Talk:Shakespeare authorship

From RationalWiki

Sorry, pls delete if necessary. Thought it might be relevant to denialism, etc. My apologies. JailersDaughter

“	So while a crackpot theory about 16th century playwrights can seem irrelevant, literature and history teachers should keep in mind that addressing the noncontroversy in the classroom can help students to better understand and challenge intelligent design and denialist pseudohistories	”
—original author

- don't think that justifies this article's existence - by that criterion almost any subject of dispute could be used as exemplars of deception. Susan^{Antichrist (the) am I?} 16:32, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Agree, but in the meantime, if the article is to exist, it should include both sides of the argument. After all, the "science" used to justify the historical attribution is exceptionally weak. Perhaps a real article should examine how tenuous the historical attribution to the Stratford lad actually is. Mythbuster 16:46, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Err... who the F**k cares? Susan^{I am the antichrist} 16:48, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

{{delete}}Susan^{Talk(if you must)} 16:48, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Well... since your are spending your time here, it looks like you care! Walt whitman cared. Mark Twain cared. Freud cared. But who the heck were they and what did they ever do???!!!??Mythbuster 16:54, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Appeal to authority? :-) I just think it wastes time & energy. Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 16:57, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Then why are you spending your valuable time here? (Don't get me wrong - I think the article is crap, but at least now it's full of crap instead of just crappy! 75.144.246.14 00:21, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Contents 1 deletion of material 2 Deletion warning 3 Deleted 4 Why? 5 Why not? 6 Walt Whitman quote 7 Mark Twain quote 8 It seems to me... 9 Yes, it *is* irrelevant, but that's the point ...

[edit] deletion of material

I have reverted to a version that includes most of the material that has been added to this article. The material that was deleted was done so without explanation and without summary. I have no idea why.Mythbuster 02:42, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I have rebuilt, as you know (and with your help), most of the good stuff that was here that was deleted for no clear reason by Lyra. It was tedious digging through the diffs, too! Hopefully a little streamlining and some more copyediting will make this into a decent article. By the way, what all that crap about ID, and how does it relate to this topic? ħuman ^{be in} 01:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree - all that stuff about ID is entirely off topic. I'm not sure where it came from but once there, I felt it needed it need the added material to show that it doesn't apply. I'd have no objection to seeing it all removed.Mythbuster 00:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that ID stuff is weird. It just confuses the topic at hand and the arguments on each side. Let's see if any of them have substance or use, and if not, clean up that lead section. ħuman^{e society} 00:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Deletion warning

As this has, as far as I can see, NOTHING to do with the site's mission and is being used to push some weird agenda, I intend to delete it in 5 hours unless someone comes up with a GOOD reason not to. Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 06:34, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Deleted

this talk page will be deleted in 24 hours Susan^{Talk(if you must)} 11:41, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

We will not submit to your demands! We don't negotiate with terrorists! Jellyfish!^{Quite possibly a fruitcake} 11:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

If you view the first ever version, it actually had some good mission-oriented stuff. Don't we do pseudohistory and historical revisionism? ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 12:09, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I restored it and adjusted it to fit in the mission. If the actual premise afflicts you then please say why. Goatspeed! ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 12:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Why?

What the ***** relevance has it to us? Susan^{Antichrist (the) am I?} 12:38, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I say again, don't we do conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, etc? ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 12:40, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

(ec) wrote that before reading your comments above - sorry Susan^{Teh Antichrist am I?} 12:43, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

OK ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 12:43, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

From the home page: "We welcome contributors,and we encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in a constructive dialogue." I disagree with the thrust of this article. Having studied the subject, there is cause to doubt the historical attribution put forth by "Stratfordian" defenders. Not based on snobbery, which is a typical accusation, but on lack of scientific evidence. I am attempting to fill out this article to reflect this. If I read the dictate on the home page correctly, I don't see what the problem is. Mythbuster 02:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Lyra - Please be careful about mass reverts. In reverting multiple edits, some broken link and reference edits were also reverted. Thanks Mythbuster 16:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I am put in the unenviable position of disagreeing with both the article as it stands now, and with its critic here just above. On the one hand, there is as a matter of principle always cause to doubt any historical theory, no matter how well-established it may appear to be. While it is unlikely to be true, the reasoning behind the 'non-Shakespearean' theory is not unreasonable in itself, dismissing it as simply a "crackpot theory" and "denialist" seems more than a little unacademic, and definitely not a proper way of arguing against it, or any other theory (barring the truly outlandish ones like New Chronology or similar stuff).

That said, on the other hand, one should also realize that the evidence put forward by the 'doubters' is extremely questionable, and that very few, if any, mainstream academics actually support the theory. Also, it is meaningless to talk about "scientific evidence" in this context - history is a humanistic academic field, not a scientific one, and the methods involved are completely different. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 17:01, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough - and I agree with AKjeldsen on the basic thrust of this addition. Calling it "crap" or "crackpot" is simply name-calling for the sake of name-calling. More academics see the merit of the issue every day, and the subject is now being taught at more than once "place of higher learning". The issue has been written up in numerous peer-reviewed publications and has gained adherents ranging from college professors to scientists to theatre practitioners of every stripe. Some would even say that in the last 2 decades, a fundamental shift has taken place regarding acceptance of the issue. Mythbuster 21:53, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I support deleting this article. The Shakespeare authorship issue should be regarded as legitimate for all of the reasons stated in the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare," available to read, sign and download at [1]. The declaration gives a well-reasoned, moderately-written presentation of the arguments and evidence supporting the non-Stratfordian position. It lists twenty prominent authorship doubters of the past, including such luminaries as Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William and Henry James, Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Tyrone Guthrie, John Galsworthy, Mortimer J. Adler (editor of the Great Books), Paul H. Nitze (co-founder of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies), and Supreme Court Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. John Paul Stevens is also in their camp. The point of the list is not to argue from authority, but, rather, to counter false allegations by the orthodox that all doubters are irrational, deluded "conspiracy theorist." It is they who seek to suppress the issue by arguing from authority.

The Declaration describes the major reasons why most orthodox scholars have long accepted the traditional attribution of the works to the Stratford man (similar name on the works, First Folio testimony, Stratford monument), but explains why doubters find them inconclusive. It then presents detailed evidence and arguments for doubting the traditional attribution. These include: (1) not so much as a letter written in his hand, (2) his six alleged signatures, all poorly executed, each spelled differently suggest an illiterate, (3) his detailed will lacks anything Shakespearean, or any indication of a literary career, but is entirely consistent with a business and theatre career, (4) the absence of any evidence of education, (5) the illiteracy of his parents and daughters, (6) the absence of developmental experiences associated with literary genius, which has led academic experts on genius to reject him,(7) the contrast between his known background and the vast knowledge displayed in the works, which orthodox scholars cannot explain, (8) the fact that no book he owned, or that is known to have been in his possession, has ever been found, (9) the complete absence of evidence of payment for writing, or of patronage, or association with the nobility, (10) the absence of any commendatory verse from him to any fellow writer, or from any fellow writer to him prior to the First Foliio, seven years after he died, (11) the absence of any commentary on Shakespeare's works from anyone claiming to have known him, or identifying him as the Stratford man, (12) his elusiveness, i.e, the lack of evidence that he was ever a prominent public figure, or that Elizabeth I or James I ever spoke or wrote his name (much less ever met him!), and the absence of any poem by him eulogizing Elizabeth upon her death, (13)records of business activities in Stratford early in the reign of James I, while his acting company performed several of "his" plays at court, (14) the seventy extant documents that relate to him, all of which are non-literary, (15), his uniqueness among writers of his time in lacking evidence of a writing career (see "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography"), (16) the absence of evidence anyone in Stratford ever thought he was a writer, or that he ever put on a play in Stratford, (17) people who clearly knew him seeming not to associate him with the author, (18) lack of any mention of the death of the author, Shakespeare, in 1616, even by his fellow actors, remembered in his will, or anyone else until seven years later, (19) his detailed knowledge of Italy, the setting of half the non-history plays, despite never being there, (20) lack of any mention in the Sonnets of the death of his 9-year-old son, (21) he never mentioned Stratford, or wrote a play that seemed to reflect his own life experiences, (22) virtually all the plays are set among the upper classes, seemingly written from their point of view. Finally, it quotes two famous orthodox scholars, historians Sam Schoenbaum and Hugh Trevor-Roper, expressing their frustration at the lack of evidence connecting the life of the Stratford man to the works.

This Declaration has now been signed by over 1,300 people, including over 230 current or former college or university faculty members. Most notably, Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychology at UC Davis, winner of the Francis Galton Prize for lifetime achievement in the study of creativity, and widely regarded as the world's leading expert in creativity and genius, sits on the Academic Advisory Board of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC), which issued the Declaration. Not only did he sign it, he was a co-author. This man is a scientist, par excellence.

Further, the New York Times conducted a survey of Shakespeare professors at a random sample of U.S. colleges and universities in April 2007, and found that 17% had doubts about Shakespeare! One would not find 17% (or 1%) of biology professors expressing doubt about evolution vs. intelligent design. So the Shakespeare authorship controversy does not belong in the category of pseudoscience/history.

Now, let's briefly consider another possibility. It has been noted that the case for the traditional attribution to the Stratford man relies to an extraordinary degree to one piece of evidence -- the prefatory material in the First Folio, published seven years after the death of Mr. Shakspere, and pointing to him for the first time as the author. Challenged in a debate to specify what one could point to in the works to argue that Mr. Shakspere had written them if the First Folio didn't exist, the reply was: "What a curious question!" He could not tie the alleged author to his alleged works! We have seen such faith in the truth of a single text, to the exclusion of other kinds of evidence, before. In the case of total reliance on the Bible, we refer to it as "Christian fundamentalism." What we have in the case of the authorship controversy is what I call "First Folio fundamentalism." Stratfordianism -- the view that the Stratford man wrote the works -- is, in fact, a quasi-religious cult. If the authorship issue is to be addressed at all on this site, it should be in these terms. \

Thanks very much. I apologize for the length of this posting.

Schoenbaum 16:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)Schoenbaum

I want to reiterate that this article should be deleted, for the following additional reasons:

1. It is incorrect to characterize the authorship controversy as "pseudohistory" just because there is a disagreement over a question of historical fact, and one side happens to be in the majority. The anti-Stratfordian position is based on evidence, not ideology, despite what detractors claim. For example, see the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" at [2]

2. It is inaccurate, and unfair, to attribute the authorship controversy to "conspiracy theorists." It is the historical facts that have led so many highly credible people to doubt the traditional attribution of the works to the Stratford man, not some psychological trait of the doubters. If the controversy were due to a psychological trait, why are there no doubts about other great writers? There is only one authorship controversy. How is it that these alleged irrational, incompetent "conspiracy theorists" are able to focus so clearly just on this one author, and no other? It makes no sense. If there were no such thing as a genuine conspiracy, why does the word "conspiracy" exist? Sometimes conspiracies are real. One can't just rule them out a priori; it's a question of evidence. It has been said that "the one great theme running throughout Shakespeare's plays is the difference between appearance and reality, and the difficulty of knowing which is which. The plays themselves are full of conspiracies; no play is without one. Many have multiple conspiracies. If Shakespeare believed in conspiracies, and portrayed them repeatedly in his plays, why should we be so credulous? Those who accuse authorship doubters of being "conspiracy theorists" are engaging in smear tactics.

3. The author of this article says Stratfordians are "those who support the historical attribution." Using "historical" begs the question of whether the traditional attribution is historically correct. This sentence should define Stratfordian as "those who support the traditional attrbution."

4. There is no "resemblance between arguments put forth by 'anti-Stratfordians' and proponents of intelligent design." Arguments for ID have repeatedly been shown to be empirically false, and have no support among scientists. Arguments of non-Stratfordians are clearly empirically-based, and have a great deal of support among scholars -- especially those in empirically-based fields like history, psychology and anthropology. But even many English professors have doubts about the Stratford man.

5. The claim that the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare "requests that schools 'teach the controversy'" is false. No such phrase appears in the Declaration. ID advocates try to mandate that ID be taught in biology classes against the will of biologists. The Declaration only states that the authorship issue should be regarded as "a legitimate issue for research and publication, and an appropriate topic for instruction and discussion in classrooms." There is no mandate that teachers be required to teach anything to students against their will. The aim is merely to remove the stigma so teachers and students are free to study it if they wish. Even ID opponents have no problem with teaching about it outside of biology classes. Stratfordians would ban discussion of the authorship issue throughout academia. They seek to suppress it totally.

6. The proposal that "literature and history teachers should . . . (address) the issue in the classroom (to) help students better understand and challenge both intelligent design and denialism." is presumptuous. It assumes the authorship issue should be regarded, and taught, in the same light as "intelligent design" and "denialism." For all of the reasons I have stated, this is unwarranted. The authorship issue should be treated on its own merits, and not taught as if it were illegitimate.

For all of these reasons, it should be clear that the author of this article has an unwarranted ideological bias against the Shakespeare authorship issue, and is incapable of writing objectively. His thinking is characterized by logical errors, especially question begging and circular reasoning. I therefore reiterate my support for deleting this article. The Wikipedia article on the authorship issue is more than sufficient. There is no need for another article on the subject on RationalWiki. Schoenbaum 15:51, 12 June 2008 (EDT) Schoenbaum

Not that this is something I care much about, but I note that out of the 22 Declaration arguments noted above, no less than 14 are based on an 'absence' or 'lack of evidence'. I assume that you are not unaware of the considerable problems with arguing e silentio? --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Schoenbaum, if you are right (I don't know enough about the subject to really hazard an opinion), wouldn't it make more sense to rewrite the article to take those things into account, rather than just deleting it? If the theory is undeservingly labeled as pseudohistory, mightn't it be "on mission" to elucidate why it isn't? Jellyfish!^{But there are trapdoors, that you can't come back from} 16:22, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

AKjeldsen and Oldersig, please tell me who has the burden of proof on this website? The article in question presents not one piece of factual evidence to support its position. Rather, it makes a series of unsubstantiated allegations that anyone who questions this established orthodoxy is crazy. In other words, this forum is being exploited by reactionary First Folio Fundamentalist ideologues to smear their opponents. The "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" does a much better job of presenting the orthodox position than this article, and it then gives a detailed presentation of the empirical reasons for doubting the traditional attribution of the works to Stratford's Mr Shakspere. Stratfordians have yet to refute a single fact in the Declaration, nor have they responded to our challenge to write a counter-declaration presenting the evidence in support of their claim that there's "no room for doubt" about Mr. Shakspere. Yet despite all of the factual information I've presented, it sounds like you think the burden of proof is on me, and that this vacuous, fact-free "article," if it can even be called that, should stand unless I write a counter-article refuting it. Refute what? There's nothing to refute! I will consider replying if someone writes an article laying out a coherent, factual case in support of Mr. Shakspere. The burden of proof should be on those claiming that there is "no room for doubt," and that the issue should therefore be suppressed in academia. That burden hasn't been met, and unless it is, this article should be taken down. It is a disgrace. The article on Wikipedia is sufficient to address this issue. I have no interest in reinventing the wheel. Schoenbaum 01:18, 13 June 2008 (EDT) Schoenbaum

All this appears to have become a match between two (?) sets of people who want to argue about the identity of someone who did or didn't exist 400 or so years ago. Personally, I don't think that it matters - the play's the thing - who cares except some boring old farty academics with nothing better to do? </incite> Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 01:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a better idea, Schoenbaum: Why don't you rewrite the article? Wouldn't that be both much easier and much more... fulfilling than writing these immense walls of text? --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 04:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a better idea. Delete this article and refer people who want to know about the Shakespeare authorship issue to the Wikipedia article: [3] As I said, I have no interest in reinventing the wheel. Aint gonna happen. I reject the premise of this website. "Rational" Wiki compared to what? The "Irrational" Wikipedia? There's only one truth, so why have a separate website that pretends otherwise? Everyone here should go work on Wikipedia articles. Instead, this forum provides an alternative site for people to launch totally unsubstantiated smears by comparing views with which they disagree to intelligent design, and other pseudoscience/history. It forces people concerned about truth to do double duty to stamp out their lies. I will none of it. Whoever proposed deleting this article got it right, but I'd delete the whole site. I'm out of here. Schoenbaum 10:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT) Schoenbaum

Okey-dokey. Bye-bye, then. Don't forget to write. *waves* --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 11:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a problem with this article in that I have no idea what it is on about. It is a terribly written piece. And I don't see the point to it. Bondurant 10:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

After reflection, I agree - Delete the whole thing. It's simply pointless. Mythbuster 01:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Can we have a debate about this without everyone demanding it be deleted immediately? Please? If the theory has merit, we should use the article to give an explanation of why it isn't pseudohistory. Jellyfish!^{That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression.} 01:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that the theory does not have merit, not because it is 'pseudohistory', but simply because it is crap. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 13:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Why not?

What's it got to do with anything? As a subject it's insoluble - there'll never be proof one way or the other and it doesn't matter at all who wrote the bloody things. They're there & that's good enough for me. If there has been some cover up or something, so what - it's purely academic & has no connection to the real world - angels dancing on pinheads - that's what it is. Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 02:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course it matters. Speculation over repeating themes in Shakespeare's work (the Dark Lady and the Fair Youth in his sonnets, for example) would fall apart if these things were not the work of one man. Jellyfish!^{Diane, I'm at RationalWiki again...} 02:05, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't say that I have explored this issue in depth, but I think there is plenty on this topic that could be an RW article. The fact that people are quoting signed petitions from "academics" to support their theory is enough to peak my interest. That is so Discovery Institute. tmtoulouse ^annoy 02:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

But remember, if we're wrong we have to delete the whole site :) Jellyfish!^{Sock of OmesGn} 02:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only does RW need to be erased but we all are ordered to go to wikipedia and work on the "one truth" of NPOV. tmtoulouse ^harass 02:16, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Walt Whitman quote

I made this mistake once, random people voicing their opinions in articles are not acceptable. Better to say that these people had such opinions than give a quote. ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 20:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I added (and re-added) the Mark Twain quote because it was so priceless. Part of RationalWiki is it's "Snarky Point of View" policy. The quote makes things quite snarky, so I say we can leave it up; for the simple reason that it's funny, not because "Mark Twain once said something about this subject". _Essayist RA ^Talk __Fruitcake! 20:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I agree, was talking about the Whitman quote. ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 20:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, okay. _Essayist RA ^Talk __Fruitcake! 20:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yea, if the Shakespeare denialist want to write something convincing, and want to separate themselves from creationist they need to stop using their techniques. Petitions of "experts" and quote mining are not how arguments should be advanced. They are what AIG does. tmtoulouse ^oppress 20:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

The Whitman quote speaks to the fact that the plays betray the aristocratic nature of the author of the author - all those 'better to be noble", and 'the peasants are good for a laugh' sentiments. Whitman knew how to be snarky too - he's just a little bit less obvious!Mythbuster 05:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

At worst it is quote mining with out proper context and analysis, and at absolute best it is an argument from supposed authority from someone that may not be the best "authority" on authentication of Shakespeare authorship. Random quotes are a mainstay of creationist/ID tactics and do not make good arguments. Go check out what CP has done to cp:evolution to see just how silly argument by quotation can get. Make your argument by constructing evidence and logic, not quotes. And since this is apparently a contentious article sources will be needed on both sides. tmtoulouse ^torment 13:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Mark Twain quote

Well, poo. The Mark Twain quote was removed because "No quotes (see talk). Twain also taken out of context - another no-no I believe..." Aw, killjoy. The reason I included this:

"A country bumpkin like Shakespeare could not have possibly written such magnificent works"—Mark Twain, completely missing the irony of that statement.

was to be humourous. I wasn't citing him to support a particular side, I was citing him to elicit a chuckle from the audience. Per our "Snarky Point of View", surely that makes it worthy of inclusion? _Essayist RA ^Talk __Fruitcake! 23:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I am sympathetic to this and it seems a valid exception to me. tmtoulouse ^oppress 23:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Um, wasn't the "SPOV" thing coined by Jellyfish! some weeks ago, not an official "policy?" ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 23:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

But then again, my largely forgetting organ of brain... ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰ 23:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lyra: SPOV goes way, way back to the early days of RationalWiki. _Essayist RA ^Talk __Fruitcake! 23:35, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I made that rule up within weeks of the angst-ridden birth of RW 2.0 - I hope is being properly misapplied here? ħuman ^clues 23:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

It hasn't been properly misapplied until I get called a "proselytizer of fun". _Essayist RA ^Talk __Fruitcake! 23:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I liked that Twain quote. Is there a half-decent, enjoyable and interesting to read article buried in the diffs here? And how come after all this time no one has welcomed Schoenbaum (hope I spelled that right, I'm only editing this section so I can't copy it - but he called 85 something "Oldersig", so I guess I'm ok)? ħuman ^{be in} 23:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

By the way, saying Twain was missing the irony had better be a triple-entendre, because if it's not, it's silly. ħuman^{e society} 23:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] It seems to me...

...that what could have been (and may still be?) a hilarious and informative article (although barely on-mission) got mangled and destroyed by too many editors thinking it mattered. I never would have thought to see a struggle to get something written on such a subject here. Can't we just be outrageous in presenting both "sides", since it is equally obvious that Wily Shakestwerp couldn't possibly have written all that stuff and that Wilhelm de Speare Shackle most certainly did, so there?

I also liked a lot of the arguments presented in the first edit, which were deleted en masse in the second edit. ħuman ^sap 00:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

One other fact that I for some reason didn't think to include: the most likely marker of the authorship "theory" as pseudohistory is the fact that the 17th Earl of Oxford died in 1604, while Shakespeare wrote until at least 1611 (The Tempest). JailersDaughter

Actually, there is no concrete evidence that Shakespeare wrote anything after 1604. On the other hand, an interesting question is why, at the supposed height of his career, did he abandon primary authorship and allow lessor writers like Middleton to finish his works? The answer is obvious if he died and left several works unfinished (Macbeth, Two Noble Kinsman, etc.) Mythbuster 23:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Another interesting fact - Shakespeare's works were regularly published until 1604, when regular publication simply stopped for several years. If he died in 1604, then the stoppage makes sense. Also - if he was still alive, then why did he allow publication of the deeply personal and potentially embarrassing Sonnets in 1609? Mythbuster 23:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Yes, it *is* irrelevant, but that's the point ...

Again, the original reason I posted this and felt it was 'on mission' was that there seemed to be quite a few similarities between the "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare" argument and various forms of pseudohistory (and intelligent design, a point which has been made by others -- see the citations in the article.) I often use the so-called 'debate' in the classroom as a jumping-off point for discussing logical fallacies, pseudohistories, and why 'question everything' is not necessarily the same thing as skepticism.

And yes, the argument that one 16th century guy wrote another 16th century guy's plays is irrelevant, but that's precisely the point. It also doesn't make sense in the context of what we know (based on documentary evidence) about loose notions of 'authorship' (this is back when copyright belonged to printers, not 'authors'): yes, Shakespeare's plays most likely had many contributors other than Shakespeare; no, there was no vast conspiracy to cover up the work of one individual with the name and identity of another individual.

Thanks for humoring me and not taking this *too* seriously. JailersDaughter

<3 Kiss Kiss. Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 20:51, 22 June 2008 (EDT)