The Reactionary Utopian
                    December 15, 2005


REFLECTIONS OF A CONSPIRATOR
by Joe Sobran

     Why do doubts about the authorship of "Shakespeare 
of Stratford" persist, in spite of the unanimous 
insistence of academic scholars that there is absolutely 
no room for doubt -- not no how, not no way? As a 
confirmed doubter, I've been doing research on this 
question, and here's how the leading scholars account for 
the heretics.

     The editors of the highfalutin Arden edition of the 
Complete Works blame the doubts on a "simple, if 
unattractive, social snobbery." Sylvan Barnet of Tufts 
University, editor of the Signet editions of the plays, 
calls the doubters "snobs" who believe in a "conspiracy." 
Oh my!

     Another academic editor, David Bevington of the 
University of Chicago, calls the heresy "visibly 
conspiratorial and snobbish." Andrew Dickson, who 
specialized in Shakespeare at Cambridge University and 
reflects the academic consensus, writes of the doubters' 
"rank snobbery" and "conspiracy theories." Harvard's 
Stephen Greenblatt, author of a recent bestselling 
biography of the Stratford gent, speaks of their 
"conspiracy theories," including belief in an 
"extraordinary conspiracy" to conceal the real author. 
Russ McDonald of the University of North Carolina thinks 
the trouble is "conspiracy theories."

     Are you starting to get the idea? If not, a recent 
anthology of orthodox essays on Shakespeare calls 
attention to the "fierce elitism" of the doubters, and in 
a single paragraph mocks their "conspiracy theories," 
"all-powerful conspirators," "omnipotent conspirators," 
and a "massive conspiracy."

     Stephen Orgel of Stanford, editor of the new Pelican 
edition of the Complete Works, says flatly of the 
heretics, one and all, "they are snobs." The late 
Louis B. Wright of the Folger Shakespeare Library 
likewise deplored their "obvious snobbery." The late 
Samuel Schoenbaum, of the Folger, the University of 
Maryland, and every other scholarly pinnacle you can 
think of, spoke not only of their "snobbery" but of a 
"pattern of psychopathology" he had detected in them. 
Stanley Wells of the University of Birmingham, today's 
leading light in the profession, thinks the problem, 
"usually," is "snobbery," but suggests that "mental 
instability" may also be a factor.

     If I understand these eminent scholars correctly, 
dissent about Shakespeare's authorship is due to (a) 
snobbery and (b) conspiracy theories. I hope I'm not 
putting words in anyone's mouth. It also sounds as if the 
heretics aren't taking their medication.

     The Shakespeare heretics have included Henry James; 
he can be plausibly accused of snobbery, I suppose, but 
what about Walt Whitman and Mark Twain? A pair of 
certified nonsnobs for sure. In fact, Whitman thought the 
real author must have been one of the "wolfish earls" of 
his time, because the plays were "nonacceptable to 
democracy." Which more or less turns the charge of 
snobbery on its head. And by the way, I think I sniff a 
bit of academic snobbery here -- the unmistakable 
annoyance of the Ph.D. when the rabble fail to show him 
respect he thinks he's entitled to.

     As for conspiracy theories, I myself can speak with 
some authority on that, having published my own writings 
under various pen names now and then. Using a pen name 
doesn't take a "massive" or "all-powerful" conspiracy; it 
just takes a publisher who can keep his mouth shut. 
Happens all the time. Indeed, I am conspiring at this 
very moment, in the sense that I'm still honoring a few 
people's desire for secrecy. And secrets were far easier 
to keep in Elizabethan England than they are in the age 
of the free press, television, and the Internet.

     But the deeper question is this: Why all the fuss? 
If the authorship of the Shakespeare works is settled, 
and if the only dissenters are a few snobs and cranks, 
you'd expect the experts to ignore them with serene 
confidence in their position. But this is not at all the 
case. Why are the experts so jumpy about disagreement?

     Because their complacency is feigned. They know how 
brittle the orthodox position really is, and they can't 
stamp out skepticism. But by cursing the skeptics, they 
can at least maintain internal discipline within their 
profession. They send the message to grad students that 
if they expect to have careers in the academy, they'd 
better repeat the party line on Shakespeare -- or they 
too will be called snobs and conspiracy theorists.

     This isn't a field where original insights abound. 
As my quotations illustrate, cliches are the rule. 
Academics are herd animals, easy to intimidate, and 
conformity can be achieved with a very little social 
pressure. No need for the rack, thumbscrew, or red-hot 
poker when a little name-calling will do the job.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051215.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, 
www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in 
print or Internet publications without express permission 
of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to 
interested individuals if you use this entire page, 
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available 
by subscription. For details and samples, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."