A conspiracy theory that questions whether William Shakespeare really wrote what are accepted as his works, gained currency in the 1950s. Books including The Contested Will and Filthy Shakespeare , and the films, Shakespeare in Love and the forthcoming Anonymous , dwell on the question. The ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt' has more than 2,500 signatories, including writers, academicians, actors and scholars. The ‘Stratfordians' and those who have spent a lifetime researching the works, dismiss them and iterate that Shakespeare from Stratford was indeed the author.Professor Stanley Wellshas written scholarly works including Shakespeare For All Time and Shakespeare & Co . He is the general editor of Oxford and Penguin Shakespeare series. At 81, his quest to explore the playwright continues. He is the president of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. In an interview withK.S. Vijay Elangova, he talks about his work, the conspiracy theory and counter-strategies. He lives in Ebrington near Stratford-upon-Avon.
Can you explain the evolution of your interest in Shakespeare.
I became interested in Shakespeare as a schoolboy. I responded to his poetry and took an interest in drama. As an undergraduate in London I was able to see great performances of his plays by actors such as Laurence Oliver and Ralph Richardson. Coming to Stratford in 1958 as a graduate student, I was able to witness very many performances of his plays and embarked on my long career as a Shakespeare teacher, scholar, and writer.
What are your comments on the ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt'? Scholars and students are distressed about the debate…
I think it is a lot of nonsense. The evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him (which include a few collaborations with other dramatists) is irrefutable. Articles and books are written and films are made spending thousands of pounds in support of the conspiracy theory which has no basis whatsoever.
This crap came about in the middle of 19th century when Shakespeare's genius flourished worldwide. It all started in the 1850s when the American teacher and writer, Delia Bacon (no relation to Francis Bacon), started to suggest that the plays had been written by a committee of people, led by Sir Francis Bacon. They also think the original author was the Earl of Oxford who had borrowed Shakespeare's name for his plays. They contend Shakespeare had only humble origins and could not have had exposure to royalty and royal atmosphere and did not possess the aristocratic sensibility of which most of his plays describe. Of course he is not much learned, but had a very good formal education in the classics at Stratford Grammar School. Shakespeare's contemporary Ben Johnson was a son of a brick-layer and never had any university education. Still he was able to write those scholarly plays.
And why not Shakespeare? Then why should an aristocrat like Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, borrow the drunken bawdy youth's [Shakespeare's] name as his pseudonym? Those who question are either aristocrats or university educated and Shakespeare was neither of them. And some of the famous playwrights of his times were not.
Another document they quote is the ‘contested will'. They say Shakespeare's will was written in layman's language and did not display his genius. I do not know if anyone would dramatise his will written by a lawyer. This is biased and has no basis. This theory does not hold any substance or evidence.
What about Roland Emmerich's forthcoming film Anonymous ?
I saw about 20-30 minutes' excerpts I was invited to view. I do not know why such films are made at the cost of millions of pounds. They thrive on controversy. As a scholar and researcher of Shakespeare, I am thoroughly convinced that William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of his plays, and there are sufficient evidence and proof.
How would you describe the circumstances that led the young Shakespeare to take much love for the theatre, a great deviation from his glove-making father John? With ‘little Greek and less Latin', how was the young man from Stratford able to foray into theatre and became so successful among the playwrights who mostly were highly educated?
The Stratford grammar school provided a fine education for Shakespeare in the classics. Many of the other dramatists of the time had not attended university either, including Ben Jonson who was proud of his scholarship. To develop a love of theatre in those days was natural. Shakespeare began acting and then writing plays and collaborating with others. Genius can be from humble origins, as history demonstrates.
For decades you have been researching Shakespeare and his times. You must have got into his psyche.
Shakespeare was a hard-working writer with an exceptionally acute understanding of human psychology and social circumstances. He was just very clever like many other great writers, such as Charles Dickens, who had little formal education.
How would you describe the theatre in his times, and the theatre-going public?
There was a good deal of religious opposition to the theatre but it was enjoyed by most people, especially by the court. Common men and women were also fond of the plays written by Shakespeare and many others.
He wrote more than a hundred love sonnets addressed to the mysterious ‘W.H.'. Was he gay? …So much bad-mouthing is going on, and somebody wrote Filthy Shakespeare ...
Some of his sonnets are addressed to a young man. We do not know whether he had homosexual desires or experience. We should not be shocked if he did. Of course he wrote a lot about love and sex in his plays. I have written a book Shakespeare, Sex and Love about this.
What are your latest projects?
I am co-editing a collection of essays with Dr. Paul Edmondson about the Shakespeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory... I'm also collaborating with him on an e-book titled as ‘Shakespeare Bites Back,' a long, polemical essay on the topic. This will be published online via bloggingshakespeare.com in late September.
Dr. Pauline Kiernan, author of Filthy Shakespeare wrote:
I would appreciate your publishing an apology and correction regarding your reference to my book Filthy Shakespeare in which you imply that it suggested Shakespeare was homosexual.
If you had actually read the passages of the Sonnets quoted in my book you will have found that it is careful to describe the Speaker of the Sonnets as a poetic persona. I used the term 'Speaker' 'the Poet' and so on - which are accepted terms literary criticism employs to differentiate the voice of the speaker of the words within the poem from the author of the poem.
I look forward to seeing your apology and correction on this site.
We regret the incorrect reference by the interviewer and apologise to Dr. Kiernan for it. — Editor-in-Chief
