Did they ever resolve the theory that Francis Bacon wrote the Shakespeare plays?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

There are no strong arguments. None. Zero. Nada. It’s all lunacy. (Wait, did I hear that somewhere before? )

I’ve read the anti-Shakespeare books and articles about de Vere. They sound convincing - until you read the debunkers. Then they fall apart exactly like all the proofs that the Mafia or the Cubans or the CIA killed Kennedy. You realize that the arguments are sand at best and total ignorance for the most part.

They have been carefully examined for more than a century by dozens of scholars dedicated - like our old friend Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer - to patiently explaining to the public why the science is so bad. When they are done there is no case left. None.

How much of the debunking literature have you read? Any? Are you doing the equivalent of arguing about Kennedy without reading Case Closed?

Again, there are multitudes of people who talked about Shakespeare being a playwright and poet during his lifetime, while both he and de Vere were alive. In that time not a single piece of evidence that de Vere used Shakespeare for any reason ever surfaced, and not a piece of evidence has been uncovered since. Telling us “here are some odd facts about Shakespeare’s life” in no way equates to “therefore he did not write his own plays.” Some positive negative evidence, so to speak, is required. You haven’t given any because there isn’t any. All you have is a conspiracy theory. You can use that to prove that the CIA wrote the plays and sent them back with a secret time machine. And that’s just as believable.

[Sevastopol]

In fact has this scenario ever occurred in a general sense - aristocrat employs another’s identity for some artistic purpose? Course not, it’s an expedition into absurdity.

[RealityChuck]

@Little_Nemo

Actually there’s amazingly little evidence.

Nobody’s disputing that there was a person named William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon who also lived in London. And nobody’s disputing that somebody wrote the plays and poems that are now attributed to William Shakespeare. But the connection between the William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon and the William Shakespeare who wrote the plays is surprisingly small. Nobody connected the two men in Shakespeare’s lifetime. It basically comes down to one person, Ben Jonson, who identified the playwright as being from Stratford-upon-Avon in 1623.

That’s not evidence. That’s supposition. I asked for evidence.

At the very least, since you admit that there was a William Shakespeare from Stratford-on-Avon, and that he lived in London, then the most likely explanation is that he wrote the plays. His name, after all, was on the plays. That is the name of the author nearly all the time (pen names are uncommon, and the use of a pen name of a living person nearly unheard of).

Ben Jonson identifying the playwright was the man from Stratford is evidence that Shakepeare was Shakespeare. That’s one piece of evidence supporting the theory (and, of course, there is far more). It’s also one more piece of evidence than you have provided.

Let’s see some evidence to support you claim.

<more chirping>

[RealityChuck]

@septimus

Shakespeare’s will mentions no manuscripts, books, or business interests in London.

Because the manuscripts were worthless. They had no value. They were only sheets of paper (and probably were not kepty by anyone. You don’t mention anything of no value in your will, and you don’t mention your business interests in London if you’ve retired to Stratford and presumably sold them. And, this is not evidence of anything.

No contemporary document suggests anyone in Stratford suspected Shakespeare was a writer.

Why should they? Very few contemporaneous documents exist in the first place. And this is not evidence of anything.

None of his descendants produced any object, document or utterance connecting their ancestor to “his” writings.

Because there was no reason to keep any such object. And this is not evidence of anything.

There is no evidence any of his children were literate, and specific evidence to suggest each of his adult daughters was illiterate.

No evidence is not evidence. There’s no evidence you are a Martian. Does that make you one? The illiteracy of his daughters is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with whether Shakespeare was literate or not. And this is not evidence of anything.

Shakespeare’s son-in-law, John Hall, was an educated physician who wrote many letters which have survived, including one praising a neighbor as “an excellente poet.” Neither Hall, nor any other contemporary resident of Stratford ever mentions a connection to this “famous” poet. The local historian produced two pamphlets (including a 1616 Yearbook) which would probably have mentioned Shakespeare if he were known in town as a famous playwright.

Supposition. No evidence it not evidence. No evidence is not evidence. And this is not evidence of anything.

These two paragraphs barely scratch the surface of circumstantial evidence.

The two paragraphs haven’t provided a single bit of evidence ti support your claims; you yourself say they provide none. NO EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE. Otherwise, you’re a martian.

There are many cryptic hints (e.g. the “A never writer to an ever reader” preface) which conventional scholars dismiss as “undecipherable inside jokes” or such. Conventional scholars resort to special pleading upon special pleading.

Oh, please. I once, as an exercise, “proved” conclusively by reading a sonnet that Shakepeare was a Martian. You can “prove” anything you want by taking random passages from any text and playing that game. It’s meaningless. No evidence is not evidence. And again, it’s not evidence of anything.

You say that there’s no evidence for these things. There’s also no evidence that Shakespeare was Chinese, lived in India, had a mole on his thigh, or once met with Jesus on a trip to Liverpool. Are those true?

Show me anyone who wrote during Shakespeare’s time and said anything at all that indicates someone else wrote the plays.

You can’t.

[Little_Nemo]

@RealityChuck

At the very least, since you admit that there was a William Shakespeare from Stratford-on-Avon, and that he lived in London, then the most likely explanation is that he wrote the plays.

Then I guess it’s unlikely he wrote the plays. Several of the early Shakespeare plays were written and performed in London while William Shakespeare was still living in Stratford-upon-Avon.

@RealityChuck

His name, after all, was on the plays. That is the name of the author nearly all the time (pen names are uncommon, and the use of a pen name of a living person nearly unheard of).

Uncommon perhaps. But it’s indisputable that people who knew de Vere have said that he was writing works under a pen name. I’ll grant that nobody said the pen name he was using was Shakespeare.

@RealityChuck

Ben Jonson identifying the playwright was the man from Stratford is evidence that Shakepeare was Shakespeare. That’s one piece of evidence supporting the theory (and, of course, there is far more). It’s also one more piece of evidence than you have provided.

And at the time he said that, Ben Jonson was working for the de Vere family.

[Little_Nemo]

@septimus

Shakespeare’s will mentions no manuscripts, books, or business interests in London. No manuscript by, or book owned by, Shakespeare ever surfaced in Stratford. No contemporary document suggests anyone in Stratford suspected Shakespeare was a writer. None of his descendants produced any object, document or utterance connecting their ancestor to “his” writings. There is no evidence any of his children were literate, and specific evidence to suggest each of his adult daughters was illiterate.

Shakespeare’s son-in-law, John Hall, was an educated physician who wrote many letters which have survived, including one praising a neighbor as “an excellente poet.” Neither Hall, nor any other contemporary resident of Stratford ever mentions a connection to this “famous” poet. The local historian produced two pamphlets (including a 1616 Yearbook) which would probably have mentioned Shakespeare if he were known in town as a famous playwright.

There’s also the fact that when William Shakespeare died in 1616, all the mentions of him described him as a local businessman. Nobody in the London theatrical world made any mention of his death, which seems a strange lack of regard for the person who was supposedly the country’s greatest playwright.

[Little_Nemo]

Every time this issue comes up, I swear to myself I won’t get drawn into it again. It’s like arguing about abortion or gun control or cat declawing.

But I will point out that I am not a conspiracy nut. I don’t believe in UFO’s or the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. I don’t think there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy or let Pearl Harbor be bombed. I’m not a birther or a truther. All of these ideas are nonsense with no credible evidence to support them.

But the Shakespeare authorship question is different. I’ve done some reading on the subject and some people have done the research and presented some real evidence. Overall, I’m not completely convinced and I don’t think the issue has been proven either way. But I will say that a plausible argument has been made that cannot be dismissed out of hand with mere ridicule. If the Stratfordians want to defend their position, they’re going to have to step up and start presenting real evidence.

Anyone who wants to see the evidence that has been presented can and should do so. Read ‘Shakespeare’ by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare by Mark Anderson, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro, The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare by Brenda James and William Rubinstein, Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran, and The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality by Charlton Ogburn.

[GIGObuster]

@Little_Nemo

Then I guess it’s unlikely he wrote the plays. Several of the early Shakespeare plays were written and performed in London while William Shakespeare was still living in Stratford-upon-Avon.

Cite? Or are you ignoring that the Globe was not open until later? This is becoming a Comedy of Errors

@Little_Nemo

There’s also the fact that when William Shakespeare died in 1616, all the mentions of him described him as a local businessman. Nobody in the London theatrical world made any mention of his death, which seems a strange lack of regard for the person who was supposedly the country’s greatest playwright.

Only that he was not considered “the country’s greatest playwright”, as the contemporary critics told, and then people like Voltaire pointed out later that he was just then (about 100 years later) only appreciated in London and Canada. As a playwright Shakespeare didn’t became popular or influential until the late seventeenth and eighteenth century, so really once again, very weak evidence for the Oxfordian theories.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/update/stratfordian.html

No one proposes that Marlowe wasn’t written by Marlowe, or Jonson by Jonson. Why is Shakespeare singled out? The answer lies mainly in his greatness; he is the best, and so he is the target of intense scrutiny and speculation. As a figure representing the Establishment in British literature, he is suspect; he is a god, and gods are to be toppled. What’s more, solving mysteries is exciting, whether it be the Kennedy assassination or the Shakespeare authorship question. Sleuthing of this kind appeals to educated professionals like lawyers and businessmen who like to pursue Shakespeare as a hobby. What a treat it must be, through ciphers and other presumed codings, or through archival research, to show that all of Western culture has been bamboozled over the centuries by a hoax, and that Shakespeare is really the Earl of Oxford.

The pleasure of such a revelation is so great that Oxford has had several predecessors as claimants; the first, in fact, was Sir Francis Bacon, followed by Marlowe and a host of others. The very fact of there having been so many claimants ought to make us suspect that the endeavor is essentially one of finding the answer to a problem that may not exist and that did not exist for English readers and theater-goers for the first 300 years or so after Shakespeare’s birth.

If Oxford was so eager that someone should “Report me and my cause aright/To the unsatisfied,” why did he leave such enigmatic clues? Was the stigma of being a playwright so huge that he could tell no one, not even write it down for his friends? Ultimately the case collapses on lack of motive as well as lack of evidence, for it presupposes a social history of how playwrights got to be playwrights that is simply not in keeping with historical reality.

David Bevington
Professor of English Language and Literature
University of Chicago

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Little_Nemo

There’s also the fact that when William Shakespeare died in 1616, all the mentions of him described him as a local businessman. Nobody in the London theatrical world made any mention of his death, which seems a strange lack of regard for the person who was supposedly the country’s greatest playwright.

Just out of curiosity, what was said when Edward de Vere died in 1604? And why did nobody in all of London cock an eyebrow when plays kept appearing under Shakespeare’s name even though de Vere was dead? And how exactly did de Vere have time to write and store away as many as a dozen plays (a full 50% of his total output) before 1604 even though he was leading a seemingly full and busy life, except for the ill health that plagued him for years before he died?

All conspiracy theories are identical. If you assume that Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy, you’re free to find another killer. And people do. Dozens of them. Makes no difference that these theories must contradict one another. As long as they “prove” that Oswald didn’t do it, they’re free to cherrypick the world for “facts” that support them - without bothering to subject those “facts” to the same treatment they give to disputing Oswald.

Shakespeare deniers are identical. Literally dozens of alternate candidates have been proposed, and most are still defended. Bacon may have lost his place as the major contender but he still has defenders, even though it is ludicrous to believe that such a writer could have also altered his style to fit the playwright’s. People talk about de Vere now as if it is a simple choice between them. But that’s not even slightly true. There continue to be dozens of candidates, with de Vere merely a popular one. That’s right, as with every other conspiracy theory, there are multiple times the number of non-believers in any particular variant of the theory even if they won’t go for the “official” story. To anyone with sense, this makes it far more likely that they’re all wrong rather than the official story being wrong.

Stop giving us titles of the conspiracy literature. Tell us about the debunkng literature you’ve read. You know, the books by actual professors who are actual experts in everything relating to the subject, not dilettantes who write one book and make claims that they can’t support. How many of those have you read? Name them.

All conspiracy theories are worthy of ridicule, unless they are so dangerous that stronger measures must be taken. Once you see this for the trivial conspiracy theory it is, you can never take it seriously again.

[GIGObuster]

@Little_Nemo

But I will point out that I am not a conspiracy nut. I don’t believe in UFO’s or the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. I don’t think there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy or let Pearl Harbor be bombed. I’m not a birther or a truther. All of these ideas are nonsense with no credible evidence to support them.

But the Shakespeare authorship question is different.

No it is not, This subject has in common with previous conspiracies the fact that virtually all experts and scholars agree with a basic conclusion, in this case, the authorship of Shakespeare; the Oxfordians (deniers) are constantly debunked (this is very important IMHO), the best evidence showed for the Oxford theory is just that: circumstantial, and it has already pointed out that several of the proponents of this do refer and imply a conspiracy from the part of scholars to hide or discredit the “evidence”.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

The funny thing is, I bet it’d be really easy to apply Baconian cryptology to the works of Bacon and come out with the conclusion that Bacon never wrote them at all, but paid Shakespeare to do so.

SciFiSam: Gerald Kersh wrote a hilarious story (sorry, but I don’t remember the title and don’t have access to my library) in which Shakespeare and Ben Jonson are talking about their work over some wine and Shakespeare gripes that he wasted too much time on hack work – writing the complete works of Francis Bacon.

As for the topic of this thread, I agree with you, RickJay, RealityChuck and Exapno Mapcase. Shakespeare’s plays were written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon.

[septimus]

@Inner_Stickler

Seriously, Septimus? That’s the best you’ve got? None of that is proof.

Let me repeat: I am an agnostic on the matter. If I had proof, I wouldn’t be agnostic. I mentioned this in the previous thread and was told that was impossible – no one is agnostic on the matter! :smack: (About that time there was also a thread on Myers-Briggs personality type and I mentioned I am INTP while more Dopers are INTJ. )

What do I mean that “I am agnostic”? If I were forced to “make book” on the matter, I’d call Wm Shakespeare the most likely candidate for the authorship, perhaps with a 40% chance, or up to twice that in variations where there was a major collaborator. If someone replies “40% is low … I’d call it 75% or even 90%,” I’d certainly have no problem with their views. Those who regard it as a 100% certainty, however, really make me doubt their objectivity … or whether they’ve even studied the case.

And please know that I am quite aware strong case can be made against the de Vere authorship. I regard the authorship as something of a mystery. Indeed there are aspects of the stories about de Vere and Shakespeare (e.g. the confiscation of de Vere’s and Wriothesley’s papers the night of de Vere’s death) that should be considered fascinating mysteries even stipulating Shakespeare’s authorship yet the “doctrinaire Stratfordians” will not even deign to discuss these. (Whether he was the author or not, de Vere’s biography and relation to the theater is interesting, yet a major Shakespeare biography introduces de Vere only to mention condescendingly an alleged (and probably fictitious) FART ! )

The case is involved, and is based on lots and lots of circumstantial clues. Very close parallels have been found between passages in Shakespeare’s writings and those of de Vere’s. And much MUCH more I can’t summarize. I’d post a list of URL’s if I detected any sincere interest; have the debaters here even read the relevant Wikipedia page?

Do debaters here admit that
[ul]
[li] De Vere was a playwright, described as “best”?[/li][li] De Vere’s name appears on lists of playwrights which do not include the name Shakespeare?[/li][li] No plays, or even names of plays, attributed to de Vere have turned up?[/li][li] When the famous playwright de Vere died and when his widow died, King James I ordered a commemorative festival of plays? The plays performed were those of … Shakespeare![/li][/ul]

The earliest references to Shakespeare in London were both spoofish: “Upstart crow” and “Not without mustard.” Jonson’s view may have changed when he was brought into the hoax.

It is valid to point out that there is “no smoking gun” … no clear pointer to a de Vere authorship. Know that in the hoax scenario, Queen Elizabeth and King James I had specifically forbidden the revelation (perhaps due in part to political aspects of some of the plays).

There are plenty of cryptic hints about the authorship. I won’t offer more, until I hear a response to “A never writer to an ever reader.”

I will grant that many people on the anti-Stratford side say false or stupid things. The other side, however is also wildly inconsistent. To the question: Why was Shakespeare’s death almost ignored in 1616?, we hear:

As a playwright Shakespeare didn’t became popular or influential until the late seventeenth and eighteenth century, so really once again, very weak evidence for the Oxfordian theories.

… Yet on the topic of why the Author was spoken of in 1607 with words normally used for dead people, the Stratford side will say “because he was already a legend, spoken of as an immortal.”

Because the manuscripts were worthless. They had no value.

Utter nonsense. If this is the gibberish the “other side” chooses to offer here, I’m gone.

[Peter_Morris]

@Little_Nemo

Then I guess it’s unlikely he wrote the plays. Several of the early Shakespeare plays were written and performed in London while William Shakespeare was still living in Stratford-upon-Avon.

cite?

Uncommon perhaps. But it’s indisputable that people who knew de Vere have said that he was writing works under a pen name.

cite?

[GIGObuster]

@septimus

Let me repeat: I am an agnostic on the matter. If I had proof, I wouldn’t be agnostic.

I consider myself an agnostic, but of the teapot kind, as with the issue of a deity the result is the same with the Oxfordian theories, it is not likely at all that we will find a teapot in orbit around mars and it is not likely at all that there is good evidence to even begin to say that Shakespeare did not write what he did.

BTW your last retort is not what an agnostic as you are defining it would say it. The few critics that talked about Shakespeare did dis him, it is not a contradiction to realize that Shakespeare was not as influential and widely renown until later. Locally, it was very likely a different history while he was alive.

[njtt]

@Exapno_Mapcase

You can use that to prove that the CIA wrote the plays and sent them back with a secret time machine. And that’s just as believable.

I think you have finally cracked it. This is the only theory that also explains how it can be that Anne Hathaway is still around, and making a killing in the theatrical profession, even today: an undeniable, independently confirmable fact that no Stratfordian can dispute. “Second best bed” is probably a cryptic reference to the time machine (second is a unit of time after all), and it was thus of course, his most valuable possession that he was leaving her, his only way of keeping in contact with the infinite team of CIA monkeys that were producing ‘his’ works for him.

[GIGObuster]

@septimus

Because the manuscripts were worthless. They had no value.

Utter nonsense. If this is the gibberish the “other side” chooses to offer here, I’m gone.

Utter nonsense back at you, there are many examples of artists selling their craft almost for free only for the art pieces to become priceless way after the death of the creator like it happened to Van Gogh.

It does happen that a few do recognize talent early, but usually it takes time for the majority to identify the ones that will be recognized as legends.

[SciFiSam]

@septimus

Let me repeat: I am an agnostic on the matter. If I had proof, I wouldn’t be agnostic. I mentioned this in the previous thread and was told that was impossible – no one is agnostic on the matter! :smack: (About that time there was also a thread on Myers-Briggs personality type and I mentioned I am INTP while more Dopers are INTJ. )

What do I mean that “I am agnostic”? If I were forced to “make book” on the matter, I’d call Wm Shakespeare the most likely candidate for the authorship, perhaps with a 40% chance, or up to twice that in variations where there was a major collaborator. If someone replies “40% is low … I’d call it 75% or even 90%,” I’d certainly have no problem with their views. Those who regard it as a 100% certainty, however, really make me doubt their objectivity … or whether they’ve even studied the case.

And please know that I am quite aware strong case can be made against the de Vere authorship. I regard the authorship as something of a mystery. Indeed there are aspects of the stories about de Vere and Shakespeare (e.g. the confiscation of de Vere’s and Wriothesley’s papers the night of de Vere’s death) that should be considered fascinating mysteries even stipulating Shakespeare’s authorship yet the “doctrinaire Stratfordians” will not even deign to discuss these. (Whether he was the author or not, de Vere’s biography and relation to the theater is interesting, yet a major Shakespeare biography introduces de Vere only to mention condescendingly an alleged (and probably fictitious) FART ! )

The case is involved, and is based on lots and lots of circumstantial clues. Very close parallels have been found between passages in Shakespeare’s writings and those of de Vere’s. And much MUCH more I can’t summarize. I’d post a list of URL’s if I detected any sincere interest; have the debaters here even read the relevant Wikipedia page?

Do debaters here admit that
[ul]
[li] De Vere was a playwright, described as “best”?[/li][li] De Vere’s name appears on lists of playwrights which do not include the name Shakespeare?[/li][li] No plays, or even names of plays, attributed to de Vere have turned up?[/li][li] When the famous playwright de Vere died and when his widow died, King James I ordered a commemorative festival of plays? The plays performed were those of … Shakespeare![/li][/ul]

The earliest references to Shakespeare in London were both spoofish: “Upstart crow” and “Not without mustard.” Jonson’s view may have changed when he was brought into the hoax.

It is valid to point out that there is “no smoking gun” … no clear pointer to a de Vere authorship. Know that in the hoax scenario, Queen Elizabeth and King James I had specifically forbidden the revelation (perhaps due in part to political aspects of some of the plays).

There are plenty of cryptic hints about the authorship. I won’t offer more, until I hear a response to “A never writer to an ever reader.”

I will grant that many people on the anti-Stratford side say false or stupid things. The other side, however is also wildly inconsistent. To the question: Why was Shakespeare’s death almost ignored in 1616?, we hear:
… Yet on the topic of why the Author was spoken of in 1607 with words normally used for dead people, the Stratford side will say “because he was already a legend, spoken of as an immortal.”
Utter nonsense. If this is the gibberish the “other side” chooses to offer here, I’m gone.

Cites for all of that, please. Not Wikipedia - at least hunt down their sources and quote them. You claim to know so much about it, so it should be easy.

It would save me providing the counter-cites, and, since you made the argument, it’s your turn.

[septimus]

@SciFiSam

Cites for all of that, please. Not Wikipedia - at least hunt down their sources and quote them. You claim to know so much about it, so it should be easy.

It would save me providing the counter-cites, and, since you made the argument, it’s your turn.

Wow. If you care to focus on 2, or perhaps 3, specific claims, I can try to hunt something up, though it will probably be “just an Internet page.”

To ask for “cites on all of that” while offering zero in the way of counterargument is excessive, IMHO.

And I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the topic. But speaking of “know so much”, I’d be very curious to learn how many of the points I raised, even in the relatively brief quoted synopsis of just a few clues, were even known to those ridiculing the “anti-Stratfordians”? Let’s start with you, SciFiSam. Nevermind if you’ve seen proofs: Were you even aware that the “anti-Stratfordians” made these claims?

[septimus]

@septimus

Let me repeat: I am an agnostic on the matter…

[ul]
[li] When the famous playwright de Vere died and when his widow died, King James I ordered a commemorative festival of plays? The plays performed were those of … Shakespeare![/li][/ul]

One reason I’m “agnostic” rather than “anti-Stratfordian” is that I may be the victim of lies and half-truths. I saw the claim about the Shakespeare theater festivals ordered by King James on a possibly biased webpage. I don’t remember if the claim was uncited, or referred to a source to which I have no access. I participate in discussions like this to learn. Are the anti-Stratfordians lying or not? Historians might be able to help with such questions.

But it’s impossible. I ask a question, in this or another forum, and get only links to “Why we know Shakespeare was Shakespeare.” A particular claim about astronomical references is made; knowing its validity would be useful. In the other thread I asked if anyone knew of a paper listing Shakepeare’s astronomical references. All I received was “Why do you want to know?” over and over, and discovered fellow Dopers not only refused to contribute, and were unaware of the topic’s relevance, but couldn’t even figure out the relevance!. (Hint: A playwright doesn’t mention astronomical discoveries made after his death.)

And by the way: The greatest writer might have possessed no books (which were valuable), might have written zero poems after his retirement, might have had no interest in publication after 1604, and might have burned all of his surviving manuscripts. I grant that. If the Stratfordians are permitted unlimited “special pleadings” their case cannot be overturned, and I concede defeat.

[GIGObuster]

@septimus

Wow. If you care to focus on 2, or perhaps 3, specific claims, I can try to hunt something up, though it will probably be “just an Internet page.”

To ask for “cites on all of that” while offering zero in the way of counterargument is excessive, IMHO.

Well I have posted several already and I’m not an expert, although I do have plenty of experience on identifying conspiracy woo woo ideas from the ones based on evidence.

One just needs to look at professors and teachers on the field:

Shakespeare Is Shakespeare

6. Robert Greene dedicates a play to Oxford and attacks Shakespeare in a pamphlet.

I have not seen any scholars bring this up, but I noticed this the other day. College-educated playwright Robert Greene dedicated his Gwydonius to the Earl of Oxford. However, Greene had no qualms in attacking Shakespeare in a deathbed pamphlet, berating Shakespeare as an upstart bumpkin reaching beyond his station.

This fits in well with what we know about Shakespeare. Clearly an ambitious man of humble origins, he receives a coat-of-arms, becomes a part-owner of a player’s company, eventually with King James as company patron, and buys the largest house in Stratford and the prestigious Blackfriar’s gatehouse in London.

Again, Shakespeare and Oxford are separated. This attack by Greene would not be made on a nobleman.
7. Shakespeare had an imperfect knowledge of Latin and royal court life.

Oxfordians believe that Shakespeare’s use of Latin and court life in his plays adds to the probability of a nobleman as the author of the plays.

To begin with, Shakespeare’s Latin and Greek were imperfect. Ben Jonson mentions Shakespeare’s scholastic failings (“and though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek”) in his dedicatory poem to his great peer’s 1623 folio.

Secondly, John Dryden, a later playwright often at court, recognized Shakespeare’s plays as ignorant of court life. Muriel St. Claire Byrne wrote an essay in A Companion to Shakespeare Studies enumerating Shakespeare’s mistakes involving court life.

This would easily eliminate a Cambridge-educated nobleman from being Shakespeare.

10. The Epilogue reveals the author of Henry IV as a social inferior.

Shakespeare wrote an epilogue to the end of the second part of Henry IV when the play was staged for Queen Elizabeth at Whitehall palace. As James Shapiro notes, the author addresses the aristocratic audience from a socially inferior position. An aristocratic peer would never address his equals in this manner. Therefore, the creator of Falstaff could not have been the Earl of Oxford; however, Oxford may have been an awe-struck fan of William Shakespeare at the palace of Whitehall.