Side-by-Side

Compare Candidates

This tool draws on the same criteria applied consistently to every candidate. You can filter rows, but the full picture is in the Convergence Analysis, where all the lines are visible at once. See A Proposal for Advocates.

Use the dropdown menus for candidates A and B to see their evidence profiles across both frameworks.

Candidate A

vs.

Candidate B

✓ Primary source documented

◑ Partial or contested

~ No evidence found

⊗~ Active contrary evidence (scored 0)

♀ Gender assumption embedded in criterion

Show differences only

Hover over any symbol to see the evidence behind it.

I Literary Paper Trail (10 categories): full table

Scores for Shakspere and Marlowe reflect Price's own analysis. Scores for all other candidates are this site's application of her framework to candidates she did not assess; they are not her conclusions.

Category	—	—

II Convergence Analysis: full table

Convergence analysis asks, line by line, whether the primary sources show a candidate with a feature the works suggest their author had, across different kinds of evidence (biography, geography, language, knowledge, documentation). Each line is scored independently for each candidate. A high score means the documents show more of these features for that candidate. It does not mean the candidate is more likely to have written the plays: turning a count into a likelihood would need base rates, a control, and a test of whether the facts together fit very few others (What Would Settle It), and this analysis does not meet them. The tallies below count every mark; the full table counts marks that follow from noble birth once, so its totals are lower for the noble candidates. See the full table with all candidates, the table is the primary record and shows ⊗ (active contrary evidence) as a distinct symbol. This tool counts ⊗ cells as ◑ for scoring purposes, so aggregate scores here may read slightly higher than those on the full convergence table for candidates carrying ⊗ cells.

Line of Evidence	—	—

Frameworks III and IV are supplementary. Unlike Frameworks I–II, which assess all candidates across a common evidentiary grid, Frameworks III and IV are topic-specific analyses (the Sonnets and the collaborative authorship model) that apply only to candidates for whom these dimensions are relevant. They do not replace or extend the main candidate rankings.

III Sonnets Evidence: full analysis

Sonnets dimension	—	—

IV Collaborative Authorship: full analysis

A different question. The convergence framework asks which single individual best fits as the sole author; for that question, network membership, shared competences, and posthumous tributes do not discriminate (many people had them) so it does not score them. This framework asks the opposite: if a documented collective produced the works, who belonged to it and what did each contribute? Here a connection to the Wilton–Pembroke network, a specialist competence, and a tie to the First Folio’s dedicatees are the relevant evidence. These marks characterise membership of a group; they are not commensurable with the convergence total and are not added to it.

Group model dimension	—	—

V Documented Business Profile: full Shakspere record

Every document in Shakspere's 70+ primary source record concerns property, litigation, taxation, theatrical investment, or civic obligation. This table applies the same six categories to the other candidate. The contrast is the finding.

Documented activity	—	—

The primary source record for Shakspere is consistent and complete as the portrait of a businessman and property owner. The same record contains no trace of literary activity: no correspondence, no manuscript, no patron relationship, no literary mourning at death. These are not two interpretations of the same evidence. They are two different kinds of evidence, and only one of them exists.

Framework scores: all candidates at a glance

✓ documented ◑ partial ~ no evidence

Candidate	Paper Trail (10 criteria)	Convergence (18 lines)