The Oxfordian response to the inclusion of a whole section of our site devoted to Hand D has been scant, so far. We'll add bits and pieces as we find them. They are of course, welcome to add their own rebuttals of our articles here. Since we introduced Disqus Commenting, they no longer have the excuse that we are managing their comments and have editorial control over them.

Ann Zakelj

This is Ann Zakelj in a Newsweek thread which took Oxfordianism back to basics, much to the embarrassment of Oxfordian participants. Ann demonstrates here that maintaining a state of ignorance about the facts is the best way of maintaining an untenable doctrinal belief. Note that her idea that collaboration on the manuscript has yet to be proved may be correct. Who would set out to prove something that is obvious, even to people who can't read?

Ann Zakelj ·  Top Commenter

My understanding is that Anthony Munday transcribed the play written by Shakespeare (a conclusion based on stylometrics, not penmanship) and there were additions made much later than ~1578 by a “hand”ful of other scribes. Another theory proposes that the author dictated the play to a group of scribes. Regardless… Your question assumes that it was a product of collaboration, which has not been proven. On the contrary, two separate stylistics experts concluded that the entire work reflects a style identical (or almost identical) to Shakespeare’s. I have not read Diana Price’s take on Hand D, which she augmented in the latest edition of her book.