*******John Byrne, from "The Stratford Man" thread, 25 January 2021, page 9 *********

Even simpler:

De Vere used no pen name. The Work was created for the entertainment of his peers, who knew who he was. But the Work also “trickled down” to the public theater, and largely out of Oxford’s control.

The Work proved enormously popular, and producers and printers wanted to mark the “brand” so audiences would know what to look for. Enter Shaxsper. By his own effort or by election (by Jonson?) he becomes the face of the Work.*

The first printer to use the name, tho, wants to make sure everyone knows this bumpkin from Stratford is not the Author and adds a wink and a nod to the title page, spelling the name phonetically and with a hyphen, Shake-speare. As previously noted, to a savvy audience, the second S being lower case would indicate a false name.

_________

* A little too much so, perhaps. Hence the “upstart crow”.

************************************************************ *********************

Having read the 15 pages (just yours and Mark posts, and that was already a lot, but it was to give personalised answers in the present discussion), my memory only kept the idea that it was written by de Vere to entertain his friends, that a troupe of comedians got it in a way or another. AND THIS IS WHERE, my memory got it wrong: i had the idea you said they branded it to make the plays recognisable as from the same author for the public, and that the editor simply adopted that brand.

i paste your post:

*******John Byrne, from "The Stratford Man" thread, 17 January 2021, page 2 ************************

Let's assume for a moment that the works were, in fact, produced by a peer of the realm. Someone who did not want his name associated with them once they found their way out into the world beyond the courtly audiences for which they were written.

Since that peer, Edward De Vere, was the ward and son-in-law of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, the most powerful man in Elizabeth's court, and someone who would himself have been embarrassed to have De Vere's name connected to the public theater, no one would have been in any kind of rush to "out" De Vere.

But the Works were proving very popular, and theater producers and publishers needed a "brand" to identify this profitable commodity. (The Works were first publlshed anonymously.) The concept of someone serving as a "front" was known in Elizabethan times, as it is today. And there was this minor theatrical person, from Stratford, who could easily be persuaded to lend his name to publication. De Vere would never protest, of course, and the theaters and printers could continue to make money off the Works.

When the name is first used, it becomes "Shake-speare", a not uncommon variant, given the wide range of spelling of even the most common words in those days. Theatrical tradition of the time had the hyphen followed by a lower case letter (as opposed to "Smith-Jones" for instance) indicating a false name. Just a coincidence, perhaps, or perhaps something to cue the literate readers of the time that the name was, as suggested, merely a "brand".

Note, no conspiracies needed. Just people trying to make money while keeping out of trouble.

Heminge and Condell have a slightly shaky connection to the Stratford Man. He leaves them commemorative rings in his will, but the bequest is written between the lines, and in a different hand. A "ret-con" perhaps, to shore up their claim to be the representatives of the Author?

And why does the First Folio contain a dedication that refers to the Author as if he's dead, seven years before Straford Will shuffled off this mortal coil?

************************************************************

So, you could still have thought of the publishers, but since it was associated with the theater producers, i got the idea that the troupe of comedians, either its head or collegially, got the idea.

If the Stratford man is who you think he is he would act as you say.

But that's the whole question.

Someone smarter may be more careful about his public persona than in things he assumes will stay private. Actually, a smart Shakespeare could be both a ferocious businessman and someone who built his author persona  in a smarter way.

But once again you point to what goes against the possibility the Stratford man is the author. I am not arguing that problems and doubts exist. I said it is a tradition. It may be built on wind, but as long as there's no proof the author is one of the other candidates, or even someone unknown, the anteriority and even more the tradition itself are reasons enough to, if we really want to propose an identity for the author, stick to this one.

There's no need for other uncertain candidates.

It is legit to look for it, and it became a part of the legend.

It's interesting, it may be fun, but it is not serious until proved right.

We can also take the works for themselves and the biography of the Stratford man as a legend. It is a legendary tradition, that may be the truth or not. 

And an allusion (particularly if it is humorous but even if it isn't) differes of an argumented theory.

Did Homer exist? Is the Sir Thomas Malory who wrote Le Morte Darthur, the one Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel proposed by PJC Field?

That sort of thing is nothing new. There's a tradition in some cases, a serious candidate proposed by scholars in others, sometime with a solid and scientific argumentation, but no definitive conclusion. All we can say is maybe. This is believable or not.

But in the end it doesn't matter as much as the work itself. 

And until we get a definitive proof, we have to say that we don't know for sure. We have to be honest and underline the weaknesses of all the cases.

Speculation is only speculation.

The man from Stratford doesn't matter: it is a legend linked to the works. It matters only as a tradition. 

What matters is to not substitute to it another false story, a new dogma.

What we must do is to present the hypotheses in underlining the weaknesses as much as the strengths of each one.