Consider this unthinkable question: What if William Shakespeare was actually a woman?

This was among the questions discussed by journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler, Women’s Rights Lawyer Namita Luthra, and Wheaton College Philosophy Professor Nancy Kendrick in a panel discussion put together by Gina Walker of The New Historia. The discussion, which was held at The New School on October 10, was hosted in light of Winkler’s book, “Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies.” 

In 1664, philosopher Margaret Cavendish wrote about Shakespeare, saying  “one would think he metamorphoses from a man to a woman.” Winkler listed evidence that Shakespeare isn’t who he’s thought to be, spanning from how Shakespeare’s writing was “strangely feminine” in the ways he wrote and described female characters, to the fact that many of his plays were set in Italy and it is nearly certain that he never visited. Though only Winkler had researched Shakespeare, all of the panelists had important things to say about Winkler’s work and their experiences as women in male-dominated fields. 

Luthra drew on her background as an Indian-American woman, her time as a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) women’s rights project founded by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as her studies of constitutional law as she reflected on Winkler’s book. 

Luthra looked closely at Winkler’s points about Supreme Court justices who had, on multiple occasions, said that they believed that Shakespeare’s name was a pseudonym. A 2019 New Yorker article explained how Justice John Paul Stevens was a known believer of the theory that Shakespeare was actually Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, which he proclaimed in a mock court hearing in 1987, and again in a law-review article a few years later. 

This view, defined as Oxfordian, isn’t only supported by Justice Stevens, Justice Antonin Scalia is also an Oxfordian. Luthra emphasized that “finding a case where Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, was rare. They disagree vehemently on almost all important issues that touch our country.” 

The fact that these two supreme court justices who disagreed on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and eventually affirmative action, could agree on something as controversial as whether or not the highly recognized and respected Shakespeare was real, is significant in itself.

Luthra pointed out other notable Shakespeare-challengers, such as Sigmund Frued, Sandra Day O’Connor, and actor/Shakespearean-play expert Derek Jacobi, showing that Winkler is not alone with her seemingly outrageous questions. 

Luthra encouraged people to advocate for change of a dominant view, saying “[we] are writing not for today, but for tomorrow. History and the law evolve, we dig deeper, we discover new evidence, we revise our ways of thinking. This adaptability is vital.”

Referencing points made by Winkler in the text, Luthra explained how the knowledge and understanding of English literature established order “at a time when religion was faltering,” suppressed women pushing for education, and controlled the empire’s colonies. The Charter Act of 1853, an example Luthra gave, was a law that reserved the highest paying and most esteemed civil service jobs for people with a knowledge of English literature.

Kendrick connected Winkler’s research process to her own search for female representation in philosophy. When she was in graduate school, Kendrick was told that there were no women in the history of philosophy. Eventually, she became a professor of philosophy and found that there were loads of women — from the early modern period and before — who were writing philosophical and almost explicitly feminist texts. 

Kendrick related her experience to Winkler’s struggle of having professionals dismiss her questions to preserve the patriarchal history that’s been normalized. “I also realized that women had been making the same arguments not only day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, but century after century, and incredibly, even for a couple of millennia,” Kendrick said.

“No one takes kindly to the denial of his God,” Winkler said. Sitting down with respected Shakespeare scholars, Winkler discovered that many of them were apprehensive of her arguments challenging Shakespeare’s authorship (and essentially their livelihoods), often launching into what she described as ad hominem attacks. 

One member of the audience asked how panel members recommend mobilizing these rediscovered feminist scholars to make changes in the epistemic violence against women and minority groups in the press.  

“This has to be incorporated into the way history and literature in any field is taught. There is this conservative cycle of remembering and forgetting women’s histories,” Winkler said in response.

“But there is also a kind of responsibility, an epistemic responsibility from the other side as well,” Kendrick said. She explained that others need to develop intellectual virtues, enabling them to be more thoughtful, able to listen, and to see things from different kinds of perspectives, in addition to informing people and getting the story out there.

Dean of the Schools of Public Engagement Mary Watson made the closing remarks. Watson took a more modern approach — drawing on the revolutionary impact of the “Barbie” movie. The story of discovering patriarchy and trying to reverse it is nothing new, Watson said. The Barbie movie being seen as revolutionary and worth a million dollars goes to show that this work is still relevant and important as it’s always been.

Winkler sees the authorship question as a metaphor for how we know what we think we know about history. Her idea that Shakespeare’s work could have been written by a woman and credited to a man is one to be considered, even if it disrupts the almost universal romanticized idea of the past.