The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[WAB]

Oxford was a noted and acclaimed dramatist but we have none of his plays. That's odd. Of course we do have his plays.

Perhaps, but I will continue to doubt it, until and unless there is real proof. I doubt it because Oxford would have undergone a tremendous change, both in ability and style of composition. In fact, the most incredible change in the history of English literature.

I mentioned Keats and his fast change from not so great poet to one of the greatest, but there is an obvious continuity of style. We have proof of the transition from so-so to Great. We don't have that with Oxford.

Swammi mentions Lyly and Munday as tutors to him. Well, there is no way in hell they could teach anyone to compose poetry and write dramas in a manner that they themselves could not do. In fact, their skill was not even close to the author of the Shakespearean canon.

As far as Swammi's other questions. I will try to get to them in time with more pizazz, but I am getting tired from working and living in a motel and typing on a phone.

But I will address one or two questions. Let's say Stratford WAS the author for a second. Is it possible that Oxford knew him, and talked with him? It is known that Oxford loved who Spenser called "The Heliconian ymps", the players and playwrights who were also "commoners". Why couldn't Oxford have given Stratford details of his life, and even worked on ideas for plays with him? That would explain this Hamlet coincidence. Also, as for Stratford being able to describe a painting in Italy he had not seen?

Well, couldn't someone have described this painting to him, in detail? Such things happened I am sure among intellectuals, and especially creative artists. Or, might there have been books available that described this painting in detail, that Stratford could have used? There are many books that describe such things in great detail. I've read one by John Ruskin. Good stuff, so good that I could describe great works of art I have not seen, using his book as a guide. Perhaps there were books like that in Stratford's time?

There is more to come, but alas and alack and welladay, my thumbs are tired...

 

[Swammerdami]

As I've said, the quality and, perhaps more importantly, the style of Oxford's known writing is a stumbling-block to the Oxfordian hypothesis. I retain belief in that hypothesis because it requires least special pleading: alternative hypotheses have other, bigger, flaws.

I do want to address this point:

Swammi mentions Lyly and Munday as tutors to him. Well, there is no way in hell they could teach anyone to compose poetry and write dramas in a manner that they themselves could not do. In fact, their skill was not even close to the author of the Shakespearean canon.

I do not think that talent, in any field, is strictly a yes-no thing. Ronnie O'Sullivan has huge talent as a snooker player, but practice and determination were also key to his success. Many top athletes hire trainers far less talented than themselves, but with more knowledge and experience. I can imagine someone with great writing talent who wants to write fiction but was unable to succeed until he read John Gardner's The Art of Fiction. That book lays out a number of concepts and techniques the novelist, talented or not, needs. After studying that book the novelist may succeed; indeed with sufficient raw talent that writer will outperform any fiction John Gardner himself wrote.

Regardless of the net quality of Oxford's early work, I think poems like "If women could be fair and yet not fond" show raw talent. It makes sense to me that, tutored by professional playwrights like Lyly and Munday, a new writer with talent could outperform.

Does this fully solve the conundrum? No. But to argue that Shake-speare, whoever he was, couldn't learn from writers inferior to himself, is like arguing that no novelist with more talent than John Gardner could benefit from reading Gardner's book.

 

[WAB]

You are right, Swammi. I misspoke. If I may clarify a wee tad what my silly thumbs were trying to say:

What I meant was, that no one else, no matter how good a teacher, can give someone great wit, a superior insight into human behavior, a superior genius with respect to the content of what is being written, let alone the style, the technique.

Is there anything in Oxford's letters that indicate the kind of genius that the author of Shakespeare displays, even in the prose parts of the plays? I am referring to the maturer plays, where Shakespeare's singular genius is in full swing. You know the plays. I have read two complete letters penned by Oxford, and I do not see the great wit, the special insight, the raw genius, that we see in Shakespeare.

You noted to me a single use of the word "sithence" in Shakespeare. Shall I assume there are more? It is not a word very commonly used by Shakespeare; also, I mentioned Oxford's use of "satisfice", which I don't think Shakespeare used very frequently.

It may be the case that the word is not present in modernized versions of the plays. But I have read Shakespeare in the original form for as long as those texts have been available on the internet, and I do not recall him/her using those two words very much, at the very least, not with the frequency we see in Oxford's letters.

More later...

 

[Swammerdami]

While clicking about on the 'Net, I came across newsletters on the Shakespeare authorship question from 80+ years ago.

Some of the articles give a different perspective. The 2nd issue mentions an article in Scientific American claiming that portraits of Shakespeare were of Oxford! (I didn't understand it, and haven't yet attempted to find the SciAm article.) Some of the articles propose a group hypothesis. With Oxfordians arguing vociferously 80 years ago, it's tempting to wonder how, if they were right, their opinion still does not prevail!

That series of clicks took me through Bénézet's test, where lines from Shake-speare and Oxford poems are interlaced with the challenge to identify which lines were written by whom. Whittemore has a version of this, his own construction rather than Bénézet's. (While reading that, I note that I'd conflated Peacham's Compleat Gentleman with Minerva Britanna by the same author. It's the latter book, from 1612, that has the hidden-author picture with its alleged anagram.

You noted to me a single use of the word "sithence" in Shakespeare. Shall I assume there are more? It is not a word very commonly used by Shakespeare; also, I mentioned Oxford's use of "satisfice", which I don't think Shakespeare used very frequently.

It may be the case that the word is not present in modernized versions of the plays. But I have read Shakespeare in the original form for as long as those texts have been available on the internet, and I do not recall him/her using those two words very much, at the very least, not with the frequency we see in Oxford's letters.

I have the modern text of the plays and Sonnets on my machine and can do such searches easily. Two "sithence"s in the plays. No "satisfice" in the Plays, Sonnets, or Venus. (I don't yet have Lucrece.) BUT those are the modern texts — any good links for original text? BTW, to add confusion, the "satisfice" of the 16th century was a now-obsolete synonym of "satisfy", but there is a new 20th century word, also spelled "satisfice," meaning "to accept a (minimally) satisfactory choice."

There is a list of several words — sorry, no link — for which OED cites Shakespeare as first usage, but which have since turned up in the letters of Edward de Vere!

Here is an article which claims Oxford and Shakespeare had to be different writers, not on the basis of quality, but on measurable stylistic criteria. Do such studies give me much pause? Yes!! I still go with the Oxfordian (WITH collaborators) hypothesis as least impossible!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am reminded of Einstein's inability to properly mathematicize his ruminations on light and so sought out help so as to make his case for relativity, which he famously did. Carl Sagan wanted to take his protagonist in Contact through a black hole but was not sure the physics involved so sought out Kip Thorne who explained that entering a black hole would shred his protagonist to bits. Thus Sagan used a theoretical wormhole, not a blackhole.

Moveable type was invented with the Phaistos Disc, but moveable type had no economic benefit at the time and so the technology was forgotten for millenia.

We all possess some share of "genius" it seems. The obvious lesson is that even a "genius" must learn.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[*] As far as is known, WS never traveled abroad or on a ship, nor did he work as a soldier, teacher nor in a law office nor any of several professions consistent with the playwright's knowledge.
[*] As far as is known, WS was friends with no noblemen.
[*] Although widely considered a principal Player in the Lord Chamberlain's Men, no role is alleged to be WS's except ... the ghost of Hamlet's father!
[*] While there are many mentions of WS from that time, very very few of them mention Stratford, or attest clearly that the writer/speaker knew the poet personally. An exception are legal documents which show (a) WS was charged with poaching near Stratford, being a theater ruffian in London, then hoarding in Stratford; (b) WS was granted a coat-of-arms ca 1592; (c) WS served as witness in two minor proceedings; (d) WS filed suit in Straford (at the same time he was allegedly putting the final touches

According to legend WS wrote his plays together with his troupe. It was a collaborative effort. Scripts were workshopped on stage and collated by WS. Which is still how plays are mostly written today.

Kronborg castle, ie the Hamlet Castle is today a museum, I went, and there's a large section about Hamlet and how the play was written. The Globe Theatre troupe was invited to stage a play in the castle. The year after they went home Hamlet was written.

According to the museum this is well known and well established. I'd say the king of Denmark was well and truly a nobleman. While not knowing WS personally. The king certainly knew of WS by reputation. While staying in Denmark the troupe lived in the actual castle of the king the whole time and socialized and schmoozed with the Danish court.

WS had direct access to the works of Saxo-Gramaticus. So he did not need any help from the Danish court to create the story. But I'm sure the troupe could help inform WS of how Danish court life works.

I don't think there's much of a controversy. Not really. Worth noting is that copyrights didn't exist back then, and there was little incentive to want to have your name on things. It was much later it became a badge of honour. If it had been high status to author plays WS would have ghost written everything for a nobleman who'd be having his name on everything today. But since working at the theatre had about the same status as being a prostitute, no one cared about bragging rights of writing plays.

The fact that nobody back then gave much of a shit about whose name was on the play makes it unlikely that it wasn't him. Today we make the mistake to think there was any kind of conflict around it in his own day and afterwards.

Just my two cents.

 

[Swammerdami]

Kronborg castle, ie the Hamlet Castle is today a museum, I went, and there's a large section about Hamlet and how the play was written. The Globe Theatre troupe was invited to stage a play in the castle. The year after they went home Hamlet was written.

If this were true, I think we could find it mentioned on the 'Net. Can we?

WS had direct access to the works of Saxo-Gramaticus.

Again ... cite? (There was a copy of that book in William Cecil's library.)

The fact that nobody back then gave much of a shit about whose name was on the play makes it unlikely that it wasn't him.

This is completely confused. Have you read the thread?

 

[DrZoidberg]

If this were true, I think we could find it mentioned on the 'Net. Can we?

No. It's a physical exhibition inside the castle. But why would they make it up? Regardless of who wrote it, it's set in that castle. The play is more famous than WS himself. They have no incentive to write anything other than what the leading academics have to say on it. They tend to be correct.

Again ... cite? (There was a copy of that book in William Cecil's library.)

There were plenty of copies all over England. It was one of the more spread historical accounts at the time.

 

[Swammerdami]

Do you have an alleged date for the alleged "Globe Theatre troupe was invited to stage a play in the castle"? The Globe Theater wasn't built until 1599. A play named Hamlet (possibly written by Thomas Kyd, or possibly written by Oxford) was performed in London during the 1580's.

If this were true, I think we could find it mentioned on the 'Net. Can we?

No. It's a physical exhibition inside the castle. But why would they make it up? Regardless of who wrote it, it's set in that castle. The play is more famous than WS himself. They have no incentive to write anything other than what the leading academics have to say on it. They tend to be correct.

Again ... cite? (There was a copy of that book in William Cecil's library.)

There were plenty of copies all over England. It was one of the more spread historical accounts at the time.

So: A trip to Denmark by an English theater company that is mentioned in NONE of the biographies of Shakespeare (or Oxford!!) that does NOT appear in any book or webpage; the only way to even know about it is to visit a particular Danish museum. Does this really seem plausible?

BTW, your leap from "plenty of copies all over England" to "WS had direct access" is the sort of misleading leap ("begging the question") that impedes discussion of alternative authorship.

 

[WAB]

While clicking about on the 'Net, I came across newsletters on the Shakespeare authorship question from 80+ years ago.

Some of the articles give a different perspective. The 2nd issue mentions an article in Scientific American claiming that portraits of Shakespeare were of Oxford! (I didn't understand it, and haven't yet attempted to find the SciAm article.) Some of the articles propose a group hypothesis. With Oxfordians arguing vociferously 80 years ago, it's tempting to wonder how, if they were right, their opinion still does not prevail!

That series of clicks took me through Bénézet's test, where lines from Shake-speare and Oxford poems are interlaced with the challenge to identify which lines were written by whom. Whittemore has a version of this, his own construction rather than Bénézet's. (While reading that, I note that I'd conflated Peacham's Compleat Gentleman with Minerva Britanna by the same author. It's the latter book, from 1612, that has the hidden-author picture with its alleged anagram.

You noted to me a single use of the word "sithence" in Shakespeare. Shall I assume there are more? It is not a word very commonly used by Shakespeare; also, I mentioned Oxford's use of "satisfice", which I don't think Shakespeare used very frequently.

It may be the case that the word is not present in modernized versions of the plays. But I have read Shakespeare in the original form for as long as those texts have been available on the internet, and I do not recall him/her using those two words very much, at the very least, not with the frequency we see in Oxford's letters.

I have the modern text of the plays and Sonnets on my machine and can do such searches easily. Two "sithence"s in the plays. No "satisfice" in the Plays, Sonnets, or Venus. (I don't yet have Lucrece.) BUT those are the modern texts — any good links for original text? BTW, to add confusion, the "satisfice" of the 16th century was a now-obsolete synonym of "satisfy", but there is a new 20th century word, also spelled "satisfice," meaning "to accept a (minimally) satisfactory choice."

There is a list of several words — sorry, no link — for which OED cites Shakespeare as first usage, but which have since turned up in the letters of Edward de Vere!

Here is an article which claims Oxford and Shakespeare had to be different writers, not on the basis of quality, but on measurable stylistic criteria. Do such studies give me much pause? Yes!! I still go with the Oxfordian (WITH collaborators) hypothesis as least impossible!

Swammi,

I have trouble doing links with my phone. You can read most of the Shakespeare canon at a site called Internet Shakespeare Editions. Click on "Library", then click on list of texts. You have the option of reading a modernized version, a very early original version ( which I don't like because the 's's look like 'f's and it messes me up), and a later original text with all the original spellings and capitalizations.

I recommend reading ANY old text in the original. You will not have any trouble understanding it.

The hazard of modernized texts is that they sometimes screw something up.

There is one monster of a fellow who "modernized" some texts by the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid. This idiot butchered Reid's perfectly lucid prose and even altered the actual meaning of it to suit his own purposes. It is a travesty! I don't recall the blundering fool's name, but I mentioned it in a thread somewhere on TFT.

Anyway, I have read Shakespeare thoroughly, especially the plays. I have read many of them several times over. I do not recall sithence or satisfice at all, though you have found two sithences. Why would Oxford not use those words more often in the plays, when he seems to have been fond of them in his letters?

Just wondering, and it proves nothing anyway.

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't know. WAB. But for many (or even most?) of us, we write in different voices for different contexts. A word like "hereby" for example, is used in my dialect only when imitating, usually whimsically, legalese. Or I might use such diction in prayers to a government official, but never in my own poetry or fiction unless in imitation of a legalese voice. Most of Oxford's letters were to one of the Cecils IIRC, and he kept a formal, perhaps legalistic, diction in his letters to them. Most playwrights would avoid such a voice in their plays, except in imitation of, e.g. a government official or a humble servant speaking carefully.

But I do agree your arguments do hold much weight. There is a strong case against Oxford based on word choices, etc. As I've said, I remain Oxfordian by default just because I don't know anyone with a stronger case. I do not think Stratford was the writer.

Should I attempt the case that "sithence" was a formal word, more likely in contexts other than in poems or plays? No idea; here are the two instances:

[The Tragedy of Coriolanus:]
BRUTUS. Call't not a plot.
The people cry you mock'd them; and of late,
When corn was given them gratis, you repin'd;
Scandal'd the suppliants for the people, call'd them
Time-pleasers, flatterers, foes to nobleness.
CORIOLANUS. Why, this was known before.
BRUTUS. Not to them all.
CORIOLANUS. Have you inform'd them sithence?
BRUTUS. How? I inform them!
COMINIUS. You are like to do such business.
BRUTUS. Not unlike
Each way to better yours.

....


[All's Well that Ends Well, a servant speaking to his Mistress:]
STEWARD. Madam, I was very late more near her than I think she
wish'd me. Alone she was, and did communicate to herself her own
words to her own ears; she thought, I dare vow for her, they
touch'd not any stranger sense. Her matter was, she loved your
son.... This she
deliver'd in the most bitter touch of sorrow that e'er I heard
virgin exclaim in; which I held my duty speedily to acquaint you
withal; sithence, in the loss that may happen, it concerns you
something to know it.
COUNTESS. YOU have discharg'd this honestly; keep it to yourself.
Many likelihoods inform'd me of this before, which hung so
tott'ring in the balance that I could neither believe nor
misdoubt. Pray you leave me. Stall this in your bosom; and I
thank you for your honest care. I will speak with you further
anon. Exit STEWARD

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammi, WAB, you are having a scholarly exchange so forgive my intrusion. I only wish to mention that word meanings in Elizabethan times were not the same as we perceive today. Some meanings are the same but many are different or have multiple meanings which have been forgotten. The word moniment for example is used when referring to the Stratford monument of Mr. Shakspere. Many have simply rendered this word as monument, with a u. But that is incorrect. Moniment specifically at the time referred to an epitath or a testimonial and not a structure. This is just one of myriad examples.

So not only are we advised to see the original text but also to know the meaning and usage common at the time lest we anachronize in a sense.

 

[WAB]

Good post, O ye of the Great Moogliness.

I want to say a few things about Oxford and his place in English letters, with a broader look at literary fame and reputation.

When I say De Vere was mediocre, I am saying he was average, relative to the known poets and writers of his time. We must bear in mind that MOST of the people who wrote poetry in that time are utterly forgotten now. That Oxford's poetry is remembered at all, after nearly five centuries, is remarkable in and of itself!

The overwhelmingly vast majority of people writing poetry in any age are forgotten quite quickly; even formally published poets. Truth be told, the world is choked with poets! The names that have come down to us from ages past were the excelsiors, or perhaps they were just lucky.

So, when I say De Vere was mediocre, I only mean that there were many poets who were better than he was, at that time. Spenser, Drayton, Marlowe, Sidney, and a host of others. To name them would exhaust my thumbs. Oooh, Beaumont and Fletcher, can't forget them!...

You get the picture? If not, this: there were probably hundreds and hundreds of people writing and even publishing poems in Oxford's time who were vastly inferior to him. Which is why they are largely forgotten.

Look at me. No one will sing my praises in five hundred years! I will be utterly forgotten when they turn my corpse to ashes, save for a few who loved me. I am fine with that, too. I write first for God, and anything else is gravy. This is the God of Spinoza I refer to. And that is a whole 'nuther discussion. Hi Lion!

I don't give a tinker's damn for fame. It is the art of poetry that I love. So, when I say I don't care if Stratford wrote Shakespeare, I mean it. I revere whoever wrote the Shakespearean canon. If it was Oxford, than God bless him!

More later...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you have an alleged date for the alleged "Globe Theatre troupe was invited to stage a play in the castle"? The Globe Theater wasn't built until 1599. A play named Hamlet (possibly written by Thomas Kyd, or possibly written by Oxford) was performed in London during the 1580's.

No. It's a physical exhibition inside the castle. But why would they make it up? Regardless of who wrote it, it's set in that castle. The play is more famous than WS himself. They have no incentive to write anything other than what the leading academics have to say on it. They tend to be correct.



There were plenty of copies all over England. It was one of the more spread historical accounts at the time.

So: A trip to Denmark by an English theater company that is mentioned in NONE of the biographies of Shakespeare (or Oxford!!) that does NOT appear in any book or webpage; the only way to even know about it is to visit a particular Danish museum. Does this really seem plausible?

BTW, your leap from "plenty of copies all over England" to "WS had direct access" is the sort of misleading leap ("begging the question") that impedes discussion of alternative authorship.

It's quite correct. But if the majority of all scholars on this agree on something and make claims that they agree on, I see no reason to challenge it.

Here's what the museum has on the net about it.

THE THREE ENGLISH ACTORS AT KRONBORG IN 1585

When Kronborg Castle was inaugurated in the summer of 1585, the guests of the court were entertained by three English actors: William Kemp, Thomas Pope and George Bryan. After having served at the Danish court in Elsinore, the three young men returned to London. In theatre circles there, they met the enterprising and budding dramatist William Shakespeare. During the next two decades, they together established a successful travelling company of actors called The Lord Chamberlain’s Men and performed numerous plays. In the end, they had their own theatre built, the spectacular Shakespeare’s Globe in London in 1599.

https://hamletscenen.dk/en/about-hamletscenen/history/

But there's way more info in the museum itself. But I'm writing this from memory.

 

[Swammerdami]

My knowledge of literary matters is about zero, and I'm grateful to WAB for his contributions there.

But I am an avid student of the history of mathematics. One of the greatest geniuses of the 16th century was Gerolamo Cardano, so I was delighted to learn, via Whittemore's Reason #10, that the "To be or not to be" soliloquy is a paraphrasing of a passage from one of Cardano's book!

Click and see if the parallels are too strong to be coincidence. I find the parallels much stronger than those the anti-Oxfordians claim between the first scene of The Tempest and William Strachey's letter (which BTW wasn't published until after the First Folio!).

The Cardano book in question is the one whose English translation is titled Cardanus's Comfort. Edward de Vere financed its translation and publication, and wrote a preface.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another good article from Whittemore, commenting on the need for anonymity. He quotes a Professor of Humanities. (It is curious that Stratfordians insist that academics are nearly all Stratfordian when in fact so many of them are Oxfordians.)

For example, we know a greal deal about a presentation of Twelfth Night at Whitehall Palace on January 6, 1601. The play was part of the entertainment for a visiting dignitary from Italy. Queen Elizabeth was in attendance for the play, and the name of the Italian dignitary was Don Virginio Orsino. The relationship of the characters Orsino and Olivia in Twelfth Night (a lovesick Italian courtier pining for an inaccessible and standoffish single woman) would have been a source of gentle satire for the Whitehall audience: it would have been clear to the audience that Olivia and Orsino were allegorical representaitons of the Queen and the Italian dignitary. But it would not have been appropriate for an audience in the public theatre to know the author’s intent of satire and allegory of the members of the court, especially the Queen. The theatre presentations at court were a closed, ‘hothouse’ environment and one of the rare instances that Queen Elizabeth welcomed advice and criticism. While the Whitehall audience clearly knew the identity of the author (the names of Oxford’s wife and daughter appear at the head of the guest list for the invited audience at Whitehall), the London audience would know the play only through the author’s pseudonym, William Shakespeare.

I've reddened a fact that. if confirmed, I would consider to be strong circumstantial evidence.

 

[Swammerdami]

Kronborg castle, ie the Hamlet Castle is today a museum, I went, and there's a large section about Hamlet and how the play was written. The Globe Theatre troupe was invited to stage a play in the castle. The year after they went home Hamlet was written.

It's quite correct. But if the majority of all scholars on this agree on something and make claims that they agree on, I see no reason to challenge it.

Here's what the museum has on the net about it.

THE THREE ENGLISH ACTORS AT KRONBORG IN 1585

When Kronborg Castle was inaugurated in the summer of 1585, the guests of the court were entertained by three English actors: William Kemp, Thomas Pope and George Bryan....

I'm not sure what your "majority of all scholars on this agree on something" refers to, and it is odd that this visit is unmentioned elsewhere, but let's stipulate it for now.

Combining your old and new versions, we learn that the visit was in 1585, so the play written in 1586. I wonder if you see that this supports the Oxfordian chronology! Stratfordian scholars date Hamlet's writing no earlier than 1599 with a first public performance in 1609.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's quite correct. But if the majority of all scholars on this agree on something and make claims that they agree on, I see no reason to challenge it.

Here's what the museum has on the net about it.

I'm not sure what your "majority of all scholars on this agree on something" refers to, and it is odd that this visit is unmentioned elsewhere, but let's stipulate it for now.

Combining your old and new versions, we learn that the visit was in 1585, so the play written in 1586. I wonder if you see that this supports the Oxfordian chronology! Stratfordian scholars date Hamlet's writing no earlier than 1599 with a first public performance in 1609.

What? There's no mention of any other theory regarding it's creation in the museum. None. I've heard of plenty of theories questioning the established authorship of Shakespeare plays. But they're all crackpot. I have read all the Shakespeare plays. I had an interest in his work then. I did read a lot about him and his work and, as far as I know, there is no controversy. There's rumours. But that is all.

When Constantinople fell, monks escaped to Italy, taking their libraries with them. As the classic ancient Greek works were re-discovered and translated to English, a guy taking each play as it came to England and re-working them to create a (then) modern masterpiece does not demand a great genius. It's perfectly believable that a guy like Shakespeare did it.

I don't understand the great motivation you have to question it? As far as I know it's only crackpots who question the established narrative. Isn't that so?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But if the majority of all scholars on this agree on something and make claims that they agree on, I see no reason to challenge it.

That's simply saying there is never any good reason to challenge orthodoxy. Do you honestly believe that? Do you think we should all still believe that disease is caused by evil spirits, that germ theory is bogus? Really?

 

[DrZoidberg]

But if the majority of all scholars on this agree on something and make claims that they agree on, I see no reason to challenge it.

That's simply saying there is never any good reason to challenge orthodoxy. Do you honestly believe that? Do you think we should all still believe that disease is caused by evil spirits, that germ theory is bogus? Really?

It's the other way around. Non-academics questioning academia would have led to us still believing that disease is caused by evil spirits and that germ theory is bogus. QAnon isn't the smart guys who have figured it all out. I respect the opinion of experts.

It's one thing if you and me were Shakespearian scholars. But we're not. The only reason I entered into this discussion is because I saw an exhibition about Hamlet that went into great detail on how it came to be. They certainly convinced me. But then again, I'm not an academic. I rarely think I'm smarter than the experts. Never, in fact. So that's my stance in this discussion .

 

[Swammerdami]

... It's perfectly believable that a guy like Shakespeare did it.

I don't understand the great motivation you have to question it? As far as I know it's only crackpots who question the established narrative. Isn't that so?

Again, since you obviously haven't read the thread: The idea is NOT that "a guy like Shakespeare" — whatever that means — could not write the plays and poems. The idea is that THIS PARTICULAR GUY did NOT write them. Review the thread.

And the idea that only "crackpots" question the Authorship is a delusion fostered by dogmatic "traditionalists." One of my most recent posts mentions Professor James Norwood who teaches a class on the subject. How many Professors do I need to cite? Or will no number suffice, since all of them will be branded as "crackpots"? At least six U.S. Supreme Court Justices did not believe Stratford wrote the works — are they all crackpots? Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, the famous mathematician Georg Cantor. Are they all crackpots?

Read the thread. Specific challenges are posed. For example, if you think Stratford wrote the Sonnets, how do you explain the peculiar dedication of that book? (For that matter, why weren't the Sonnets reprinted in the First Folio? — This question will confuse you until you're more familiar with the cases.)

As for my "motivation", I don't really "have a dog in the debate" in the sense many detractors would like to imagine. I just like good mysteries, good detective stories.