[Slide: Text ʻProving Shakespeare.ʻ Images: Paul Edmondson, Stanley Wells, Ros Barber]

Transcription

1 ʻProving Shakespeareʼ Webinar, Friday 26 April 2013, BST. Recorded in Stratford-upon-Avon by Misfits Inc for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Sponsored by Cambridge University Press. Speakers: Professor Stanley Wells CBE, Dr Paul Edmondson, Dr Rosalind Barber Also present: Melissa Leon and AJ Leon of Misfits Inc. [Slide: Text ʻProving Shakespeare.ʻ Images: Paul Edmondson, Stanley Wells, Ros Barber] PE: Well itʼs a lovely day in Stratford-upon-Avon, my nameʼs Paul Edmondson of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Weʼre going to be starting the webinar very soon. About another minute or two. Iʼm joined by Ros Barber, whoʼs just published a marvellous book called The Marlowe Papers, and Stanley Wells CBE, our new president for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Okay. So welcome to Proving Shakespeare, this is a webinar about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt, and itʼs been sponsored by Cambridge University Press. My name is Paul Edmondson and Iʼm joined by Stanley Wells and Ros Barber. Thank you very much to Cambridge who published Shakespeare Beyond Doubt last week, and there was a launch for it as part of the Shakespeare Birthplace celebrations here in Stratford. [New Slide: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt Cover Image] Thatʼs the cover of the book that Stanley and I co-edited. Stanley, an interesting cover wouldnʼt you say? SW: Yes, I think itʼs a delightful cover. Joe Fiennes of course in the film of Shakespeare in Love, pondering the next word to write, heʼs got his quill pen in his hand, heʼs rather informally dressed... PE: And in a half-timbered room. SW: In a half-timbered room, indeed, where heʼs writing the play of - what was it called? Romeo and Juliet and the pirates? PE: Ethel the pirate. SW: [laughs] PE: And Ros, I said a moment ago I had an from someone whose Shakespeare seminar immediately started deconstructing that image, which resonated with you? RB: Yes, absolutely, I like the fact that itʼs such a mythical Shakespeare above the title of ʻShakespeare Beyond Doubtʼ PE: As it were, from a fictional story. RB: A fictional story, yes, but itʼs actually a very strong mythic Shakespeare, this image of a good looking young man... SW: Very sexy.

2 RB:... chewing his quill PE: I think of him as inky-fingered Shakespeare... RB: Yes PE:... which we might come onto later on. [New Slide: Max Beerbohm Cartoon image 1904] PE: These were some other possible illustrations. This one is in the book, from the Shakespeare Birthplace Trustʼs collections. We wanted it as the cover but itʼs a bit pale. This is a lovely image of ʻWilliam Shakespeare his method of workʼ - and there is Francis Bacon, and there is Shakespeare.. SW: I think in the birthplace, donʼt you? PE: Yes, I think thatʼs probably the birthplace. SW: The windows behind. PE: But who is giving the text of Hamlet to who? SW: Probably Bacon, having written it, is giving it to Shakespeare and asking Shakespeare to be the front man. What do you think? PE: It could be the other way around, like an Olympic baton. [New Slide: Cartoon of Shakespeare confronting his wife Anne with baby on her knee] This was also a possible cover at one point. I guess Anne Shakespeare holding an infant as Shakespeare stands over her holding the latest sonnet, looking at the child: Heʼs been attributed to the Earl of Oxford! And so a sense there of the child himself, or herself... SW: Shakespeareʼs work PE:... like some of Shakespeareʼs work, being treated as though itʼs attributable to the Earl of Oxford as well. SW: A Little bastard. PE: [laughs] [New Slide: Publicity poster for the film Anonymous] This was a catalyst for our endeavour. This is obviously a publicity poster for the film Anonymous, which was released in It was at the time when the Birthplace Trust launched its Shakespeare authorship campaign, and Shakespeare Beyond Doubt is the latest expression of that campaign. It was a campaign which was expressed mainly online, but it was always the intention to produce an academic book, and we were delighted that Cambridge University Press agreed to publish it.

3 [New Slide: Image of SBT house, title: Shakespeare and Authorship] Shakespeare and authorship is something which haunts any Shakespeare scholar. Stanley, youʼve had a lot of experience - SW: Well, over many years of course Iʼve taken part in debates, in a debate in the Inner Temple which was done ages ago, Iʼve taken part in television programmes, radio programmes about it all, always sticking up for Shakespeare. There was a film called Much Ado About Something which won a prize which you, Ros, also won.. RB: Thatʼs right, the Hoffmann Prize. SW: I was in that... I was featured in that film and so was Jonathan Bate, digging up his turnips in his garden for some reason. PE: I was interested, Ros, that that film is mentioned in your novel as a point of inspiration for you. RB: Itʼs the reason for my novel. That was my first experience of the authorship question, up until then I had never even considered the idea that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare and I just happened to turn it on, it was on BBC4 in the Shakespeare season, and I heard Jonathan Bate say ʻWell of course itʼs a ludicrous idea but it would make a great novelʼ and I thought, ʻYes, youʼre absolutely rightʼ. [laughs] PE: And you picked it up and ran with it. Here we see an image of the back of Shakespeareʼs birthplace as it looks today, and you see the flag flying over the top of the house, and the back of the Shakespeare Centre, the image a reminder that this is something which is talked about a lot, one canʼt escape it, canʼt escape it. If youʼre on Twitter and youʼd like to contribute to the discussion as it unfolds, please tweet, weʼll be saving all the tweets, but if you use the hashtag ʻprovingshakespeareʼ that will mean that your tweet will be automatically archived, so hashtag ʻprovingshakespeareʼ. And if you want to name the country that youʼre tuning in from, that would be great too. So itʼs a question that comes up in taxis, on trains, when oneʼs travelling, itʼs also a question which has ingratiated itself within two universities [subtitle appears: MA in Shakespeare Authorship Studies at Brunel University] and this was thought to be something which we wanted to respond to as part of the authorship campaign. There is an MA in Shakespeare Authorship Studies at Brunel University, and there is also [subtitle appears: Concordia University] a centre, a Shakespeare authorship research centre, at Concordia University. Stanley, we found these two expressions of the discussion worrying. SW: Yes we did, that itʼs infiltrating. We do feel, of course, that itʼs a perfectly good subject, the phenomenon, of whether, the phenomenon of doubt is a good subject for academic study, indeed, it forms the basis of Jim Shapiroʼs book, Jim Shapiro who wrote the Afterword to our book, of his book, wittily called Contested Will. But Concordia

4 University has an annual conference, and they had one last week, and itʼs entirely devoted to deconstructing the idea that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. [New Slide: Image of Concordia University. Text: No intellectual justification? Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre, Concordia University, Portland Oregon] There was a long lecture given at that conference which is available online, which Iʼve read, called ʻThe Factual Desert of Stanley Wellsʼ. Itʼs entirely devoted to demolishing, or attempting to demolish, the arguments that I put forward in a five minute talk in a debate to the English Speaking Union eighteen months or so ago. Itʼs a very intelligent piece, but of course I believe it to be completely and totally misguided and wrong. PE: Should say this point, that if you have any questions, we hope you do have questions, you can submit them at any time during the discussion. It would be very helpful if you were to say your first name and also which country youʼre sending your question from. Ros, have you ever been to the Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre? RB: I never have, but I have been to Brunel, and I know Bill Leahy, and I donʼt agree that thereʼs no intellectual justification - I understand that you feel this very strongly - but I think that itʼs actually important to look at the evidence that is argued, that is put forward on both sides, you know, in the sense, if you look at the authorship studies that are done by people like Brian Vickers, heʼs deconstructing the Shakespeare canon in his own way, heʼs accepting that there are a number of hands involved in writing Shakespeare. I think, you know, thereʼs a lot thatʼs spurious in the non-stratfordian arguments that are put forward, but I also feel the same way, I have to say, about the strong Stratfordian defences. I think that there are problems here that need to be discussed, and that they are best discussed in an academic context, in lots of ways. So I actually welcome the absorption of this question into professional academic circles. PE: Itʼs interesting, isnʼt it, how many academics try to avoid this issue... SW: Yes. PE:... I donʼt think this is your experience, but certainly among Shakespeare colleagues there is sometimes a tendency just to, just close down any kind of discussion... RB: Completely. SW: To remain aloof about it, as if itʼs beneath their, beneath contempt. PE: I mean I really do feel that the Birthplace Trust is pitching in, getting its hands dirty in this argument. RB: I really appreciate that after, it seemed to me, a very, very long time, a hundred and fifty years of really no-one weighing in with any significant academic book on the subject, that there is finally an academic book by twenty respected and established Shakespeare scholars, to put forward the orthodox side of it, and I really welcome that development, I think itʼs an important development, but you know I personally donʼt think it settles the question beyond doubt, I think it raises a lot of other questions. That itʼs just the beginning of something for me, itʼs the beginning of a conversation.

5 PE: Certainly one of the things we hope weʼve done with - picking up the metaphor of beginning the conversation, or perhaps furthering the conversation - is we hope weʼve put some oxygen into this discussion, because I think you know you look in certain parts of it and for too long the Shakespeareans have never had anything to do with the anti- Shakespeareans and vice versa, and I hope thereʼs now some oxygen there that weʼve brought to the discussion. Letʼs open the book and as it were look at its structure. [New slide. Text: ʻPart One: Scepticsʼ. (Chapter titles)] It comprises three parts. The first part is called Sceptics, and there you will find, as it were, some prominent case studies about people who have been nominated as alternative writers of the Shakespeare canon, whatever we might mean by that word canon in that context. So Graham Holderness gets the ball rolling as it were with the person who got the ball rolling, Delia Bacon, in the middle of the nineteenth century. And then the case for Sir Francis Bacon is taken up by Alan Stewart, the case for Christopher Marlowe by Charles Nicholl, and the Earl of Oxford, though his name is missing, Alan Nelson wrote the chapter on Oxford. He really did write the chapter on Oxford- RB: [laughs] PE: - itʼs not disputed, and the unusual suspects by Matt Kubus. More on that in a moment. But Stanley, these are prominent authorities on these writers. SW: Yes, they are, yes. Graham has written a very interesting piece on Delia Bacon, a much maligned lady, who was [New Slide: image of Delia Bacon. Text: ʻThe Unreadable Delia Baconʼ] a distinguished woman in her own right, a good teacher, even though she went on to take up very unorthodox views, and Grahamʼs piece is a very interesting re-examination. Sheʼs always talked about as being unreadable, and Graham is one of the few people [text appears: ʻBook The Philosophy of Shakespeareʼs Plays, 1857ʼ] who have actually read the unreadable, the unreadable book The Philosophy of Shakespeareʼs Plays... [text appears: ʻCollaborative authorship, a ʻschoolʼ led by Sir Walter Raleghʼ] SW:...the other... PE: She was interested in collaborative authorship, wasnʼt she? SW: Yes PE: And in some ways, Ros, I mean, youʼre sort of perhaps a modern-day Delia Bacon yourself, wouldnʼt you say. Is that fair? RB: No, I would think thatʼs not at all fair. PE: Okay

6 RB: [laughs] PE: [laughs] Sorry. RB: [laughs] Thanks! PE: I mean, you look nothing like her. RB: No, and I think we have very different backgrounds. I mean for a start, she was selftaught, as I believe that as a woman she couldnʼt [go to University] which is very interesting PE: She was questioning, she was questioning. RB: She was questioning, yes, but - SW: She was American. RB: Plenty of people have questioned and not just Delia Bacon, obviously, but she was the first person to put it out there. [New text: ʻStyle difficult to read, hypothesis never actually proven [and unprovable]; more like gothic fiction...] But she was self-taught, whereas Iʼve done an MA and a PhD, so quite a lot of - PE: I was making a comparison mainly to do with the fact that both of you have RB: difference. RB: Some scepticism. PE: Enquiring minds, scepticism. RB: Enquiring minds, yes. PE: And actually, the collaborative authorship, she was ahead of the game, as well as being the first one to get the ball rolling. SW: Yes, [unclear] was very interestingly...[unclear, words spoken over PE] PE: Absolutely. And you see collaborative authorship, although it was beginning to be acknowledged in Shakespeare studies during that time - SW: Yes, it was. SW: Exactly the same time, actually. RB: Yes. SW: The first theories about Fletcherʼs hand in Henry VIII, for example, comes in then. PE: But the sense in which collaboration is something which has grown within Shakespeare studies... SW: Very importantly in the last thirty years.

7 RB: Yes, absolutely. PE: In some ways, Stanley, you have been at the forefront of this. SW: Yes, Iʼve been with the Oxford Shakespeare, of which Iʼve been journal editor. RB: Yes. I do actually have an issue with the word collaborative, because Iʼm very interested in words, and I do have an issue with the word collaborative because I think of it very much as co-authorship, I know the Brian Vickers book is Shakespeare Co-Author, and I think that co-authorship can take a number of different forms. SW: Yes RB: Collaboration suggests all sitting round the table doing something at the same time, whereas I think co-authorship gives much more possibilities for a partial manuscript being finished by someone else, or someone gets the beginning, someone gets the end, and especially because you tend to see co-authorship in the Shakespeare canon at the beginning and the end of the canon much more than in the middle - SW: Yes RB: I much prefer the term co-authorship, I think itʼs a bit more correct than collaboration. SW: Yes RB: Because collaboration is too suggestive of things that may not have occurred. SW: Yes PE: Well her style is difficult to read, thereʼs an example of that just looming, but just to reflect briefly on the cultural moment in which she appeared, detective fiction was on the rise, ten years earlier, Charles Darwin had published Origin of Species, in which heʼd removed one absolutely unquestioned theory of the start of the universe, as being the Christian and Judaic narrative of the origins of the world, and put in an alternative theory, and then ten years later, what do you know, something similar is being done with your, Shakepeareʼs plays, I find that highly interesting, and possibly explic- the reason why this phenomenon didnʼt start until the middle of the nineteenth century. RB: Yes, I think itʼs part of the reason. PE: Part of the reason. [New slide. Text ʻDelia Baconʼ and an extract from the book.] Now this is an example of what Graham Holderness cites in his chapter as an area of her unreadability, and this is why sheʼs little read today, itʼs a very difficult style. [Reads:] ʻThe brave, bold genius of Raleigh flashed new life into that little nucleus of the Elizabethan development. The new ʻRound Table,ʼ which that newly-beginning age of chivalry, with its new weapons and devices, and its new and more heroic adventure had created, was not yet ʻfullʼ till he came in. The Round Table grew rounder with this knightʼs presence. Over those dainty stories of the classic ages, over those quaint memorials of the elder chivalry, that were spread out on it, over the dead letter of the past, the brave Atlantic breeze came

8 in, the breath of the great future blew, when the turn came for this knightʼs adventure; whether opened in the prose of its statistics, or set to its native music in the mystic melodies of the bard who was there to sing it.ʼ I was fine until I got to the Atlantic breeze, and then slightly after that, after knightʼs adventure I sort of lost my... RB: will to live. SW: Yes, yes. PE: [unclear, RB and SW speaking over] RB: Well she really desperately needs an editor, I have to say. SW: [laughs] RB: I was having problems with the ʻnewlyʼ and ʻnewʼ and the ʻnewʼ. PE: [laughs] RB: Yes, sheʼs not a great writer, is she. PE: Quite an innovator. RB: But itʼs very fictive as well, the approach is. And itʼs interesting to me that the first person to put the Marlowe argument forward, put it forward in a novel. PE: Yes SW: Thatʼs true. RB: But this is, you know, very imaginative writing. PE: It is, and it alludes self-consciously to myths, doesnʼt it, Arthurian especially. RB: Mmm. PE: And I love that cultural clash between the American and the British, the Atlantic breeze coming in, thatʼs very very interesting. SW: The Atlantic breeze is Delia Bacon. [New slide: Images of Marlowe, Bacon, Oxford. Text: ʻWhodunnit?ʼ] PE: [laughs] She is the Atlantic breeze. But anyway, what arises pretty quickly after, after she gets the ball rolling, in the next seventy years or so, is a sort of Whodunnit scenario, whereby itʼs beginning to seem that anybody apart from Shakespeare of Stratford is a reasonable suspect. So there we have an image of a man who might be Christopher Marlowe, thereʼs no certainty about that... RB: Yes, thatʼs the putative portrait, yes. PE:... Francis Bacon... SW: Great writer.

9 PE:... great writer... SW: Mostly in Latin. PE:...and the Earl of Oxford, and there we think of the three, as it were, prominent nominees. SW: Those are the three most prominent currently, yes. PE: But there are many others. [New slide, Text: ʻWho else?ʼ] Some of the people who have been mentioned are Roger Manners, the Earl of Rutland, Daniel Defoe, thatʼs an interesting one, Sir Henry Neville, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, Elizabeth the First herself, she crops up in a lot of the narratives about this, Sir Walter Raleigh, Lady Mary Sidney - the will for it to be a female nominee has also... SW: Just come up in recent years, that one, yes. PE: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, even Ben Jonsonʼs been suggested. Now in our book there is a chapter by Matt Kubus [New slide. Text: ʻMathematically, each time an additional candidate is suggested, the probability decreases that any given name is the true author. - Matt Kubus, The Usual Suspectsʼ] which sort of mops up, at the last count, seventy-seven of the nominees, in which he says ʻMathematically, each time an additional candidate is suggested, the probability decreases that any given name is the true author.ʼ RB: I want to query that, because I want to know is that mathematically true? Do we have any mathematicians listening in to the webcast who could actually tell me whether thatʼs a true statement or not? PE: Mathematicians, we need you at this point. RB: [laughs] PE: Send a tweet to Stratford-upon-Avon. RB: But it looks to me like an assertion, rather than something that is necessarily mathematically true. But my maths only went to A level, so what do I know? PE: Well, whenever we hit probability, I always imagine large bars of chocolate and fractions and so on. RB: [laughs] PE: But it seems to me, as I understand the maths there, itʼs about the more, the more named possibilities that there are, the less a share of chocolate that theyʼll receive. RB: But you see, does it really work like that? Because, do we not agree that there is someone who is at least the central author of the works of Shakespeare, even if there are

10 other hands involved, that there is a true author? So, I mean, if this was mathematically true, surely that would decrease Shakespeare of Stratfordʼs probability of being the true author, as much as itʼs saying any given name is the true author. And that would include all the names. So I dispute that as a point of maths. I think that it sounds clever, but probably isnʼt true. [New slide: Corpus Christi portrait of Christopher Marlowe] PE: What about this man, here. If this is indeed Christopher Marlowe. RB: Well he does at least have the track record of being an excellent writer in the same genre as William Shakespeare- SW: Absolutely, yes. RB: Acknowledged as a very powerful influence on Shakespeareʼs writing, essentially - he didnʼt exactly invent blank verse drama, but he was the first person to make it work, and the English history play, he wrote long narratives out of Ovid, so he has Hero and Leander, the first publication with William Shakespeareʼs name on it is Venus and Adonis, which is almost a pair of poems, very similar poems. PE: Heʼs a great writer... RB: He has the right writing background. PE: Of course, we would say ʻhe ainʼt Shakespeareʼ. RB: Well he certainly wasnʼt Shakespeare at the time heʼs supposed to have died at the age of 29, but then nor was Shakespeare. And I think you said in your book, Stanley, Shakespeare & Co, you said that if Shakespeare had died in the same year that Marloweʼs meant to have died, 1593, we would regard Marlowe as the better writer. SW: No, what I said was if Shakespeare died in the same year as Marlowe did die. RB: Ah, yes, okay, yes, I certainly changed the words a bit, but you said Marlowe was the better writer. SW: Yes, I believe that. There would have been more great writing from Marlowe than there had been at that point from William Shakespeare. RB: Yes. SW: Though of course at that time, Shakespeare had already written some plays, so if you think Marlowe wrote them as well, youʼre in a quandary. RB: Well, there were plays that were already written which we now attribute to Shakespeare, but nothing appeared with the name William Shakespeare on it until a couple of weeks after Marlowe died, or supposedly died. SW: Ah well there are plays in the First Folio, theyʼre attributed to Shakespeare there.

11 RB: Yes, but theyʼre not attributed to him until 1623, and in fact, until the 1920s quite a lot of orthodox scholars, even some very well-respected names, attributed things like the Henry VI plays to Marlowe. So in fact you know there was a whole school of thought that some of those early plays were essentially Marlowe plays that Shakespeare had taken on and rewritten and adapted. PE: Ros, your novel takes the premise that Marlowe didnʼt die in RB: Yes. PE: And Iʼm not sure, Iʼm not sure whether thatʼs something you, you actually believe or not. You donʼt - You question the evidence. RB: I question the evidence around his death, yes. PE: But the evidence doesnʼt have to be true in order for your novel to tell a good story. RB: No, no, it is a work of fiction, as I keep trying to reassure people, and you can thoroughly enjoy it no matter who you believe is the author of Shakespeare, especially if you love Shakespeare, because Iʼve put a lot of Shakespeare references in. PE: You see, for Stanley and I, it does matter, absolutely, that the evidence that exists for Marloweʼs death, the coronerʼs report, and the burial record, are good enough pieces of historical evidence, wherever oneʼs coming from, which make them undeniable. RB: Well, I mean, this was the interesting point for me when I read Charles Nichollʼs chapter in your book, on Marlowe, is that Charles Nicholl himself has written a very excellent book, I have to say, The Reckoning, and then another version of it ten years later, in which he very much disputes that the inquest document is true. Now, he doesnʼt dispute the burial record, but he does dispute the inquest document, he raises all kinds of issues with it, as people have ever since it was first discovered in And the fact is thereʼs been no real agreement as to the veracity of the inquest document, you know, scholars have been very much split, and I would say the majority believe the inquest document to be false. SW: Well the important thing is that heʼs dead, and youʼre not disputing that evidence, if heʼs dead he canʼt go on to write the works of Shakespeare. RB: Well- SW: Of course this is all partly to do with the fictional, youʼve written this excellent, fascinating novel in verse, with a number, a great many different poems in, itʼs not a single verse narrative, and itʼs only one of many many novels that have been written, the most famous one perhaps is the one by Anthony Burgess- RB: Yep SW: -Nothing Like the Sun, and we have a chapter in our book by Paul Franssen about fictional treatments of this topic, there have been many doc - many novels, over a good, as you said yourself the first suggestion of Marlowe came in a novel about a hundred, a little less than a hundred years ago...

12 PE: Itʼs interesting, Paul Franssen in his chapter identifies fictional tropes among that body of work, that genre, and one of them is that Shakespeare has to be presented, normally is presented, in that genre, as an uneducated person from, you a know, a town which is in a sort of backwater, and that constant trope, we had it in the film Anonymous - SW: Very much so, he was a drunken, illiterate buffoon. PE: And actually one of the things about The Marlowe Papers is Shakespeare hardly appears. RB: Yes [laughs]. PE: I just wondered why that was the case. RB: Yes, I did completely sideline him, I agree. I have him agreeing to be the front and sort of represent the plays, but he - well actually, one of the things I based that on is the fact that there is so little personal testimony around him, that he doesnʼt seem to have hung out with other writers, we donʼt have anything, you know, he doesnʼt seem to belong to that circle of writers in London, and, you know, no-one ever reports a conversation with him in a pub, or you know, thereʼs no obvious communication with him, he doesnʼt get involved in that commendatory poems business, and so he seems to me a very taciturn man, he keeps himself to himself. And also because I know that Diana Price has shown that there are periods of time when we expect him to be in London, and then it turns out heʼs in Stratford, heʼs doing some business in Stratford, so I imagined him being really quite absent for the purpose of the book. I thought that would work rather - rather well. And I think, you know, I agree that there is this trope in fiction of really diminishing, as much as possible, William Shakespeare of Stratford, and sometimes making him quite an objectionable character, and I think that is entirely for the purpose, I suppose, of making a good story or something, making a baddie. I didnʼt want to make him a baddie, I think if he was in role, which he is in the novel, whereʼs he protecting this manʼs life by agreeing to front his plays, then heʼs doing him a good service, heʼs doing a good job, so I didnʼt want to take him apart. PE: My favourite depiction of Shakespeare in any novel is in Virginia Woolfʼs Orlando, in which Orlando sees Shakespeare writing, and itʼs a rare account, in any work, of how Shakespeare physically sat, or looked, when he was writing. And the whole narrative just stops. And you know itʼs supposed to be Shakespeare and he keeps cropping up in Orlando. And Orlando stares at Shakespeare across a room: ʻIs this a writer? Tell me everything that ever happened in the worldʼ, itʼs a marvellous moment. Letʼs think about Part Two: Shakespeare as Author. [New slide, text: ʻPart Two: Shakespeare as Author. (Chapter titles and authors)] PE: Theorising Shakespeareʼs authorship by Andrew Hadfield, the University of Sussex. That chapter really is incredibly helpful, I think, because itʼs, its about helping us all to relax about that fact that we shouldnʼt be worried about there being gaps in the records of peopleʼs lives, or, that the kinds of records that we would most wish to see in someoneʼs life donʼt in fact survive and arenʼt there. RB: I did have a problem with that chapter, I mean Andrew is someone I know rather well as my PhD supervisor, but heʼd already been challenged on this point, I believe, when he put this in 60 Minutes, and challenged with the data of Diana Price, because it is actually

13 unusual: the number of gaps, the amount of gap that there is, if you like, this man-shaped absence of data, is actually extraordinary, and I thought it was problematic for me in that chapter, that he - I would like to see an answer to Price, I havenʼt yet seen an answer to Priceʼs data, showing that Shakespeareʼs... the gap in Shakespeare evidence that actually shows he was a writer - because we have a huge amount of evidence about him, more than any other writer, but not related to writing, so - PE: Itʼs how you approach evidence, isnʼt it - RB: Yes. PE: - itʼs what you decide to do with that evidence, and Diana Price has a different agenda, I think, there, with her telling history. Andrew Hadfield is right in saying we shouldnʼt be worried about - RB: Well, is he? Is he, is he? Because they are extraordinary gaps, theyʼre not usual gaps, they are exceptional gaps, and that hasnʼt yet been answered, and Iʼd love to see an answer to that. PE: In- SW: But- PE: Sorry, carry on Stanley. SW: Well, I was going to say in my chapter, the next chapter in the book, [New slide: image of Shakespeare monument in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford] I produce a great many allusions to Shakespeare as a writer - RB: But they donʼt link to Shakespeare of Stratford, and thereʼs no link to him until long after heʼs dead, but thatʼs SW: Thatʼs 1623, but thatʼs only seven years after heʼs dead, and why not, why - RB: Well- SW: Why discount evidence after somebodyʼs dead? PE: Can I just jump in here and say the first reference to that by corroborative evidence in the First Folioʼs 1623, but the funeral bust might have gone up in 1616, we do not know that it didnʼt. RB: No, we donʼt know when it went up, itʼs true, we donʼt know when it went up, but the point is, I want to know - I donʼt know if we can ever know - but I do want to know why there arenʼt references to him that show that he actually knew other writers and that he had any kind of writerly life. PE: Well there are writers who talk about a writer called William Shakespeare - RB: William Shakespeare, and thatʼs not disputed, and Stanley very very... I mean I like you really take us through it, year by year, and I really appreciate that, you know, piece by

14 piece, through the evidence of writers who know that there is a writer who publishes under that name, William Shakespeare. But none of them know him personally, thereʼs no - thereʼs certainly no indication that they know him personally, if they did know him personally they donʼt reveal a personal connection - SW: Oh, thatʼs not quite true, I mean thereʼs the Manningham anecdote about Shakespeare - RB: Yes, but thatʼs an anecdote! And heʼs heard it from Mr Curle. So he clearly doesnʼt know Shakespeare personally. And also we donʼt know, it doesnʼt say that heʼs a writer. Heʼs connected to theatre. PE: But I see what Iʼm hearing from you Ros which is an absolutely completely understandable longing, we sometimes donʼt have the evidence, the kinds of things we would like to have evidence for, and the fact that we donʼt have evidence, isnʼt evidence of absence. RB: But if you ask someone whoʼs in evidence science, like Professor David Schum, who is emeritus professor of Evidence Science at UCL, he says that where there is absence of evidence where you would expect evidence to be, that in itself is an important piece of evidence that needs to be accounted for by any explanatory narrative. PE: Well we canʼt always account for evidence, and you see this is a problem with some Shakespeare [unclear] plays - RB: Why, why canʼt we account for extraordinary - and it is extraordinary, Price has shown that - extraordinary lack of evidence? She compares 24 other writers of the period who all do have a literary paper trail, and he - he has none. PE: Well Shakespeare does actually, and Diana Price is wrong. RB: On which points? PE: And Stanley can we, Iʼm sorry, can we hear from Stanley Wells, co-editor of the book, [New Slide, Text: ʻEvidence for Shakespeare: publication, theatrical knowledge, references, memorial and posthumous evidenceʼ] on evidence for Shakespeare. SW: Well thereʼs masses of evidence from the publications that itʼs Shakes - that Shake, that as Ros says, that somebody called Shakespeare wrote, wrote plays, wrote poems, there are, there are commendatory verses to somebody called Shakespeare, thereʼs Ben Jonsonʼs discussions with William Drummond of Hawthornden, in which he talks about Shakespeare as a man, thereʼs Ben Jonsonʼs testimony, that he loved Shakespeare ʻthis side idolatoryʼ, thereʼs a lot of evidence about, about Shakespeare. PE: I have huge problems with the anti-shakespearean perspective that dismisses posthumous evidence [clicks] like that, and this phrase ʻin his lifetimeʼ keeps popping up, it matters not a jot. Funeral monuments are normally made after someone has died, RB: Of course they are, of course they are-

15 PE: for goodness sakes, and if we went on the evidence of a funeral monument, we might say, well, Jane Austen wasnʼt a writer, because it doesnʼt mention the fact that she was a writer on her monument. It does on Shakespeareʼs. SW: Yes. PE: Heʼs compared to Virgil, heʼs compared to Socrates and Nestor - SW: Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. PE: Yes. RB: Yes. SW: And he was buried in Stratford-upon-Avon. RB: I agree, but isnʼt the lack of personal evidence curious? Isnʼt that- SW: No, I donʼt think it is. RB: You donʼt think that is? PE: Ros, what do we mean by personal evidence? RB: Evidence of someone- PE: Do we mean the tone of it? RB: Well, just the fact that he appears to move in those writing circles, and that, you know, I mean, even Ben Jonson, now Ben Jonson sounds like he did know him personally, I agree, none of that is published until after his death, but he sounds like he knows him personally, but he sounds - he says, on the one hand heʼs saying marvellous things about him, on the other hand heʼs quite disparaging. PE: Well, he was a, he was a friendly rival, wasnʼt he. RB: Well, you know, you can - thereʼs many ways of reading the evidence and another way of reading it is that he was actually talking about two different people, thatʼs certainly the way some people have read it. PE: I like, I like the fact that a Stratfordian friend Richard Field published Shakespeare, and that heʼs mentioned in Cymbeline, Richard du Champ. RB: Yes, but - PE: And I think Richard Field, Richard Field moved in exalted circles, and he was a very important publisher - RB: He published for Lord Burghley, you know, which would be, would work very well for the Marlowe story because Marlowe is known to have worked for Lord Burghley as well. PE: This is a problem here isnʼt it, ʻworked very well for the Marlowe storyʼ, as if everything is just detective fiction, which with a, you know, pick and choose-

16 RB: Well itʼs all about taking different narratives. You take the, you take the orthodox narrative, and I look through at the Marlowe narrative, thereʼs the Oxford narratives, there are other narratives, and what interests me is how different pieces of evidence add up to or join in to these various narratives. [New Slide. Text: ʻPublication Evidenceʼ (various quartos listed with their dates)] PE: Thereʼs lots of publication evidence- RB: I think Richard Fieldʼs reference in Cymbeline is very interesting because in that case itʼs actually Cloten whoʼs dead, with his head chopped off, and heʼs referred to throughout the play as ʻClot.ʼ, and so itʼs ʻRichard Field is a clotʼ, is an entirely different way at looking at it. Heʼs saying, ʻhere is someone whoʼs associated my name with Stratford, thanks Richard Field, I think youʼre a clot.ʼ Thatʼs - Iʼm not saying thatʼs true, at all, Iʼm just saying hereʼs a different way of reading the evidence. [Some problems with transmission begin at this point for a few seconds] PE: You see, all of this in front of us Stanley, all [missing] mangled SW: Absolutely PE: And it will all [unclear] through the sense of these [unclear] quartos [missing] name on the title page [missing?] and [missing] evidence because all of these are different publishers, different printers... Weʼre seeing before us a list of plays, but itʼs a hugely complex strata of information which made these publications possible. People knew each other. People talk. RB: But no-one seems to have known William Shakespeare the writer. No-one seems to- SW: Richard Barnfield did, for example. Richard Barnfield writes a commendatory poem. RB: Yes, but thatʼs a totally impersonal reference! Heʼs writing to the author, William Shakespeare. All of these - PE: But how do you know he didnʼt know him? RB: What Iʼm saying is that these are impersonal references, thereʼs no evidence of a personal friendship in these references, they are standard Elizabethan commendations, William Shakespeare - no-one doubts, no-one at all disputes the fact that the name William Shakespeare is on all of these plays, no-one disputes that - PE: But all of this argument, really, is, youʼre wanting to gainsay these references to Shakespeare in his lifetime, to say that heʼs not the William Shakespeare of Stratfordupon-Avon, and why, why do you want to do that? Why donʼt you want it to be Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon? RB: This is an interesting thing about your approach, and I know James Shapiroʼs as well, thatʼs youʼre ʻwhy donʼt you want it to beʼ and what is it about my psychology, or even, my pathology, that makes me doubt Shakespeare, youʼre always looking at that. I mean thereʼs two chapters devoted to Delia Bacon in your book, and looking at the psychology

17 of Delia Bacon, and why does she doubt, because Iʼm pretty sure this is something you donʼt understand. But I have to tell you, the answer is, that the evidence isnʼt sufficient, that the evidence doesnʼt add up, that there isnʼt the evidence for Shakespeare as a writer, Shakespeare of Stratford as a writer, that there is for other writers of the period - SW: There is, for example, the, there is the fact that people visited Stratford soon after Shakespeare died, to look at his monument, because they knew he was a writer. There is the manuscript on William Basseʼs elegy on William Shakespeare, which is headed ʻWilliam Shakespeare died in Stratford-upon-Avon, the time of his birth, 1616ʼ, and that is an elegy that refers specifically to Shakespeare as a great tragedian, it uses the word tragedian, which might mean either an actor or a writer - PE: So you see the alternative scenario is that all of the evidence, and weʼve only just touched on a little bit of it, the mostly likely outcome of that evidence is that the plays were written by Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. Now if, if, if you want to rewrite history, if you want to rewrite evidence, if you want to pitch in and say actually letʼs look again, letʼs tell a different story, that is something you can do, but please donʼt expect people who are interested in truth of history, and what the past tells us through documentation, to go along with it. RB: Well actually I have to say the people that you call anti-shakespeareans, who are actually non-stratfordians in my book, theyʼre very interested in the the truth, theyʼre very interested in the evidence, and itʼs not about rewriting the evidence, itʼs about looking at it in a different perspective. PE: And dismissing it. [New slide, text: ʻShakespeare and Schoolʼ, text from the chapter] Shakespeare and Schoolʼs an interesting one, this is - RB: Well, I have to say, you dismiss some evidence as well, I see dismissal of evidence on both sides. PE: Shakespeare and Schoolʼs an interesting one, because for the school record, it doesnʼt exist, but thatʼs not unusual among grammar schools. I think the school records in Stratford only started in the 1800s. SW: 1800s. PE: And this is a magisterial chapter by Carol Rutter of Warwick University, in which, of course, all of these chapters have different purposes, within a critical mass of evidence which the book is bringing together. And Carol wrote this chapter in part to demonstrate you didnʼt have to go to university, or be an aristocrat, to write Shakespeare, and that all you needed was a really good grammar school education of the kind which was available in Stratford, and had been available for many, many years before the school was properly given its charter by Edward VI. And that, and that the likeliest outcome is that Shakespeare went there with many others, we know the records donʼt survive, but the body of work shows an educated school mind. SW: A correlation between -

18 RB: I have no problem at all with the idea that the author of these works went to an Elizabethan grammar school. And I think itʼs very likely that Shakespeare of Stratford went to the grammar school in Stratford, even though thereʼs no evidence to support that, it seems a reasonable assumption that he did have some schooling at the grammar school, given the position of his father. What Carol Rutterʼs chapter proves, as far as Iʼm concerned, is that the author of those works had experience of being a grammar school boy. And I donʼt have any problem at all with that. [New slide. Text: ʻPart Three: A Cultural Phenomenon... Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare? (list of chapters and their authors)] PE: Part three of the volume is called ʻA Cultural Phenomenon, Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?ʼ and here itʼs a sense of the afterlife of the discussion, the kinds of energies which it makes possible, weʼve just mentioned earlier Paul Franssenʼs overview of fictional treatments of Shakespeareʼs authorship, from the university of Utrecht, Kate McClusky is writing about the contemporary desire to tell stories rather than to get bogged down in historical fact, and that fictions will always be more attractive to the human mind than truth with gaps. Because itʼs part of what makes a story palatable. RB: But thatʼs what I would say that the orthodox is doing, the orthodox - PE: And that leads to conspiracy theories, doesnʼt it. RB: Well no, I donʼt agree, and I think by using the term ʻconspiracy theoryʼ youʼre trying to just automatically dismiss anything that doesnʼt agree with your point of view, and I think, you know, actually there are valid points of view on all sides of this debate- PE: Itʼs interesting how the authorship discussion, Shakespeare authorship discussion hovers in the background of other discussions about what might seem much more serious conspiracy theories, such as those around 9/11, or Barack Obama not being born in the States and so on. RB: I think this is a - RB: I think this is an entirely false comparison, because weʼre not talking about conspiracy theories - SW: Sorry, we must be talking about conspiracy theory if we say - RB: Because you donʼt agree about - because you donʼt agree- SW: No, excuse me, excuse me, just one moment. If youʼre saying that there is massed evidence that somebody called Shakespeare is associated with these plays, if youʼre then saying that man wasnʼt Shakespeare, youʼre saying that the real Shakespeare - and youʼre not disputing that the real Shakespeare existed - RB: No. SW: - that he, that there was a conspiracy in which he took part to conceal the true authorship, and that he was the front man for it. RB: Now, a conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do exist, the word conspiracy has been in the dictionary for a long time, Shakespeare himself writes about conspiracies, there were an enormous number of plots - you know, the Babington

19 Plot, and the Main Plot, and the Bye Plot - of that time, which are all conspiracies. Thatʼs very - PE: Well letʼs call this one the anti-shakespeare plot. RB: Thatʼs very different from a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory means something thatʼs not even worth our time of day to look at, weʼll just dismiss it out of hand - SW: Yes, thatʼs what the anti-shakespeare - RB: - And I appreciate you think thatʼs what the non-stratfordian - itʼs not worth your time of day, because your belief is very, very strong - PE: No, itʼs not belief. RB: It is a belief. PE: Itʼs our knowledge based on evidence. RB: Well itʼs based on evidence that doesnʼt actually all add up. PE: Well there, there we fundamentally disagree. RB: We do fundamentally disagree, yes. PE: We fundamentally disagree, and this is the kind of discussion which the book is making available. Letʼs not forget this declaration of reasonable doubt. [New slide. Images: SAC logo, Michael York, Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance. Text: ʻAnti- Shakespearian responses...ʼ] There we have Michael York, Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance. All prominent actors - RB: Who you called Anti-Shakespeareans! It think itʼs very interesting - PE: Yes, theyʼre Shakespearean actors with anti-shakespearean beliefs. RB: But theyʼre not anti-shakespearean. No-one - PE: But they all think Shakespeare didnʼt write Shakespeare. RB: Yes, but no-one involved in this is anti-shakespearean. Everyone I know who is a Shakespeare sceptic loves the author Shakespeare. Loves the works of Shakespeare. Gets deeply involved in - [New Slide. Text: ʻThe Declaration of Reasonable Doubt ʼ and excerpt from chapter] PE: So why donʼt they want Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to be the author? RB: Well itʼs not a matter of wanting, you see, you seem to think that thereʼs some kind of pathology going on here, itʼs a matter of not being [satisfied] - searching for the author

20 and then finding him strangely absent, and then looking at the evidence and saying ʻwell why doesnʼt this evidence exist?ʼ, when it does exist for other people. PE: But you see denials of history - RB: Itʼs not a denial of history. If you look at this completely neutrally, if you came to the evidence entirely neutrally, and you looked at the seventy plus documents relating to William Shakespeare of Stratford, and some historian looked at this guy and it didnʼt have that name on it, and you asked him, ʻwhat does this guy do for a living?, any neutral historian would say ʻWell he buys and sells grain, he buys and sells tithes, he lends money at interest, he chases people through the courts, heʼs a businessman, heʼs a broker, he even brokered a marriage. You can see him in the role of broker, that is documented. Now if he was a writer, all the evidence during his lifetime that he was a writer - and I agree with you that once you get to 1623, it is established that William Shakespeare of Stratfordupon-Avon is the author of the works, and people then start coming to Stratford - not finding much, I have to say, because apparently his daughters donʼt seem to know that heʼs a writer, other people who should have known he was a writer donʼt seem to know heʼs a writer - PE: Well his daughters are an interesting example, because alongside Shakespeareʼs grave is Suzannah Hallʼs grave, ʻwitty above her sex, but thatʼs not all, wise to salvation was good Mistress Hall, something of Shakespeare was in that, but this wholly of him with whom sheʼs now in bliss.ʼ So she is evoked as the poetʼs daughter in that Shakespeareʼs mentioned - RB: So why would he leave her functionally illiterate, why would she not be able to recognise her husbandʼs handwriting - SW: She wasnʼt illiterate, she could write. RB: Well, if you actually look, if you look at her handwriting, sheʼs not someone whoʼs really - SW: [unclear, all three speaking at once] PE: [unclear] handwriting, thatʼs nonsense. My doctor doesnʼt - RB: Sheʼs not a very literate person, she doesnʼt recognise her husbandʼs own handwriting. PE: Excuse me, my doctor doesnʼt have very good handwriting but he gives me the right tablets. And it doesnʼt mean to say that heʼs illiterate. RB: And his, Shakespeareʼs other daughter was illiterate. SW: Also youʼre talking about the absence of evidence. If youʼre talking about the absence of evidence, where is the evidence, the positive evidence, that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare? Or that the Earl of Oxford Wrote Shakespeare? RB: I absolutely agree with you. The point is that all of the candidates, including yours, who you believe to be the true author, they all have- PE: [unclear] based on evidence - RB: all based on circumstantial evidence. PE: Based on evidence.

21 RB: But itʼs circumstantial - PE: Based on evidence. How could you- RB: And itʼs circumstantial for all- PE: How would any of these anti-shakespeareans like the evidence to be, how bad would you like it to be before you start denying it and saying ʻwell actually, black is whiteʼ. RB: That is - PE: I think youʼre on very dangerous ground in construing history in our own image in this way. RB: I [unclear] think thatʼs whatʼs happening here. PE: I think perhaps it might be. Letʼs look at this quotation from the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt chapter by Stuart Hampton Reeves. Heʼs asking about what itʼs achieved. It started in 2007, itʼs out there, it was thought that the film Anonymous was going to increase its signatures, um, it didnʼt, there are spaces on that document reserved for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and Shakespeare Institute, both of which are missing signatures, surprise surprise, this seems to be a gauntlet thrown down at the ʻorthodoxʼ Shakespeareans - I donʼt like being called orthodox if thatʼs referring to me - whom the Declaration seems to simultaneously deride for their small-mindedness - Iʼm not smallminded - and yet crave acceptance from- RB: [laughs] PE: and Iʼm happy to welcome anybody. So this is a very interesting quotation, and this sense that keeps coming up from people against Shakespeare, saying, ʻoh, youʼre smallminded, youʼre in denial, youʼre an industry in denialʼ - RB: Well itʼs thrown in both directions. Because youʼve just called this denial, havenʼt you. PE: ʻYouʼre being over-defensive.ʼ [not clear if this should be in quotes or not] RB: Well, unfortunately - PE: What Iʼm calling denial is the denial of lots of different kinds of evidence- RB: But thatʼs- PE: Wrapping it all up and saying, ʻooh itʼs a homogenous wholeʼ - RB: But thatʼs whatʼs being said on the other side as well- PE: No, itʼs not- RB: And the trouble is both sides are accusing the other side of denying evidence.