Peter--you recall perhaps that I said I do not believe the assertion Neville was Shakespeare is a "slam dunk". I said in fact that at this point I am convinced neither by the Stratfordian argument nor the Neville one--but I'm interested to read the Neville book. I'm fascinated to read the Oxfordian evidence also--and there's a lot.

It's interesting that some are already condemning the Neville book--has anybody here read it? I didn't know it was even available yet.

What's clear to me at this point is that the comfortable assumption that the Stratford man wrote the Shakespeare canon is itself shaky.

Greg--

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by your "educated but stupid" remark.   It was, however, a reasonable interpretation that the phrase was aimed at Shakespeare skeptics, since was in this context that it was made. Thanks also for your characterization of such skeptics' views as "a very telling case".

Now we can go on.

I would point out that Mozart is not a good pro-Shakespeare example. His genius was evident at a very early age. All sides in our discussion, I believe, agree that the writer of the "Shakespeare canon" was also a genius. Yet there is absolutely no evidence before he was-- what, 28?--, of that colossal talent, which, it is asserted, needed little schooling.   Autodidacticism is all well and good but in a genius it seems reasonable to see some results before age 28.