SB replied: What scholars have argued that the "entire folio" is the work of Jonson? As far as I'm aware, the general and overwhelming consensus is that the folio was compiled by Heminges and Condell, with Jonson's contribution being the commendatory verse - of which more, see below.

Mark Haslett wrote: There is no mention of "Stratford on Avon" or any straight forward introduction of the author to the reader. Every reference that could be used to infer this connection is done so with cryptic language that invites further investigation and doubt.

SB replied: Around 1590, Shakespeare, Henry Condell and John Heminges are all part of the acting troupe The Lord Strange's Men. 

In 1593, the troupe becomes The Lord Chamberlain's Men.

In 1603, the troupe becomes The King's Men. The royal patent confirming this names William Shakespeare Heminges, Condell and Richard Burbage (amongst others). 

Mark Haslett wrote: The idea that investigating these doubts is "unreasonable" is where you leave things. Could that be because investigating them destroys the only evidence that connects the works to the Stratford man? That would be an obvious possibility.

SB replied: Raising doubts isn't really an investigation - it's pretty much a negative argument, arguing against Shakespeare's authorship rather than making a positive case for another candidate. 

However much it must gall the Alternative Author factions, no convincing alternative to William Shakespeare had been found; and given the shoddy methodology of the Alternative Author factions, it's not likely that there's going to be.

Mark Haslett wrote: You speak of a consensus -- this must refer to Shakespeare lit professors, not historians.

SB replied: As far as I know, it's both. The former would, of course, have a stronger interest in the subject.

Mark Haslett wrote (note - I've slightly truncated his words, but they can be found in full above): The Himinges and Condell letters do not withstand any scrutiny...it is all Jonson's work.

SB replied: I'm not sure what you mean by scrutiny, nor how you can state the Folio is all Jonsons's work? He wrote the commendatory poem, certainly.

Mark Haslett wrote: Heminges and Condel were neither scholars nor writers.

SB replied: ? Who's claiming that they were, or that they needed to be? They collected as many copies of Shakespeare's plays as they could, then arranged for them to be published in a collection. They didn't need to be scholars or writers to do this.

Mark Haslett wrote: There is no known connection between Heminges and Condell and anyone else who contributes to the Folio except Jonson. 

SB replied: Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this? Heminges and Condell had known Shakespeare for decades, and probably Jonson too, if perhaps not for quite as long. 

Mark Haslett wrote: There is zero evidence that Heminges and Condell wrote those letters and plenty of evidence to suggest it was Jonson.

SB replied: The letters were published in Heminges and Condell's name. That's pretty decent evidence. There's no evidence that they were written by Jonson, and no requirement for him to have pretended that they weren't.

Mark Haslett: Raising doubts is obviously part of an investigation. 

SB replied: As is using appropriate methodologies to prove conclusions. Alternative Authorship arguments don't use the former, and haven't done the latter.

Mark Haslett: ...there are many candidates for true author. Stratford Will is one of them. But the doubts about this attribution are so many that once you admit they exist, they quickly make it impossible to connect the man to the work. 

SB replied: This is very much the minority view. The prevailing consensus is that the plays published under the name William Shakespeare were written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon, or at the least co-authored by him with a series of collaborators over the years. Alternative Authorship theorists may gnash their teeth at this, but it's still the received opinion.

SB replied: Yes, of course investigations often begin because of doubts. But they also need to reach conclusions, or at least be able to offer a convincing alternative to the received and original belief. Alternative Authorship theorists haven't done this. They've just raised doubts, created strawmen arguments, and displayed a general absence of logic.

Mark Haslett wrote: There are contributions credited to other people in the folio. Heminges and Condell, the alleged editors, had no connections to these people.

SB replied: Heminges and Condell had known William Shakespeare for decades, and were named in his will. They probably knew Jonson, if perhaps for not quite so long or quite as well.

Out of curiosity, who are the other people mentioned in the Folio, and how do you know Heminges and Condell didn't have connections to them?

Mark Haslett wrote: ...the editor of this folio is the editor of the Ben Jonson folio, the guy who writes like Ben Jonson and knows the people Ben Jonson knows: namely, Ben Jonson.

SB replied: How do you know this? Why did Jonson let Heminges and Condell take the credit for the Folio? Why, in private conversation and in later writing, did he jibe at the quality of Shakespeare's work but never once express any doubts over his authorship?

***

We have no direct evidence of when, where, how, and why the plays were written. That's true for Will Shaksper, but it's also true of any other candidate. 

It's not impossible that Shaksper was Shakespeare, but it is not possible to confirm any data about him as the author, again, very specifically, that this is when Shaksper wrote any of the plays, this is where Shaksper wrote any of the plays, this is how Shaksper wrote any of the plays, and this why Shaksper wrote any of the plays. 

Given that paucity of evidence, what makes the man himself, Will Shaksper, of whom we do know quite a bit, the most likely to be Shakspeare? 

That question isn't exclusive to doubting that Shaksper was the author -- even assuming he was, the struggle remains very real to fit the life of Shaksper into the role of Shakespeare. 

All biographies of Shaksper as Shakespeare ultimately begin with the assumption and then argue, given that, this is what likely would have had to happen -- or even must have happened -- for him to be the author.

I'm not an antistratfordian. But I understand the key difference between antistratfordians and stratfordians. 

The stratfordian, well, the most honest one, would readily admit basically everything we would most love to know about Shaksper doing the work of Shakespeare, the where, when, how, and why -- is in doubt, meaning, uncertain. 

The antistratfordian takes that uncertainty a step further: because Shaksper's doing the work of Shakespeare is fundamentally dubitable, i.e., based at best on (even informed) speculations given the assumption he was Shakespeare, his actually being the author is doubtful.

SB replied: No, the chronology of Shakespeare's plays isn't universally agreed - did Richard II precede King John, or vice versa? - but a general timeline is broadly agreed, using evidence of when a play was first registered, performances described as being the first, the genre being used, the themes being explored, etc. 

If I played you a pop song, showed you a clip of a film, or gave you an excerpt from a book, then asked you for your opinion of when it was written, you'd probably get the decade right about 90% of the time.

SB replied: It isn't, or not to the overwhelming majority of scholars, historians, literary critics, or general readers. 

SB replied: While Will of Stratford lived, he was repeatedly identified as being the author of the plays. He worked with a series of collaborators, which makes it impossible that he could not have been the author, or co-author, of said plays.

After Will died, Heminges and Condell, who'd known him for decades, collected as many of said plays as they could, and published them in the Folio, proclaiming him as the author of them. OK, that wasn't quite true! But it isn't the smoke and mirrors conspiracy that Alternative Authorship theorists want it to be.

Note, again, I am not an antistratfordian. So, I do not use Shaksper to be "disingenuous," Steven, but rather to be courteous in making clear for the benefit of other JBF members who are involved in this thread the man I mean, especially amid the participation of those who are antistratfordians, since this entire discussion is about "who else could have been Shakespeare?"