Reply to Commentaries

I am deeply grateful to the four commentators for their crucial roles in allowing my essay to be published, and I am pleased for it to be the subject of this scholarly discussion and debate.1 In 1985, the Folger Shakespeare Library's Richmond Crinkley wrote, “Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians should begin talking…because the two have much to learn from each other” (Crinkley, 1985). Despite Crinkley's wise advice, there has been far too little respectful dialogue among those of us who adore the works of Shakespeare, but disagree about who wrote them. In these current exchanges, we have taken significant steps to move beyond the usual dismissals that authorship dissidents are simply elitists and conspiracy theorists who, allegedly without solid evidence, would prefer that an earl rather than a commoner wrote these greatest works of English literature.

The four commentaries offer valuable insight into the perspectives of each commentator. Paul Menzer has followed my essay from its inception in the “Shakespeare's Enemies” seminar he co-led in 2019, to its current expanded version. Menzer directs a unique dual Master's degree program in both Shakespeare Scholarship and Shakespeare In Performance, so he is placed at the vital intersection of those two inseparable approaches to Shakespeare, giving him precisely the right “credentials” as commentator. It is claimed that Shakspere had superior qualifications for authorship, given his experience as an actor. However, the Earl of Oxford was intimately involved in the theater, as were his forebears, and his ties to the world of the theater actually have more solid documentation than do those of the traditional author. I hope all readers will enjoy Menzer's commentary as much as I did. His writing style is playful, while also deeply thoughtful. It allows him to bring himself, and his readers, to a fresh look at the stale old authorship debate, maintaining his orthodox stance, but showing a lively interest in what has made auth