17th century, a full fifty years after the playwright's death.  Shapiro reminds us that a lot happened in those intervening decades to make the trail grow cold.

There may well have been bundles of letters, theatrical documents, and even a commonplace book or two that outlived Shakespeare, but...the extinction of the family line by the end of the seventeenth century and the sale and subsequent demolition of Shakespeare's home, New Place, helped ensure their disappearance.

Yes, there's something even I never realized--by 1700 the man had no heirs.  And it's pretty hard to perpetuate an estate and the survival of personal effects without them.  Not to mention the tearing down of the man's house!  (And let's not forget the burning down of his primary theatre, The Globe, in 1613.)

The later family history is indeed fascinating:

Shakespeare's sister Joan lived until 1646.  His elder daughter,Susanna, died in 1649 and his younger one, Judith, was still alive in 1662; a local vicar with an interest in Shakespeare made a note to seek her out and ask her about her father, but she died before this conversation took place.  Nobody thought to seek out Shakespeare's granddaughter, Elizabeth, who was eight years old when Shakespeare died; she was only one of his four grandchildren to live past the age of twenty-one or wed, but she bore no children in her two marriages and the family line ended with her death in 1670.

That vicar story, by the way, is only one of several d'oh! moments where we were maybe so close to preserving Shakespeare's life after all.  For instance, Shapiro also uncovers an obscure story of a country doctor who pays a visit to Susanna--not to ask about her playwright-father but her late doctor-husband, John Hall!  Turns out Hall had left behind some valuable medical research and so this visitor got to sit in the house reviewing those books while god knows what else sat on the shelf behind him.

Yep, it may have come down to...no one asked.  Shapiro details several missed opportunities of these family and friends still living in Stratford till the 1670s. Or maybe they weren't missed.  Maybe someone did ask and never wrote it down.  Or they did write it down and--like 99% of all personal documents from the period--they got lost!

In short, history happens.

Another thing that happened in the decades immediately following Shakespeare's death was a little something called the English Civil War.  Remember that, under Cromwellian rule,all public theatres were shuttered from the 1640s until the "Restoration" of the monarchy in 1660.  This violently disrupted an entire Elizabethan/Jacobean theatrical tradition that could have provided a direct line back to Shakespeare, The Globe, and his company--and probably led to the further neglect, if not outright destruction, of countless records and papers.

So, in sum, there were very good historical reasons that the paper trail is thin.  Coincidental, bad-luck reasons, perhaps, but that's history.

Finally, before anyone writes off Shapiro as just another "bardologist," know that he actually blames Shakespeare cultists for all the authorship confusion as much as the deniers.  For it was they who tried to ascribe so much significance to the man over the plays in the first place.  Insisting that only a "Great Man" could write great plays, the bard-worshipers of the 18th and 19th centuries flat-out fabricated and invented biographical "facts" (and documents) of their own to fill the annoying gaps.  This only let the door open, of course, for the counter arguments that the "man from Stratford" could not be that same "great man."

What Shaprio ultimately preaches, then, is not Shakespeare-idolatry, but realism and honesty.  Let's simply admit what we don't know, acknowledge that it's natural and common not to know such facts about people who lived that long ago, and embrace the ambiguities and frustrations of history for what they are--rather than inventing our own.

Sounds like a good summer read, no?

Do We Really Have to Know What Shakespeare Looked Like?

Well in case you were wondering, here's William Shakespeare:

Not what you expected? Well tell that to Stanley Wells, as eminent a Shakespearean as there is. And he has concluded that this is the Bard at about age 46, in or around 1610--which would be near the end of his playwriting career. (And 6 years before his death.)

No, I am not about to go off on another "Stratfordian" rant of mine. Since this is hardly relevant to authorship.

Still, we cannot but take note that Stanley Wells says this is the real deal. He's not one to skimp on the evidence:

The newly discovered picture has descended for centuries in the same family, the Cobbes. It hung in their Irish home, under another identification, until the 1980s, when it was inherited by Alec Cobbe who was a co-heir of the Cobbe estate and whose heirlooms were transferred into a trust. In 2006 Alec Cobbe visited the National Portrait Gallery exhibition ‘Searching for Shakespeare’ where he saw a painting that now hangs in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington. It had been accepted as a life portrait of Shakespeare until some 70 years ago, but fell from grace when it was found to have been altered. Mr Cobbe immediately realised that this was a copy of the painting in his family collection.

The painstaking work of researching the picture has been carried out over the last three years by Mark Broch, curator of the Cobbe Collection. The research conclusively demonstrates that the Cobbe picture is the prime version of the portrait and establishes beyond reasonable doubt its descent to the Cobbes through their cousin’s marriage to the great granddaughter of Shakespeare’s only literary patron, Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton. In addition to the Folger copy, several other early copies of the Cobbe portrait have been located and no less than three of them have independent traditions as portraits of Shakespeare. In two cases the traditions date back to within living memory of the poet—providing compelling evidence that the identification of the sitter as Shakespeare was correct all along. The conclusion that the sitter is Shakespeare is strengthened by the fact that the original picture, the Cobbe portrait, was inscribed with a quotation from the Classical writer, Horace, taken from an ode addressed to a playwright.

Plus the carbon dating has brought the work within the timeframe of possibility as well.

What's odd about the link to that Folger Collection "fake" (known as "The Janssen Portrait") is that according to Folger's own curator, the only thing that has made the Janssen historically notable is that it's a rare contemporaneous painting (also dated c.1610) that was altered to look like Shakespeare.

So if Prof. Wells and Mr. Cobbe are correct, the Janssen portrait is a contemporaneous copy of a painting originally of Shakespeare, which was then doctored to look...more like Shakespeare? What am I missing here?

Here's the three variations side by side. First, a very poor photo (sorry) of the "baldy" Janssen (yes, that's how they tried to make him more "Shakespearean") as it appeared before the Folger's restoration:


Here's what I'll call the Restored-Hairline Janssen as it hangs today in the Folger:


And, last, here's the new Cobbe portrait once again.


All I know is I still prefer the ol' "Chandos" picture.


Truth be damned--he just looks so much cooler here! Not just the famous earing, but the casual modest clothes, all black, of course, like a true Elizabethan-bohemian, no doubt.

The Cobbe is way too Joseph Fiennes, if you know what I mean. Too pretty boy. Not to mention gawdy in that frilly collar and flashy constricting doublet. Perhaps Stephen Greenblatt--who paints Will as a kind of social climber in his Will in the World--might see such desperation to appear noble all too fitting. But to me that just looks like a writer who's sold out, man!

Plus the guy in the Folio engraving and the bust at the Stratford Trinity Church grave is on the pudgy side, if I may say. So Chandos gets points there, too--especially for a successful retiring scribe of 46!

I stared at the Chandos in the London National Portrait Gallery once for like an hour and I swear the man was speaking to me.

And not to get all phrenological/19th century racial science on you all, but I like to think there's also something a bit Jewy about the overbite. (Not to mention that hint of a sly smirk.) It's not just me: this "semitic" or "oriental" vibe apparently dismayed the establishment back in the day, who intially ruled it out as ill befitting the Bard. Nonsense of course, but for me, wishful thinking: I just like to think he's one of us.

Then again, some people think Shakespeare was a Jewish woman.

See how silly this all gets...

PS. Here's some video of the unveiling today...


Watch CBS Videos Online

Shakespeare & "Reasonable Doubts"

Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance are certainly two of my most favorite Shakespearean actors. But shall we trust them as historians?

Some of Britain's most distinguished Shakespearean actors have reopened the debate over whether William Shakespeare, a 16th century commoner raised in an illiterate household in Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote the plays that bear his name.

Acclaimed actor Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, the former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe Theater in London, unveiled a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" on the authorship of Shakespeare's work Saturday.

The "doubts" are classic ones. So nothing new, but worth refuting yet again.

The document says there are no records that any William Shakespeare received payment or secured patronage for writing. And it adds that although documents exist for Shakespeare, all are nonliterary. It also points to his detailed will, in which Shakespeare famously left his wife "my second best bed with the furniture," as containing no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase and mentioning no books, plays or poems.

Yes, if you were a great playwright, wouldn't your checkbook be more alliterative? Your customer service accounts have better story arcs?

It argues there are few connections between Shakespeare's life and his alleged works, but they do show a strong familiarity with the lives of the upper classes and a confident grasp of obscure details from places like Italy.

Which I take to mean that Romeo and Juliet and Taming of the Shrew are not plays about love but about the author's summer trip to Italy. And as far as the "upper classes" go, I guess Mistress Quickly & co. be damned, eh? (And don't tell me "Sir" John Falstaff represents only "noblemen.")

One thing about that phrase "reasonable doubt." It gives away how lawerly the whole "authorship" issue is, and explains why it is not a pursuit of actual literary historians but a weekend hobby of lawyers. Sure, in a court planting "reasonable doubt" in a jury's mind is all it takes. But I'm afraid in the face of a huge paper trail of linking "that man from Stratford" to the plays--and no documents explicitly linking any other "candidate" (and I don't mean "code") to any one title--it takes a little more than poking "reasonable doubt" holes to overturn history. Sorry counselors, the burden of proof is on you in this case.

One way to bear that burden of proof, of course, would be to actually prove authorship the way grown-ups do--by linking specific authors historically to specific texts. It's not enough to show that if your man could have written one of the plays, he therefore wrote them all. (Not even real Shakespeare scholars claim the case for WS on each and every play is airtight.) It's also not enough to argue that in some fantasy world Edward de Vere could have had the knowledge and/or life experience to write Hamlet. Just imagine how many potential authors, by those standards, there are for R & J. (Been in love and been to Italy? You too could have written a masterpiece. Better yet if you killed yourself.)... So instead of publishing a mere "declaration" how about putting your money where your mouth is, guys? How about publishing a nice big coffee table book of "The Complete Works of Edward de Vere." Where--like any reputable Complete Shakespeare--you have to write an intro for each and every play showing the paper trail connecting the author to the play. Hmm, that would be harder, wouldn't it.

Anyway, I still look forward to Jacobi and Rylances next performances. If this what they need for motivation in their rehearsal process, so be it. But, good gentlemen, please keep it out of the classroom.

Niederkorn...He's Baaaaaack

I can't believe the New York Times still allows William Niederkorn to write about anything Shakespearean. After finally being exposed as a dedicated "Oxfordian" with an agenda to bring fringe conspiracy theories of Shakespeare's authorship into the "paper of record" it looked like the Times had finally come to its senses and relegated him to other areas. (He's employed full time as an editor, but occasionally contributes.)

Well, thank god the Arts section no longer legitimizes his fantasies. But just in time for the Bard's birthday, someone found room for him in last weekend's Education section. Frankly I don't know what's worse! Trying to lay seeds of doubt in arts lovers or those actually educating our youth.

What news, you wonder, merits yet another platform for Shakespeare-Denial views without any peer-reviewed credence? A poll! Who, you ask, has decided to canvas "265 professors [who] teach Shakespeare in the English departments of public and private four-year colleges and universities, which were selected randomly"? Why, the New York Time Education Life section. I wonder who suggested such a poll.

Now don't be fooled by the headline: "Shakespeare Reaffirmed." Nor by those pesky "results": "82 percent said there is no good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon was the principal author of the poems and plays in the canon." Because the kicker of the story is...well, its existence. Once again, Mr. Niederkorn has managed to slip into the nation's most looked-to self-appointed "arbiter of culture" (in the words of its managing editor) suggestions that his own totally amateur fringe views have a place at the table.

Take a look at the lede, for instance: "Here's good news for Stratfordians as they celebrate the Bard’s birth, on April 23: Professors believe in him." Gee well...whew! A bit of a grudging admission, no? The very term "Stratfordian" gives him away, too, of course. In Niederkorn's universe, equal time must always be divided evenly between "Oxfordians" and "Stratfordians" (like pro- and anti-abortion or gun control) because "authorship" of the plays is to him an open question.... As real-life Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt once said: Do we still call those of who believe in a sun-centered planetary system "Copernicans"?

If Niederkorn had been hoping to score a victory with this poll, then the results are clearly embarrassing to him, wouldn't you think? But lest he wants to gloat about the 18% who didn't answer a flat-out no to the question: "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?" Well, take a look at the breakdown in the full results: 6% Yes, 11% Possibly, 1% Don't Know.

The stated methods and population of the poll also reveal how ultimately meaningless it is. for instance, 58% percent of the respondents say (in question 21) they "Don't teach at graduate level"--which is where you'd expect to find the most accomplished Shakespeare scholars. Also,

"Of the 1,340 institutions in the College Board data set, a random sample of 637 was drawn. Shakespeare professors were identified at 556, and 265 completed the questionnaire."

So if I read that right, over half of those contacted just blew it off? I suspect those are not the professors who would have helped Niederkorn's case...

Finally, notice the desperate lengths Niederkorn goes to to salvage a good narrative for his side out of this.

The professors were better versed in writings by advocates for the Earl of Oxford, the most prominent alternative candidate, than by Shakespeare defenders. The Oxfordians J. Thomas Looney, Charlton Ogburn and Mark Anderson had been read
by 29 percent, 26 percent and 17 percent respectively; the Stratfordians Scott
McCrea and Irvin Matus had been read by 11 and 10 percent.

Who else but an amateur zealot would even ask such bullshit questions? The poll breakdown shows that Niederkorn only asked the professors if they had read the following authors: Mark Anderson, Delia Bacon, Alden Brooks, G. George Greenwood, Abel Lefranc, J. Thomas Looney, Irvin Matus, Scott McCrea, Charlton Ogburn, Diana Price, John H. Stotsenburg, A.W. Titherley.
I'm a PhD student in theatre history, and quite a Shakespeare buff, and I've never heard of any of these people. Except Looney because a) he has a funny name, and b) he is only known as the eccentric scholar back in the 20s who first advanced the Edward DeVere, Earl of Oxford as a candidate for the authorship, even though the Earl died in 1604. (Naturally it is tempting to link points (a) and (b).)... Not surprisingly, many of these names--except Looney--get recognition responses in the single digits.

Yet, look what Niederkorn proclaims from this in his summary:

The professors were better versed in writings by advocates for the Earl of Oxford, the most prominent alternative candidate, than by Shakespeare defenders. The Oxfordians J. Thomas Looney, Charlton Ogburn and Mark Anderson had been read by 29 percent, 26 percent and 17 percent respectively; the Stratfordians Scott McCrea and Irvin Matus had been read by 11 and 10 percent.

So these guys McCrea and Matus are the representatives of "Stratfordianism"??? No Steven Greenblatt? No James Shapiro? No David Bevington?....No Harold fucking Bloom, even???

Ok, I guess his point is to stick to names of people who only write about "authorship." But notice how he spins the unimpressive results to say, "Ha! Our fringe scholars are read by one-fourth of this sample (of the half who responded) while these guys who actually bother spending time refuting us--as opposed to their more famous and sane "Stratfordian" colleagues--get only one-tenth!" Proving....?

Just look at the poll questions and ask yourselves: if you were a regular journalist and you actually did conduct a poll on this questions...would these be the questions you would ask???

Before I waste any more of my morning on this joke-journalism, I'll simply refer you my previous rants on the matter, on Niederkorn's past offenses.

But let me just repeat that the scandal is not really why this one individual thinks what he does --but why the New York Times continues to legitimize his unsubstantiated insinuations against, effectively, the entire community of professional literary scholars, critics, and historians.

I don't wish personal ill against the man or the losing of his livelihood. Just please, NYT, either reassign the guy or actually edit his stories to conform with some basic standards of journalism.

Stanley Wells punk'd?

Eminent literary scholar and historian Stanley Wells tells in the Guardian of a bemused encounter with a Shakespeare-denier.

I have just wasted a long afternoon in allowing myself to be interviewed by a charming television crew from Norway who are making a four-part documentary about a claim by a compatriot that he has identified treasure that for over 20 years has been rumoured to have been buried on an island off the coast of Nova Scotia.

He claims to have decoded messages within printings of Shakespeare's works demonstrating that their author was a Rosicrucian, that he was Francis Bacon, and that a symbol deducible by abstruse mathematical and geometric means leads to stones on the island concealing conclusive evidence in the form of authorial manuscripts proving the thesis....

Like others of his ilk that I have encountered over the years, the claimant, a church organist, is a courteous, highly intelligent, learned and apparently rational man who is nevertheless impervious to reason on the topic that obsesses him and to which he has misguidedly devoted years of intellectual effort.

He ignores the evidence that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare because he wants to prove something different. It might all seem like a harmless if futile game were it not that he has written and had published a long, heavily illustrated book on the topic which, I am told, is to be translated into many languages.

This will follow other books in recent years devoted to demonstrating that, for example, the Earl of Oxford, Sir Henry Neville, and Lady Mary Sidney wrote Shakespeare, and following in the footsteps of 60 or 70 other claimants brought forward over the past 150 or so years.

None of these books has been written by a real Shakespeare scholar, or by anyone who has any demonstrable interest in the plays themselves.

Yet they command media attention, and gullible (or greedy) publishers are willing to invest in volumes that invariably and rapidly end up on the remainder shelves.

Wells puts his learned finger on two really key points about the popularization of the Shakespeare denial craze. One, that bit about the champions always having no real demonstrable interest in or knowledge of the plays. And two, the marketing incentives. I'm always shocked when Barnes and Noble gives prime "table display space" to these conspiracy books, many of which are obviously vanity publications. Basically, booksellers (and newspapers, as we've seen in the NYT) have no problem debasing their own intellectual integrity to promote anything sellable.

Sorry, what a naive statement by me. And did I just use the word "intellectual" in reference to newspapers and bookstores?

Ron Rosenbaum, "Shakespeare Wars"

John Simon resurfaces in the NY Sun today to review Ron Rosenbaum's The Shakespeare Wars. Rosenbaum, an independent cultural journalist, has been one of the most intrepid reporters on the Shakespeare beat. (I still am grateful to his exposé on the NYT/William Niederkorn disgrace, which seems to have finally put a stop to that.)

His book is not about the authorship controversy, but pretty much every other heated spat over interpretation, textual editions, and performances. Sounds like a good read.

As for that authorship thing, that'll have to wait until James Shapiro's next book taking on the conspiracy theorists. (He announced this on a recent Theatre Talk.) Man will get a lot of hatemail.

PS. Thanks to Adam Feldman (in Comments) for pointing us to his own

Niederkorn reassigned?

The New York Times has printed three--three!--articles in the past week relating to Shakespearean authorship or identity... and none of them is by outed Shakespeare-denier William Niederkorn. First there was this on the supposed "death mask", then this on a possible new attribution (and the admittedly tangled logic that goes into one).

Today's on a biographical exhibit at London's National Portrait Gallery actually features a mature open debate on the current authenticity of all the claimed paintings of Shakespeare. By mature, I mean that the piece entertains the notion that some paintings have been mislabeled or deliberately misclaimed...but that the man Shakespeare could still have existed! In other words, serious Shakespeare scholars do not just swallow up any hollow evidence buttressing their "Stratfordian" case, but actually hold to standards of historical evidence.

As much as Playgoer would like to claim the credit for this breath of sanity over at NYT Arts, it was clear I was not alone in expressing outrage and disbelief over Mr. Niederkorn's last piece. The voices of Stephen Greenblatt and New York Observer's Ron Rosenbaum probably helped effect this change a great deal. Good work, lads!

Shakespeare Denial Watch

I just caught up with Charles McGrath's NYT review (now firewalled) of the three recent major Shakespeare bios (Greenblatt, Shapiro, and Ackroyd) and, while he is no out-and-out Denier, he does seem to have no problem equating the fringe authhorship-conspiracy with bonafide scholarship:

A lot of Shakespeare commentary issues from the academic garret, where scholars are still fretting over questions of authorship, chronology and textual authenticity. And an almost equal amount emanates from the grassy knoll where the conspiracy theorists -- who believe that William Shakespeare was merely a front for the ''real author'' -- point knowingly to people like Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Oxford and the latest to be unmasked, Sir Henry Neville, a courtier who was actually a distant relative of Shakespeare.

"Almost equal amount"? Of what??? Is McGrath equating the level of scholarship to be found in legitimate textual peer-reviewed studies as in the newsletters and blogs of Oxfordians and
Baconites? Yes, those wacky professors. Studying Shakespeare, denying him, it all goes on in that same "academic garret."... And do note the plug for the "Nevillians"(?) and their latest "candidate."

McGrath, by the way, is no amateur "gentleman-reporter" like Wm. Niederkorn. Charles McGrath is the former editor of The New York Times Book Review.

Oxfordians, move over!

Update 10/7: a more lively news account of this book, with more details of its flimsy claims, can be found here, from the BBC.

Yes, just when I thought there was nothing more to say on the authorship "question", at least for the week, along comes this from Reuters:

Two academics say they have discovered the "real'' William Shakespeare, the never-before-identified Henry Neville, whipping up a tempest of debate among the Bard's followers who have had to defend him against a host of pretenders. Academics Brenda James and Professor William Rubinstein have recorded their findings in a new book in which they make the case for Neville, a Tudor politician, diplomat and landowner whose life span matched that of Shakespeare almost exactly.

Now if these new deniers are indeed credentialed professors at an accredited institution, that would be news. Would be. But it seems that the label "academics" may be applied a bit loosely to James, who is of no fixed university, apparently. Plus, check out her methods:

James, a Briton, says she stumbled upon the new contender Neville while decoding the Dedication to Shakespeare's Sonnets, which led her to identify Neville as the author of the plays. She spent the next seven years gathering evidence to prove her point. When she asked Rubinstein, of the University of Wales, to check her facts, he was sufficiently convinced to agree to advise on and co-author the book.

Ah, "decoding." Of course. (I guess we'll have to read the book for instructions.) Anyway, note no affiliation. Rubinstein, granted, seems to have himself a post. So I say he's owed a good thorough peer review of the book (entitled The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare. I won't deny them the plug). Let's see what happens. I've always thought the best retort to the Deniers' cries of academic conspiracy and intimidation is: man, if you could actually prove any doubt about Shakespeare's authorship, what a way to make your career! (Same with evolutionary science, I'm sure.) But if you don't have the persuasive documents, you deserve the ridicule the academy will heap on you.

(By the way, I don't have the same beef with Reuters here as I do with the NY Times. In fact, this can serve as a model approach to covering fringe theories- objective tone, respectfully and fairly representing them while also getting balance from conventional "authorities".)

So what about their documentation? Well, so far, no smoking gun it seems. Though here's what appears to be their Exhibit A:

James said a notebook written by Neville while locked in the Tower of London around 1602 contained detailed notes which ended up in "Henry VIII'' first performed several years later. His experience in the tower, where he faced execution for his part in a plot to overthrow the queen, would also explain the shift in 1601 from histories and comedies to the great ''Shakespearian'' tragedies.

Well, I'm intrigued to read what's in this notebook. But since Henry VIII is one of the most obviously collaborative of the plays. It has long been the norm to co-attribute it to John Fletcher, and many of us would be happy to lose it from the canon altogether. So let 'em have it!... Plus, journal-keeping and playwriting are two kinda different artforms. If the connections are completely word-for-word, what rules out Shakespeare (or Fletcher) reading the journal???

As for the "shift" from comedy to tragedy, I guess it's refreshing to see a revisionist for once accept that the plays might not have all been written at once! (as the Oxfordians pretty much do.) But this development has hardly been an unexplained mystery in search of more answers. (There was a change in the monarchy, Shakespeare lost a child, etc.) And if political imprisonment around 1600 was a prerequisite for writing Shakespeare's late plays... well, take a number, when it comes to candidates.

In this book we once again get this old saw: "One of the chief reasons given by James and Rubinstein for doubting Shakespeare's authorship is his lack of formal education and familiarity with the ways of the court." As I've already argued over at Spearbearer, this can't go unanswered any more. Here's a few quick rebuttals for those of you playing the home game:

A) Oxford & Cambridge would not have helped Shakespeare at all since classes were all in Latin and the main subjects were law and theology--surely of interest to Shakespeare, but hardly central. Take a look at the far less accessible Marlowe to see what an over-educated Elizabethan playwright reads like. (Hint: lots of Latin) As for classical literature (Greek & Latin), the sources he drew on for the plays were all available in English translation by the late 1500s. (It was the Renaissance, remember.) The conclusive proof of this is the excerpts you'll find in the back of any good Arden edition from "North's Plutarch" and the like, where you can see Shakespeare cribbing lines almost word for word. No other "education" was necessary for a play like Julius Caesar, for instance.

B) Just because he didn't go to university, Shakespeare would not necessarily have been an "uneducated" dolt. Lots has been argued over in revisionist circles about the Stratford grammar schools. The fact is there was a pretty good one there in the 1570s-80s when young Will was growing up. Scholar of yore, T.W. Baldwin wrote two volumes documenting this in his classic tome, William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke. (To the deniers who love to point out variant spellings of the name--which they love to screech out as "Shax-pere" as if that proves anything--I only refer you to the messed up spelling of the whole title of this "uncorrected" Elizabethan quote. The key phrase comes from Ben Jonson's own reference to his friend's deficiencies.) Baldwin's work showed this very good "prep school" gave its boys plenty of rudimentary classical studies and many of the books (like Ovid) Shakespeare would rely upon.... As to those who argue there's no record of young Will ever attending, it is true there are no attendance records at all for his childhood years. Does that mean no one went? As the son of a prominent local merchant and civic leader (some say even mayor) Shakespeare would have been a prime candidate along with the rest of the burgeoning bourgeoisie.

C) Also related to this is the "Travel" issue. That is, how could someone write plays about all those lovely European locales without actually going there! Well, let's leave aside the fact that not even The Earl of Oxford Edward De Vere had probably been to Ancient Rome. I just wonder whether these people have read the plays at all sometimes. They're not travelogues. Romeo and Juliet, for example, has as much to do with Italy as a Stouffer's Pizza. And, besides, everything he needed to know for that play is in this English poem from 1562. (Like Jayson Blair, he could do his minimal "on site reporting" from home.) Seriously, I defy anyone to point out a line in this play (or in Merchant of Venice, or Othello or...) that only could have been written "on location."...And by the way, is anyone claiming that De Vere or Neville or anyone ever visited that "seacoast" of landlocked Bohemia immortalized in Winter's Tale? As the Reuters piece thankfully acknowledges, some experts still maintain, "that someone of Neville's knowledge of Europe would not make the same basic geographical errors that appear in the Shakespeare canon." In other words, the plays do get things wrong a lot. It's not the "Stratfordians" who believe in Bardic Infallibility.

In short, when someone says "the Stratford man" (usually with dripping sarcasm) would have been too stupid, too unschooled, too untravelled to write the plays, please ask them: which one? show me a line? does that go for the glaring errors, too? These theories all seem to subscribe to some cheap fantasy world version of "olden times" when everyone was either a knight or a peasant, and if you weren't a Lord you were basically illiterate. This simplistic scenario has been debunked by historians routinely over the last century but some of us just don't read, I guess. And some of have never heard of this thing called The Middle Class, the Bourgeoisie, even though most of us here (in the US) supposedly belong to it. Which is why it's especially strange that these anti-Shakespeare theories have flourished in America seemingly more than the traditionally more class-bound UK. (Indeed Reuters points out that the Professor Rubenstein of this current book is a Yank!) My hunch: the old American inferiority complex in the world of letters rears its sad head in these endeavors. How else to explain why a bunch of American armchair scholars (usually lawyers, I find) genuflect before great Earls and Lords of the past to push aside that rude Sratford upstart from the canon. Taking Anglophilia to a ridiculous extent I'd say.

My final question is: so what will the Oxfordians make of this new challenge? Surely doesn't help their cause! I call for a knock-down drag-out fight: Oxford vs Neville. Or will they join forces and forge some new, even wackier conspiracy theory of collaboration between the two! Reuters reports that the intro to the new book is written by actor Mark Rylance, who is the head of the new Globe Theatre in London. I think Rylance is a terrific actor. But wasn't he a confirmed "Marlovian" before? Does he just hate Shakespeare so much he'll settle for any other candidate? In theory, each of these camps should have as much problem with each other as with we "traditionalists." How about some consistency, guys...

(Rylance also, by the way, is US-born but British-raised and trained. Between him and Mel Gibson, I'm starting to wonder whether all such American Anglo-transplants are nutcases on at least one issue. Or at least have some huge chip on their shoulders...Disclaimer: Playgoer is not a licensed psychologist, sociologist, nor cultural anthropologist. Just a loudmouth with a blog.)

Some parting shots on the great Shakespeare authorship debate over at Spearbearer Down Left. I thank him for encouraging an influx of views and for welcoming my rants.

I'll clarify again here what I mean to say there, about what I am calling on the Times to actually do about William Niederkorn. Reassign him! Or at least print other points of view about Shakespeare. (Like, uh, the consensus ones?) But I didn't mean to say fire, or silence him, or make him available for public tar-and-feathering either. It all comes back to the Times's responsibility, like it or not, as a de facto authoritative source of cultural news. The publishing of Niederkorn's articles, in the manner they have done, indicate either a misunderstanding of that or a tremendous lack of judgment. Either that or he's the boss's nephew.

And one more thing. Mr. Spearbearer says something along the lines of if "the authorship case" were before a jury, he would see cause for reasonable doubt. Fair enough. Holes can indeed be poked in the narrative of a middle-class Stratford boy who turned up in London one day writing great literature--holes like the complete gap in the historical record covering those years in between those points in the story. And perhaps such "reasonable doubt" has led to the occasional "mock trial" ruling that Shakespeare was a fraud. (This is how Justice John Paul Stevens became an Oxfordian hero, despite no other literary credentials.)...But when it comes to history, poking holes is not enough. Historians hold to a higher standard than just "reasonable doubt." If they didn't, everything, theoretically, could eventually be "disproven" (including, yes, the Holocaust) by anyone who raises enough aimless questions about one link in the chain, even if they don't propose a viable alternate theory. And so I'm afraid that as long as people can't present hard documentary evidence linking someone else to the Shakespeare plays, they just don't deserve a seat at the same table of professional (i.e peer reviewed and credentialed) historians, and major newspapers should only publish their conspiracy theories within the same context they would frame any such "amateur" pursuit. Meanwhile the rest of us can get on with discussing the plays themselves.

To quote Fat Jack: "And there's an end."

Defending Will

The Shakespeare Authorship debate rages on over at Spearbearer Down Left, with the blogger's answer to my comments there, and my own subsequent rant. (Which I'll spare Playgoer readers more of, but if you're a junkie on the issue, please do follow the link.) Blogger Parabasis (his own blog is here) gets in on the act, too, joining my side of the fray.

Incidentally I have emailed the "Public Editor," Byron Calame, over at the Times about the whole Niederkorn issue (drawing attention especially to Ron Rosenbaum's attack in the New York Oberserver), hoping he'll take an interest. He is supposed to be the watchman over there at the Times and keep of journalistic integrity. If he could get the paper to actually print a semi-retraction on the Geraldo story, he can do anything! Let's see if he takes up the cause of integrity in cultural journalism.

(If you feel strongly about this, too, please pile it on and write Calame yourself at public@nytimes.com. The more folks he hears this from, maybe he won't consider it just a fringe issue.)

Niederkorn Outrage Goes Nuclear

...at least in the small world of people who care.

At last, a major exposee. Go read Ron Rosenbaum's fantastic essay in the New York Oberserver. Once again, one of the alternative cultural pages in the city (first The Sun, now the weekly Observer) shames the Times, by example, for its intellectual sloppiness (at best) and (at worst) pandering to tabloid-level sensationalism in promoting the mysterious William Niederkorn as an objective Shakespeare expert.

Rosenbaum--admittedly a cultural journalist, not a professor--is as good as it gets when it comes to non-academic Shakespeare studies. His command of the literature and the issues is more than apparent in this article. He is now the most prominent journalist to take on this issue (Niederkorn and Shakespeare authorship in general) and my hope is that finally an article of this visibilty will wake up the rest of the cultural elite (provided anyone still reads the Observer!).

I look forward to posting some excerpts and comments about the piece a little later, once I've really sat down with it. So far, Rosenbaum seems emminently fair and tempered. (He even faults Greenblat--and, perhaps implicitly Playgoer!--for crossing that line into invoking Holocaust denial.)... But for now let me add to his case just this: Rosenbaum quotes Niederkorn as swearing he is not an Oxfordian and "just trying to keep an open mind." Well how, pray, does Mr. Niederkorn explain this, a prime speaking slot at the 2004 Oxfordian conference. (Scroll down the page to the "Friday 11:30" event, shortly before the "Oxfordian Jeopardy.")

In the world of Shakespeare Studies, and New York Times arts coverage...this is big, folks. Hold on to your hats.

Update 9/16: here's another Niederkorn appearance at a pro-Oxfordian conference. (Hat tip, Dan A.)

Shakespeare debate goes on...

Fellow theatre blogger "Spearbearer Down Left" has kindly linked to my anti-Shakespeare conspiracy posts (which you can revisit here, here, here, and here) and come back with some of his own Oxfordian-sympathetic thoughts. He's right that we "Stratfordians" (ugh) are wrong to ignore the clamor in the name of "not dignifying"--and so, in suit, I have posted my rebuttals there under "Comments." So feel free to click over and continue the debate there, until something occasions my further thoughts here.

Greenblatt responds

Quietly buried in the Sunday Times "Letters" was a belatedly printed letter from Stephen Greenblatt, in response to Mr. Niederkorn's pseudo-essay. (The letter is dated the very same day as the article, August 30. One can imagine Greenblatt's urgency.)

Do you think maybe the Times will some day let Greenblatt have some "equal time" on the op-ed page one day? (Equal time for those who think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, who would've thought.) Meanwhile, since the letter is short (no doubt, heavily edited) it's worth quoting in its entirety. Like me, Greenblatt seems most concerned over Niederkorn taking a page from the Christian right playbook, suggesting English classes "teach the controversy."

To the Editor:
Re "The Shakespeare Code, and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional Camp" (Essay, Arts pages, Aug. 30):
The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the "authorship controversy" be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of current arguments that "intelligent design" be taught
alongside evolution.
In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.The demand seems harmless enough until one reflects on its implications. Should claims that the Holocaust did not occur also be made part of the standard curriculum?

Stephen Greenblatt

The comparisons to Creationism and Holocaust denial are totally apt, to my mind, and it needs to be said. I do not mean that any individual who publicly speculates about the authorship question is morally equivalent to a genocidal anti-semite. But the methods of analysis used by all these camps are similar. As Brian Vickers says in his TLS piece of Scott McCrae's new book, The Case for Shakespeare:

In his final chapter, “All conspiracy theories are alike”, [McCrae] suggests that “denial of Shakespeare follows exactly the same flawed reasoning as Holocaust denial” in that it rejects the most obvious explanation of an event, and reinterprets evidence to fit a preconceived idea (“the ovens at Auschwitz baked bread”). Facts that contradict the theory are explained by conspiracy, but this ploy means that “conspiracy theories are really not theories at all”, but faiths, which cannot be proved false.

Of course, the other big question all three of these fringe movements raise is: is there not a threshold of acceptable scholarship below which the media is not obliged to recognize something as "scholarship"?

William Niederkorn: Shakespeare Denier

or, Who is William Niederkorn and Why is He Saying Such Horrible Things About Shakespeare? (And Why is The New York Times Publishing Him!)

Readers of this blog will not be surprised to see me criticize the New York Times' coverage of the arts. However, my proverbial "goat" is never "gotten" so greatly as when they run a piece by a certain William Niederkorn. Who is William Niederkorn, you may ask, and why do I only see his byline next to articles questioning Shakespeare's authorship?

At the bottom of his surprise appearance on today's Books page (one never knows where or when the Times is going to unleash him) we finally get some identification: "William S. Niederkorn, a playwright and composer, is an editor in the culture department of The New York Times." Well, we knew he wasn't a journalist, at least. That much has been obvious. As a Times search will reveal, since 2000 Niederkorn has popped up 11 times in the Arts section always, exclusively, in oddly slanted pieces claiming some huge breakthrough in exposing the "fraud" that is Shakespeare. (Even a 6/20/2002 article reporting the withdrawal of an already questionable poem from the canon supposedly "opened up" larger questions.) I say "odd" because when you read Niederkorn, it is immediately apparent that the articles treat the "question" as "open" from the beginning. Is it the New York Times policy not to take the existence of Shakespeare for granted?

Niederkorn isn't just a reporter covering an intellectual sideshow. He has a dog in the fight himself--he is a committed "Oxfordian," that is one who backs the "candidacy" of Edward de Vere the Earl of Oxford who--inconveniently--died in 1604, and whose only legacy of attributed writings so far consists of some pretty lame verses. He beats the de Vere drum in every single article so clearly--referring to fringe books and websites--going on and on about this obscure Earl like no other reporter. In the world of Niederkorn, people foolish enough to buy the Shakespeare line are just "Stratfordians" (as if it's the city we worship!) making life difficult for his Oxfordians. As Stephen Greenblatt has said, imagine the Times reporting on a debate between Ptolemaics and "Copernicans" when it comes to the solar system. It is all clearly a personal cause, especially when you realize this is all the man ever writes about! (Meanwhile, what kind of "cultural editing" is he really doing over there? I'm tempted to ask: whose nephew is the guy?)

Mind you, all these articles have appeared under the guise of objective arts reporting. (None have been an op-ed, for instance.) At least the Times has the sense to finally label today's piece an "Essay," whatever that means. So what is today's excuse for Niederkorn's soap box? Actually it's a book review of sorts, taking advantage of the release of a few Shakespeare-related books lately, some by actual professors (Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World, James Shapiro's 1599) and some...well, not (Shakespeare by Another Name, a de Vere biography by a supporter). To give Niederkorn credit, he does find something to criticize in the de Vere book, but only when he finds his logic as weak as that of the "traditionalists"! Thank god for a strawman like Clare Asquith's Shadowplay, which attempts to defend Shakespeare's name by use of "codes" in the plays. This gives Niederkorn his sneering title: "The Shakespeare Code, and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditionalist Camp." I wonder how many Times readers were surprised to wake up this morning to learn there was a "traditionalist camp"--and that they themselves probably had belonged to such a sorry thing all these years.

Here's some typical Niederkorn (again, seemingly endorsed by the New York Times):

The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars, but it also has had its skeptics, including major authors, independent scholars, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, academics and even prominent Shakespearean actors. Those who see a likelihood that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him have grown from a handful to a thriving community with its own publications, organizations, lively online discussion groups and annual conferences.

Sounds legit, eh? (Niederkorn himself has spoken at at least one of the Oxfordian conferences.) Then you realize "major authors," probably refers to mystery novelists more than Elizabethan historians; "independent scholars" by definition are those without teaching positions, or usually degrees; "lawyers"--ahem. As for the "prominent Shakespearean actors," well I do admire Derek Jacobi's performances, but has he done the research? (Another "prominent" actor mentioned on the Oxfordian website is Keanu Reeves.)

You know, Holocaust deniers have "conferences," too. Not to mention "lively online discussion groups"...

I understand why some might enjoy Shakespeare authorship fantasies as a kind of parlor game. But there's a good reason no tenured professor gives them any credence. And no, it's not world conspiracy and Masonic domination. It's that there's really nothing wrong with the accepted Shakespearean biographical record, slim as it is. Not enough wrong, at least, to disprove the all the evidence that keeps telling us this is the man who wrote the plays that bear his name. I will be happy to argue this in full some other time, at length. For now, I refer you to Brian Vickers' excellent rebuttal in the TLS recently--which Niederkorn (derisively) references himself.

(And I do believe such rebuttals are now necessary. For years, Shakespeare scholars have made the mistake of "not dignifying" the "pretenders." But now--just like evolutionary biologists--they could lose the debate in the mass media, which rewards controversy for conrtoversy's sake and always rewards the loudest. My advice to Stephen Greenblatt and Stephen Jay Gould--were he alive--alike: play offense, not defense. Remind everyone that the fringe arguments are more full of holes than even the "traditional theories.")

Look: no matter where you stand or how much of this you want to take seriously, anti-Shakespeare activism is--by definition--a fringe theory. Why does the New York Times, who falls at the feet of famous professors any chance they get, think it's okay to dis such a titan as Stephen Greenblatt on just this particular issue? (Niederkorn's articles are notoriously short on giving the "traditional" side its say.) Isn't anyone there embarrassed to lend legitimacy--with the great, Grey Lady's ink--to something no one in the academy respects? Funny that they only just completed a huge series devoted to "Intelligent Design." I'd say "Oxfordian Design" carries about just as much weight in academic circles. (Now if the Times has decided to turn against the academy, that would be news...)

Niederkorn tries to end on a "reasonable" note, which points out the flaws in both sides. (How "equal time."):

On both sides of the authorship controversy, the arguments are conjectural. Each case rests on a story, and not on hard evidence. Either side, or both, might eventually be proved wrong.

Yeah, we're all just guessing. Forget that we have tons of scraps of paper (including--ahem--the First Folio) saying poor little Will wrote the plays--and none identifying anyone else. Forget the wealth of evidence we do have about Shakespeare's life (see Schoenbaum's Shakespeare: A Documentary Life), even if it does not satisfy romantic gossipmongers like the Oxfordians.

But who in the general readership has time to pay attention to such... facts. And sowing the seeds of doubt--in the pages of the nation's most important cultural newspaper, I don't mind repeating--is exactly Niederkorn's goal. He closes:

Meanwhile, and it could be a very long meanwhile, perhaps an eternal meanwhile, things will continue as they are. Or perhaps not. What if authorship studies were made part of the standard Shakespeare curriculum?

Hmm, "teach the controversy." Where have we heard that before? It is my nightmare that the most susceptible to these conspiracy theories will be high school English teachers, desperate to "spice up" their Shakespeare curriculum for their IPod-coma-induced charges. We must all be on the lookout for this in our already impoverished educational system.

Here is another fisking of a previous Niederkorn appearance, by Irvin Leigh Matus. Matus, a pro-Shakespeare independent scholar has put together a fine site, Willy Shakes. Ditto David Kathman and Terry Ross's Shakespeare Authorship Page. If Niederkorn's article still leaves you with nagging doubts about Shakespeare, these sites do an excellent job dispelling the myths, and exposing the dissenters.