(293) William Leahy.- Shakespeare a chancer of the first order!

Leahys rather  devastating reflections...

obviously  due to his lack of power of imagination?

___________________

Prof. William Leahy, Deputy Vice-Chancellor at Brunel University London and chair of the Shakespearean Authorship Trust (SAT) wrote on the occasion of Shakespeare's 451th birthday a lead article in "The Conversation" entitled:

     --> Shakespeare’s birthday: ignore the avalanche of adulation -   he was a chancer of the first order 

     
The article had 12,000 hits within the first 24 hours. As a german I didn't know exactly the meaning of "Chancer". 

From the Synonym lexicon I got an idea:  chameleon, chancer [British], opportunist, temporizer, timeserver, trimmer, weathercock  Related Words egoist, egotist, self-seeker; conniver, machinator, plotter, schemer....

It is striking that Prof. Leahy with his specialised academic expertise for the  Authorship problem,

a)  never attempted to arrive at its own consistent theory or "working hypothesis" and

b) from the outset rejected (or ignored?) the Marlowe-Shakespeare Theory and never tested it (as far as I can see), not  even as a "working hypothesis" -

There are not so many candidates better suited for a Shakespeare candidacy, unless you are a chancer of the first order.-- Leahy concluded his article by saying::

Maybe the plays were written by more than one author. (Leahys Opinion from the very beginning.) 

Maybe they were collected together long after Shakespeare’s death and sold as being by him as a business venture, to make money. 

Maybe Shakespeare was a chancer of the first order himself, claiming plays as his that were, shall we say, principally the work of his collaborators.

Maybe Shakespeare was just an excellent entrepreneur (which the records seem to suggest) with an eye on a fast buck and not a genius at all; at least not as far as writing goes.
 

Leahy: So when you pick up your paper and see that face looking out at you with “A Message of Love to Sweet Will” written next to it, read it and weep. But not for Shakespeare, no. 

Weep for the twaddle poured forth in his name. And, for a change on his birthday, along with Hamlet (and me), take all of these messages of praise and “blow them at the moon”


Isn't that rather a devastating reflection of Leahy's total lack of power of Imagination?