Undermining the authorities' credibility and Shakespeare as "Our Everything"

The latest book reviewing doubts about Shakespeare's authorship has offered a fresh perspective on the nature of a clearly escalating problem. Along the way, it also revealed the common platform that unites all defenders of the Shakespearean mythology – from conservatives to liberals.

The new investigative book is prepared by Elizabeth Winkler, a young but already quite well-known American journalist. With two solid philological degrees (from Princeton and Stanford Universities) under her belt and regular publications in prestigious outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker. However, she chose a deliberately provocative title for her book:

"Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature." [o1]

In other words, it's hard not to notice that three key words in this title – Shakespeare, taboo, and heresy in science as a new religion – are a list of important themes that regularly and in various combinations emerge in the investigations of the kiwi arXiv website. Therefore, it's clear that ignoring the release of such a notable book here is simply impossible.

But before diving into the facts, observations, and conclusions of the journalist's quite substantial study, it makes sense to quote fragments of the critique. From those harsh, unflattering reviews that immediately fell upon the new book from different flanks of the political spectrum.

For instance, the conservative magazine The Spectator unequivocally considered the work a failure simply because the subject of research was chosen incorrectly [o2]:

Winkler’s comparison also exemplifies the ways that Shakespeare was a Woman and Other Heresies toggles between the grandiose and the banal. On the one hand this is a book on a grand scale with ambitions to engage with questions of evidence, free speech, social coercion and groupthink. On the other, it is a bathetic series of inconclusive and inconsequential fragments, built on pantomimically admiring or denigrating character sketches.

Ultimately, Winkler’s book fails on two counts: one internal to its assumptions and one outside them. The external point is that network of evidence securing Shakespeare as the author of his works. But more significant is Winkler’s decision not to identify an alternative candidate. The book is unconvincing because it explores, without ultimate judgment, the claims of numerous alternative authors.

Replacing Shakespeare with the serial uncertainty of different, variously unconvincing claims seems a zero-sum game. Winkler’s ‘heresies’ become flashy thought experiments. Not only are they wrong, but they are also in bad faith.

The liberal magazine The Slate calls Elizabeth Winkler's investigation "trutherism," and explains the harm of this pursuit as follows [o3]:

And this is why trutherism is so pernicious. While doubting Shakespeare’s authorship isn’t nearly as dangerous as climate change denial, or anti-vax beliefs, or questioning Obama’s citizenship, the rhetoric and strategies of all of these forms of trutherism are quite similar: Question the qualifications of the authorities.

…

Trutherism abuses the liberal public sphere by using the values of liberal discourse — rational hearing of evidence, open-mindedness, fair-minded skepticism about one’s own certainties, etc. — against it.

…

It is long past time to retire the pernicious, anti-historical, dumb search for who “really” wrote Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare Was Shakespeare.

The beginning of this whole story dates back to 2019, when Elizabeth Winkler published an essay in The Atlantic on the strange and, admittedly, controversial topic "Was Shakespeare a Woman?". More specifically, the article examined one of the relatively recent new theories, according to which Shakespeare's plays might bear the influence and personality of Emilia Bassano Lanier, an English poetess and feminist of Italian descent.

It's not that Winkler was the first to draw public attention to this exotic theory. For instance, a bit earlier, in 2018, the Shakespeare's Globe Theatre staged a play by playwright and actress Morgan Lloyd Malcolm called "Emilia," which revolved around the same hypothetical narrative. However, the speed and scale of the negative reaction that specifically targeted the young journalist's essay turned out to be quite impressive and unexpected not only for Winkler herself but also for the editorial team of the magazine that published her article.

In the first 48 hours, an army of Twitter trolls attacked, criticizing the article more with the rudeness of their attacks than with the depth of their argumentation. Then, serious professionals joined the criticism, but their arguments too often appealed to emotions rather than to science. The journalist was called a conspiracy theorist and compared to Holocaust deniers, someone else declared her to be “in the grip of neurotic fantasies” and various other nasty deviations…

Clearly concerned about such a "furious Internet reaction," The Atlantic's editorial staff, in an effort to preserve its reputation, commissioned and published a series of reviews of Winkler's article by experts, including a rebuttal by the eminent Shakespearean Prof James Shapiro. Moreover, as a sign of respect to the authority's objections, even some of the statements in the original Winkler essay were changed. Without the author's consent, of course, because: "The professor said so, it must be true." [o4]

Having not only a diploma and degree in English literature but also a general understanding of the real depth of problems and gaps in science regarding all that is associated with the glaring discrepancies between Shakespeare's poor biography and the richness of his literary work, the journalist was not frightened by the attacks. On the contrary, the wide and turbulent flow of negativity – from condescending arrogance to venomous sarcasm and bitterness – only spurred the researcher's interest and curiosity:

In literary circles, even the phrase ‘Shakespeare authorship question’ elicits contempt – eye-rolling, name-calling, mudslinging. If you raise it casually in a social setting, someone might chastise you as though you’ve uttered a deeply offensive profanity. Someone else might get up and leave the room. Because it is obscene to suggest that the god of English literature might be a false god. It is heresy.

…

Scepticism is usually a virtue in the scholarly world, but when it comes to Shakespeare, scepticism is a sin… There can be no recognition of ambiguities or uncertainties in our construction of the past. There is only adherence to the belief, which operates like a kind of religious fundamentalism… Anything else is a ‘conspiracy theory’.

In short, she decided to seriously tackle the question: "Why are they so emotional? Why are they so furious? Why is a question about the authorship of 400-year-old plays getting people so riled up?"

Thus, Elizabeth Winkler's new book did not set out to find an "alternative to Shakespeare." Instead, the book attempts to understand why the question of the authorship of 400-year-old plays gets so many people so worked up?

In one of her recent interviews [o5], the journalist talks about her work as follows:

I dug into the history and you start to see how it’s connected to British identity and imperialism and religious and social changes over the centuries.

I wrote the book just because I thought it was interesting. Some people maybe have the impression I’m out to convince everyone, that I’m on some sort of crusade. I don’t really care. Believe whatever you want to believe.

I don’t care what people believe about Shakespeare. That’s not the point. The psychology of belief is a big part of the book, but what interested me was that it is about these bigger issues of authority and belief and certainty and the problem of history, how we interpret and construct the past. That’s what excites me about it. The authorship question actually stands for something much larger.

At the same time, it’s hilariously petty because it’s about people’s egos and vanity and concern for protecting their reputations and these petty squabbles that scholars are getting into. It does take on these grand-scale questions and then it’s also this very human comedy of errors.

Part of what’s so funny is the goofy mistakes that scholars make in their attempt to defend their beliefs. Some of the responses to the book have just exemplified that phenomenon all over again.

In Elizabeth Winkler's book, at least three directions of research are clearly and convincingly developed: (1) the question of Shakespeare's authorship is closely linked to the processes of the rise and fall of imperial Britain, with its need for national myth-making; (2) it explores how Shakespeare turned into a secular god, and the theater filled the vacuum that formed after the decline of the church; (3) it investigates the basic human need to cling to one's beliefs, while doubt might be a more fitting reaction.

As a diligent researcher, Elizabeth Winkler crossed the ocean to personally interview a multitude of different Shakespeare scholars and historians in Britain (who, by the way, are usually more open to discussing the authorship question).

In the homeland of the bard, in Stratford-upon-Avon, she visited the industrial-tourist complex of Shakespeareana and met with one the most famous Shakespeare scholars, Professor Stanley Wells, the former chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and a devout defender of the faith.

The journalist recalls the outcome of their meeting as follows:

He said we have, despite the gaps, ‘enough of a structure to sustain the meaning we provide for it’. I thought that was an absolutely extraordinary phrase. I left Stratford thinking about ‘the meaning we provide for it’ because it sums it all up. It’s so religious in nature. They are the interpreters of the evidence and they will tell you what it means. It’s like priests interpreting scripture for the masses.

The journalist had a significantly different conversation in London, where she interviewed Mark Rylance, actor and former artistic director of Shakespeare’s Globe, and his wife, Claire van Kampen, a director, composer and playwright. Both Rylance and his wife have long been interested in the authorship question and are actively involved in public debates on the issue.

Van Kampen talked about the gradual consolidation of Britishness over centuries: “You can see this with the whole Brexit thing and how powerful people’s emotions are about having a British identity. Shakespeare is up there as embodying an idea of something like the heart of Britishness. If you take that away, what is there?”

To illustrate, van Kampen mentioned to the journalist their recent dinner with friends where Rylance mentioned the authorship question and two women became very upset. “One started crying, ‘I don’t want to hear about this. I’ve learnt at school that it was this. I don’t want to hear about it.’”

Winkler's book describes how Stratford has now become a sort of "English Bethlehem," and Shakespeare has turned into a religious figure, uniting everyone after centuries of disagreements between Catholics and Protestants.

In the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, there is also an appropriate painting that places the infant Shakespeare among allegorical figures representing Nature and human passions. It's quite hard not to notice in this painting a transparent reference to the canonical story of the "Adoration of the Magi" at the birth of Christ...

In Elizabeth Winkler's incisive analysis of the persistent solidification of the Shakespeare cult, she clearly reveals not only religious but also political motives: "At the same time, of course, this is the expansion of empire. This is the great age of British imperialism and Shakespeare becomes the national poet held up as proof of Britain’s cultural superiority, of its right to rule."

In 1769 David Garrick, the leading Shakespearean actor of his day, organised the Shakespeare Jubilee in Stratford to commemorate the bicentenary of his birth and declared: “England may justly boast the honour of producing the greatest dramatic poet in the world.” In 1840 the critic Thomas Carlyle characterised Shakespeare as “the ‘Universal Church’ of the Future and of all times” and imagined him “radiant aloft over all the Nations of Englishmen, a thousand years hence”.

Winkler continues: "Then it’s during this period of height of empire, the height of religious fervour around Shakespeare, when actual attendance at traditional churches is declining because of scientific developments. People aren’t going to church in the same numbers they used to and so Shakespeare becomes the replacement god."

Winkler's book references the results of a large social survey from 2011, which showed that Shakespeare is the cultural symbol of which Britons are most proud ahead of the monarchy, the armed forces, the Beatles and the union jack. While some of these symbols divide the political left and right, the Bard unites everyone...

In this context, Winkler adds: "Even though Shakespeare was tied to the rise of empire, as empire has declined, I wonder if it’s made the country cling ever more fiercely to Shakespeare because it’s all they have, in a way."

In Elizabeth Winkler's research, there are many other important facts and observations that will have to be omitted here simply for brevity's sake. For example, the story of how, against the backdrop of the empire's decline, the god-like figure of Shakespeare somewhat paradoxically became a "cornerstone" in the foundations of the culture of former British colonies. And primarily, of course, in the foundations of the culture of the USA.

In this vast story, however, there is one very special moment that requires not only heightened attention but also as detailed quoting as possible. Because this episode is associated with the most important Temple of Bard worship in the capital of the USA, Washington D.C.

In other words, this is about the Folger Shakespeare Library, which houses not only the largest collection in the world – 82 copies – of Shakespeare's First Folio but also an immense collection of books from Shakespeare's era.

Emphasizing the phenomenal number of First Folio copies in one place is customary because, due to the known peculiarities of typesetting and printing of this book, which took place in 1622-1623, it has taken a truly unique place in history. Since changes were constantly made to this book during the typesetting/printing phase, it ended up that not a single printed copy of the First Folio is a complete copy of another.

Well-known are the reasons why all these different copies were meticulously collected over many decades by the library's founder, millionaire Henry Clay Folger. Because he was not just a convinced supporter of the Baconian theory of Shakespearean authorship but also one of the founders of the American branch of the Bacon Society. Among the main ideas at the foundation of this society were not only proofs of Bacon's authorship of Shakespearean works but also a special role for the First Folio…

About a year before his death, however, Henry Folger unexpectedly and without explanation declared that he no longer considered Bacon the author of Shakespeare's works. As a result, the Folger Library, completed and opened in 1932, two years after the founder's death, from its very first days became a citadel and bastion of the most conservative Shakespeare scholarship. Accordingly, the sequence of all the library's directors, starting with the first, has always very firmly upheld the doctrines of the Stratfordian faith.

A notable exception in this series turned out to be the last, that is, the current director. Elizabeth Winkler met with him while working on her investigations, and a brief report of their conversation is included in her book. Here, this intriguing fragment deserves a full quotation.

The current director, Michael Witmore, is less dogmatic about the authorship. After he took over (in 2011), a new statement appeared on the website:

The Folger has been a major location for research into the authorship question and welcomes scholars looking for new evidence that sheds light on the plays’ origins. How this particular man — or anyone, for that matter — could have produced such an astounding body of works is one of the great mysteries.

If the current consensus on the authorship of the plays and poems is ever overturned, it will be because new and extraordinary evidence is discovered. The Folger Shakespeare Library is the most likely place for such an unlikely discovery.

The idea was tantalizing: What might lie, secure but lost, in the bowels of the Folger?

“You can’t have a collection like ours and say you know everything. It’s just wrong,” Witmore said when I asked him about the authorship question. But he wasn’t up at night worrying about it, he assured me. “I’m much more thinking about the humanities and what role we need to play in the world we live in today.”

Witmore was friendly and easygoing, accustomed to playing host to all manner of visitors who come to the library seeking Shakespeare. Before taking over the Folger, he had held professorships at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Now he was Shakespeare’s ambassador in Washington, advocating passionately for the place of poetry in the civic life of the capital.

“I tend to follow the scholarly consensus,” he continued. “When it comes time to, I’m sure I’ll know my cue.”

When it comes time to what? I leaned forward. Was Witmore anticipating a shift? Waiting for the pendulum to swing? I pushed him, but he clammed up.

“I don’t feel compelled to make statements about it, just like I don’t feel compelled to weigh in on foreign policy disputes,” he said. “I just… I don’t… Are you going to quote me?”

Elizabeth Winkler's book on literary taboos and Shakespearean heresies was published in May 2023. Subsequently, in June 2023, The Washington Post reported that Michael Witmore, who had led the Folger Shakespeare Library for the last 12 years, decided to leave his post to pursue other interests. [o6]

The newspaper article announcing the upcoming change in the director's position is adorned with an unusual photograph of Witmore holding a bunch of prop human skulls. It ends with this intriguing phrase:

Asked what advice he has for the Folger’s next leader, Witmore laughed and said, “This is a place that is full of wonders and even greater potential.”

Several months earlier, in February 2023, the FAQ section of the Folger Library's website was radically overhauled [o7]. As a result, the site now completely lacks the long-present and particularly notable text mentioned above about "one of the greatest mysteries of Shakespearean studies and the discovery of new, extraordinary evidence leading to a revision of the current consensus on authorship"...

Why this text, which appeared on the site with Witmore's arrival, disappeared a few months before his decision to leave the director's position at the Library, will likely remain unknown.

However, it is well known that here, on the kiwi arXiv site, a little earlier, at the end of December 2022, another relevant text appeared – On the Lost Documents in the Bacon-Shakespeare history. It specifically mentioned that these long-deciphered but lost documents from 16th-17th century books convincingly and verifiably point to Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare's works. It also mentioned that there is now a search for a reputable journal or some editorial board willing to publish these materials about evidence artificially excised from history.

It wasn't mentioned in the article about the lost documents that the most comprehensive and substantive collection of ancient books with encrypted Baconian messages is gathered in the Folger Shakespeare Library. However, the large book "4in1: Mask of Shakespeare and Mysteries of Bacon, Book by Cartier and Secrets of the NSA" which the mentioned December article is dedicated to, discusses this in detail with all necessary specifics.

In connection with the investigative book "4in1," it's also worth noting that its last, 12th chapter, "The problem of Shakespearean authorship as an OSINT task" was posted on the kiwi arXiv site in February 2022. A few weeks later, in March 2022, the Marshall Foundation's website underwent a radical homepage redesign. As a result, not only did links to the Friedman cryptographers' collection completely disappear, but the guide to this collection also vanished from the site (for details, see the text "Bacon, Shakespeare, and the NSA's 'Cut the Ends!' Reflex").

The final chapter of the book "4in1" discusses how important both the Friedman collection and the guide describing it are for uncovering historical truth through the reliable extraction of encrypted documents from ancient books...

Of course, all these deletions from well-known websites are surely just coincidental coincidences with synchronous publications on kiwi arXiv.

Still, it's intriguing to think about what else they might try to hide this time?

Additional Reading

(February 2022) The problem of Shakespearean authorship as an OSINT task (rus.)

(December 2022) The Dual Anniversary of Bacon-Shakespeare, or The Countdown of Refusals (rus.)

4in1, or one more book (Mask of Shakespeare and Mysteries of Bacon, Book by Cartier and Secrets of the NSA) (rus.)

(May 2023) Bacon, Shakespeare, and the NSA's 'Cut the Ends!' Reflex

Main Sources

[o1] Elizabeth Winkler. Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature. Simon & Schuster, 2023

[o2] Shakespeare sceptics are the new literary heroes. By Emma Smith. The Spectator, 03 June 2023

[o3] Shakespeare Was Shakespeare. By Isaac Butler. The Slate, May 11, 2023

[o4] Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies review – in search of the bard. By Stephanie Merritt. The Observer, 18 Jun 2023

[o5] ‘It was shocking’: the author under attack for doubting Shakespeare. By David Smith. The Guardian, 27 Jun 2023

[o6] Folger Shakespeare Library director to step down by next summer. By Sophia Nguyen. The Washington Post June 28, 2023

[o7] The old, pre-February 2023, version of the Shakespeare FAQ page on the Folger Library's website. The new, post-March 2023, version of the same page