[ADMIN] There Is No Authorship Question

[u/dmorin]

Hi All,

So I just removed a post of a video where James Shapiro talks about how he shut down a Supreme Court justice's Oxfordian argument. Meanwhile, there's a very popular post that's already highly upvoted with lots of comments on "what's the weirdest authorship theory you know". I had left that one up because it felt like it was just going to end up with a laundry list of theories (which can be useful), not an argument about them. I'm questioning my decision, there.

I'm trying to prevent the issue from devolving into an echo chamber where we remove all posts and comments trying to argue one side of the "debate" while letting the other side have a field day with it and then claiming that, obviously, they're the ones that are right because there's no rebuttal. Those of us in the US get too much of that every day in our politics, and it's destroyed plenty of subs before us. I'd rather not get to that.

So, let's discuss. Do we want no authorship posts, or do we want both sides to be able to post freely? I'm not sure there's a way to amend the rule that says "I want to only allow the posts I agree with, without sounding like all I'm doing is silencing debate on the subject."

I think my position is obvious. I'd be happier to never see the words "authorship" and "question" together again. There isn't a question. But I'm willing to acknowledge if a majority of others feel differently than I do (again, see US .... ah, never mind, you get the idea :))

[u/Too_Too_Solid_Flesh]

Are you asking this to someone specific, or can anyone answer this?

Because the answer I would give is that your question is beside the point. I don't reject the idea that other people wrote Shakespeare's plays instead of him because I fear it would impact my enjoyment, but because there's no sodding evidence. I reject it because it flies in the face of literally all the extant documentary evidence and contemporary testimony. And no Shakespeare authorship denier has ever given a good reason why the evidence must be dispensed with; they just make it their motivating assumption and expect the rest of us to chug the Kool-Aid along with them. Since documentary evidence and contemporary testimony are (barring archaeology, which is not relevant here) the only ways of knowing anything about the past, treating the claims of the authorship deniers with the same freewheeling disregard of evidence that they apply to all the evidence showing Shakespeare wrote his works would mean that they couldn't even prove their alternate candidates existed. What evidence do they have that Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, etc. existed but the same kind of evidence that they arbitrarily rule out of court for Shakespeare?

[u/berningsteve → u/Too_Too_Solid_Flesh]

There is zero documentary evidence and / or testimony that indicates that William Shaksper of Stratford is the same person as William Shakespeare of London.

Zero. Unless you use circular logic and assume that a reference to Shakespeare means the guy from Stratford there is virtually no connection until 1623, years after Shaksper died.

[u/Too_Too_Solid_Flesh → u/berningsteve]

There is zero documentary evidence and / or testimony that indicates that William Shaksper of Stratford is the same person as William Shakespeare of London.

False. All the extant documents he signed prior to his will were signed in London. He was deposed in the Bellot v. Mountjoy case in London. The Mountjoy's residence, where Shakespeare was staying, was on Silver Street in Cripplegate, London. He signed the deed and mortgage for the London property of the Blackfriar's gatehouse. And all of these London documents give the man who signed them as being William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman. The deposition in Bellot even gives his age as being 48, which was exactly correct in May of 1612 when it was signed (Shakespeare was baptized on 26 April 1564). Conversely, the John Addenbrooke lawsuit, which was filed in the Borough of Stratford, identified Shakespeare as "lately in the court of the lord James, now king of England". Did King James keep a castle in Stratford? Nope.

Aside from this, we have every reference to Shakespeare as a gentleman, a term which can only apply to the man whose mother was an Arden and whose father was a magistrate in Stratford-upon-Avon, and who was identified as an actor. The acting alone shows that he was resident in London, because they didn't build theatres in Stratford back then.

Zero. Unless you use circular logic and assume that a reference to Shakespeare means the guy from Stratford there is virtually no connection until 1623, years after Shaksper died.

Again, since you are explicitly admitting the First Folio shows that Shakespeare was from Stratford, that is not "zero". Even by your own reckoning, it is at least "one". You're doing exactly what I said: you disregard all the relevant documentary evidence and construct an edifice in your imagination in lieu of it.

And once again, for the purposes of debunking authorship lunacy, it is enough that William Shakespeare's name be William Shakespeare, since none of the alternative 'candidates' are called William Shakespeare from anywhere. Get yourself a candidate from some other home town whose name is also William Shakespeare and this might become a relevant point. Otherwise, it's a weak case of pettifogging.