The Simple Case for Shakespeare

One of the biggest debates with which I'm involved is the authorship debate over Shakespeare's works. Many different people have engaged me with their theories on why Shakespeare couldn't have written his works and who they believe was the actual author behind them. I try to listen with an open mind, but I have always been a member of the Stratford camp. This is not out of blind loyalty to my own pet theories; I have no real stake in whether or not Shakespeare wrote the plays bearing his name.

Given this, I've felt no need to defend my opinions on the authorship debate, especially when there are scholars who have dedicated their professional lives to the subject and are in a better position to debate the evidence (or lack thereof). I treat other opinions with respect, I wait for the incontrovertible evidence that will put this argument to bed once and for all, and I wonder sometimes if any one writer could have been responsible for the ensuing effect on literature, language, and history. Besides, the burden of proof falls on the other claimants to the throne.

For those that ask me, ultimately, why I believe in Shakespeare as the author, I have a simple (if often frustrating to those who fervidly believe in another author) answer: it's the simplest explanation. The issue is complex, fraught with logic pitfalls even for those who defend the orthodoxy, but Shakespeare remains the easiest of any authorship candidate to defend. For elaboration, let me first introduce my friend, William of Occam, and his proposition that forms the basis of my stance.

Occam's Razor
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
--William of Occam, 1285-1349

Translated from the Latin: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." Occam based this statement on the Aristotelian principle of logic that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one.