Oxford?

[Tom Reedy]

Can anyone here tell me whether Welles ever said he thought the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare? I've seen that claim, but I have yet to see any documentation of it.

On another note, when will there be a decent version of Chimes at Midnight for U.S. consumption?

[Jeff Wilson]

Welcome to the board, Tom. As quoted on the "skeptics page" of the Shakespeare Oxford Society Home Page, Welles is listed with the following quote:
"I think Oxford wrote Shakespeare. If you don't agree, there are some awfully funny coincidences to explain away..." (As quoted in Kenneth Tynan's Persona Grata (London : Allen Wingate Ltd., 1953).

I assume you read the article in the New York Times today about the authorship question?

As for Chimes, the rights holders apparently want astronomical sums for it, so no release is forthcoming. I don't know why they think Chimes is worth so much money, as in today's market it certainly is not, but there's no accounting for intelligence in the movie biz.



Edited By Jeff Wilson on Feb. 11 2002 at 00:51

[Tom Reedy]

Thanks for the cite. I'll look it up.

Yes, I read the article, but it's certainly long on speculation and short on evidence, unless you count "could have" and "might have" as evidence.

It's my understanding that Chimes came out in a great Spanish version that's incompatible with U.S. players. Any hints on where I could get a bootleg VHS or DVD made from it?

[Jeff Wilson]

Regarding the Oxford-Shakespeare debate, the article didn't give any hard evidence because there isn't any hard evidence, for either side. In reality, the only evidence there is for the Stratford man having written the plays attributed to him is because they were attributed to him in the first place. The lack of evidence for Shakespeare is appalling. Oxford at least has circumstantial evidence, and the doctoral dissertation recently written about Oxford's possible authorship gives pretty strong evidence with the comparison of Oxford's bible to the plays. I'm an Oxford supporter myself.

As for Welles, in This is Orson Welles, while discussing the Bard with Bogdanovich, he mentions how Shakespeare was a country man, and from the lower class and so on, so he was clearly not talking about Oxford in that case, which was a good number of years later. Why not mention Oxford there? Maybe he didn't want to get into it in that context. In the research materials for Five Kings at the Lilly Library, there is a pamphlet about the case for Oxford, so Welles was certainly aware of it from early on. Roger Hill even mocked the Oxford case in Everybody's Shakespeare, which goes back even further.

I would recommend checking out the Times article, though. You can find it here. It's a fascinating story if nothing else.

[Tom Reedy]

Jeff Wilson wrote: Regarding the Oxford-Shakespeare debate, the article didn't give any hard evidence because there isn't any hard evidence, for either side. In reality, the only evidence there is for the Stratford man having written the plays attributed to him is because they were attributed to him in the first place.

That isn't true. For an overview of the evidence for Shakespeare, read an article I co-wrote here.
As far as Welles not saying anything about Oxford later on, I'll have to read the context of what he said in the Tynan book before I can comment.

[Welles Fan]

My 2¢ worth: I think the Oxford conspiracy theory is bogus, too. An awful lot of people would have had to be in on the hoax for it to have suvived to the present day. It's funny that there are so many "Clues" that were not discernible in Shakespeare's day, but that leap out at us, now.

Also, there is not really much to know about Shakespeare (probably) than that he wrote the plays. He was no more than a tradesman at that time, and his plays were not held in near the regard they are now (or were, say 20 years ago). Had some fellow actors not seen fit to print the plays, we probably would not know even the plays. A talent like Shakespeare's is not learned, and it certainly is not a result of breeding.

[Jeff Wilson]

Having read the piece Tom co-wrote, it raises interesting points, but I still don't buy it. As for Shakespeare being a genius fully-formed without the benefit of much schooling, there are plenty of instances in the plays where experience of either the places mentioned, or works being cited/referenced, or court affairs, and so on was required. Oxford had that knowledge; Shakespeare did not. The evidence in favor of Oxford is far more compelling in any number of ways, and the plays themselves take on new dimensions when viewed through the prism of Oxford's biography. Hamlet is an excellent example of that. Why didn't anyone know about this when Oxford was alive? I'm sure some did, but if somebody wants something kept quiet, it can be kept quiet, and playwriting was not exactly the glamor profession of the day. Some of the more inventive conspiracy theories are likely the product of overheated imaginations, but there remains a compelling case for Oxford.

This topic is way too involved to go into here (never mind being beyond the scope of this board), but for those interested, check out the various web sites and come to your own conclusions. No one's going to convince anyone of anything here.

[Tom Reedy]

"As for Shakespeare being a genius fully-formed without the benefit of much schooling," brings up an interesting point. Did Orson Welles get much schooling? I know he attended the Todd School, but did he have any advanced degrees in, say, political science or journalism, or theater for that matter, that helped him to co-write and direct Citizen Kane?

[Jeff Wilson]

No, but he had several other people helping him. Film is a collaborative medium, and on Kane, the efforts of Herman Mankiewitz, Greg Toland, John Houseman, and various others can't be ignored. Welles was the driving force, but the not sole mind at work.

Welles was precocious, but he did get lessons from his early childhood on (if we are to believe the stories, he learned to read with Shakespeare), and the educations of the two can't really be compared. As for his theater background, it was something he pursued from late childhood on, and learning by doing both at school and with the Gate Theatre likely didn't hurt. He wasn't writing plays, only adapting and staging them. I see your point, but I think it's apples and oranges to a certain extent.



Edited By Jeff Wilson on Feb. 12 2002 at 23:03

[Michael]

Tom, thank you so much for your article. Jeff, I have to disagree with you my friend! You answered part of your argument with your last post--Orson had friends and collaborators. Surely Shakespeare, with his very inquisitive mind, would have surrounded himself or at least given himself access, too those who had knowledge. That's what researchers do--and it is clear that Shakespeare was a researcher into the human condition--While at the same time having to please his theatre goers! It does not stand as a viable arguement that just because he might not have experienced something first hand that he couldn't have written something insightful about it. If that were the case, then historians themselves are all suspect. Again, I come back to he surrounded him self with those who could give him material to draw upon. As a theatre person myself, I know that is what I do to get inspiration!

I've read both Oxford's and Tom's articles fully and by far the evidence points to Shakespeare. It's only the bias that this man was not of the elite that keeps the arguement going today. For my esoteric two cents, a reoccuring theme in Shakespeares work is the downfall of those who put all their value in power, riches, and / or war-like pursuits. I don't think someone of power & money as Oxford would consistently write of such things.

Thanks for "listening"! Keep up the great work on this board!!!

[Jeff Wilson]

Yes, but if Shakespeare was Oxford, he was in a prime position to see the folly of chasing power, and he had a fall from grace himself, so I think that can be seen as something in his makeup. Again, we can choose whomever we like as author and let it go from there.

[Michael]

Indeed! The real point is the wonderful work! We're embarking on "Hamlet" now--I'm co-directing and playing ol' Ham himself! Anyhow, I have always loved talkin' Shakes...

By the way, my wife asked me tonight--did Orsen ever do Hamlet? I don't think so, but then I thought maybe that was one of the shows they did while he was at the Gate.

[Jeff Wilson]

Welles did Hamlet on the radio, in a two-part adaptation on the Columbia Workshop in 1936. It's good stuff. Welles was physically wrong for Hamlet, but on the radio that obviously didn't apply.

[Michael]

That's right, I remember that. But wasn't Hamlet something they did at the Gate while he was there? Or that program he brought Hilton & MacClimore over to the States for?

[Jeff Wilson]

Yeah, that's right, he played the Ghost in the Gate production, and if I recall, Claudius in the Chicago production.