I apologize for becoming rude. I do get exasperated, especially since it wasn’t my choice to start this thread. Let’s recapitulate.
Excepting Little Nemo who seems open-minded and informed, there seem to be four types of thread participant:
A. Dopers with sincere interest in learning about the evidence, who have read the seven-page summary and are preparing intelligent comments.
B. Dopers with sincere interest but who expect me to provide a 7-page summary.
C. Dopers who want to harass septimus.
D. Dopers who already know the answers.
I do not think I could prepare a 7-page summary as good as the link I gave. I might be able to produce a better 20-page summary. But since those insisting I provide the summary seem to refuse to read the 7-pages linked, I herewith treat all in Group B as really in Group C: You’re amusing yourself by insulting or harassing me. Thanks big! But all kidding aside: Is the goal hear to annoy me? Or is to learn? With some of you, I’m unsure.
Some Dopers have professed that they read the 7-page summary but found nothing of interest there, no coincidences worthy of comment. In #51 I mentioned two items from the summary that should give pause, but which no one has commented on. I cannot treat those in Group D seriously.
This leaves only Group A. AFAICT that group is the Null Set, but I will persevere, and write on, hoping that some of you are sincere and interested.
BTW, the 7-page summary deals almost entirely with clues that Oxford was the author. There is a substantial, largely unrelated case that Stratford was NOT the author. (Indeed Mark Twain and some of the other doubters had never heard of Edward de Vere: the arguments against Stratford are quite old and solid, independent of who the real author was.)
Regarding that final sentence: Please Please Please, deal with the STRONGEST arguments Oxfordians make, not the usual tired “arguments” that show up when you Google “Help me debunk …” OK? Read the 7-page paper. Post any clues you find thought-provoking. How about the two I mention in #51?
I can’t speak for Little Nemo, but almost nobody doubts that the William Shakespeare who lived in London was the same person as the individual born in Stratford. The point Nemo was making, I think, is that references to Shakespeare the playwright are abstract, largely made by people who were not acquainted with the man from Stratford. A letter like “Honey, yesterday I watched a great play by Shakespeare” tells us nothing we didn’t already know: Shakespeare was the putative author. What would be telling would be an addition like “You remember the Shakespeares, honey. We bought pork from them when we passed through Warwickshire.” References which firmly connect the literary Shakespeare to the Stratford Shakespeare are VERY few. And please be aware:
- There is no evidence W.S. ever went to school.
- There is no evidence any of his relatives or neighbors in Stratford thought he was a playwright
- It appears W.S. never owned any book, though he was rich enough to afford books.
- There is no evidence that he left behind any manuscripts.
- If he ever wrote a poem to please a daughter, nephew or grandchild, they kept that very secret.
- While he was supposedly living in London and writing King Lear we know he took one of the customers of his Stratford butcher shop to court over a 2-shilling debt!
- W.S. appears to have never written a letter. One letter has turned up addressed to W.S.; it was a request for a loan from a Stratford townsman.
And this despite that basements and attics all over England have been scoured for any reference to this famous playwright! - Dr. John Hall, son-in-law of W.S., was a literate man who once wrote in a letter about a neighbor who was an “excellent poet” but never saw fit to mention his father-in-law this way!
- Each of W.S.'s daughters was possibly or certainly illiterate! Illiteracy was high among women from that era. But would you expect illiteracy to be high among children of history’s greatest wordsmith?
Traditionalist argue that evidence like letters are lacking for other playwrights of that era. Recently I saw a webpage that refutes that claim; for a list of several playwrights of that era, a checklist showed what was known. W.S. finished in last place. (I neglected to bookmark that page, and Googling fails. )
Oh, this gets tiresome. Click on these links for other reasons to doubt Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets: