SB replied: In 1616, William Shakespeare dies in Stratford-Upon-Avon. In his will, he leaves small bequests to (among others) John Heminges and Henry Condell, who were also named alongside him in the royal charter of 1603 that created The King's Men.

In 1623, the First Folio is published. Heminges and Condell explain they've arranged to be published to commemorate the memory of the man they'd known.

That's as clear a line as can be drawn.

SB replied: Well, quite! It's also generally accepted that the plays that bore Shakespeare's name would have been written in collaboration with other writers - Kyd, Nash, Middleton, Beaumont, Fletcher - and yet none of them ever found it odd that the plays they'd written with De Vere were being falsely attributed to the Warwickshire lad.

Alternative Authorship theorists sometimes argue that not only was Will of Stratford not the author, but he wasn't even literate, which obviously make no sense if he managed to successfully pose as a writer for decades. When The Lord Chamberlain's Men, then The King's Men, were going through dress rehearsals, did no-one find it odd that Will of Stratford couldn't read the plays that he claimed he'd written?

SB replied: "My Mind To Me a Kingdom Is" is generally attributed to Edward Dyer. As far as I know, that's still the general consensus.

Mark Haslett wrote: The 1589 work "Arte of English Poesie" bemoans the courtier-poets who suffer their work ‘to be publisht without their owne names to it’ -- and lists Oxford as such a courtier-poet.

SB replied: Circulating poems anonymously isn't the same as publishing plays under a pseudonym. And virtually all the poets listed in "The Art  Of English Poesie" had been published under their own name by the time "The Art Of English Poesie" appeared - including, of course, Oxford himself.

Oxford was known, and praised, as both poet and playwright. He suffered no ill-consequences for this, and the argument that he would have had to conceal his writing, or use some sort of "front" for it, is not true.

I'd like to ask what may be a dumb question: Assuming that, as I believe after reading all of these debates that the a man named Shakespeare did not write them, is there any belief that there will ever be definitive proof of who wrote the plays? A Holy Grail people are seeking as proof, so to speak?

Second, can someone please recommend a book or two that covers the authorship debate? 

Thanks.

Also there are 3 documentaries on the subject available on TUBI

1) LAST WILL. & TESTAMENT, a PBS companion piece to ANONYMOUS, it's far better than the movie to my mind although it gets a little overwrought towards the end. Diana Price appears in this. Worthwhile.

2) NOTHING IS TRUER THAN TRUTH, a bio of Edward De Vere

3) SHAKESPEARE: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NAME, Cheesy but interesting

Asking "ever" leaves open the possibility of new evidence emerging, so in that regard -- nobody knows.

Based on the existing evidence, I don't think the question means much to Stratfordians, who argue that all we know still points, as it always has (and always will?), exclusively to Shaksper as the author.

But for doubters, without new evidence, the answer is "no" -- except, despite disagreements about alternative candidates or no candidate, they all agree that the existing evidence shows Shaksper to be such an unlikely candidate that it is as close to definitive as possible that he was not the author. 

SB replied: Which Oxford obviously must have done, given Meres praise of him in Palladis Tamia, and which resulted in no ill consequences for him.

Mark Haslett wrote: Whether or not the true author is Oxford, the

plays were full of political ideas. 

SB replied: The plays were written, and published, in a time of intense censorship. If they had been full of seditious opinions or subversive ideas, the censor would never have allowed them to be performed or printed.

Shakespeare's plays can be unorthodox, but they're also ambivalent.. He seems to have seen the duality in everything, rather than proselytize for a particular point of view.

Mark Haslett wrote: When aristocrats go to print with their political ideas, at the time, they would use pseudonyms. So, there is no

problem, imagining why Oxford would not use his real name if he was the author. 

SB replied: Except that we know that he didn't, given Meres' public praise of him.