EDIT: I butchered the Title. Sorry :/
I read about a theory that Shakespeare did not author his own pieces and there are a host of theories available as to who did. So, like usually, I take to askhistorians first to get a good response. I found one thread (forgive me if there are more I missed) here:
I did not like the response because the author just presented the base reasons then just said they were "horse shit" without saying why. Is there a better analysis of the playwright? I do not adhere to the theories, but I am curious on an actual discreditation of the supporting arguments rather than "that's just shit". He said that the theories are based on what we don't know rather than what we do know. Is there more to it than that? Are there good, scholarly books on the subject? I may have misunderstood the original piece, so let me know if I have.
Thank you!
Shakespeare authorship denial is harshly objected to by literary historians, so I’m not surprised if someone snapped at you.
One of the big talking points of Authorship denial is European geography. Shakespeare didn’t leave the country so had no real understanding of the many foreign towns he set his stories in. Authorship deniers propose that these plays are the work of more well-off playwrites who did go to Europe and that explains how his plays demonstrate remarkably accurate knowledge of Italy.
The problem is that the geography is terrible, and someone who travelled across 16th century Italy would see through it easily. Verona and Padua for instance are in-land, yet Shakespeare seems to set every Italian town on the coastline.
If you look through articles describing the “surprising truth behind the REAL author” you’re likely to find a lot of cherry-picking. Sorry that I only brought up the geography - it’s been a while since I’ve read Shakespeare, but I’m sure the others will provide more categories.