"It is TRUE there is no contemporary source that states explicitly that someone other than the Stratford man wrote the works of Shakespeare."

Then, again: What are your "non-circumstantial evidence" for DeVere's authorship. You explicitly claimed that the evidence of his authorship was not circumstantial. Or was that a typo?

"It is this thunderous SILENCE on the matter of Shakespeare the Author, by ANY contemporary source, that serves as one of the most profound indications that all is not as it seems. "

Yet on the subject of anyone else being the author, there is even less evidence. The silence even more thundering. One would think that with a nobleman like DeVere, his "authorship" would be used against him by rivals , wouldn't one? A few snide remarks about him writing that wretched Hamlet play or something. Yet ... a thunderous silence.

I think if in modern times someone like the Duke of Edinburgh had written the latest Bruckheimer or Bay blockbuster, it would have been mentioned.

Some sources disappear, others ... we don't know why there are so few mentions of Shakespeare. Maybe he was too busy with writing and doing business that he didn't socialize much. We don't know.

Certainly worth looking into why there is so little information, but how does that translate to someone else having been the writer? As for the "Greatest Playwright of his time", that's a title he earned in later generations. So he writes a lot of plays, many of them versions of plots or stories already written and performed by others , retires to the country and dies a few years later, and no-one pays attention. Sounds like 90% of the actors and playwrights in existence.

The authorship question is a big leap, and we need to recognize that it does require a lot of solid evidence to go there. Inferences and vague suppositions is not enough.

So Shakespeare is a better writer than Ben Jonson. Colour me surprised. His Volpone, which is among his greatest, is so by the numbers and "humours" that it literally serves as a textbook example of formulaic writing.

Shakespeare writes with an intimate knowledge and understanding of mutually irreconcilable perspectives. So unless he was a multiple personality or was ten different men, the claim that he had to have "lived a lifestyle where falconry was a common sport" in order to write a convincing falconry metaphor is like saying all the writers on medical dramas are board certified physicians, obstetricians and neurosurgeons.

All it takes is him being smart, literate, an avid reader and a good listener and researcher. You know, being a good writer.

Then, again: What are your "non-circumstantial evidence" for DeVere's authorship. You explicitly claimed that the evidence of his authorship was not circumstantial. Or was that a typo?

••

There comes a point when the accumulation of evidence exceeds the circumstantial. It is only on the basis of "circumstantial" evidence that astronomers assert that the Earth orbits the Sun. Would you contest that claim?

++

"It is this thunderous SILENCE on the matter of Shakespeare the Author, by ANY contemporary source, that serves as one of the most profound indications that all is not as it seems. "

Yet on the subject of anyone else being the author, there is even less evidence.

••

You can't have less than zero. Make sense, or leave the discussion.

++

One would think that with a nobleman like DeVere, his "authorship" would be used against him by rivals , wouldn't one? A few snide remarks about him writing that wretched Hamlet play or something. Yet ... a thunderous silence.

••

De Vere was the ward of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, the most powerful man in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. To have publicly "outed" de Vere would have been a tremendous embarrassment to the Burghley family -- NOT something even a nobleman would have cared to risk. When he died, William's son Robert inherited his position and power, and exercised it as had his father before him.

Even without that potential threat, we must again remember that Elizabethan society was not like our society today. There were rules, codes, and there was honor even among the most dishonorable. (Shakespeare wrote about it, didn't he?)

++

So Shakespeare is a better writer than Ben Jonson. Colour me surprised.

••

Again, not the point.

You're clearly smarter than this, Knut. Why are you falling back on these tired old Pro-Stratfordian arguments -- ie, changing the argument instead of dealing with the FACTS.

++

Shakespeare writes with an intimate knowledge and understanding of mutually irreconcilable perspectives. So unless he was a multiple personality or was ten different men, the claim that he had to have "lived a lifestyle where falconry was a common sport" in order to write a convincing falconry metaphor is like saying all the writers on medical dramas are board certified physicians, obstetricians and neurosurgeons.

••

Again you twist and turn to avoid the point. Aside from the fact that writers of medical dramas today have advisors on staff, access to copious amounts of reference material, and often ARE physicians themselves (see: Michael Crichton), it seems I must again emphasize that Shakespeare's use of the language of these things (the royal and legal courts, hunting, travel in Europe, etc, etc) goes beyond "book learning". He wrote about these things in the same way I write about comic books, but, again, could not write about baseball.

++

All it takes is him being smart, literate, an avid reader and a good listener and researcher. You know, being a good writer.

••

Unfortunately for the Stratford case, it takes him, Shakspere, doing all this in a remarkably short amount of time, while getting married, fathering three children, shedding his Warkwickshire accent, ingratiating himself with the nobility, working as a play broker, real estate dealer, money lender, sometime actor, grain merchant (not to mention traveling back and forth between London and Stratford, a week long round trip in those days), all without a trace of evidence for his ever being educated, traveled outside the country, or, once again, doing ANYTHING connected with the WRITING of plays.

Again, we must invoke supernatural genius, not to mention the ability to be in more than one place at once.

The simple fact of the matter -- the most basic fact of the matter -- is that in order to make the Stratford man the Author, we are required to jump thru an endless series of hoops, performing the most astounding acrobatics as we do so. To make de Vere the Author, we need no such exertions.

Anti-Oxfordians can present only a single piece of "solid" evidence against the case for de Vere, and that evidence turns out to be based on smoke and mirrors. De Vere died circa 1604, before the latter plays were written -- but that timeline for the writing of the plays is based on the life of Will Shakspere. It is a classical case of circular thinking, A proves B, because B proves A. Unfortunately for the Stratfordians, their timeline does not bear close inspection. "Topical references" turn out to be very general, and references to performances of plays with the same or approximate titles predate the official canon by up to a decade. These previous plays are dismissed as earlier, lost versions (so much supporting the Stratford man seems "lost"), and prefixed with "Ur-", as in the "Ur-Hamlet". Yet if these are seen instead as earlier drafts BY DE VERE, which he later revised, we not only find ourselves with a perfectly workable timeline, requiring no acrobatics, but with a Shakespeare who is not a plagiarist.

When the pirated edition of the Sonnets was published, in 1609, the dedication page referred to WIlliam Shakespeare (tho, curiously, not by name) as "our ever-living poet". Historians on both sides of the debate have search in vain for any trace of this phrase, "ever-living", having been used by anyone, at any time, in any manner other than how we use it today, ie, in reference to someone who is DEAD.

De Vere died circa 1604, but when Sonnets were published Shakspere was rich, prosperous and very much alive, back in Stratford, where he remained until he died in 1616.

(That early edition of the Sonnets presents an adjacent problem. Throughout his documented life, Will Shakspere of Stratford was not the least bit hesitant about pursuing any and all monies he thought were rightfully his. He -- the presumed author of "The Merchant of Venice", mind you! -- practically made a secondary career out of suing people over debts. Yet he involved himself not at all in the publishing of the Sonnets, and, so far as the record shows, made no effort to claim his share of the profits from that venture.)

••

I have something else in mind, somewhat along those lines.

"There comes a point when the accumulation of evidence exceeds the circumstantial. It is only on the basis of "circumstantial" evidence that astronomers assert that the Earth orbits the Sun. Would you contest that claim?"

There is no point at which circumstantial evidence becomes anything other than circumstantial. This is not a slight against circumstantial evidence. It is merely a classification of type, not a measure of degree. I have no problem accepting that the Earth orbits the sun based on circumstantial evidence. Nor have I ever suggested anything of the sort.

What I do take issue with is that you claimed that the evidence for DeVere was not circumstantial (i.e. direct), yet you pointed to no direct evidence.  I can clearly see that you think there is lots of circumstantial evidence in favor of DeVere, but that is not what you claimed. Unless, of course, you think "circumstantial" is a measure of degree, not a classification of type.

And you're interpreting his being "too busy" in a very peculiar way. Let's examine:

"Unfortunately for the Stratford case, it takes him, Shakspere, doing all this in a remarkably short amount of time, while getting married,"

Which takes about half a day.

"fathering three children,"

Which takes about 5 minutes each,  having children might consume a lot of a woman's time, not necessarily so with a man. If that was an impediment, all the great men in history would be unmarried and childless.

"shedding his Warkwickshire accent,"

Yes, because that takes a lot of time. Especially for an actor and a language genius. Right.

"ingratiating himself with the nobility, working as a play broker, real estate dealer, money lender, sometime actor, grain merchant"

None of which necessarily consume all his time or come into conflict with him working at the theatre.

"(not to mention traveling back and forth between London and Stratford, a week long round trip in those days)"

And what do you do if you're out travelling for 2-3 days, with nothing to do? Most writers I know would spend that time writing. So right away you've found the odd week here and there in his schedule that's him sitting on a stagecoach or in the back of a canalbarge doing nothing in particular. Gee, when would he ever find the time to write?

", all without a trace of evidence for his ever being educated, traveled outside the country,"

There's such a thing as being self-taught, or is it your opinion that people without university educations are always less informed than those who have one? It's certainly not mine. And yes, we don't know that he's ever been outside the country. Why would that be necessary?

"or, once again, doing ANYTHING connected with the WRITING of plays."

You mean, like being an actor or investing in a theatre? Or being a play broker. And why on earth would there be no record of him selling his plays to a theatre of which he was part owner, for instance? That's a shocker.

"Again, we must invoke supernatural genius, not to mention the ability to be in more than one place at once."

No. We really don't. Great genius, yes. I don't think that's a stretch. Having to be in more than one place at once? No. All it takes is him being a workaholic or effectively managing his time.  There are many writers who have written a lot more in the same time-span while holding down full time jobs.

What is that Charles Schultz quote you keep using? "Writer's block is for amateurs".

You're exaggerating and separating out his endeavours to fill his time so that he won't "have time" for writing  and interpreting such things as him being an actor or investing in the theatre AWAY from him having to do with writing plays. Which is a bit of trickiness that takes away from the argument.

Even a university educated courtier would need to research and read extensively to accomplish what the playwright did. Why assume that a commoner would be incapable of making that same effort?

I strongly disagree with the underlying premise, that there is a great flow of information (pertinent and necessary to the plays) fully available to the upper classes while such information is completely inaccesible to the lower classes. I feel that this is an unexamind and untenable premise that is at the core of the "authorship question".  It seems to me that it completely ignores the actual historical context.

And I think that as long as we disagree on that basic premise, we are bound to disagree on the conclusions.

The picture we are present by the verifiable history, distinct from wishful thinking and conjecture -- the brontosaurus -- gives us a man who emerges from conditions in Statford that can only be described as squalid. (His father was fined for allowing excessive amounts of filth to pile up in front of their home.) Both parents were illiterate, and in order to attend the school to which he was supposedly sent (there to receive the finest education in England, despite the school being small and, on the evidence, no different from the grammar schools of later times) he would have been required to be proficient in both reading and writing. These are not skills he would have picked up at the grammar school -- he was expected to have them before he went there.

There is no trace of him having been able to do either (learn to read and write, or attend the grammar school), and his own presumed struggle to accomplish this against such harsh conditions stands in dramatic contrast to the illiteracy of his own children. One daughter never learned to read or write, and the other did so only with difficulty. Had his son, Hamnet, survived childhood, he might have been treated differently in that male dominated age, but equally he might not. Shakspere leaves Stratford with no trace of an education, and returns permanently after his years in London, to slide right back into that nonintellectual life. In all his life, not a single letter written by him (and only one to him), survives. Again, this is a record swept clean -- somehow Shakspere left no trace of his literary life, not on paper, not in the memories of his neighbors, not in the memories of his children, not in his will, nowhere. The playwright, if he was Shakspere, is utterly invisible and intangible.

Had he left Straftford, done absolutely nothing in London, and then returned to his home town, those two "bookends" of his life would not be changed. It is as if he flipped a switch upon reaching London, transformed into the greatest literary genius of his, or any other Age, then, upon returning to Stratford, flipped the switch the other way. Pre-London and Post-London Shakspere is the same man, seemingly unaltered by whatever happened to him in the great city in which he lived and, supposedly, worked for so many years.

Edward de Vere as a kick-ass comic book hero, battling in the court of Queen Elizabeth, would be a *brilliant* movie!

Well there is a movie "Anonymous" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/ coming out next year but I doubt de Vere will be a comic book hero.