dave, could you expand on this:

In all but one of the lists of the Kin's Men in WS's life his name is first, followed by Burbage. Burbage is there as principal actor, WS as principal writer.

... especially, "WS as principal writer".

How many lists?  Where?  I'm intrigued, but I can't seem to find any examples on the Web.

Robin.

[I'd have responded sooner, but I thought I could track it down.  No luck ...  :-(   R.]

-----------------------------------

On 16 January 2017 at 20:49, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Ok then lets take a look at this article.

Paragraph 1 : "For four hundred years there has been a question about the authorship of the Shakespearean works."

No, there hasn't. Apart from a sniffy eighteenth century parson  the Question never became prominent until the advent of Delia Bacon.

"the problem is  that William Shakespeare, the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, was not acknowledged as a writer in any documentation of the time."

Yes he was, from Francis Meres on there are explicit identifications of Shakespeare as a writer.

"There is no evidence he was ever present in the royal court, where most of the plays take place." There are records of the King's Men being present at the Court, ample documentation of the plays at court and lists of the players in the Royal Household records (alongside the pantry staff) with Shakespeare at their head.

"There is no evidence that anyone noticed when he died." Except for the First Folio.

"There are no records from anyone in which Shakespeare is personally referred to as a writer (read the contemporary mentions of William Shakespeare carefully—the works are referred to, not the man)."

Apart from Ben Jonson, Hemming, Condell etc etc. One might also mention Milton, who, though only 7 when WS died, had no doubt about his authorship and wrote a poem for the Second Folio.

Literary London was even tighter and smaller than now - a deception on the scale required would not have held.