Is There a Shakespeare Authorship Question?

Recently an outstanding Shakespeare scholar has suggested to me that there is no Shakespeare Authorship Question. Here are a few possible ways to interpret that suggestion, and my responses:

1. It doesn't matter who wrote the works of Shakespeare; the works should be evaluated on their own terms, without regard to authorship. Any biographical readings, even if we know for certain the author's identity, aren't likely to enrich our understanding of the works. "Shakespeare" IS the works of Shakespeare. Nothing else should concern us.

This is the current, default interpretation of the works of Shakespeare. The biography of William Shakespeare offers no insights into the works themselves, so it is almost universally ignored. This has pretty much always been the case, and it is the case today. Fanciful biographies have been produced for generations, but the bulk of scholarship over the past 100+ years largely disregards William Shakespeare the individual.

Biographical readings also tend to lead people away from the texts themselves, causing confusion and often not adding a lot of insight. A good example is guessing games about the intent of John Donne's poems. Even though a lot is known about his life -- and no one doubts his authorship -- biographical interpretations of his poems really aren't fruitful. It is also likely true that works of that period were less autobiographical than more recent literature.

However, the Shakespeare Authorship Question is a question of historical fact. Some single person put pen to paper and wrote most or all of the Shakespeare canon. That single person must have accessed and read the sources of Shakespeare's works. That person must have known the vocabulary  used and the facts described. That person must have been alive when the works of Shakespeare were being written. That person must have had the motivation -- whatever that might have been -- to write those specific works at the specific times they were written.

Through careful historical research we very well may be able determine who that person was. The main problem up until now is that wrong Authorship Candidates have been suggested (Oxford, Marlowe, etc.) What has been provided as "evidence" for these candidates hasn't been evidence at all. This has confused the situation, and led people to abandon hope of ever resolving this question.

Failures of the past don't mean the question should be abandoned. It means that people need to adopt higher standards of facts and evidence. They need to assess the facts first and then see if it fits potential authorship candidates, rather than distorting facts to fit their favorite candidate.

Note, even if we discover the solution to the Authorship Question, that probably won't greatly alter our interpretation or understanding of the works themselves. But that doesn't invalidate the need for historical research into this question. Facts are facts and we ought to discover them as best we can.

2. The evidence is so overwhelming that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote all or most of the plays and poems attributed to him, any discussion of a Shakespeare Authorship Question is ridiculous. 

My interest is in original research, not fighting the same battles that haven't changed for 150 years. But the facts and evidence do not support this whatsoever. There is shockingly little evidence that William Shakespeare wrote anything, let alone 36+ plays and three books of poetry. The works were, of course, attributed to him. He also appears to have been a member of the acting company that produced the plays. But there is no plausible theory of how he could have written them, and there is no agreement among the implausible theories. This falls far short of conclusive proof, especially with all of the contradictory evidence.

3. The Shakespeare Authorship Debate is bad for everyone. It hurts Shakespeare studies; it takes time and resources away from more important pursuits. It is a distraction. So it should be abandoned.

Scholarship is about finding out the truth. That is the whole point. Research should follow the highest standards, but it shouldn't be restrained in this way. Free inquiry is the way that we learn new, unexpected, and important things. Stifling it is bad for everyone.

Denying the Shakespeare Authorship Question will not make it go away. Punishing and shunning people for engaging in this research has indeed discouraged it in academia. But with the current digital tools available to everyone all over the world, more and more independent researchers will be working on this issue. There is no way to stop it.

Fortunately, we are way way closer to solving this question than people realize. The correct candidate has been identified: Henry Neville. My new research will show the path to completely resolving the question once and for all. Stay tuned!