Why Did Elizabeth Winkler Not Interview Any Baconians?

by Christina G. Waldman

First posted July 5, 2023. Revised June 28, 2024. Also posted to SirBacon.org.

Something must be said about Elizabeth Winkler’s new book, Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2023; paperback, May 2024) in which she purports to accurately and fairly present the current status of the Shakespeare authorship controversy. That would be a worthy goal. However, although she, an American journalist, interviewed people who might colloquially be called “Stratfordians,” “Oxfordians” (three of them), a “Marlovian,” general Shakespeare authorship doubters, and at least one indifferent, she did not interview any currently researching and writing Baconians! With the internet, we are not that hard to find. Unfortunately, this omission may mislead readers unfamiliar with the topic into wrongly assuming no one believes Bacon may have written Shakespeare anymore, or that no one is currently researching the evidence. Perhaps she would like to visit SirBacon.org which has recently hosted “The A. Phoenix PDF Library of Works,” https://sirbacon.org/the-a-phoenix-pdf-library-of-works/.

Yes, Winkler interviewed Mark Rylance the Shakespearean actor, but he did not come across in her book as a “Baconian” per se, but rather as a general doubter and, perhaps, “the most prominent person championing the idea of female authorship today” (p. 279). Even James Shapiro in his 2010 book Contested Will (Simon & Schuster) pointed readers to two resources for further reading on the case for Bacon: SirBacon.org and the (now late) Irish humanist Brian McClinton’s book, The Shakespeare Conspiracies: A 400-Year Web of Myth and Deceit, 2d ed. (Belfast: Shanway Press, 2008) (Shapiro, p. 282).

There are other books, of course, that could be mentioned, such as the late British barrister N. B. Cockburn’s 740-page study, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Question Made Sane (The Francis Bacon Edition, 2024 [1998]), Peter Dawkins, The Shakespeare Enigma (London: Polair Press, 2004), and, if I may, my own book, Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice: A Study of Law, Rhetoric, and Authorship (New York: Algora Publishing, 2018).

To continue in this vein, while Winkler mentions a 2019 book published by Routledge, Francis Bacon’s Contribution to Shakespeare), she leaves out the author’s name! It is Barry R. Clarke who has a Ph.D. in Shakespeare Studies from Brunel University. Nor does she mention Peter Dawkins’ recent book, Second-Seeing Shakespeare: Stay Passenger: “why goest thou by so fast?” (April 6, 2020, Kindle) or refer to him by name. Instead, she refers to him (presumably) as “a Baconian researcher.” Dawkins is the founder/principal of the Francis Bacon Research Trust with its educational website, https://www.fbrt.org.uk/. The Francis Bacon Society publishes videos on Youtube. The videos made by Jono Freeman are especially informative and entertaining. I wonder if Winkler has ever heard of them, or of my book? Through whose eyes is she seeing the authorship question?

It is interesting that Winkler and Shapiro’s publisher is Simon & Schuster, publisher for the Folger Shakespeare Library which has long held to a “Stratfordian” view, although they have stated: “we don’t really know what Shakespeare’s handwriting looks like.” (Folger Shakespeare Library Staff and Paul Werstine,“Shakespeare’s Handwriting: Hand D in The Booke of Sir Thomas More,” Shakespeare Documented, Folger Shakespeare Library, https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/shakespeares-handwriting-hand-d-booke-sir-thomas-more, last accessed June 27, 2024).

Except, that may not be true, for the highlyrespected forensic expert Maureen Ward-Gandy in her 1992 report determined, to a high degree of probability, that a play fragment found in binder’s waste in a 1586 copy of Homer’s Odyssey (It was a draft of a scene analogous to The First Part of Henry the Fourth) was in Francis Bacon’s own handwriting. It is printed in full for the first time in my book, and is also now available at SirBacon.org (Maureen Ward-Gandy, “Elizabethan Era Writing Comparison for Identification of Common Authorship,” Oct. 11, 2022, https://sirbacon.org/elizabeth-era-writing-comparison-for-identification-of-common-authorship/).

Sadly, there is evidence suggestive of bias. Winkler refers to the Northumberland Manuscript, an important piece of Baconian evidence because it bears the names of Bacon and Shakespeare together on the outside of a folder which contained manuscripts by both Bacon and Shakespeare, several times, and , as “a mass of “chaotic scribblings” (163). “No one really knows what the Northumberland manuscript means,” writes Winkler. Hmm. Does not a folder that contains manuscripts by both Bacon and Shakespeare which has both names written on its cover several times suggest that Bacon and Shakespeare had some connection, if not that they were the same person. Readers wishing to understand the significance of the Northumberland Manuscript are urged to investigate further. See, for example, A Phoenix’s paper, “The Bacon Shakespeare Manuscript,” SirBacon.org, November 2022, and “The Northumberland Manuscript: Bacon and Shakespeare Manuscripts in One Portfolio!” https://sirbacon.org/links/northumberland.html).

Winkler reported Oxfordian interpretations of the evidence, related to her by the Oxfordians she interviewed, as if they were the only interpretations, either unaware of, or without considering that there might be, other interpretations. Why did she do this? Was it because Bacon was born into a noble family? She mentioned in her book that she had a personal dislike of nobility. The earl of Oxford was born into nobility, as well. However, Francis Bacon’s father, Sir Nicholas Bacon, was the son of a commoner. “Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ’em,” as Shakespeare said.

Winkler discusses Hall and Marston’s allusions to “Labeo” in their 16th century satires. There are several Labeos. Winkler knows of the poet Labeo, Labeo Attius (67-68), but not, apparently, of the great Roman jurist, Marcus Antistius Labeo, whose life parallels Bacon’s in notable ways (see my book, Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand, pp. 99-100). The Latin words labefacio (to cause to shake, to totter) and labefacto (to shake violently) make an interesting association with the name, something Virgil and other writers of his time often did. (See James J. O’Hara, True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2017 [1996]). It seems Hall and Marson were on to this rhetorical device as well.

Arguably, any connection between Shakespeare and the law is one which points strongly to Francis Bacon, more than to any other “candidate” for Shakespeare authorship. Even Tom Regnier, the late “Oxfordian” researcher and a lawyer, has acknowledged the obvious, that Bacon’s legal accomplishments were much greater than Oxford’s (Thomas Regnier, “The Law in Hamlet: Death, Property, and the Pursuit of Justice [2011],” reprinted in Shakespeare and the Law: How the Bard’s Legal Knowledge Affects the Authorship Question, edited by “Oxfordian” Roger A. Strittmatter (June 2022), 231-251, at 231.

While Winkler does acknowledge the writings of legal professionals in favor of Bacon’s authorship, she only quoted one, British judge Lord Penzance (James Plaisted Wilde), author of The Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy (1890) (Winkler, 163-64). She did not mention of Dublin judge Thomas E. Webb, author of The Mystery of William Shakespeare: A Summary of Evidence (Dublin, 1902) or St. Louis judge Nathaniel Holmes, author of the two-volume The Authorship of Shakespeare, 2d ed. (Boston, 1887), or the counterarguments on authorship of Edward White and in Clarkson and Warren’s, The Law of Property in Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Drama (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1942)–such as they are–or of the study of O. Hood Phillips, Shakespeare and the Lawyers (Routledge, 1972; e-book, Dec. 23, 2004, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203708453), in which Phillips attempted to summarize the literature up to that date. Nor does she mention those who write on “Shakespeare and law” aside from–but arguably informing–the authorship controversy.

Bacon devoted much of his life to making lasting legal reforms to English law. He was a wise visionary humanitarian, arguably not the “philosophical old lawyer” White depicted him as, in trying to persuade readers that Bacon could not have been Shakespeare. Ironically, he does this in the same volume in which he sets forth in detail the abundance of law found in Shakespeare, in his Commentaries on the Law in Shakespeare, 2d ed. (St. Louis: F. H. Thomas, 2d ed.) (xxxvii). In this endeavor, he acknowledges the assistance of Shakespeare lecturer Mary A. Wadsworth to whom he dedicated the book. If it were to be published today, she would probably be named as a co-author.

Winkler also left important information out of her historical treatment. For example, in naming “Baconian” authors, she left out another woman, Constance Pott (writing as Mrs. Henry Pott), founder of the Francis Bacon Society in 1886. Pott is the author of the first edition of Bacon’s writer’s “commonplace” literary notebook, the Promus, with all of its Shakespeare parallels (London: Longmans, 1883). Somehow, Winkler managed to speak of the parallels in Bacon’s and Shakespeare’s writings without mentioning the word Promus. (163). Winkler did not seem to understand what a “commonplace book” was. At any rate, she did not explain what one was. It was not a book for simply writing down common sayings. It was Bacon’s literary notebook in which he wrote down things he wanted to remember so he could use them later in his writing. Did Winkler truly not understand? Julie Fei-Fan Balzer gives a good definition at “What is a Commonplace Book?” Balzer Designs, June 2, 2023. Even the Wikipedia article, “Commonplace Books,” (last updated May 29, 2024) adequately describes them.

Baconians might wonder whether Winkler even mentioned Baconiana, the journal of the Francis Bacon Society (FBS) which has published the literary and historical research of its members since its inception? It is indexed and can be accessed from the FBS website (also SirBacon.org). Yes, she mentioned it–once–in connection with Dr. Owen’s excavation of the River Wye for Shakespeare’s manuscripts in 1909 (165). Although she seemed to place cipher hunters at one end of a spectrum and lawyers and judges like Lord Penzance at the other (163), it was a cipher hunter she chose to cite for her Baconiana reference.

A bibliography would have helped Winkler’s book. SirBacon.org provides lengthy bibliographies of Baconian scholarship. She left out so many good writers. “It is hard to remember all, ungrateful to pass by any.” –Francis Bacon.

Arguably, if you only look where the light is shining, you won’t see what is hidden in the dark. Bacon was not just any nobleman penning poetry and plays. If the reason for the secrecy is because it was Bacon and we don’t look into the matter deeply enough, we will never solve the mystery. I am not saying Bacon was the only writer, but it is illogical to assume this stellar writer, a major literary figure in his time, did not play a role. The word “author” can be used in a broader sense for the person in charge of a large-scale literary project. Abbess Herrad of Hohenbourg referred herself as the “author” of the Hortus Deliciarum, a twelfth century encyclopedic work she compiled for the edification of the nuns at her convent, although she herself wrote relatively little of it (see Fiona J. Griffiths, The Garden of Delights: Reform and Renaissance for Women in the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 2, 16, 18-19, 54, 82-91, et al). To ultimately arrive at the truth, it is the process that matters. That was something Bacon taught. It in itself is a timeless truth.

In truth, there is no logical, factual reason that would make Bacon’s authorship of Shakespeare a factual impossibility. The two reasons that are usually given do not hold up under close scrutiny. Contrary to what is often said, for much of his life, Bacon did have the time to write plays and poems (and he had his “good pens” to help him). He had been the Queen’s Counsel Extraordinary and King’s Counsel, but he was not appointed to public office, as Solicitor General, until 1607. It was only after his cousin Robert Cecil died in 1612, during the reign of King James, that King James appointed him Attorney General. Robert Cecil had long thwarted his career aspirations.

Moreover, it is not fair to compare a person’s prose works with their poetry. Of course, there will be a difference in style! A person varies his/her/their writing style depending on what they are writing. One would especially expect this of a skilled writer, which Bacon was. James Shapiro observed in Contested Will that the only genre of writing at which Bacon did not try his hand was play-writing (p. 90). Isn’t that interesting. James Spedding, Bacon’s nineteenth century biographer and editor, observed that Bacon had the “fine phrensy of a poet,” intriguingly using Shakespeare’s phrase (for 13 uses of “frenzy” and one “frenzies,” see OpenSourceShakespeare.org (1864 Globe ed.).

Not all Baconians think alike. I can speak only for myself. The truth does not have a label or denomination, to make a religious analogy. But all who are researching need to keep an open mind. It is the facts that matter. In fact, it was Bacon who helped develop the modern meaning of what a valid fact is, as Barbara Shapiro discusses in her book, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550–1720 (Cornell University) (see abstract). Bacon wrote about the “four idols” that keep us from seeing things as they really are in his New Organon. Jesus spoke of such things as “motes” in our eyes. Bacon called them eidola from the Greek, informing his use of the word “idol” (see Daniel R. Coquillette, Francis Bacon, Jurists: Profiles in Legal Theory (Stanford (and Edinburgh): Stanford University Press, 1992), 228-31, 2333-34, 293).

If people do not look into the case for Bacon deeply enough, I fear they risk trying to solve a puzzle–the authorship puzzle–that has missing pieces. This is a scholarly subject. It is unfortunate that a journalist, by not interviewing Baconians and giving their case equal time, did not present the Shakespeare authorship controversy as it stands today fairly and accurately. The Baconians were the first to challenge William Shaxpere of Stratford’s authorship. Many of the arguments of the Oxfordians are derivative of those first posited by Baconians.

For example: so Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford was a ward of Lord Burghley? Well, so was Francis Bacon, after his father died in 1579. In fact, Burghley was Bacon’s uncle. Burghley’s wife Mildred was the sister of Francis’s mother, Anne Bacon. All the daughters of Sir Anthony Cooke (tutor to Edward VI) had received a rigorous classical education from their father. Anne, a true scholar, translated Bishop John Jewel’s Apology for the Church of England (anonymously). She made sure her sons, too, received a rigorous classical education, even before they entered Cambridge.). Critical thinking is imperative. If readers do not have sufficient background in the history of a topic such as this, they risk being misled. If you are looking for something that has been intentionally buried, you have to dig deep.

Granted, Winkler’s undertaking in this book was ambitious, and the goal of publicizing the aberrant “wall” against challenging the authorship of Shakespeare is worthy. The book seems to have touched a chord and to have been well-received by many (excluding Stratfordians). However, the reading public trusts those who write books to objectively give them the whole story; or at least refer them to other sources where they might find it, because no one writer or one book can do it all. Perhaps Winkler will agree with me that, the more we learn about this topic, the more we realize how much more there is to learn. With Bacon, it seems that a researcher has to dig deep into the literature. A researcher cannot be content with surface arguments. However, the reward is in the digging. Getting better acquainted with all of Francis Bacon’s works is well worth the effort, in my opinion.

Note. Aug. 30, 2023. More references on Marcus Antistitus Labeo: (British barrister) N. B. Cockburn, ch 14, “The Hall and Marston Satires and a Freeman Epigram,” The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (The Francis Bacon Society Edition, 2024 [1998], 184-209; (lawyer) Sir George Greenwood, “Final Note,” in E. W. Smithson, Baconian Essays, with intro. and two essays by Sir George Greenwood (London: Cecil Palmer, 1922), 223-230. Greenwood, author of a number of books on Shakespeare and the law, considered himself to be an agnostic, not a Baconian, only because he did not consider the matter sufficiently proven. “That Francis Bacon had, at any rate, something to do with the production of these plays and poems is, at least, a very plausible hypothesis. As Professor LeFranc writes ….” (id., p. 33). The two “Baconian” essays by Greenwood are: “The Common Knowledge of Shakespeare and Bacon” (161-187) and “The Northumberland Manuscript” (187-223), but the last piece also supports Baconian arguments. (I thank Eric Roberts who writes in the SirBacon Forums for the reference.) Other books by Greenwood include: The Shakespeare Problem Restated (London: John Lane, 1908); Shakespeare’s Law (London: C. Palmer, 1920); and Shakespeare’s Law and Latin: How I Was Exposed by Mr. J. M. Robertson (London: Watts, 1916), all available at HathiTrust. (Note: Greenwood has three “Online Books Pages,” under the names G. G. Greenwood, Sir George Greenwood, and Granville George Greenwood (23 titles in all).

Note: 3/6/24. Winkler was interviewed by Sophie Steidle ’25, “Newsmakers Q&A: Elizabeth Winkler ’11 Dissects the Furor Over Shakespeare’s ID,” in the Princeton Alumni Newsletter, February 24, 2023. She manages to mention Marlowe and Oxford, but not Bacon. My March 3 comment was not posted, but hopefully someone will take to heart its message:

Building upon a foundation of truth: I agree with Elizabeth Waugaman that good evidence should not be overlooked.  We can all learn from one other, regardless of our particular organizational affiliations. However, if our mutual goal is to find the truth, as I hope it is, that might require us to  discard pet theories along the way and look the facts squarely in the face. It might not hurt to look exactly where we’ve been discouraged from looking. After all, as it has been said, one cannot only look in the well-lit areas and expect to find what is hiding, perhaps in plain sight, but in the dark. Shakespeare understood about “legal fictions.” He incorporated the “legal fiction” of the “king’s two bodies” into his play, “Richard II.” See Ernst Kantorowicz’s chapter 2, ‘Shakespeare: King Richard II’ (24-41) in his book, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016 [1957]. “The legal concept of the King’s Two Bodies cannot, for other reasons, be separated from Shakespeare. For if that curious image, which from modern constitutional thought has vanished all but completely, still has a very real and human meaning today, that is largely due to Shakespeare.” (p. 26)  Why was this legal fiction so important to Shakespeare? “Many literary critics seem to think that an hypothesis about obscure and remote questions of history can be refuted by a simple demand for the production of more evidence than in fact exists.—But the true test of an hypothesis, if it cannot be shewn to conflict with known truths, is the number of facts that it correlates, and explains.”

[Francis MacDonald Cornford, The Origins of Attic Comedy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011 [1934]), p. 220. Citation added later.]