SB replied: That's pretty much true of most literature. We rarely have the author's thoughts on the work, or works, they were composing, the reasons they wrote them, etc.

The purpose of this kind of argument, though, seems to be to allow for the possibility that the plays ascribed to Shakespeare were actually written by someone else - again, let's stick with Oxford, the preferred alternative candidate - earlier, or perhaps even far earlier, than they were published. This just doesn't hold water, ignoring the role played by collaborators in co-authoring the plays, or the contemporary references that can be found in them.

SB replied: Heminges and Condell had known Shakespeare for decades. Their relationship had obviously been a close one, given that they were named in his will. 

What "skills" did they need to possess? They needed to remember the plays that they'd appeared in, try to locate copies of them, then arrange with a publisher to have them published in a collection. Why do you feel that this is some kind of extraordinary feat that was beyond them, or some sort of cunning subterfuge that they were participating in?

Mark Haslett wrote: Hotson declared a friendship between Russell and John Shakespeare must exist, though it is in no way supported by Russell's official position of "overseer" to Shaksper's will.

SB replied: Russell's position of overseer to Shakespeare's will - incidentally, I believe that's how the name is spelt in it, not "Shaksper", so I'm not sure why you've used the latter -  is surely more indicative of some kind of relationship between them, rather than indifference.

Mark Haslett wrote: Is there evidence that Heminges and Condell weren't editors of the folio? Yes. Can we discuss the implications? No.

SB replied: Is it possible there was another, unacknowledged, editor, or even editors, of the Folio? 

Yes, possibly. John Florio has been suggested. But even if that's true, it in no way diminishes the role played by Heminges and Condell, nor undermines the fact that they'd known Shakespeare for decades and obviously regarded him as being the author.

That's not "pretty much true" of Ben Jonson, Philip Sidney, Christopher Marlowe, John Donne, Walter Raleigh, John Fletcher, on and on, etc.

For stratfordians, the lack of evidence of Shaksper's doing the works is extremely frustrating.

For antistratfordians, it is extremely suspicious.

SB replied: Jonson's pretty much the only person on that list who very much vaunted his authorship. He also vouched for Shakespeare's, although he was more ambivalent about the quality of his work.

What do we know of Marlowe's thoughts on his writing? Tamburlaine and Edward II, while pretty much universally agreed as having been by him - or according to the practices of the day, at least co-authored by him - were never published under his name while he lived. 

What records did Sidney, Donne, Raleigh, and Fletcher leave with regards to their writing? Diaries? Letters to contemporaries?

Michael Penn wrote: For stratfordians, the lack of evidence of Shaksper's doing the works is extremely frustrating.

SB replied: Yes, and it has to be conceded that, desperate to fill in the blanks, far too many Stratfordians have indulged in far too much myth-making.

Michael Penn wrote: For antistratfordians, it is extremely suspicious.

SB replied: To anti-Stratfordians, or Alternative Authorship theorists, everything is suspicious. There's pretty much nothing that they won't find hidden meanings or deep significance in.

SB replied: No, I don't think "any bumbler" could have created the First Foliot. It was published by Edward Blount and William Jaggard, who'd had decades of experience of publishing and obviously knew their trade.

Market Haslett wrote: To create the folio, the editors also needed the skills of editors. They’d need to compile and execute notes in the texts and deliver completed versions of the texts, oversee type-setting, design, layout, and everything else involved in editing. Some evidence of these skills would help if you want to credit them for compiling and editing the folio.

SB replied: I don't doubt for a moment that Blount and Jaggard possessed such skills. There's no requirement for Heminges and Condell to have done so. Their role seems to have been to have collected as many manuscripts as possible, and commission Blount and Jagger to publish them in a collection.

Mark Haslett wrote: The record has no hint of Heminges and Connell possessing these skills. It is not even certain whether or not they could write at all.

SB replied: As above, there's no requirement for them to have possessed the technical skills that Blount and Jaggard had. 

With regards to the second point - no, true, but they'd been actors for years, decades, actually. It's reasonable to assume a degree of literacy on their part.

Mark Haslett: The evidence of their inclusion in Shaksper’s Will is that their small gifts were after thoughts, added at the last possible moment.

SB replied: There is no way you can possibly know this.

Mark Haslett wrote: This in no way indicates he gave them manuscripts to caretake and oversee. 

SB replied: Who's claiming otherwise? There were seven years between Will's passing and the Folio's publication, during which time

 Heminges and Condell - perhaps Burbage too, before his death in 1619? - were trying to find as many manuscripts as possible. 

Mark Haslett wrote: At this point, one has to admit you’ve drawn this out insufferably...

SB replied: I won't include the rest of your diatribe, Mark - anyone who wants to read it in full can read your preceding post just above this one.

I can't understand what it is about the Alternative Authorship debate that seems to make you so embittered? I obviously don't agree with it, but I find it an interesting subject to discuss.

Hi Mark -- I'm curious if there's anything for Shaksper as the author that you, as a doubter of Stratford Will, would concede. From my perspective, the other way, for example, I cannot but concede that the actual evidence of Shaksper's education (no speculations admitted!) does not accord with the learning evident in the plays.