To the Editor:

I agree with Ron Rosenbaum [“The Shakespeare Code: Is Times Guy Kind of Bard ‘Creationist’?”, Edgy Enthusiast, Sept. 19] that the hallmarks of creation “science” are in abundance in the Shakespeare authorship debate. Witness the persistent calls by the Intelligent Design–ers for researchers to produce the so-called “missing link”—which Mr. Rosenbaum codifies in his repeated calls for the supporters of the theory of Edward de Vere as the author to produce “any positive evidence.”

There is, however, plenty of “positive evidence”—the Elizabethan satirist Thomas Nashe roasting de Vere as a prolific poet nicknamed “Gentle Master William”; the Jacobean poet John Davies commemorating Shakespeare as “our English Terence,” a Roman actor widely believed at the time to have been a front man for Roman aristocratic playwrights. But, ultimately, the proof for which Mr. Rosenbaum calls does not exist in a single documentary fossil, but rather is only to be found in the vast accumulation of connections and links.

There are two competing interpretations of the Shakespeare canon at play:

One says the works sprang fully formed from the pen of a man without any background, training or experience that the works suggest he had. Rather than asking why Shakespeare wrote what he did, one must instead read his scripture, secure in faith in the power of his incomprehensible genius.

The other approach says that the works developed over a long period of artistic gestation, that their primordial form was as skits and squibs by de Vere for Queen Elizabeth and that one can find in the mature “Shakespeare” works vestiges of the earlier and simpler forms that these plays had once assumed.

Now which of these two theories sounds like creationism to you?

Mark Anderson

Author, “Shakespeare” by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare

Northampton, Mass.

Ron Rosenbaum replies:

Mr. Anderson tellingly fails to refute (or even address) the conclusive evidence I cited: the abundant direct testimony of Shakespeare’s contemporaries to his authorship of the work. Instead, he gives us a reference from a “roasting” that doesn’t mention Shakespearean authorship (to say nothing of his citing “our English Terence”: wow, case closed!), followed by weak rhetorical ploys: His strained attempt to reverse the creationism/evolution analogy—an attempt which depends on denying that Shakespeare could have evolved “over a long period of artistic gestation”—is baseless.

Then there’s the tired Oxfordian chestnut: They tell us we don’t know anything for sure about Shakespeare, but they somehow do know for sure that he lacked the learning to write his work. They can’t have it both ways. And their argument reflects a deeply impoverished view of the artistic imagination which implies, in effect, that Shakespeare couldn’t have written plays set in Venice because he never spent a stint as a gondolier.


Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President