A incident arose some time ago that illustrates the problem. Shaxsper was believed to have been involved in the purchase of a parcel of land near Stratford, but that was later shown to be another man, whose name actually was Shakespeare.

The Authorship Question intrigued me in large part because I have experienced such confusion in my own life. My IMDb page for years listed my contributions to a couple of Tilda Swinton movies, contributions which turned out to have been made by her then Significant Other, a Scottish artist named John Byrne. Meanwhile, for years my father had a print hanging in his office at City Hall, an Indian chief portrait by local painter John Byrne.* And then there was the British cartoonist, John Byrne, who has a disclaimer on his website saying he had not worked on the X-Men.

In four hundred years, how might those—and others—be conflated?

________

* When asked if his son had painted the portrait, Dad would smile sweetly and say “Yes, when he was 11.”

The most solid figure we have is Jonson, who, unfortunately for alternative authorship theorists, backs up Shakespeare's authorship - ambivalent although he is about his literary talent - repeatedly.

•••

But, again, it’s all a bit fuzzy, isn’t it? Almost as if “Honest Ben” Jonson was trying to avoid an outright lie. The reference to the “sweet swan of Avon” in the First Folio. Shaxper? De Vere? Both lay claim to the river.

Just vague enough........

••

And this discussion moves closer and closer to pointless as you steadfastly refuse to accept that the Stratford Man was not known as "Shakespeare". That "Shakespeare" in fact may have been a complete invention, created to provide a byline for the Work.

••

Good idea.