Framework I: Price Literary Paper Trail (all ◑ → ✓)
Diana Price’s ten categories of primary source documentation. Original table: price-table.html
| Candidate | 1Education | 2Lit. Corr. | 3Paid to Write | 4Patron | 5Manuscript | 6Handwriting | 7Commendatory | 8Misc. Records | 9Books | 10Death Notice |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| William Shakspere1564–1616 | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| Edward de Vere1550–1604 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | F.A. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| Christopher Marlowe1564–1593 | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| William Stanley1561–1642 | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ |
| Mary Sidney Herbert1561–1621 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| John Florio1553–1625 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Emilia Bassano Lanier1569–1645 | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ |
| Francis Bacon1561–1626 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Framework II: Convergence Analysis (all ◑ → ✓)
Methodologically diverse evidence strands. Original table: convergence-table.html
Hover over any symbol to see the original evidence note.
| Line of Evidence | Shakspere | de Vere | Marlowe | Stanley | M. Sidney | Florio | Bacon | Neville | North | Bassano | Rutland |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Southampton connection ⚑ Documented personal tie to Southampton himself, in the dedication period, network proximity does not count | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ |
| 2a Italian topographical knowledge ⚑ Field-verified accuracy of Italian settings (Roe 2011). Note: Roe's findings establish physical knowledge of Italian topography, not that it was acquired in any specific decade; the claim that de Vere's 1575–76 journey is uniquely consistent with this evidence has not been demonstrated. | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| 2b Italian linguistic / literary knowledge ⚑ Command of Italian sources not in English translation | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| 3 Court life correspondences Insider accuracy of court procedure and events | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 4 Southampton household documented ⚑ Primary source placing candidate in Southampton's household; this criterion discriminates primarily in Florio's favour; he is the only candidate with a direct primary source document establishing household membership | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| 5 The 1593 cluster Marlowe's Deptford inquest (30 May 1593), debut of the name "Shakespeare" in print, genre match, Southampton connection, four facts that converge uniquely for Marlowe | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| 6 Florio-specific Montaigne phrasing Echoes of Florio's specific English phrasings, appearing post-1603 from the published translation, reflects proximity to the source text, strongest for Florio as its translator | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| 7 Legal knowledge Technically accurate use of legal procedure and terminology | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| 8 Genre range Documented output covering comedy, tragedy, history, and lyric (✓ for three or four of the four, ◑ for one or two) | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| 9 Narrative poem authorship Documented Ovidian narrative verse matching Venus and Adonis / Lucrece style | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ |
| 10 Professional musical knowledge Documented professional musical background explaining the plays' technical musical accuracy | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ |
| 11 Feudal and aristocratic outlook Documented aristocratic position explaining the plays' insider feudal perspective (specifically wardship law, estate obligation, and court ceremonial), not the range of classes depicted | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ |
| 12 Ovidian erotic voice Documented lyric and erotic verse consistent with the Sonnets and early narrative poems | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ |
| 13 Theological and sceptical range Documented combined Protestant / Catholic / Montaignean perspective | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| 14 Botanical knowledge Technically specific botanical language in the plays, beyond lay knowledge | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| 15 Greek dramatic knowledge Structural parallels to Greek tragedy implying direct access to Greek texts | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ |
| 16 Chronological compatibility Candidate's documented lifespan fits the author’s documented window at both ends: through the composition and revision period, and not living past the author’s death attested by the 1623 First Folio | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 17 Contemporary testimony Period primary source connecting this candidate to the Shakespeare name or works | ~ | ⊗~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| 18a Literary dedications received Major contemporary writers dedicated published works to this candidate, a measure of patronage standing, weighed as context | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| 19 French fluency Documented French literacy, translation from French originals, residence in France, or diplomatic correspondence in French | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ |
| Total under this reading (marks that follow from noble birth still count once) | 1 | 10 | 12 | 4 | 9 | 12 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 4 |
What the maximally charitable reading shows
The most important observation is not about any alternative candidate; it is about Shakspere of Stratford. His score on every table is unchanged. He had no ◑ cells to upgrade. His record consists entirely of ~ (no evidence found), and no amount of charitable interpretation creates evidence where none exists. The problem the authorship question addresses is not a matter of disputed interpretation at the margin. It is a complete evidentiary absence that the maximally charitable reading cannot touch.
Among the alternative candidates, upgrading every ◑ to ✓ predictably raises every score, but it does not produce clear convergence on a single candidate. Several candidates now score well across both frameworks, which is precisely the problem with the exercise as a method of identification: the charitable reading that most helps any one candidate helps all of them equally.
The ◑ cells exist because the primary source evidence is partial, contested, or absent. Conceding them all simultaneously is not a route to a conclusion; it is a route to showing that the conclusion cannot be forced by symbol-level argument. The question that remains is the same one the rest of this site asks: where does the primary source evidence actually converge, and for which candidate does that convergence hold when the symbols are earned rather than granted?