SAC Chairman John Shahan Responds
to Professor Stanley Wells' “Guest Blog”

Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the Shakespere Birthplace Trust in Stratford-upon-Avon complains in this blog post that Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? — Exposing an Industry in Denial, edited by myself and Alexander Waugh, is a parody of Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy, edited by himself and Paul Edmondson. He is right to be concerned. The title and appearance of our book make it clear that it counters theirs, calling into question whether it is “beyond doubt” that the Stratford man wrote the works of William Shakespeare.

If he were confident about his claim, he would welcome the competition, invite people to read and compare our books, and accept our challenge to participate in a mock trial of the question. If the issue were really beyond doubt, he would jump at the chance to prove it in a mock trial. Instead, he makes it clear that the last thing he wants is a fair and open head-to-head contest.

Wells says his book is published by Cambridge University Press, while ours is “published by an American press which describes itself as providing 'self-publishing services' (which one might think of as a vanity press).” And this man accuses us of being motivated by snobbery. Does anyone really think that Alexander Waugh couldn't have found a traditional publisher? We only self-published to get our book out quickly, so people could get both points of view. What really irks Wells is the fact that, despite it being a rush job, our book is better than his. Doubters are much more capable than he would have you think, or we couldn't have done it.

[Our book was produced as a flash response to news of Wells' and Edmondson's intention to publish theirs. We originally hoped to publish ours the same day as theirs, and Lumina was able to expedite publication where a traditional publisher wouldn't have had the flexibility to rearrange their schedules and to produce a 280 page book with only three months lead-time.]

Wells says that we falsely say their book is “published by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.” Not so. We never say their book is “published” by the Birthplace Trust. We do describe them as the “sponsoring organization,” and refer to it as “the Birthplace Trust book.” Is that not an accurate description of a book edited by two leading SBT officials, coming on the heels of the SBT's “Authorship Campaign,” described in detail in the book as if the book were part of it? If we are mistaken in that assumption, all I can say is that we were not the only ones taken in. Stratfordian Emma Smith, in her review of the SBT book in the Times Literary Supplement (July 12, 2013), describes it as a book “by Academics 'directed from Stratford-upon-Avon.'” If, in fact, the Birthplace Trust has a different position on the issue, we would like to hear it.

Wells says that our “Emphasis on the Trust is part and parcel of a slur campaign…, implying that those who defend Shakespeare's authorship are influenced by mercenary considerations …” Wells is a fine one to accuse anyone of waging a “slur campaign,” given his many slurs against doubters, all totally false. Does anyone doubt that the Birthplace Trust, in Stratford-upon-Avon — a leading tourist destination — has a clear conflict of interest when it comes to rendering a judgment on the question of doubt about Shakespeare's identity? Does anyone doubt that Wells and Edmondson have a vested interest in the status quo?

Ironically, Wells criticizes actors Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance for supporting our book, saying “how sad [that they] should be so ready to bite the hand that has fed them for so long!” The man who wrote that line will never bite the hand that fed him, regardless of the evidence. He could hardly have made it any clearer that his values differ from ours, and Shakespeare's. Does he criticize Jacobi and Rylance for expressing doubt contrary to what they think is true? No, of course not; the idea is absurd. He criticizes them for truth-telling against their interest. This is what Wells and the SBT are about — not truth, but loyalty to the entity that feeds you.

Wells says that “almost all of our contributors, who include well over twenty distinguished English and American scholars, have no connection with the Trust.” That may be true, but they were all selected by the two editors, both officials of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. They are also very uniform in their backgrounds, representing just one academic discipline. The contributors to our book are also distinguished, but ours are from diverse backgrounds. Why is none of their twenty-plus contributors from any other relevant academic discipline?

Wells has remarkably little to say about the evidence in our book, even though it is extensive and some is quite new. He mischaracterizes the issue of Shakspere's six signatures as one of mere “bad handwriting.” Assuming they are even his (some experts think they were executed by law clerks), he never spelled his name the same way twice, and not once as “Shakespeare.” Our book compares his six signatures to those of almost 40 contemporary writers and actors. Orthodox scholars have never done this in a systematic way, and the result is very revealing.

Wells says he disputes Alexander Waugh's chapter on Shakespeare's detailed knowledge of Italy, but then hedges his bets, saying that “while there is no evidence that Shakespeare went to Italy, equally there is no evidence that he did not.” The chapter is devastating to orthodoxy. If the plays show firsthand knowledge of Italy, how did Shakespeare scholars get it so wrong? If Shakespeare scholars have been so wrong about that, what else could they be wrong about?

Wells says “There is no systematic attempt to controvert the arguments for Shakespeare's authorship which I advance in my essay in our book.” Not so. We address his evidence and arguments in the general introduction and in a chapter on “The Missing Literary Paper Trail.”

Finally, Wells ridicules the mock trial format proposed in our book, but omits that my letter to Peter Kyle, conveying our challenge to the SBT, says that “everything is negotiable except the subject of the challenge and the need to achieve a fair and valid test of the Birthplace Trust claim that the identity of the author of the works of William Shakespeare is “beyond doubt.” Apparently he is not interested in a “fair and valid test” of his claim on a level playing field. People should ask, if the evidence is as clear as Wells says, why not? What is he afraid of?