By the late 1580s to early 1590s, Shakespeare was involved in co-writing, addition and eventual imitating of the works of these more widely educated writers, so an eminent Shakespearean scholar could confidently write: "Shakespeare's borrowings are plain enough: from Lyly the attraction of sheer style, of elegant diction cured of excess; from Greene the large romantic canvas and the lively heroines who particularly adorn it; from Kyd the stagecraft through which it is possible to sup full of horrors and not be nauseated; from Marlowe the revelation of individual destiny through the medium of highest poetry." (Shakespeare: His World and His Work, revised edition, 1980, M M Reese)
Shakespeare learned it was unnecessary to invent new stories to dramatise. They were all there in translated classics, published chronicle histories, travellers' tales from grand tours and so on.
But by 1594 Greene, Marlowe and Kyd were dead, and Lyly had turned to other interests. The field, as a dying Greene pointed out in 1592, was open to "an upstart crowe beautified with our feathers that with his Tyger's heart wrapt in a player's hide supposes he is able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and being an absolute [Jack of all trades] is in his own conceit the onlie Shake-scene in the countrie".
Working out of the Lord Chamberlain's Company, Shakespeare, now 28, had proved the ability to increase his company's repertoire with the chronicle plays of the reign of Henry VI, tapping into the mood of patriotic fervour.
But the companies of players, having bought writers' scripts, were in no hurry to publish them so others could produce them.
By 1593-94 Shakespeare had published the two great narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and earned recognition beyond any theatrical realm.
By now, too, Greene's "upstart crowe" piece had been posthumously published by Chettle and earned a personal rebuke from Shakespeare. This caused a retraction and apology from Chettle worth repeating in the context of this debate.
Chettle regrets the libel "because myself have seen his demeanour no less civil than he excellent in the quality he professes; besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness in dealing which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing that approves his art".
This hardly tallies with a man involved in an extraordinary conspiracy of deception.
The picture then is of a young actor/writer learning his crafts of the stage and language. He is clearly known by a widening circle of London theatre people and has the admiring attention of the literati. By 1598, the era of the greater plays of his maturity had begun, coupled with his share in the management of the Lord Chamberlain's men and ownership of the new Globe.
One could pursue this through the company's favour at court and beyond Elizabeth's death to become the King's Men wearing James I's livery - but the prima facie case is made. William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, had a real life, shared with many theatre colleagues and friends, and was recognised and rewarded socially and financially for his talents and literary output.
The conspiracy theories have been: The Baconian (1856 et al); the Rutland (1913); the Derby (1919); the Oxford (deVere) (1920), and most latterly Sir Henry Neville (2005) as supported by Chronicle columnist Frank Greenall.
They share a conviction that a virtually uneducated country lad could not have gained the knowledge or life experience to write such a volume of - at its best - unsurpassed quality.
For Neville, there is circumstantial evidence - he lived across Shakespeare's lifetime; was a courtier/diplomat; had a good university education; needed to keep a clean political/religious profile.
Yes, we love the idea of a juicy, mysterious conspiracy theory, and this one may well be plaguing us in another century. Meantime, I'll join with K A Benfell and Shakespeare's close friends and lay a bet that the real man was the real author.
