Dr. Hinds was a lovely clear speaker, enjoyable to listen to, and made a good case both for demolishing William Shakespeare's claims to have been the playwright and for the Earl of Oxford as having been the true author.  There were also some very interesting insights into other possible candidates for the true authorship, notably the Earl of Derby, with references also to Marlowe and Bacon, as well as other less well-known claimants.

It was illuminating to hear some of the history associated with the controversy, which dates back to the nineteenth century and, more particularly, the first part of the twentieth century.  (Few people in earlier centuries appear to have had serious doubts about Shakespeare's authorship.)  An important early figure in the controversy was Thomas Looney (an unfortunate name, is ever there was one!), who in 1920 published a book identifying Shakespeare and de Vere.  The important figures included Alexander Waugh, grandson of Evelyn Waugh, and other well-known individuals.

It was particularly enjoyable to hear so much about the background of Edward de Vere, a colourful and fascinating character in his own right, with his eventful private life and his links to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Secretary and primary advisor to Queen Elizabeth the First.  Equally fascinating were some of the interesting overlaps between aspects of de Vere's life and events in some of Shakespeare's plays, particularly "Hamlet".  There certainly seem to have been some striking similarities between the character of Lord Burghley and Shakespeare's character Polonius; also, between Hamlet being captured by pirates and a similar event in de Vere's life.

For anyone who is sceptical about the notion that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, the most significant factor, in my view, is that the case against Shakespeare as the author depends heavily on a fallacy that logicians used to call the "argumentum ex silentio", or argument from silence, since it takes the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.  We cannot automatically assume, for example, that, because we have no school records for Shakespeare's having attended the grammar school in Stratford, he didn't attend. (We have no evidence for other pupils either.)  Equally significant is the fact that the case against Shakespeare as the true author of the plays relies on the notion that there was a huge conspiracy theory to cover up the true author's name.  While not impossible, this seems to me as unlikely as many other conspiracy theories.

Certainly Dr. Hinds gave her audience an enjoyable afternoon and plenty of food for thought.

Member Wendy Crozier