There is some evidence of Shakespeare writing a play if you accept the evidence of Hand D in the fragmentary play “Sir Thomas More” (of course, you have to accept also the verdicts of handwriting experts who have compared that manuscript with known Shakespeare autographs). There is also much evidence connecting a person called William Shakespeare with the theatre, particularly acting and acting companies, but not exclusively. His theatrical associates also ascribed the plays to him, even after his (and de Vere’s death). The Oxfordian authorship theory requires an enormous and fairly complex conspiracy sustained over a considerable period. I suppose it might be extremely vaguely possible, but when faced with a far more logical alternative, Shakespeare seems more than the likely candidate.

I would add that we shouldn’t really expect to have the sort of conclusive evidence we might like. There is the passage-of-time factor, not to mention that similar evidence for many other writers/dramatists of period also does not exist (though no one seems to want to posit alternate authors for them–why weren’t they also fronts for de Vere, or whoever?). One small point to sort of substantiate the above–we don’t even know when exactly Sir Walter Ralegh (or Raleigh) was born, which is rather amazing when you think of the man.

I will certainly grant your first assertion. Where, indeed, are de Vere’s drafts of the “Shake-speare” plays, his manuscripts, etc., etc.? But one can’t ask the same question about de Vere’s letters or other writings. De Vere was recognized as a writer. There is plenty of evidence (other than the Shakespeare plays and poems) that he did actually write.

But with the actor William Shakespeare (whose name I will spell in the traditional way, since I recognize that spelling it “Shakspere” is fraught with implications), there just isn’t any other actual evidence that he wrote.

I am very curious about your book, “The Shakespeare Diaries.” I want to take a look at it as soon as I can. It looks fascinating.

But I note from its subtitle that it is a “fictional autobiography.” This brings me back to my original, basic discomfort: why must we rely completely on fiction and “what-ifs” to talk about William of Stratford’s life?

I do not consider myself a full-blooded Oxfordian by any means. But I do consider myself a skeptic with respect to the orthodox view. I would love for somebody to find even the tiniest documentation about what Shakespeare of Stratford wrote, thought, felt, whether he was a generous man, a miser, a Protestant, a Catholic, a party animal or a Puritan.

But so far, after several centuries, nobody has found anything that he wrote in his own hand, other than his signature.

Presumably one could ask the same questions about de Vere. Where are his letters and notes about the plays, his early drafts, his final manuscripts, and so forth. Ditto the question about the First Folio, with regard to De Vere (especially so many years after his death). Of course, the explanation given the friends of the actor/dramatist known as William Shakespeare seems perfectly rational.