As for the Shakspeare authorship if you discuss some facts about Christopher Marlowe as a candidate in Web Forums you most often get the question: Where is the evidence? - But if you discuss for instance the evidence of Shakspere's grammar school education or the evidence of the origins of his matchless universal litery and world knowledge and so on and so on, there is no question of evidence because of the clear evidence of the Canon. This appalling circular reasoning defines the Stratfordian authorship controversy througout.
As for the Shakspeare authorship it makes no sense to argue from the perspective of evidence, since the total lack of secured evidence for Will of Stratford as the author of the Canon is awesome. - We are forced to argue from the perspective of plausibilities.-
In this respect compared to Marlowe William of Stratford
does not have even the remotest chance.
Let's explain for a moment the general problem of "evidence versus plausibility" with the help of the example of WTC7 collapsing at 9/11.
The evidence of the cause of the collapse is compelling: it relates directly to consequences of the 9/11 terror attack. But the evidence is virtually without any plausibility (...a sudden free fall collapse of a skyscraper because of small offices fires with no airplane hitting the building never occured before.) . |
What to do if you have to deal with an unsurmountable discrepancy between evidence and plausibility?
As for Marlowe the (alleged) evidence of his murder also seems obvious, absolute and unsurmountable: He suddenly disappeared in June 1593 because he was killed in a drunken tavern brawl.- But the plausibilities (arguments) for his surviving (for his after life) and writing under a multiplicity of pennames (including Shakespeare) is awesome!-
Usually the more complex a problem is the more necessary is it to reach the conclusion via plausibilities (or non/plausibilities) by weighing and combining the multitude of all collected facts ..
