Who wants to discuss evidence?

Or that Shakespeare’s knowledge of the classics was weak, especially Greek, which ties into his education (which, incidentally there is little doubt – his father was entitled to educate for free his sons in the local grammar school)

Or that Shakespeare’s knowledge of the classics matches that of the standard school text book of the time (which didn’t match the University texts in all details) – matching the limit of Shakespeare’s full time education.

Or that the plays are written by someone who understands the practicalities of the theatre, for example, knowing how to leave enough time for backstage actors to prepare for their next entrance or other aspects of stage craft. Non-acting writers had their play changed to make them ‘fit’ the stage.

Shakespeare was mocked in his time for is LACK of knowledge and LACK of university education; his plays were considered poor by the educated playwrights.

The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare

And then sign!

For the record, I for one have no doubt at all that a “commoner” (like Ben Jonson) could write exceptionally well. There are many excamples of this in history. But Jonson’s educational achievements are a matter of documentary record. There is evidence of his advanced schooling. The Stratfordian theory relies on a kind of “immaculate genius” miracle in which his wide and detailed erudition requires no documentatary evidence. How and when did he acquire all of this knowledge? It’s one thing to be a gifted writer. It’s another thing to be able to read and write in Latin, French, Italian, etc. Acquiring knowledge requires study.

The “snob” advocates misrepresent what skeptics are saying. We’re not saying the Stratford man COULD not be a great writer because he is a commoner from Stratford. We’re saying the Shakespeare works themselves display a level of knowledge about the classics, knowledge of languages, the law, noble pursuits, the inner workings of the court, foreign lands, etc. that their author MUST have had a very extensive education and wide experience. There must be some kind of match between the works and the known biography. A genius from Stratford would most likely have written a very different corpus of works with characters and themes more closely connected to the experience of a writer from Stratford. For centuries scholars have labored to discover any linkages between the works and the known biography. They often resort to wild conjecture and flights of imagination to fill in the gaps. The enormous disconnect between what is known about the Stratfordian candidate’s life and the works themselves is what drives the skeptism. There is also the matter of no convincing, contemporaneous evidence that the Stratford man ever wrote anything in his life. No letter in his hand survives, no marginalia in books, no manuscripts. There’s no evidence he even owned a book. He didn’t bother to teach his two daughters how to read. The more you learn about the Stratford man’s actual life, the more skeptical you’re likely to become about his claim to authorship. This isn’t snobbery. It’s taking a hard look at the available evidence and reaching a rational conclusion based on the evidence.

Matthew Cossolotto

President

Shakespeare Oxford Society

That is not a fact at all. Perhaps you are showing a bit of “reverse snobbery” here because every Oxfordian I know is aware that literary genius is not limited to aristocrats. But we also know that this particular writer known as Shakespeare reveals enough of himself in his works to rule out Shakespeare of Stratford as the author.