The Shakespeare Debate

  Today might have began a lengthy debate over the authorship of the works of William Shakespeare. A relatively new friend of mine, whose judgement is as yet uncertain, posited the theory that William Shakespeare was illiterate, and thus could not have composed his famous works. Thus, she reasons, Shakespeare must have been a pen-name for several authors working anonymously.
  There is some merit to such a theory. It would certainly explain the wide range of general subjects which Shakespeare's works encompass, and there is every possibility that credit is unduly given. Some have said that Francis Bacon was the author of Shakespeare's works, which would attribute him additional status to that he already possesses.
Fundamentally, however, this question boils down to a few basic questions.

1. Does the new evidence of authorship possess the strength to overcome what is centuries of common knowledge?
2. Does a change in authorship substantially impact the works themselves?

  Of course, the answer to question two should be self-evident; a great work of literature is great regardless of its author. Were we to say that Hamlet were composed by a cobbler or a stable-hand, it would not rob the work of its intrinsic or historic value. Indeed, all that is truly called into question here whether William Shakespeare wrote the works, or whether he existed at all. It is but the reputation of the man at stake.

Of the first question I would answer, "No." Nowhere in the writings of Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, or any of the other proposed authors do they explicitly claim credit for the works, a fact worthy of consideration.
  Compared to this paltry, oft circumstantial evidence are the classical evidences for Shakespeare's authorship. Prevailing theory of the day in Shakespeare's time was that Shakespeare was not only an individual playwright, director, and actor, but that he wrote his pieces. He is noted by authors and artists of the day as a playwright of some standing. Numerous testimonies of his existence and work exist from those in his company. A monument was erected in Stratford during the earlier parts of his career, signifying the man as a remarkable individual.
  In order for historical facts to be overturned, greater evidence against the fact must be presented than has already been brought forward in its favor. This may be accomplished only by discrediting the original data (again, through concrete evidences), or by presenting data of an exponentially more trustworthy source. To do otherwise is to promote conspiracy theories of the most preposterous sort, insisting that something is false based only upon the desire for it to be so.