It needs to be said that nearly all of the anti-Shakespeare sentiment - actually all of it, every bit - involves manipulative scholarship or sweeping misstatements of fact. [I]n the normally unimpeachable History Today, William D. Rubinstein, a professor at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth, stated in the opening paragraph of his anti-Shakespeare survey: 'Of the seventy-five known contemporary documents in which Shakespeare is named, not one concerns his career as an author.' That is not even close to being so. In the Master of Revels' accounts for 1604-5 - that is, the record of plays performed before the King, about as official a record as a record can be - Shakespeare is named seven times as the author of plays performed before James I. He is identified on the title pages as the author of the sonnets and in the dedications of the poems The Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis. He is named as author on several quarto editions of his plays, by Francis Meres in Palladis Tamia, and (allusively but unmistakably) by Robert Greene in the Groats-worth of Wit. John Webster identifies him as one of the great playwrights of the age in his preface to The White Devil. The only absence among contemporary records is not of documents connecting Shakespeare to his works but of documents connecting any other human being to them.

What she says: I'm fine

the marlowe conspiracy pages are WILD

Professor Waugaman Named Oxfordian of the Year

The Oxfordian, Volume 23, Is Now Available

Warren Publishes History of Oxfordian Movement