------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------

The First Folio is clearly saying that while Shakespeare didn't have much Latin and less Greek, he was nevertheless, in Jonson's view, as good as, if not better, writers from antiquity (and lots of others, who Jonson goes on to name).

In private discussion with Drummond, Jonson was more scathing, noting the several, and, to Jonson, laughably comic errors, that Shakespeare made in his plays.

And, in his posthumously published De Shakespeare Nostrat, Jonson tilts back towards praise, if of a backhanded kind, remarking that while actors who knew Shakespeare said that he never blotted a line, Jonson wished "Would he had blotted a thousand", and scorning Shakespeare's original line in Julius Caesar "Caesar never did wrong but with just cause" as "ridiculous", and ending by noting that "But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned".

The picture is of a man who wrote fluently, if, in Jonson's view, perhaps a bit too fluently, and without always fully understanding what he was writing about. Jonson may be ambiguous about Shakespeare's genius, but there's no sense of doubt that he had it; there's nothing to suggest that he's a front, or a stooge, or a thief, for another author's writing. And note that the table talk with Drummond and De Shakespeare Nostrat were discussed, or published, after Shakespeare's death - I think Drummond's chat with Jonson was also published after Jonson died, like De Shakespeare Nostrat? - in which there would have been no point in maintaining a facade.

Greene, of course, was even more antagonistic towards Shakespeare.

Sir George Buck, as Master Of The Revels, was responsible for supervising and censoring plays. He also knew Shakespeare, and gave no indication that he was a charlatan, or a front.

Heminges and Condell arranged for the collection of the plays that became the First Folio to honour the memory of the man they had known.

All these men, who knew, worked with, loved and hated Shakespeare never, as far as we know, expressed any doubts that he was the author. Were they all fools? Was Shakespeare, if not a great writer, so consummate an actor?  

With regards to the painting, what is the argument that The Rape Of Lucrece refers to it? Again, I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to read more about it. And isn't it possible that any perceived similarities are simply because both are meditations on the same story?

The gravedigger's speech certainly seems to allude to the case of Hales v Pettit, but why could only someone of noble birth have been aware of it?

And it's not as I would have it - the plays repeatedly have errors that are inconsistent with great learning, rather than a display of it.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------

When JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter, she mixed up Euston Square with King's Cross when describing the 9 3/4 Express. It was a simple mistake that she's acknowledged, explaining it as being because she was living in Manchester at the time, and no-one's ever suggested that it means that she didn't really write Harry Potter.

Acknowledging the errors in the plays in no way diminishes them. The chiming clocks and doublets of Julius Caesar are historically inaccurate. The play is also a masterpiece. The Henry IV plays don't understand the difference between Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of Rutland, and his uncle, also Edmund Mortimer. They (particularly the former) are also masterpieces. 

And this isn't "my" claim - it's the position taken by the majority of Shakespeare scholars, and, as I've noted above, by Shakespearean contemporaries such as Greene and Jonson.