It seems that most people who are annoyed and angered by the Shakespeare authorship question are quite certain that we “anti-Stratfordians” must be snobs or conspiracy nuts or wackos or all of those things combined. But it also appears that these same folks have very little knowledge of, much less interest in, the biographical and historical evidence concerning “Shakespeare” and the age in which he lived. It’s a paradox!

And this paradox can only be resolved by realizing that the identification of Shakespeare as a London actor from Stratford-upon-Avon must be sacrosanct … inviolable … not to be questioned … “above and beyond criticism, change or interference,” as my Random House dictionary suggests. Doubting it is an act of sacrilege. Trying to replace that man with another man (such as Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford) is sinful if not criminal.

We’re talking religion here, pure and simple. We’re talking about a belief that’s rooted in some deep-seated human need. It has nothing to do with honest inquiry and everything to do with blind faith. The majority of people in England and America are devoted to an image of the Bard that presents him as a “man of the people,” as the saying goes — a man of the people who lifted himself up to the heights of glory. He possessed the ability of a genius to transcend all limitations by the sheer power of his imagination and/or his fantasy.

I bring up this subject after reading the latest blog post from the Oberon Shakespeare Study Group by R. Thomas Hunter, PhD, a prominent Oxfordian whose comments on the authorship issue are consistently thoughtful and insightful. I heartily recommend his Declaration of New Shakespeare Scholarship issued on this Fourth of July 2010, agreeing with him that “much of the real discovery about Shakespeare is still in our future” and that “the problem” has consisted of the various ways in which “our traditional concept of the Bard himself has limited our questions about his work.”

There it is, in a single sentence. Regardless of opinions to the contrary, the fact is that the limitations imposed upon scholars by their restricted views of the author himself have necessarily imposed limitations upon their ability to explore his literary and dramatic works. It’s the same way that some religious views have imposed limitations on science, impeding medical or educational advances and so on.

I recommend that you look at the Oberon group’s Declaration of New Shakespeare Scholarship and I share Dr. Hunter’s enthusiasm about the future. The declaration is undoubtedly correct, but it also provokes me to point out the kind of uninformed religious fervor that lies behind “the problem” mentioned above. The deeper problem is an incredibly strong belief in something that’s really irrational; and when such a belief is challenged, the response is a bitter anger that’s equally irrational. That’s when you get the whipped-up emotions and the name-calling. That’s when you get the potential for violence.

While joining Dr. Hunter in looking ahead to a new era of Shakespeare scholarship, therefore, I am also aware that such a future will not arrive easily or overnight.