1,452 comments Add a comment Tom Regnier · Follow · President at Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship In order to believe that the Stratford man was Shakespeare, it is necessary to suppose that the son of illiterate parents, for whom there is no evidence that he ever went to school, ever wrote a letter, or ever owned a book, somehow attained a world-class education that included fluency in several languages, a deep understanding of law, medicine, classical mythology, aristocratic sports, science, philosophy, Greek drama, heraldry, the military, and Italy, among other subjects, thereby becoming one of the most literate people of the Elizabethan Age, and gained all this knowledge without leaving a clue as to how he did it. Yes, the author of the plays had native genius, but he also had tremendous book learning. I have taught a law school course on Shakespeare's knowledge of the law. There wouldn't be enough material to do that with any other Elizabethan playwright. Reply · Like · 47 · Follow Post · January 1 at 2:37am Roger Stritmatter · Follow · Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Coppin State University As usual, an elegant synopsis from Tom Regnier. In other words, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. All these problems, and many more, afflict the orthodox account and help to explain why it is now in decline. Further details are available here: http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/ Reply · Like · 25 · Edited · January 1 at 4:18am Mark Johnson · Top Commenter In order to believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare it is only necessary to examine and accept the direct and circumstantial evidence provided by the extant historical record. In order to believe that Oxford was Shakespeare it is necessary to deny the fact that not one iota of actual evidence exists to support the proposition that he was the author of the Shakespeare canon. What should we call it when a belief is not supported by any evidence at all...I think the applicable word would be "faith". In this instance, the Oxfordian faith in their Lord. Reply · Unlike · 6 · January 1 at 4:36am Ann Zakelj · Top Commenter Mark Johnson I' faith, Mark. What you're describing is the foundation for the Holy Mother Church of Stratfordianism! Pour yourself an ale at the Mermaid and have a Happy New Year. Reply · Like · 15 · January 1 at 5:00am View 41 more Joseph Ciolino · Top Commenter · Works at A multitude of Educational Institutions Very bigoted reporting. You should know better. That there are no plays or poems in his hand, or that we have "only" six signatures are specious arguments. Compare to contemporaries of Shakespeare, then render a judgement. Lord what fools these particular mortals be. The quartos published IN HIS LIFETIME, specifically NAMING SHAKESPEARE as the author of the plays, the numerous references to his authorship, and Ben Jonson (the greatest literary scholar England has produced) who KNEW Shakespeare and attests to his authorship, are just about enough for me. There is NO contemporary evidence that anyone else wrote the plays; no evidence that anyone CLAIMED to have written the plays, none that anyone claimed that someone else wrote the plays. All of this started because one woman (Celia Bacon) whose sanity was waning and ended up in a sanitarium, claimed Roger Bacon to be the true author. PLEASE! Reply · Unlike · 41 · Follow Post · Edited · December 29, 2014 at 2:34pm Karl Wiberg · Top Commenter Never heard of a pen name? Reply · Like · 24 · December 29, 2014 at 4:20pm Joseph Ciolino · Top Commenter · Works at A multitude of Educational Institutions Karl Wiberg Brilliant. That's it! You just destroyed all the mountains of evidence, the years of scholarship! The overwhelming historical and contemporaneous proof that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare by using that ONE word! Congratulations! Reply · Like · 17 · December 29, 2014 at 4:30pm Howard Schumann · Top Commenter · Film Critic at Criticalcritics.com Thanks to Diana Price for pointing out the following: We have much documentation for lesser writers. Gabriel Harvey left over 150 books written in five languages. Thomas Nashe left behind a handwritten verse in Latin, a letter to William Cotton, and a 1593 letter to Sir George Carey to Cotton reports that Nashe had dedicated a book to him. Robert Greene’s death in 1592 was the talk of the town in literary circles and there is a complete record of Greene’s education at Cambridge. George Chapman contributed a commendatory poem to John Fletcher and received one from Michael Drayton. Drayton was treated by physician John Hall and was described in Hall’s casebook as an excellent poet. He has a handwritten inscription to “his honored friend” Sir Henry Willoughby on a copy fo his poem “The Battle of Agincourt”. Drayton, Chap... See More Reply · Like · 38 · December 29, 2014 at 5:27pm View 81 more Karl Wiberg · Top Commenter A big thank-you to Roger Stritmatter and other open minds for their many patient and thoughtful (and largely non-ad hominem) replies. It's important to note that having one's cherished beliefs challenged is no small matter. Often, our identifies are wrapped up in what we believe. I think it was Ogburn who pointed out that when plate tectonics was first proposed, virtually none of the geologists of the time accepted it. The theory gained mainstream acceptance only after that generation died off. They were not stupid. Rather, their minds could not accept something so contrary to what they knew, so contrary to their sense of self. It's no wonder so few Stratfordites bother to read the arguments put forth by the skeptics and doubters, much less the full-throated Oxfordians. Who wants to entertain ideas that make one feel foolish? I sure don't. Reply · Like · 31 · Follow Post · Edited · December 30, 2014 at 2:13am Roger Stritmatter · Follow · Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Coppin State University Thanks Karl. You are quite right to point out that there is an issue of cherished belief at stake. Many of us have made the leap of actually reading up on the Oxfordian case. But many are, alas, still stuck in the denial stage. Reply · Like · 19 · December 30, 2014 at 5:09pm Joseph Ciolino · Top Commenter · Works at A multitude of Educational Institutions Roger Stritmatter Seems to me that the real religions being promoted here is Oxfordianism, Baconism, or basic Anti-Stratfordianism -- all relying on faith without proof. Well, more a 'cult" than a religion. Reply · Like · 3 · January 1 at 8:34pm Jeff Rowe Joseph Ciolino Not so, Joseph. We are just relying on the Earl of Oxford's life story and the contents in the "good book." What it seems you Stratfordians rely on is "the given story.' But what's really at heart is that you Stratfordians are all "pretenders." You love to use Shakespeare's words as your own calling card of intellectually superiority over the largely unread masses. This makes you special, in your eyes. You've all written books and recited passages at parties, unknowingly losing a lot of the double meanings and jokes Oxfordians get, while secretly fantasizing that maybe you could "pretend" to know a thing or two and go down in history, just like little old William. Genuine articles, like Oxfordians, are just fine with marveling at the man himself. We have our own lives just like he did. Reply · Like · 7 · January 3 at 4:06pm View 5 more Tom Regnier · Follow · President at Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship Those who say that there is "no evidence" that anyone other than the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare's plays do not understand circumstantial evidence. It is possible to prove a case in a court of law entirely with circumstantial evidence. Of course, one piece of circumstantial evidence does not prove a case. It takes a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that fit together and point in the same direction. in the case of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, there are so many parallels between his life and the plays of Shakespeare that they cannot be explained away as mere coincidence. The first 17 sonnets, which urge the "fair youth" (probably the Earl of Southampton) to marry were written around the time that Southampton was being put forth as a husband to Oxford's daughter. Like Hamlet, Oxford was captured by pirate... See More Reply · Like · 30 · Follow Post · January 2 at 6:37am Mark Johnson · Top Commenter I understand the meaning of the term "circumstantial evidence" quite well and what you have listed here does not qualify as such. It is merely coincidence. For instance, stating that, "The first 17 sonnets, which urge the "fair youth" (probably the Earl of Southampton) to marry were written around the time that Southampton was being put forth as a husband to Oxford's daughter," does not logically and reasonably yield an inference that Shakespeare wrote those sonnets. There is a logical process involved with circumstantial evidence that is not present in your cited examples. Premise: Oxford's uncle translated Ovid. Premise: Ovid was one of Shakespeare's favorite sources. Conclusion: Therefore, Oxford was Shakespeare. Golding's translation of Ovid is not evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Oxford was Shakespeare. It is merely a coincidence. That the two men were related doesn't even yield an inference that Oxford ever even read the translation, much less support the claim that is often made by Oxfordians that he helped to write the translation. Even taken cumulatively all you have is a series of coincidences. Of course, the main problem for your "case" is that amassing all of your alleged coincidences does absolutely nothing to rebut the prima facie case for the Stratfordian attribution which is actually established by direct and circumstantial evidence.