Culture Desk: Shakespearean Actors on the Oxfordian Theory : 7/9/12 9:30 AM

Subscribe home New Yorker magazine articles News Culture Politics Books + Fiction Cartoons Listings Archive

The Front Row Photo Booth Page-Turner Close Read Daily Comment John Cassidy The Sporting Scene Audio/Video

The New Yorker Online Only Culture Desk

Notes on arts and entertainment from the staff of The New Yorker.

« Revisiting “The Matrix” Main Cover Story: Raining Tickets »

October 28, 2011

Shakespearean Actors on the Oxfordian Theory

Posted by Michael Schulman

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2011/10/shakespearean-actors-on-the-oxfordian-theory.html Page 1 of 5 Culture Desk: Shakespearean Actors on the Oxfordian Theory : The New Yorker 7/9/12 9:30 AM

The new Roland Emmerich film “Anonymous,” which opens today, puts a big-budget spin on the old canard that the works of Shakespeare were written by the Earl of Oxford. The gist is that a commoner couldn’t possibly have written such worldly characters—it had to have been a nobleman. As David Denby puts it, “The Oxford theory is ridiculous, yet the filmmakers go all the way with it, producing endless scenes of indecipherable court intrigue in dark, smoky rooms, and a fashion show of ruffs, farthingales, and halberds.” If nothing else, it’s the best Elizabethan conspiracy-theory action flick you’ll see this fall.

Although most scholars sniff at the authorship question, it has a fervent following. Looking at the cast list of “Anonymous,” which includes such Shakespearean powerhouses as and , you might conclude that the Oxfordian theory is rampant among actors. But keep in mind that Jacobi and Rylance are declared skeptics, who together started an online petition called “Declaration of Reasonable Doubt,” which has been signed by more than two thousand people. (For what it’s worth, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor are two of them.)

Do other Shakespearean actors feel this way? To find out, we took an informal survey of some of New York’s finest. “I honestly believe that Shakespeare did write those plays,” Jesse L. Martin, who played Gratiano in last season’s Broadway production of “The Merchant of Venice,” said. He added, “It’s a funny argument to spend time on. You’d have to reprint a bunch of books. The only people who would really benefit would be publishers. Maybe that’s where the conspiracy started!”

Kevin Kline, who has played , Lear, Richard III, and Falstaff, to name a few, remembers filming ’s version of “” with the actor Brian Blessed. “I asked him, ‘Where do you come down on this whole Oxford versus Shakespeare thing?’ And he said, ‘I don’t give a fuck who wrote it! He’s a fucking genius!’ And that encapsulates how I feel about it.” He went on, “I’ve always thought of Shakespeare the way I think of Mozart and Bach and Leonardo, none of whom went to university. They were autodidacts and geniuses. And if he was an aristocrat, wouldn’t that preclude him from having the savvy to put on a play to entertain the groundlings as well as the aristocracy?”

F. Murray Abraham, who just played in an Off Broadway production of “The Merchant of Venice,” agreed. “It’s an elitist grudge. That a man who came from absolutely nowhere, with no credentials, ranks as the greatest genius ever—they just can’t accept that kind of thing. And in fact it’s unfair. There’ve been too many geniuses who have come out of nowhere, and he’s one of them.” Abraham got to know Mark Rylance a few years ago, after seeing him in “Measure for Measure,” and heard plenty of Oxford talk. “I suggested that he has better things to do with his time, but he doesn’t agree.”

Annie Parisse, who played Helena in this summer’s Shakespeare in the Park production of “All’s Well That Ends Well,” considers herself an agnostic. “It doesn’t affect me as an actor,” she said. “I’m just thinking about what’s on the page.” But she

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2011/10/shakespearean-actors-on-the-oxfordian-theory.html Page 2 of 5 Culture Desk: Shakespearean Actors on the Oxfordian Theory : The New Yorker 7/9/12 9:30 AM

recalled that during the run, her co-star Tonya Pinkins was reading a book on the subject. Reached at home, Pinkins recommended the book “Sweet Swan of Avon,” by Robin P. Williams, which posits that Shakespeare’s plays were written by a woman—Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke.

“Five of Shakespeare’s plays that were published anonymously were first performed in her theatre company,” Pinkins said. “There are child-rearing metaphors and cooking metaphors and falcon metaphors. Well, falconry was limited to a certain class and Shakespeare was not in that class.” Besides the circumstantial evidence, the Mary Sidney theory touched a nerve. “It gave me an access to the material that I didn’t have before,” Pinkins said. “It was exciting to think that this was written by a woman….There are things in all these plays that seem to have a woman’s touch.”

Keywords

Anonymous

POSTED IN

Culture Desk

Tweet 12 1

Recommend 58

Share 2 10 PRINT E-MAIL

Subscribe now to get more of The New Yorker's signature mix of politics, culture, and the arts.

Comments

10 comments | Add your comments

Regarding Brian Blessed's comment (as reports it), his view that "if [Shakespeare] was an aristocrat, wouldn’t that preclude him from having the savvy to put on a play to entertain the groundlings as well as the aristocracy?” Not so fast. Most accounts of the Earl of Oxford's life mention his known activity as a playwright, and the mysterious 1,000 annuity paid him by Queen Elizabeth, at almost the very moment King Phillip of Spain became enraged over the comedies and interludes which the Queen "orders to be played at his expense." Phillip's rage, reported by a diplomat, was an early sign that the "Policy of Plays," officially sanctioned (probably deniable) satire and propaganda, had just taken shape. If the queen herself decided on this policy, who's to say that her most theatrical aristocrat wouldn't have taken a hand? That the policy was operational was reported in 1592, by Thomas Nashe.

Posted 12/2/2011, 7:40:35pm by TomGoff Report abuse

I must respectfully disagree with the addle-brained posters below, who are apparently under the false impression that facts, logic, and higher critical faculties matter when it comes to discussing Shakespeare. On the contrary, *The New Yorker* deserves to be congratulated for offering such intelligent and thoughtful commentary on one of the most significant and far- reaching intellectual questions of our day. I was especially impressed by these immortal words from that paragon of higher

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2011/10/shakespearean-actors-on-the-oxfordian-theory.html Page 3 of 5 Culture Desk: Shakespearean Actors on the Oxfordian Theory : The New Yorker 7/9/12 9:30 AM

culture, Kevin Kline, a man "who has played Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, and Falstaff, to name a few," and who "remembers filming Kenneth Branagh’s version of “As You Like It” with the actor Brian Blessed." “'I asked him, ‘Where do you come down on this whole Oxford versus Shakespeare thing?’ And he said, ‘I don’t give a fuck who wrote it! He’s a fucking genius!’" With insight like that, its hard to see why Stephen Marche or Ron Rosenbaum could possibly complain about the decline in western civilization brought on by that wretched movie, *Anonymous.* Obviously, all that the inquiring mind needs to do in order to fathom "Shakespeare" is to open *The New Yorker* and read the sage and o-so cultivated words of Michael Schulman's talented informants, who obviously know so much more about the bard than Sir Derek Jacobi, Sir , Michael York, or Kristin Linklater. http://www.shake-speares-bible.com Dr. Associate Professor Coppin State University

Posted 11/17/2011, 12:38:55pm by psi Report abuse

You clearly know nothing but presumptuously condemn sincere and knowledgable people who have plumbed the greatest hoax in English literature, perhaps all of world literature. Yes Shakespeare existed and wrote the Shakespeare canon-- as a pseudonymous author. Yes Shakspere of Stratford existed. He wrote nothing. He was unable to sign his signature. But the allonymous co-incidence made possible a name-switch when the true author was posthumously considered too troublesome to honor for his very explosive works. This was accomplished by the First Folio ambiguity and the Stratford Monument alteration of Shakspere's father's cenotaph. Since the government tacitly approved the eclipse of the high noble, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, it was ipso facto policy that became tradition that has become customary truth. Customary truth that has in turn been endorsed by the conforming educational establishment. Which comes down to you. Live up to your name Schulman and go to school in search of the truth. Or is getting invited to the right parties a higher value? The film may or may not be schlock, but it get high marks for integrity, defying the myth that has become our cultural heritage and the lies told in every classroom to trusting children. Shakspere could have been a genius too. Talent is universal though character is rare. But this saga is not about sociological up from obscurity. It is about the ruthless and gigantic power of tyranny in the early nation-state of England, and its sacrifice of one of its own because he was an artist before his time.

Posted 10/29/2011, 11:53:55pm by WilliamRay Report abuse

Whoever wrote the plays was a genius. It matters who wrote the plays. But time and money and Hollywood influence could be used soooo much better by exploring the richness and depth that is still untapped and still unexplored within his genius.. right? Let us assume that Shakespeare still has a lot to offer us, on stage, on screen, in classrooms, in historical debate, rather than us having to offer Shakespeare something... like telling high school kids that he's a fraud and spinning some Dan Brown crap show of a movie.. (or so I've heard...)

Posted 10/28/2011, 11:05:35pm by NickHays Report abuse

For further insight, try reading the Shakespeare Oxford Society's 50th Anniversary Anthology: see especially Ramon Jimenez's "Shakespeare in Stratford and : Ten Eyewitnesses Who Saw Nothing."

Posted 10/28/2011, 7:04:46pm by TomGoff Report abuse

You always know you're in adept hands when there's an error in the 2nd paragraph: Jacobi & Rylance did NOT 'together start[]' the online petition, they simply signed it. The SAC started it. But fact-checking is ABSENT in this debate overall.

Posted 10/28/2011, 5:41:03pm by MissGQ Report abuse

Although I agree with Brian Blessed, Ben Jonson, John Heminge and Henry Condell are all historical figures who connected http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2011/10/shakespearean-actors-on-the-oxfordian-theory.html Page 4 of 5 Culture Desk: Shakespearean Actors on the Oxfordian Theory : The New Yorker 7/9/12 9:30 AM

William Shakespeare with the plays. Is it naive to accept their words on this?

Posted 10/28/2011, 4:27:11pm by almaki Report abuse

This just goes to show that if you pick your informants well enough, you can make yourself, and maybe even some of your readers, believe anything. But as honest Abe said, you can fool some of the people....You might want to add Sir John Gielgud, Michael York, Jamie Newcomb, and -- very likely -- and , to that list, including Sir Derek, Mark Rylance, Stevens, and O'Conner, who you didn't find important enough to actually talk to.

Posted 10/28/2011, 3:39:11pm by psi Report abuse

Kevin Kline, who performs Shakespeare brilliantly, should know better. "Genius" is an apt description of a genius, but not a complete explanation of one. Is Mr. Kline submitting that Mozart, Bach, Leonardo had no training? They learned the tools of their craft: something no one has adequately documented for the Stratford man. As a result, here's what we Oxfordians argue: not that "no commoner could" write plays as brilliant as "Shakespeare's--just that this commoner didn't.

Posted 10/28/2011, 2:37:35pm by TomGoff Report abuse

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2011/10/shakespearean-actors-on-the-oxfordian-theory.html Page 5 of 5