'Anonymous' - Prof Carol Rutter & Prof Stanley Wells discuss the Shakespeare authorship question 

I have to disagree with Prof. Wells. I think it is good that people should question received historical evidence rather than blindly accept what they have been told. I did and came out convinced that Shakespeare is indeed "Shakespeare".

this would be more interesting if the two interlocutors weren't on the same side of the issue.

After Shakespeare's death, William Basse wrote in a poem entitled "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616" (very clearly referring to the Stratford man) saying that Spenser, Chaucer, and Beaumont (all interred in Westminster Abbey) should move over to make room for Shakespeare, and it would be a long time before a fifth would be worthy to join their number. True, his reputation didn't rise to its present height right away, but his plays remained consistently popular throughout history.

There are no records of Ben Jonson's attendance at Westminster, nor any manuscripts of his plays. There is no evidence of any playwright of Shakespeare's time that would meet Oxfordian standards for evidence of Shakespeare.

What a joke. He didnt even own the Bible, for goodness sakes! The evidence that his daughters were illiterate is based on the good evidence. That of their signing legal documents with a 'mark as opposed to a signature. They wont address whey there were no lamentations, from any corner, for the loss great bard, upon his death. If his own neighbors & contemporaries did not believe he was to the great bard, why the heck should we ??

"It is immoral to question history".... And you just lost all credibility.

Then clearly the danger of losing one's head or hands was not a motive for concealing authorship of these plays at all, since there's no reason to think there was any such danger. Why, then, would de Vere have wanted to conceal his authorship, and why would he have used the name of a real person working in the theatre at the time instead of using a fictitious name, or simply publishing the works anonymously?

Are you suggesting that Shakespeare's father did not actually get a coat of arms? That's absurd.

I think that if Green wanted to accuse Shakespeare of stealing credit for his plays, he would have written that instead of dropping cryptic hints that can only be deciphered by people who already think Shakespeare didn't write his own work. Shakespeare deniers aren't keeping an open mind, they're committed to denying all the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship and then setting up somebody, anybody else as the true author.

What about the fact that we have dozens of letters written by de Vere, and he doesn't mention his own purported literary activity in any of them? He even often says that most of his time over the past year(s) has been spent on various schemes for restoring his squandered fortune. We DO have eulogy poems for Shakespeare (e.g. the eulogy by William Basse), but despite Oxford's higher social rank, no acquaintance or stranger is known to have mourned his death.

Shakespeare was considered among the greatest in his own time. Richard Carew (c. 1595) says the best poets of the day are Surrey, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Daniel, Spenser, Davies, and Sidney. William Covell (1595) lists Sidney, Spenser, Alabaster, Daniel, and Shakespeare. Richard Barnfield (1598) praises Spenser, Daniel, Drayton, and Shakespeare. Francis Meres (1598) writes that "mellifluous and hony-tongued Shakespeare" is "the best in both [tragedy and comedy] for the stage."

Died young? He was 52 and apparently retired. The average lifespan for an adult male in England at that time was 47 years, and only 35 years for rich people in London due to the terrible sanitation. Your hero Oxford was himself "only" 54 when he died (with a dozen Shakespeare plays yet to be written).

Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare but by another man of the same name.

How can you be sure about that? The Cambridge student records that supposedly refer to the playwright say "Christopher Marlin," and there was another student there at the time called "Christopher Marlow." And what was Marlowe doing signing his name (which he spelt "Marley") to a will in Canterbury in 1585 if he was supposedly attending Cambridge? Denying the evidence for Shakespeare opens the door to denying the evidence for everyone else.

I doubt that Oxford would have recalled such details, since his time in Italy was mostly devoted to sexual adventure. In a poem published two years after Oxford's death, Nathaniel Baxter recalled that that Oxford had led a life of "infamie" in Venice, contracting a venereal disease from a prostitute, and was recalled to England by a higher power. His major souvenir of Italy was a handsome 16-year-old choirboy named Orazio Cogno, who later fled Oxford's service citing sexual abuse as his reason.

Where can I download that essay?

That sentence does not end with a period. Oxford's name is the first in a list which is in order of social rank, not necessarily what Puttenham considered their relative merit. Of all that can be said about Puttenham, I will simply note that he also writes that the greatest poet in all genres is "the Queen our sovereign Lady, whose learned, delicate, noble Muse, easily surmounteth all the rest that have written before her time or since," so his opinion can be put down as pure flattery.

In addition, Meres includes Shakespeare and Oxford together on a list of writers of comedies, indicating that they were distinct authors. Notice that while Shakespeare is noted as an author of both tragedies and comedies, both Puttenham and Meres mention Oxford solely as a writer of comedies.

The goal of this video was to criticize the contents of Anonymous. Other outlets for that argument outside of the details in Anonymous can be found elsewhere. Their opinions are not from a vacuum, they've actually done research and know quite a bit about the period and details that do exist. In my estimation, they countered the film's themes strongly. Dissenting specialists and people with normal interest usually leave important details out of discussion, and it irritates Rutter and Wells.

So what? The only documentation we have of middle class individuals like Shakespeare from that time consists of legal and financial records stored in government depositories, church registers, and scattered documents that survived by chance, so his life is not well-documented enough for silence to be significant. Oxford was an aristocrat, so his life is well-documented enough that silence IS significant. What direct evidence connects de Vere to these plays? Did he mention books in his will?

This can all be explained in modern terms. Pete Seeger, who came from a privileged background wrote many songs, as did many of his contemporaries. Educated, from the right eschelons of society and yet a mid-west bumpkin, who dropped out of university, was able to write songs way beyond that which Pete Seeger could write. Just for one minute, explore the similarities between Shakespeare and Bob Dylan. Both were seemingly uneducated, compared to their contemporaries and yet they both surpassed them. Not just by a small amount, by an ocean of understanding, that cannot be explained. Both understood the common people and the way they think. Both understood the underhand workings of the state. Both tried to expose them. Lords and Earls, do not question the minds of Kings. Shakespeare did and so did Dylan. Question what is before you and understand the deviousness therein. 'But I mean no harm, nor put fault, on anyone living in a vault, but it's alright Ma! If I can't please him.' Or perhaps ' Little boxes, on a hillside, little boxes, made of ticky-tacky, little boxes, on a hillside, little boxes, just the same.' I'll leave you to decide, if a priveleged mind, wrote those words.

But that wasn't for "attaching his name to the printed word." It was for sedition. Shakespeare's works were not seditious, so why would there have been any risk in having one's name attached to them? Was anybody's hand chopped off just for writing a play like Hamlet or Henry V?

In the Second Quarto of Romeo and Juliet, one finds the word "cousin" spelt cosen, cousin, couzen, cozen, and cozin, to choose just one example. Shakespeare spelt words however he wanted because there was just no standard spelling at the time he lived. As mentioned in this video, there is a surviving manuscript of a play called Sir Thomas More about three pages of which are in Shakespeare's handwriting, and in three lines, he spells "sheriff" shreiff, shreef, shreeve, shreiue, and shreue.

I am not anonymous, but I refuse to make this about personalities and not the facts. We know that the name on the poems and plays is William Shakespeare; we know that William Shakespeare is the name of an actor in the company that exclusively produced the plays; we have historical evidence that William Shakespeare from Stratford is Shakespeare the actor; we have evidence that he is Shakespeare the part-owner of the company; and we have evidence that he is Shakespeare the writer.

Waldegrave regularly hyphenated his name on the title pages of works he printed from 1582 on; one of these is reproduced on page 31 of Matus's "Shakespeare, In Fact". Charles Fitzgeoffrey's name was hyphenated regularly as Fitz-Geffry, Fitz-Geffrey, or Fitz-Geffrie. It seems to have come down to the idiosyncrasies of printers; you'll notice that of the 15 quartos where Shakespeare's name is hyphenated, 13 are published by Andrew Wise or the man who took over his business, Matthew Law.

If Oxford were the author, why would he set so many plays in a country he disliked? He wrote to Burghley in September 1575, "for my liking of Italy, my lord I am glad I have seen it, and I care not ever to see it any more.... I thought to have seen Spain, but by Italy, I guess the worse."

And what, you think the Fitz-Geffreys were formed by the union of the Fitzes and the Geffreys? In his 1605 book Remaines, William Camden suggests in a long section on the origin of English names that some men derived their names "from that which they commonly carried, as Palmer, that is, Pilgrime, for that they carried Palme when they returned from Hierusalem, Long-sword, Broad-speare, Fortescu, that is, Strong-shield, and in some such respect, Breake-speare, Shake-Speare, Shotbolt, Wagstaffe."

Meres did not call Oxford "the best for comedy among us", although Oxfordians often misquote him as if he had; Oxford's name is the first in a list (ordered by social rank) of people who are collectively "the best for comedy among us", but when you cut off the quote in mid-sentence, it looks like he singled out Oxford. In fact, Meres lists Shakespeare in the same sentence, indicating that he knew de Vere and Shakespeare to be distinct individuals.

How do they know when the plays were written? Macbeth could just as well refer to the gunpowder plot against Darnley in Scotland, which De Vere would've known about by living with Cecil.

I’d love to see these two do a commentary track for the DVD!!!

Just an observation, how many of you have studied the history of the time? Have any of you noticed that most of the artists of the time are "unknown"? How many authors can you name in contemporary times that remain relatively unknown as they just don't care for society to know them? You know the stars who act in the movies, but how many playwrights and book authors who wrote those stories can you name? In the time of Shakespeare, there were absolutely brilliant architects, authors, painters, decorators, poets and such that we know very little about, if nothing at all. We know more about how the rich decorated their homes and gardens than we do of the artists who painted their portraits. Just as then as now the egomania of the rich and famous is more known than the incredible talent of the artists that live among us. Many of our contemporary artists have had what some consider "common'" educations. You might want to use this excellent video to disabuse yourselves. Do some real reading and research before you go around making such personal attacks on the speakers as well as blanket statement that lack any foundation.

Re: Oxford's life, consider this: King James's father was murdered. His mother was suspected in the scandal and soon married the supposed murderer, a heavy drinker. Mary's meddling chief counselor was murdered in her presence, and his body was disposed of secretly by means of a stair-case. James was a melancholy, indecisive prince, interested in learning, a poet, married to a woman whom he treated shabbily, and a likely successor to the throne of England. Does this "prove" he wrote Hamlet?

The question is, "Is it Hamlet, or is it Humbug".

We should remember that these people are much more invested academically with the historical information, which is why they are against the spreading of this film's hypothesis. For them it is the literary equivalent of pushing intelligent design on an unsuspecting, non-scientific public.

I hope Roland Emmerich is harked as a genius movie maker (never happen) in 400 years and someone makes a movie about him being a fraud, and I hope people without understanding of the history of Sir Emmerich believe it...

Actually, there is no record of Jonson's attendance at Westminster, but it is a reasonable inference from a reference Jonson made in conversation with William Drummond to "his master Camden" considering that William Camden was headmaster at Westminster at the time he would have been there. This is just how we know many things about famous people of that time. As I said at the start, your argument is based on ahistorical assumptions, and historical context is needed to refute them.

So Sidney Buchman didn't write Mr. Smith Goes to Washington because he was never a senator? Christopher Nolan didn't write and direct Memento because he doesn't have short-term memory loss? Tolkien didn't write The Lord of the Rings because he never cast the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom? John Milius didn't write Apocalypse Now because he was never a Green Beret? How are these cases different?

According to you, Shakespeare was "a tax-dodging, grain hoarding, land grabbing money lender". That sounds like we know a lot. But what do we know about Christopher Marlowe? Did anyone refer to him as a writer in his lifetime? Were any of his works published in his lifetime with his name on the title page? Do we have any manuscripts or letters from him?

In your own diary? Why? You know who your father-in-law is. And the reputable scholarship on Oxford (Alan Nelson, Steven May) concludes he didn't write Shakespeare.

The generally-accepted chronology is based on evidence which you can find in standard scholarly literature. It is Oxfordians who try to force it to fit someone else's lifetime, and no coherent pre-1604 timeline has been offered.

The evidence is decisive. These works were printed with his name on the title pages, lots of his contemporaries refer to him as their author, and there is no plausible alternative candidate.

Why do you think he never wrote a letter? In Shakespeare's day, paper was expensive and invariably recycled. How many commoners of that time can you name whose correspondence has survived other than by chance, as in the case of, for example, Richard Quiney? Interestingly, among Quiney's paper when he died was a letter addressed to Shakespeare, suggesting that Shakespeare would be able to read one. Tuition was not a problem. John Shakespeare got a free education for his sons as a job benefit.

Why does it matter what Ernesto Grillo thought in the 1920s? Other research has shown that he was wrong, and you can find information about Shakespeare's sources in any Oxford or Arden edition of his plays.

Shakespeare wrote dozens of plays in which all sorts of things happen to hundreds and hundreds of characters, so it's not surprising that you can go through them looking for thing's that resonate with some given individual's life and come up with a rather impressive list.

Hamlet was an old story; what evidence is there that the Hamlet Nashe and Thomas Lodge saw was Shakespeare's Hamlet? The tone in which they write of it suggests that it was an old-fashioned play which they both found rather ridiculous.

Second, practically all of the incidents in the plays which supposedly parallel Oxford's life come from Shakespeare's sources and were common literary tropes at the time. It's just coincidence, as you can see by the many such lists which have been drawn up for competing candidates.

Really scientific approach :-D something is "immoral" :-D 14:04 something "is dangerous" to encouraging people to question "historical fact." Is he from China?

The idea that a hyphen indicated a pen name in Elizabethan times is completely unknown outside of Oxfordian literature, and there is no evidence to support it. Proper names of real people were hyphenated all the time; one finds such examples as John Old-Castle, Charles Fitz-Geffrey, Thomas Camp-bell, and Robert Walde-grave.

John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623. Ben Jonson's eulogy in the First Folio clearly praises Shakespeare as a great writer. He states that "thy writings to be such, /As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much." Heminges and Condell also praise Shakespeare as a writer, stating that "he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him." These are "his works" and "his papers" that they are publishing. He is clearly presented as the writer of these works in the First Folio. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare of Stratford clearly connects him with the 1623 First Folio through Heminges and Condell and it is clear that Shakespeare is presented as the author of the plays.

Whether or not I am giving denialist claims a fair hearing, the fact remains that there is clear direct evidence that Shakespeare is the author of the plays and none that anyone else is.

The historical record speaks with one voice: the Stratford native, actor, Globe-sharer, and playwright were one and the same. Nobody ever suggested that one of these was somebody using a pseudonym, nobody of the Elizabethan or Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution, and there is no evidence tying any popular alternative candidate to the plays, the theatre company, or those identified as the playwright's friends. Explain THAT away.

That is quite a stretch. I think when you read that in context, it's pretty clear that he is making fun of Shakespeare as an actor for expanding into writing plays as well as performing them (he calls him a Jack of all trades), specifically identifying him as the author of Henry VI, Part One with his allusion to the line "O, tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide". There may well be another candidate, but until one actually appears, it would be most unreasonable to just assume that one exists.

To make a case for any such conspiracy, you need motive, means and opportunity at the very least. The means are within the reach of a 17th century conspirator, and perhaps even the opportunity (though that they'd escape detection and doubt for several centuries is questionable), but what of the motive?

Who ever had their hands or head chopped off solely for "attaching their name to the printed word" in Elizabethan England? Name a single person.

There's zero mention in writing or evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare even attended Stratford grammer school :/

An interesting view. I own the blu-ray and the special feature interviews seem to suggest that they are exposing a falsehood to educate the masses. What are documentaries but opinionated education pieces? We shouldn't confuse the documentary category with non-fiction and historical accuracy. While they probably haven't made art (if scholarship isn't creative in its way), I don't see how this helps forward your opinion that they have no taste (they're Shakespeare/Jacobean literature experts).

Contrary to what you have assumed based on your anti-Stratfordian prejudice, the five faculty members who taught at the school at the time Shakespeare would have attended all had Oxford degrees; some published original Latin poetry. There's no record of his attendance there, but there's no record of ANYONE'S attendance there prior to 1700. It was a very good school that prepared him for his illustrious career as a playwright. Ben Jonson too had only a grammar school education.

If somebody offered you an argument for the existence of God, and similar reasoning provided an equally good argument that your cat is God or that there is an invisible dragon who lives in your garage, don't you think that would be a good reason to think they hadn't proved anything? We know far more about Shakespeare than about Christopher Marlowe, so please explain to me how you can think that William Shakespeare didn't write his own works, but Christopher Marlowe did.

Good point. English (and other languages) was growing as the printed word empowered an already well-estabished education and university system in western Europe. The popular plays themselves are testament to the common use of sophisticated language and even literacy, although spelling was far from being standardized. In fact, spelling would not reach the consistency we take for granted for hundreds of years.

My mistake, Henry VI, Part Three.

******Final note, if it were proven that De Vere really did write the work, I don't understand why people, especially in the literary field, have such a hard time coming to terms with the idea of it being "BASED ON...." like every other film that proclaims "TRUTH." At the end of the movie there is always going to be some dramatization - it's just inherent with narrative no matter the medium. Narrative is the Subjective Portrayal in order to create an Objective Experience/Lesson/Moral/Idea across to an audience. Timothy O'Brien's "The Things We Carry" comes to mind, and is just one more reason why I can't help but see this kind of response as being hyper-defensive and more personal than academic. They almost come off as pretentious, at least credit the story for what it is, rather than criticizing it's historical accuracy alone, I mean they are Literary Professors not History right?

I'm going to slightly disagree with the professors. Not on the subject of Shakespeare's authorship, which I think is completely genuine. I disagree on their saying that it's immoral to question the established history. To question something is important. One must never take things at face value. Question history. Then question the questioners. Always strive for understanding and truth. Do your own research. Seeing this film didn't sway me into thinking Shakespeare was a fraud. It did make me wonder what evidence the director/producer had put forward, and it's accuracy. It made me cross reference those "facts" with other sources so that I might affirm or discard them as needed.

"I've seen his blotted signatures, and they're pained, and look like he was having a difficult time." Who says he wasn't? You realise that the three on his will were signed six weeks before he died, right? And the two on the mortgage were squeezed into the narrow space of a seal holder-it's like judging someone's handwriting by the signature on their credit card. Not that we should expect his script to look "normal" anyway-some people don't appreciate that handwriting, like language, evolves.

Yes, it's too bad that despite being born with every advantage in life, Oxford failed to make use of the opportunities he was given.

"I've read a fair share of both sides, and find the Stratfordians to be arrogant and outright liars, such as claiming that the 3rd Earl of Southampton was his patron, when there's NOTHING that links them, even obliquely." Ridiculous. Shakespeare dedicated both of his narrative poems to the Earl of Southampton. It doesn't seem very likely that he would have dedicated a second book to Southampton if he had received no reward for the first.

There's 25:19 I'll never get back. Additionally, I cannot begin to understand what difference it would make what the birth name of the author of Hamlet actually was. Why would switching names to Edward de Vere, say, change anything more than would learning that the author of the greatest words ever uttered anywhere by anyone owned a brown chair, or was left handed, or ate meat loaf on January 4, 1588? (He did, you know).

In reference to an earlier point. Sspeare is mentioned by Greene "upstart crow"

Is the interviewer American or British?

did you ever think that edwards story were later translated to plays by shakespeare

It's the Flat Earth Theory, only with Shakespeare instead of The Globe.

Whenever someone makes fun of my spelling, I will point them to 3:50. My typos are Shakespearian.

Some outside-the-box thinkers believed the Earth was hollow. The theory was considered and rejected. That's you.

Immoral to question history.... wow. This guy can't stop projecting his characteristics upon others.

ROMEO AND JULIET (RECOMPOSED) by Jason Rudge THE PROLOGUE The CHORUS enters. Our scene is set in an enticing city Where two rival households swap stinging scars, Uglifying the air two teens make pretty When true love blows their hearts across the stars,… Which rouse a prickly sun imparting heat To twisting blades that twist the plot on stage For the benefit of worms seeking meat From fools who rashly court despair and rage. Youth can make fools of all the greatest lovers, But sometimes outside forces play a part And in this tale a foolish youth discovers His love can’t keep old hatreds from his heart- Nor halt hearts taking trips to heaven’s gate, Which fast becomes the lovers’ tragic fate. The CHORUS exits. .

Of course he could read and write, we have six signatures and several pages of his handwriting. That's evidence. How is it an actual fact and not a supposition to say "he may have bought the rights to the works"?

If Shakespeare's parents were illiterate, so what? His generation was much more educated than his father's. There was an excellent school within walking distance of his house which would have been free for him to attend, and he entered a profession which required literacy (acting). There is also a surviving letter addressed to him, indicating that he was able to read a letter. Somebody must have taught him to read and write, and it seems clear that he learnt to at school.

It's interesting that people try to use Shakespeare's "poor" spelling and lack of vocabulary as ammunition for their conspiracy theories. Before 1611 and the publication of the King James Bible, the English language was in a state of flux. There was no real standardisation of spelling or even grammar. Let's also remember the vast amount of words Shakespeare made up. Who needs a grand vocabulary when you can just invent words. Shakespeare's plays are much more about imagination than education.

But of course young people should be encouraged to question things; otherwise the 'academics' are the ones pushing possibly false information of them. I haven't seen this film but from a scientific perspective (more my thing than English lit) the theory is valid and there's no decent arguments against it - this video is exceptionally biased.

John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623.

No one ever addresses the motivation an author would have for not taking credit for his own writing. If The Earl of Oxford wrote the plays why not put your name on it? This is the most essential question to my mind.

What makes you think his handwriting "smacks of illiteracy"? What documents handwritten by Elizabethan illiterate people do you have to compare it to? Shakespeare was an actor, and acting was a profession which required literacy. There was a school within walking distance of his house which he could have attended for free, and it's an obvious inference that that is where he learned to read and write.

Biased, and broadly misrepresents the Oxfordian arguments.

I am not invested in Shakespeare being the author. I would be totally open to hearing convincing evidence that it was somebody else, but a long and hard search has turned up none. If you have a reason to publicly cast undeserved aspersions on the character and talent of one of the greatest authors in English, surely I have a reason to explain where you've gone wrong.

I would really prefer to hear from the most famous alumni of the University of Warwick. Mr. Stephen Merchant.

Anyway, have you read de Vere's poetry? It is distinguished only by its mediocrity. Even if it could be realistically thought that Lord Oxford could have concealed his authorship of Shakespeare's works, he lacked the talent to write them.

One things is certain. Shakespeare didn't write those plays.

Your own description sez: " Exploring the theory that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays that we attribute to Shakespeare, Roland Emmerich's new film Anonymous has re-opened the Shakespeare authorship debate." They've "countered" with suppositions, conventions, tales of unproven content, and almost no written records. Professors, too, have a vested interest in perpetuating the Stratfordian myth.

If you are Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, what else will you say? How much money does the SBT make per year on tourism? Also, the film takes a lot of artistic license so to dispute the film on "facts" is just plain silly. And the young Oxford was NOT 7 yrs old in this film. They're panicing now because the authorship controversy is making its way into academia. Wells says "It's immoral to question history".

Of course Shakespeare had books when he died. Unfortunately, the inventory of his property that would have accompanied the will, and which would have listed things like books, has been lost. Italy-so what? The plays show no knowledge of Italy that could not have been obtained from books or conversation (and it is often taken from identifiable books). Eulogies-nonsense, lots of people eulogised him, including William Basse, who titled his poem "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616."

I think those who doubt the authenticity of Shakespeare use the same innuendo arguements that Dan Brown used in "The DaVinci Code". Hey, let's make a lot of money by writing a book. Truth is not an issue. Just twist the facts because there are always people stupid enough to buy it.

Talking fast, in a loud and shrill way, and dismissing people who think differently, should not be necessary for people who know they are right. Prof Stanley Wells says it's "immoral" to take the credit away from Shakespeare. Why? Whatever the truth may be, it is surely not immoral to look for it.

If you think that these aren't facts, can you name even one person who lived during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I or King James I (17 November 1558-27 March 1625) known to have thought that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym or that somebody else had written the plays and poems? You can't, of course, because the case for Shakespeare is found in the historical record and the case for everyone else is found in active imaginations.

The authorship debate is nonsense and pointless; ultimately what Shakespeare must be thanked for, aside from the art, is creating a whole academic and publishing industry.

I enjoyed Anonymous as entertaining fluff but it's not meant to be taken as history, just a "what if" kind of thing.

The nobility was all inter-married back then. Why is that so hard to believe?

What evidence is there that Oxford wrote Shakespeare's work? His life is much better-documented than Shakespeare's, and there is no sign of his purported literary activities. For most of his life, Oxford's main concern was restoring his squandered fortune, and in his letters, he often explicitly writes that most of his time over the past year (sometimes multiple years) has been spent on his various get-rich-quick schemes.

Why has Oxford University co-credited Marlowe with Henry VI Part 1 2 and 3? That alone seems to me to be potentially opening a can of worms

Now there you go assuming again. Where in this conversation have I mentioned the Earl of Oxford. And what kind of clock do you use that precludes written works from being published years after someone's death anyway? It is not conspiracy theory just because you don't believe it. It only shows that you would rather believe only what you are told than think for yourself. Do you belong to the Flat Earth Society too?

As a matter of fact, there are many people who think that Oxford/Bacon/Queen Elizabeth/whoever wrote not only all of Shakespeare's works but all of Marlowe's as well, but that's not the point. If the evidence you claim for Shakespeare not being an author is valid, we should be able to apply the same tests to other writers of the period and not reach ridiculous conclusions. How can we prove that Marlowe was a writer? There are no letters. No one called him a writer in his lifetime.

I agree with most of the comments I'm reading. I remember asking a literature professor to watch this movie and he got so defensive in his refusal to see it. I think people are just too defensive, while I can see the whole theory being wrong, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to come up with. I mean they made a lot of good points, and even watching the film with the resolution that it's 100% fiction I still would have walked out of the theater with an ever-clearer understanding and appreciation for Shakespeare's work. It gave me a whole political, social, and economical backdrop that I had never even cared to consider before. I'm not sure how these professor couldn't see that the movie had comedy/history/tragedy beautifully ingrained in the plot/characters. The whole fact that Shakespeare is portrayed in this vulgar, degrading light - yet being done so without ever deprecating the work itself was hilarious to me. De Vere aside, had Shakespeare (according to whom they insist him being) seen this movie I actually could see him enjoying it strictly from an analytical point of view. It had everything and ever since I saw that movie I've become another one of those cliche members of the audience who had that moment of revelation wherein "Shakespeare Came Alive!" But truly that's what happened, all of a sudden I was able to understand wtf I was reading as if it could be happening today. It just put everything into context for me, like I said even though I haven't 100% bought into the theory, and wouldn't be surprised were we to concretely discover Shakespeare was either the glover's son or the aristocrat, the plot gave me a new understanding in terms of the work to what it spoke.