Shakespeare Identified

[Eyes of the World]

5. Those who conclude Shakspere of Stratford was Shake-speare

are the ones who are cherry-picking the evidence. What little there is.

Nearly 400 years after his death, and despite billions of dollars and man-hours of research, no one has yet to put a pen into the hands of Shakspere of Stratford, except to sign his will and 3 other court documents.

Stratfordian researchers DO INDEED jump through some serious hoops to conclude without evidence that indeed Stratford must be the man.

But they never try to explain this:

In 1597 William Shakspere of Stratford was in court in Stratford pursuing a debt of 6 pounds in court. How is it that this man was making a four day ride between London and Stratford without leaving any trace? There are no communications between him and his wife ever (nor any other business associate who must be watching his thriving Stratford business). There are no receipts or lodging records from inns along the way. And why did he sue a man for such a small sum if he was busy making money hand over fist acting and writing plays? Why are there no receipts for payment of any plays or poems? Why does no one in London even mention his name during his lifetime? Why does he not acknowledge the death of Elizabeth? Why does his own death go unacknowledged? How is it that fully half of the plays were published after Stratford's death (by De Vere's son-in-law BTW (I'm sure Stratfordians ignore that) yet no provision for their publishing is made?

The stories that are told about a famous William Shakespeare drinking with Marlow and Jonson at some Tavern are all historical fantasy. Except for a few documents, none of them literary in any way, the person of William Shakespeare seems to have not been a real person at all.

I reiterate for you:

The Academic Community has concluded long ago and without evidence that William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the plays. It is not a surprise that people who have made a career on this study would not acknowledge anything other than what they need to believe (although this is changing; Oxfordian studies are starting to appear in Universities in this country, notably Concordia in Portland Or).

So Sheila T, you must either believe that mysterious William Shakspere of Stratford went to London, changed his name to Shake-speare, churned out an average of 2 plays per year which he also acted in AND found time for some lyric poetry, without ever leaving a scrap of paper with his handwriting on it, without ever sending or receiving a letter, without being mentioned in anyone's journal. You believe that although he sued for small sums of money he allowed his works to be pirated. You believe that it is not strange that William of Stratford was never questioned by the Star Chamber despite having some pretty nasty things to say about the Queen and other powerful persons, things that really should have cost him his thumbs. And after all this he returns to Stratford, changes his name BACK to Shakspere, and lives the reminder of his life as grain dealer, not staging as much as one play for his beloved Stradford neighbors.

Or maybe you should consider that the writer of the works of Shake-speare was a disaffected nobleman who could get away with what he wrote because he covered himself with a pen-name. And maybe that nobleman had his identity covered-up to hide the embarrassment of what he wrote.

If the works of Shakespeare are written by Stratford, then they are magical works of the cut-and-paste genius, to be read only for their beauty.
If Edward De Vere wrote them, then they are a very intimate portrait of Queen Elizabeth and her court written by someone who was their.

Try this: pick up any of Shakespeare's works. Any will do. First read it as if it is written by a commoner from Stratford. Then read it as if it was written by a nobleman. See which reading makes more sense. The man from Stratford is nowhere to be found, but the voice of someone else is crying out.