SB replied: What evidence do we have that John Shakespeare employed other men to help him? 

Why wouldn't, or couldn't, he have done? In what sense is it "unlikely" that he could or would have?

 

Mark Haslett wrote:  How does a thing which was in no case "Shakespeare" somehow comment on the spelling of "Shakespeare"?

SB replied: I'm not sure what point you think you're making?

The 1610 signature shows Gilbert spelling his family name as "Shakespeare" or maybe "Shakespear", with the "r" being written as a large flourish.

We also have six signatures which by common consent are from Will, each showing a different spelling of his surname.

We have a royal patent, giving again another variant.

In other words, and as was conventional for the time, the spelling of the Shakespeare surname - I'll use this version, as its the commonly accepted spelling - was fluid.

Mark Haslett earlier wrote: Once we agree who the author ISN’T, we can begin solving the mystery of who the author IS.

SB replied: So is the case for an alternative author contingent upon first proving it wasn't Will or not? 

Mark Haslett wrote: There IS clear and undeniable evidence from the period by credible witnesses of a hidden poet (DeVere or whoever) using "Shakespeare" as a pen name (Joseph Hall).

SB replied: Hall seems to have doubted that Will of Stratford wrote Venus & Adonis. This doesn't prove that he didn't.

Mark Haslett wrote: Being declared a good playwright does not, in any way, mean you might not have reasons to work anonymously.

SB replied: Why would it be necessary to conceal your identity as a playwright when it's known that you're a playwright?

Mark Haslett wrote: The “name problem” is unique to Shaksper in that it could diminish his claim since “Shakespeare” is not a spelling he commonly used, but it is the definitive spelling of the author on poems and plays.

SB replied: In 1597, the records of his purchase of New House give his name as Willielum Shakespeare.

In 1598, Francis Meres acclaims the plays written by William Shakespeare (and also separately praises Oxford, making it difficult to see how they can be one and the same person). 

In 1603, the royal patent for the creation of The King's Men gives his name as William Shakespeare.

In 1613, the purchase of the gatehouse near Blackfriars Theatre gives his name as William Shakespeare. 

In 1623, the First Folio, whose publication has been arranged by John Heminges and Henry Condell, and who were also named in the royal patent of 1603, used the name William Shakespeare.

As I've repeatedly explained, spelling was fluid in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period, but far from "not a spelling he commonly used", "Shakespeare" was not only regularly used, but seems to have been the preferred spelling for official business.

SB replied: Nothing. 

Oxfordians - and, I presume, other alternative authorship theorists - place great significance on the intermittent use of hyphens. No-one else does, and there's no evidence that they were seen to denote that a pseudonym was being used.

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.