>> On November 26, 1607, the play had been entered in the register of the Company of Stationers:

Does this register entry demonstrate that Buc positively identified Stratford Will himself as Shakespeare the author of King Lear? -- or does it merely demonstrate that Buc's register entry identified that the author of the play was somebody named Shakespeare?

If the first question yields a YES, then it's game-over for the all doubters.

If the second question yields a YES, then the register entry tells us nothing we didn't already know for centuries.

What in the content of that register entry constitutes direct evidence that Buc was stating: Stratford Will = Shakespeare the author?

SB replied:  What reason is there to believe that this Shakespeare isn't one and the same as Will of Stratford? 

By 1607, Oxford, the favoured alternative author candidate - I'm not sure if he's yours? - is dead. What reason would there be to deny him his authorship?

King Lear would go on to be one of the 36 plays in the First Folio whose publication in 1623 was arranged by Heminges and Condell, and who stated that the plays within were by William Shakespeare, the man they'd known for decades. 

I'm not an Oxfordian, to be clear. I'm a Stratfordian. But there's nothing wrong engaging with everything we don't know, some things we'll likely never know, and the consequent host of mysteries about authorship. That out of the way...

This is a deflection from the specific question: what in the content of that register entry constitutes direct evidence that Buc was stating: Stratford Will = Shakespeare the author? If we assume this identity based on other evidence before inquiring what the register entry adds to this identity, then it actually adds nothing. We don't need it. But let's not assume this identity and then deal with question of the register entry as direct evidence. If we do that, it seems not to be direct evidence at all.

Also included in the members of The King's Men are John Heminges and Henry Condell.

In 1607, Buc states that King Lear was written by William Shakespeare.

In 1616, a William Shakespeare - again, as noted above, his name can be subject to a variety of different spellings - dies in Stratford Upon Avon. In his will, he leaves small bequests to Heminges and Condell.

In 1623, the First Folio is published. Heminges and Condell affirm that the plays in it - including King Lear - were by William Shakespeare, the man they'd known for decades.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Unless you believe that Buc, Heminges and Condell were all deceived, or knowingly went along with the deception?

Answering nothing doesn’t mean Will wasn’t Shakespeare.

Will you answer? If you won’t can you tell me why you refuse to?

If Buc attested that King Lear was the work of William Shakespeare, and King Lear was included among the plays also attributed to William Shakespeare by Heminges and Condell in the First Folio  I don't see how we can reasonably suggest that they weren't by William Shakespeare, or why we should consider or even suspect that "Shakespeare" is a pseudonym in either, or both, instances.

Note that if the answer is that there's nothing in it that is direct evidence, Will's authorship is not disproved, no pseudonym is demonstrated, etc. It just means that there is a more limited value to the register entry as evidence of authorship. But what's the problem admitting that?

***

I am a Stratfordian, but I have taken no position on authorship because rather than trying to convince anybody I'm instead very interested in the evidence informing the arguments. 

Taken in isolation, Sir George Buck's attribution of King Lear to William Shakespeare cannot be considered as 100%, undeniable proof that it was written by Will of Stratford. 

But to most people, it would be, and is.

And taken alongside other evidence, it's very difficult to see how it can be considered otherwise.

Would you clarify your answer(s?), please?

You first affirm that there is nothing in the content of the register entry that is direct evidence that Will = Shakespeare. I take it that this is your position.

But then you say that most people would find something in the content of the register entry as direct evidence that Will = Shakespeare. I take it you disagree with them. 

What do most people find in the content of the register entry is direct evidence that Will = Shakespeare that you don't find?

I'm not quibbling or playing a game or being a lawyer and trying to "get" you. I want to better understand the evidentiary value of the register entry -- as I would want to understand the evidentiary value of all facts, not just all together but individually, as a matter of sincere inquiry.

No "oy" needed. If you don't want to respond and don't want to tell me why, or really just don't want to engage me at all, that's perfectly fine. I'll leave you alone. Just let me know.

SB replied: It's difficult to believe that you aren't doing both. No harm in doing so, of course. As I've mentioned before, one of the odd benefits of Alternative Authorship theories is that they oblige Stratfordians to work harder. :)

Michael Penn wrote: You first affirm that there is nothing in the content of the register entry that is direct evidence that Will = Shakespeare. I take it that this is your position.

But then you say that most people would find something in the content of the register entry as direct evidence that Will = Shakespeare. I take it you disagree with them. 

SB replied: No, the first answer is the one I think you're nudging me to concede, second answer is the one that I, and pretty much everyone else would go along with.

Again - taken in isolation, Sir George Buck's attribution of King Lear to William Shakespeare cannot be considered as 100%, undeniable proof that it was written by Will of Stratford. I think that this is a lawyer's quibble, but I'm happy to concede the point.

But considered alongside the inclusion of King Lear in the First Folio, whose publication was arranged by John Heminges and Henry Condell, who were part of The King's Men, as was William Shakespeare, who died in Stratford-Upon-Avon and named Heminges and Condell in his will, and were identified by them in turn as being the author of the plays in the First Folio, it's difficult to see how it can be considered as anything other than corroborating evidence - or, I suppose, as Buck's attestation was made first, how the First Folio should be considered as corroborating evidence of it.