Sir Mark Rylance and Shakespeare Authorship

[Kate]

Elizabeth says in the replies it’ll be recorded.

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, Kate said:

Elizabeth says in the replies it’ll be recorded.

On Day 157 as well. June 6, 2023. 🙂

Elizabeth Winkler

Shakespeare Was A Woman And Other Heresies

How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature

A thrillingly provocative investigation into the Shakespeare authorship question, exploring how doubting that William Shakespeare wrote his plays became an act of blasphemy… and who the Bard might really be.

[Christie Waldman]

My blogpost, "Why Did Elizabeth Winkler Not Interview Any Baconians?" at my website, 7-5-23, https://christinagwaldman.com/2023/07/05/why-did-elizabeth-winkler-not-interview-any-baconians/.

[Light-of-Truth]

Thank you Christie for reading and reviewing this for us! My motivation was barely so-so. You write impeccably and your points are on target.

"Arguably, if you only look where the light is shining, you won’t see what is hidden in the dark. Bacon was not just any nobleman penning poetry and plays. If the reason for the secrecy is because it was Bacon and we don’t look into the matter deeply enough, we will never solve the mystery. I am not saying Bacon was the only writer, but it is illogical to assume this stellar writer, a major literary figure in his time, did not play a role. The word “author” can be used in a broader sense for the person in charge of a large-scale literary project. Abbess Herrad of Hohenbourg referred herself as the “author” of the Hortus Deliciarum, a twelfth century encyclopedic work she compiled for the edification of the nuns at her convent, although she herself wrote relatively little of it (see Fiona J. Griffiths, The Garden of Delights: Reform and Renaissance for Women in the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007)."

Ignoring Bacon out as a, Authorship candidate is liking skipping George Washington or Thomas Jefferson from the founders of the New Atlantis!

These three paragraphs contain some real wisdom:

"Not all Baconians think alike. I can speak only for myself. The truth does not have a label or denomination, to make a religious analogy. But all who are researching need to keep an open mind. It is the facts that matter. In fact, it was Bacon who helped develop the modern meaning of what a valid fact is (See Barbara Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550‒1720 (Cornell University Press). He wrote about the “four idols” that keep us from seeing things as they really are in his New Organon. Jesus spoke of such things as “motes” in our eyes. Bacon called them eidola from the Greek (hence informing his use of the word “idol”).

"If people do not look into the case for Bacon deeply enough, I fear they risk trying to solve a puzzle that has missing pieces. This is a scholarly subject. It is unfortunate that a journalist, by not interviewing Baconians and giving their case equal time, did not present the Shakespeare authorship controversy as it stands today fairly and accurately. The Baconians were the first to challenge William Shaxpere of Stratford’s authorship. Many of the arguments of the Oxfordians are derivative of those first posited by Baconians (e.g., So Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford was a ward of Lord Burghley? So was Francis Bacon, after his father died in 1579. Burghley was Bacon’s uncle.).

"Critical thinking is imperative. If readers do not have sufficient background in the history of a topic such as this, they risk being misled. If you are looking for something that has been intentionally buried, you have to dig deep.

Easy and important read, even for me who can barely read at all. 😉

https://christinagwaldman.com/2023/07/05/why-did-elizabeth-winkler-not-interview-any-baconians/

 

[Christie Waldman]

Oh thank you, Light-of-Truth, and on your birthday too!

Thank you for this wonderful forum--to both you and Lawrence.

Edited July 7 by Christie Waldman

[Christie Waldman]

If possible, I would urge all Baconians, and all who care about fairness, to try to make their voices heard, to stand up and let people know there is an evidence-based case for Bacon that Elizabeth Winkler ignored, for the most part, in her recent book, Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies (Simon & Schuster, May 2023).

If you have read the children's book, "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr. Seuss, all those little "'Whos' down in Whoville" were in danger of being destroyed because nobody knew they were there. Horton the elephant told them, you've got to make your voices heard, all of you together! It could be that Elizabeth Winkler only inadvertently did not reach out to the Francis Bacon Research Trust, Francis Bacon Society, or us here at SirBacon to try to learn more about the ongoing Baconian movement for her book, to interview a single Baconian researcher. But the effect is the same: readers may easily be misled into thinking there is no current "case for Bacon" worth speaking of--that it is all just of historical interest.

We are used to this treatment from "Stratfordians" and "Oxfordians," but Winkler is a journalist. She is supposed to follow certain standards of objectivity and fairness. Even the "Stratfordian" author James Shapiro in Contested Will (also Simon & Schuster, 2010) referred readers to Baconian resources: SirBacon.org, Brian McClinton's book, The Shakespeare Conspiracies (Belfast: Shanway Press, 2008 [Aubane: Aubane Historical Society, 2007]).

It would be disingenuous of her to protest that she interviewed at least one Baconian because she interviewed British Shakespeare actor Mark Rylance. Yes, he wrote the foreword to Peter Dawkins' 2004 book, The Shakespeare Enigma. Yes, in 2018, Rylance is quoted as saying, "The evidence for Francis Bacon's involvement in the creation, editing, and publication of the Shakespeare works becomes stronger every year and this book will add to it." (back cover of Ryan Murtha's edition of Anti-Machiavel: A Discourse Upon the Means of Well-Governing, attributed to Innocent Gentillet (Wipf and Stock, 2018). And yes, in Winkler's book, Rylance did say he saw Bacon's philosophy reflected in the plays (285-286. The pages where Rylance speaks on authorship, 285-288, are--perhaps inadvertently--excluded from the index entry for "Rylance").

Rylance, however,  seems to have taken a step backwards. In the How-To Academy webinar on June 6 in which he interviewed Winkler, I heard Rylance say he used to support Bacon, but now leans more towards collaboration, based on recent stylistic studies. Perhaps Rylance would wish to clarify. I felt that Winkler presented Rylance not as a Baconian but as a general Shakespeare authorship doubter and strong proponent for the idea that Shakespeare could have been a woman. In Winkler's book, Rylance made no effort to speak for other Baconians; nor had he been given authority to do so. Thus, almost all reporting on the current state of ongoing Baconian scholarship was excluded from Winkler's book.

Could it be she knows Bacon's role in Shakespeare authorship is not a heresy? And yet, Winkler dismisses the names of Bacon and Shakespeare written together on the Northumberland Manuscript as a mere "mass of chaotic scribblings." She managed to mention a "2019 book published by Routledge" without naming its author, Barry R. Clarke, a person with a Ph.D. in Shakespeare authorship studies from Brunel University. She did not mention Peter Dawkins by name (founder and principal of the Francis Bacon Research Trust), but only as "a Baconian lecturer." She makes sure we know she enjoyed the good hospitality of the three Oxfordians she interviewed, and their explanations of the evidence she dutifully reported, as if they were the only possible, plausible, explanations. They were not. The Oxfordians take many of their talking points from the Baconians. 

A propaganda war is a war of appearances, not truth. If the way to win is to have the loudest voice, the most publicity, recognition, and funding, the quiet people who diligently seek the truth, over time, will not win that war. Winkler was given a platform in which she really could have made a difference. It is a shame she has contributed to the problem rather than to the solution--by deflecting attention away from the most fruitful digging grounds--whether intentionally or inadvertently.

[Light-of-Truth]

7 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Winkler was given a platform in which she really could have made a difference. It is a shame she has contributed to the problem rather than to the solution--by deflecting attention away from the most fruitful digging grounds--whether intentionally or inadvertently.

Alan Green come to mind as well. What is the juicy reward for hiding the Truth too many seem to opt for? Is it Fame? Publicity? Money?

[Eric Roberts]

19 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

If possible, I would urge all Baconians, and all who care about fairness, to try to make their voices heard, to stand up and let people know there is an evidence-based case for Bacon that Elizabeth Winkler ignored, for the most part, in her recent book, Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies (Simon & Schuster, May 2023).

If you have read the children's book, "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr. Seuss, all those little "'Whos' down in Whoville" were in danger of being destroyed because nobody knew they were there. Horton the elephant told them, you've got to make your voices heard, all of you together! It could be that Elizabeth Winkler only inadvertently did not reach out to the Francis Bacon Research Trust, Francis Bacon Society, or us here at SirBacon to try to learn more about the ongoing Baconian movement for her book, to interview a single Baconian researcher. But the effect is the same: readers may easily be misled into thinking there is no current "case for Bacon" worth speaking of--that it is all just of historical interest.

We are used to this treatment from "Stratfordians" and "Oxfordians," but Winkler is a journalist. She is supposed to follow certain standards of objectivity and fairness. Even the "Stratfordian" author James Shapiro in Contested Will (also Simon & Schuster, 2010) referred readers to Baconian resources: SirBacon.org, Brian McClinton's book, The Shakespeare Conspiracies (Belfast: Shanway Press, 2008 [Aubane: Aubane Historical Society, 2007]).

It would be disingenuous of her to protest that she interviewed at least one Baconian because she interviewed British Shakespeare actor Mark Rylance. Yes, he wrote the foreword to Peter Dawkins' 2004 book, The Shakespeare Enigma. Yes, in 2018, Rylance is quoted as saying, "The evidence for Francis Bacon's involvement in the creation, editing, and publication of the Shakespeare works becomes stronger every year and this book will add to it." (back cover of Ryan Murtha's edition of Anti-Machiavel: A Discourse Upon the Means of Well-Governing, attributed to Innocent Gentillet (Wipf and Stock, 2018). And yes, in Winkler's book, Rylance did say he saw Bacon's philosophy reflected in the plays (285-286. The pages where Rylance speaks on authorship, 285-288, are--perhaps inadvertently--excluded from the index entry for "Rylance").

Rylance, however,  seems to have taken a step backwards. In the How-To Academy webinar on June 6 in which he interviewed Winkler, I heard Rylance say he used to support Bacon, but now leans more towards collaboration, based on recent stylistic studies. Perhaps Rylance would wish to clarify. I felt that Winkler presented Rylance not as a Baconian but as a general Shakespeare authorship doubter and strong proponent for the idea that Shakespeare could have been a woman. In Winkler's book, Rylance made no effort to speak for other Baconians; nor had he been given authority to do so. Thus, almost all reporting on the current state of ongoing Baconian scholarship was excluded from Winkler's book.

Could it be she knows Bacon's role in Shakespeare authorship is not a heresy? And yet, Winkler dismisses the names of Bacon and Shakespeare written together on the Northumberland Manuscript as a mere "mass of chaotic scribblings." She managed to mention a "2019 book published by Routledge" without naming its author, Barry R. Clarke, a person with a Ph.D. in Shakespeare authorship studies from Brunel University. She did not mention Peter Dawkins by name (founder and principal of the Francis Bacon Research Trust), but only as "a Baconian lecturer." She makes sure we know she enjoyed the good hospitality of the three Oxfordians she interviewed, and their explanations of the evidence she dutifully reported, as if they were the only possible, plausible, explanations. They were not. The Oxfordians take many of their talking points from the Baconians. 

A propaganda war is a war of appearances, not truth. If the way to win is to have the loudest voice, the most publicity, recognition, and funding, the quiet people who diligently seek the truth, over time, will not win that war. Winkler was given a platform in which she really could have made a difference. It is a shame she has contributed to the problem rather than to the solution--by deflecting attention away from the most fruitful digging grounds--whether intentionally or inadvertently.

Hi Christie

Thank you for your lacerating review of Ms Winkler's book. According to this Guardian review she does at least mention Francis Bacon: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/18/shakespeare-was-a-woman-and-other-heresies-review-elizabeth-winkler-in-search-of-the-bard

[Christie Waldman]

2 hours ago, Eric Roberts said:

Hi Christie

Thank you for your lacerating review of Ms Winkler's book. According to this Guardian review she does at least mention Francis Bacon: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/18/shakespeare-was-a-woman-and-other-heresies-review-elizabeth-winkler-in-search-of-the-bard

Thank you so much, Eric.  Even in her historical treatment, she left so much out.

[Christie Waldman]

On 7/12/2023 at 6:48 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

Alan Green come to mind as well. What is the juicy reward for hiding the Truth too many seem to opt for? Is it Fame? Publicity? Money?

Light-of-Truth, I am not acquainted with Alan Green's work. Maybe I should be.

Winkler's opening quotation is: "'I have come to think of history as a game--a game that we play with the past.'--Beverly Southgate." I wonder why she chose this quotation.  Does she see herself as one of the players in a game? I looked up Southgate. He is a Reader Emeritus of the history of ideas at the University of Hertfordshire, a "postmodernist." He has written several books. She does not tell us where she found this quotation so we can read it in context. She should get to know Bacon's writings better. He had so much to say about how we know when a thing is true, and the insidious appeal of the "truth mixed with a lie."