SB replied: So I'm not meant to refer to external sources...

Mark Haslett also wrote: Your errors are so many that it is hard to keep up, but you post without a shred of humility or “I have read…” 

SB replied:...but I also should refer to them.

Hm. 

SB replied: In 1915, Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity, which posited a new explanation for gravity which contradicted that of Sir Isaac Newton, and which had held sway for about 300 years, and which seemed to have been proved by the Eddington experiments in 1919 (although they have been criticised as not having been quite as conclusive as they were presented).

Yet much of the scientific establishment rejected Einstein's theory.  A book was published in 1931 called "A Hundred Authors Against Einstein", leading to his famous quip "If I was wrong, then one author would have been enough".

More tests were made, and which over and over again proved that Einstein had been corrected. Gradually, it came to be accepted that Newton had been wrong - or not wholly accurate, and his calculations can still be used - and Einstein was right.

Probably as much as any figure in history, Newton was an authority, the living personification of science, and genius itself. Yet the evidence proved that he was wrong, and, while it was resisted, it couldn't be denied.

Let's say that unambiguous evidence that Will of Stratford wasn't the author was discovered. A diary, or a series of letters, or - oh, I don't know. But something that shows that the Stratford Man wasn't the playwright he was assumed to be.

Nearing the end of a career that may have lasted decades, how would older members of the academy react upon being faced with evidence that their career - their life - was based on a lie, or misconception? Almost certainly, and pretty unanimously, with hostility, rejecting the evidence, insisting that it was faked, demanding further testing, etc.

But it would also be one of the most exciting moments in literary history. Whoever found such evidence would become an instant celebrity, able to produce a best-selling book, front a prestigious documentary, tour the lecture circuit, etc.

And the same pattern as with Newton/Einstein would follow. However resistant they were at first, more and more academics would come round. Further evidence would be searched for. Plays would be reassessed. Biographies and articles written. The previous consensus would be overturned.

SB replied: For a long time that was true - too much myth-making, too much unfounded speculation, and the Stratfordians only have themselves to blame for giving Alternative Authorship theorists so much ammunition. 

But there's lots of excellent scholarship too, grounded in evidence and common sense - which is a lot more than the Alternative Authorship theorists can say.

SB replied: The problem of dating is pretty much true of any piece of writing in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period. And we do have plays being described as "first performances", or being recorded on the Stationer's Register.

I'm not sure why "how, "why" or "where" is a consideration? 

Michael Penn wrote: Positing him as the author as the starting point can lead to a host of further circumstantial assumptions the likelihood of which remains based on that primary authorial assumption. This doesn't mean he wasn't the author. But it renders every biography of "Shakespeare" extraordinarily speculative.

SB replied: As per my reply to JB, yes, it's undoubtedly the case that far too many biographers have over-indulged their imagination, filling in gaps, using circular logic, making Shakespeare the man they want him to be, rather than trying to understand who he really was.

But that's a tendency that's dying down, if not entirely extinct. Oddly enough, if, as I've also posted above, Stratfordians have only themselves to blame for giving Alternative Authorship theorists so much ammunition, they also have them to thank for making them work harder, using facts and evidence rather than relying on myth and speculation.

SB replied: It's widely accepted that Shakespeare used a range of sources, including earlier plays, when writing his own -  even Hamlet, with the so-called "Ur-Hamlet" being claimed as a source.

Greene's comment seems to be one of indignation that the earlier plays by Shakespeare's social betters and better-educated contemporaries aren't as successful or enjoyed as much as the ones by the Warwickshire lad. 

Edited to add: On a related tangent, have you watched the BBC Comedy "Upstart Crow", starring David Mitchell as Will?

A recorded first performance (or is it rather a first recorded performance?) marks a point at which some version of a play (an extant quarto version? that in the Folio? some lost version?) appeared in public, but it tells us nothing about when Stratford Will himself wrote said play. 

The how, when, where, and why about any author can't ever not be a consideration in his biography -- and if we have direct evidence, all the better to understand his authorship; but if we have no direct evidence, then all the worse.

SB replied: This is a typical cheap trick by Alternative Authorship theorists - "we don't know exactly when something was written, so it could have been written at any time".

The truth is, we pretty much can go by the first recorded performance as a pretty reasonable barometer of when a play was written. 

Michael Penn wrote: The how, when, where, and why about any author can't ever not be a consideration in his biography -- and if we have direct evidence, all the better to understand his authorship; but if we have no direct evidence, then all the worse.

SB replied: Then you pretty much cast all Elizabethan/Jacobean writing into doubt.

And I'm still not sure why "where" is a factor? Does it really matter if, say, Othello, was written in London or Birmingham?

A first recorded performance (which again, is not the same as a recorded first performance, and, again, of what version?) does help us know that (some version of) a play was not written later than that recorded date. It does not tell us when it was written. This is not at issue, though.

The point is not the passive question of "when was this play written?"; rather, it is the active question of "when did Stratford Will write this play?" The challenge is establishing authorship without prior assumption. But we have no direct evidence of Stratford Will writing any play: no how, when, where, and why about he himself being the author.

Does this mean he wasn't the author? No. But it doesn't help establishing his authorship.

SB replied: Most people recognise that publication or performance of a work usually closely succeeds the writing of said work. 

There are of course exceptions - "Now And Then", written by John Lennon around 1977 was initially considered for being further worked upon by the three remaining Beatles in 1994/1995 before being vetoed by George, was then picked back up again by Paul and Ringo in 2024, and is included on the Blue Album - The Beatles from 1967-1970. 

But by and large, composition and publication are usually pretty closely aligned.

SB wrote: That would be true of pretty much any Elizabeth/Jacobean author with the possible exception of Ben Jonson, who never doubted Will's authorship even if he had doubts about his writing.

Again - why is "where" a factor here? What does it matter "where" a play is written?