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.
| || |
Lets 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 has never occured before.) .
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 plausibility (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.-