***

I don't understand why the verb "attest" needed to be used in your new statement. It could be taken the wrong way, as if to say this register entry is direct evidence that Buck attested that Stratford Will is William Shakespeare the author of "King Lear." That's not in the register entry. One could say he attested that this work names the author as William Shakespeare, but then "attest" (to affirm to be true, genuine, authenticate officially) seems needlessly excessive. There's no doubt that the named author is William Shakespeare. Buck "entered" the play in the register; he didn't "attest" to anything. 

The remainder shown in bold does appear in the register entry:

This printer, Butter, with his colleague, had registered by Buck a copy of "King Lear" whose author is named as William Shakespeare. That's clear, for me. No problem. Does the register entry further "attest" that Stratford Will is Shakespeare? No. Does it attest that he's not? Also, no. In and of itself, it is neutral. (Taken with other evidence it could be a different matter, see below.)

What you then further added in your changed statement, shown in italics, raises a host of questions for me: you say that the register entry "is [on the basis of its own content? in connection with other evidence? what other?] generally accepted [by whom? generally? mostly? universally? or rejected by some?] as evidence [direct? circumstantial? and how?] that it [King Lear] was by him [Stratford Will]."

It's truly amazing that this one register entry has survived when so much else from that time has been lost. All the more reason to examine it as thoroughly as possible.

SB replied: Fair enough. How about:

George Buck, Master Of The Revels, stated in 1607 that King Lear was the work of William Shakespeare.

Michael Penn wrote: What you then further added in your changed statement...

SB replied: It wasn't a changed statement, it was a new one. I posted the original, which you felt to be strong, and proposed a second one, which you're not content with either. 

Here's hoping that third time's the charm. :)

You go on to raise a series of questions, or requests for clarifications. With hope springing eternal...

In 1603, a royal patent is issued confirming the creation of The King's Men. Among the people named are William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Henry Condell and John Heminges.

In the same year, George Buck is appointed Master Of The Revels, making him responsible for supervising entertainments presented to the sovereign, and for censoring plays performed in public theatres. 

In 1606, Buck stated that William Shakespeare had confirmed the authorship of George-A-Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield.

In 1607, Buck stated that Shakespeare was the author of King Lear.

In 1616, William Shakespeare dies in Stratford-Upon-Avon. In his will, he leaves small bequests to Burbage, Heminges and Condell.

In 1619, Burbage dies.

In 1623, the First Folio is published, comprised of 36 plays, which Heminges and Condell state to have been the work of William Shakespeare, the man they had known for decades. King Lear is included among them.

Michael Penn wrote: It's truly amazing that this one register entry has survived when so much else from that time has been lost.

SB replied: Are you suggesting that the register entry is a forgery? If so, why, and by whom? 

If it were that case that Will of Stratford wasn't William Shakespeare, wouldn't the people who were trying to maintain the fiction that he was have forged something more substantial, like a letter or a diary entry?

Michael Penn wrote: Do any would be author’s of the time have a debatable career as a playwright, but a verified career dealing in wool?

Michael Penn earlier wrote: I'm not advocating for any alternative authors, or even doubt. As a Stratfordian...

SB replied: Michael, it's apparent that you are an Alternative Authorship theorist. Wouldn't it be better to just be open about it? I don't agree with the position, but I do enjoy the thrust and parry of debating it. :)

Your own words: "If I amend this to say..." Anyway, you now have provided a good example of quibbling.

***

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about or how you drew this conclusion from anything I said.

***

There's no point discussing this further since you think I'm a liar.