Elizabeth Winkler and Cathleen Schine | May 9, 2023

The script begins with Andrea Grossman, the founder of Writer's Block, welcoming the audience to the 27th season's program featuring Elizabeth Winkler and Kathleen Shine. She thanks the audience for attending and acknowledges her partners at the Abel for providing the venue. Grossman emphasizes the importance of the Bell, a membership organization she's a part of, and encourages the audience to join. She sets the stage for the evening, highlighting the convergence of history, literature, and detective work in exploring the authorship of William Shakespeare's plays. Grossman also appreciates the literary detective work of Elizabeth Winkler and the contemporary family issues explored in Kathleen Shine's novels. The program's format is explained, with an emphasis on audience participation through questions. Books by the guests are available for sale, and the significance of the date of the event is mentioned, tying it to Dante's birthday and the release of Elizabeth's book, 'Shakespeare Was a Woman'.

The paragraph delves into the controversy surrounding the authorship of Shakespeare's works. It describes the disdain and strong emotional reactions学者们 have towards those who question the traditional view that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon authored the plays. The script mentions the historical suspicion of great writers and thinkers, including Henry James, Walt Whitman, and Mark Twain, who believed the name 'Shakespeare' might be a pseudonym. The paragraph also recounts a 1964 trial where the authorship question was brought before the courts, highlighting the testimony of scholarly experts and the Justice's conclusion that the authorship question was not closed. The paragraph suggests that the authorship debate is not just about history but also about the authority to determine historical truth.

This section discusses the various candidates proposed as the true author behind the Shakespeare pseudonym, including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, and even female candidates like Mary Sydney. It explores the origins of these anti-Stratfordian camps and their defenders, highlighting the different pieces of evidence that support each theory. The paragraph also touches on the personal attachment people have to their preferred candidate and the fervor with which they defend their views. It mentions the lack of evidence about Shakespeare's education and his extensive knowledge displayed in the plays, which raises questions about how he acquired such learning. The paragraph concludes with a reflection on the academic taboo surrounding the authorship question and the personal and cultural investments in the Shakespeare myth.

The paragraph examines the emotional and psychological dimensions of the Shakespeare authorship debate. It suggests that the fervor on both sides of the argument may stem from personal attachments and projections onto the author. The script discusses the historical context of Shakespeare's veneration, particularly in the 18th century, and how this has influenced modern scholarship. It also considers the role of English departments in institutionalizing the worship of Shakespeare and the impact of this on the authorship question. The paragraph raises the possibility that the controversy surrounding the authorship question might be a metaphor for larger issues of historical truth and authority.

This section highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the Shakespeare authorship question and how it resonates with scholars from various fields outside of English literature. Historians, psychologists, and anthropologists are among those interested in the topic, each bringing their own perspectives and insights. The script mentions a history professor who considers it unethical for scholars to ignore alternate authorship theories and a psychologist who sees the question as relevant to understanding the nature of genius. The paragraph also notes the popularity of an authorship course taught at the University of York and the anthropological view that examining the authorship question is akin to asking the College of Cardinals to investigate the resurrection, emphasizing the cultural and group dynamics at play.

The script concludes with the author's reflections on the authorship question and the reactions she has received from various scholars and departments. She discusses the fear that questioning Shakespeare's authorship might lead to a loss of interest in his works, comparing it to the reaction to biblical criticism in the 19th century. The author also shares her attempts to interview prominent scholars like Harold Bloom and James Shapiro, noting the latter's refusal to engage and his dismissal of the authorship question as a conspiracy theory. The paragraph ends with a mention of the author's book and an invitation for audience questions, emphasizing the ongoing nature of the debate and the importance of open inquiry.