Declaration of Reasonable Doubt information

The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt is an Internet signing petition which seeks to enlist broad public support for the Shakespeare authorship question to be accepted as a legitimate field of academic inquiry. The petition was presented to William Leahy of Brunel University by the actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance on 8 September 2007 in Chichester, England, after the final matinee of the play I Am Shakespeare on the topic of the bard's identity, featuring Rylance in the title role. As of 23 April 2016, the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death and the original self-imposed deadline, the document had been signed by 3,348 people, including 573 self-described current and former academics.^[1]^[2]^[3] As of December 2022, the count stood at 5,128 total signatures.^[4]

The declaration has been met by scepticism from academic Shakespeareans and literary critics.^[5] For the most part, they disparage the idea that Shakespeare is a pseudonym for one or more individuals who wrote the works attributed to him^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] and characterise the doubt as an exercise in the logical fallacies of argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity or the appeal to numbers) and argument from false authority.^[11]

The declaration has been signed by prominent public figures, including U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, in staged signing events followed by press releases in order to gain publicity for the goal of the petition.^[12]^{[better source needed]}

^ Cite error: The named reference NewYorkTimes1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference BBC1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Hackett2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Home Page" Accessed 22 December 2022.
^ Farouky, Jumana (13 September 2007). "The Mystery of Shakespeare's Identity". Time. Archived from the original on 16 September 2007.
^ Kathman, David. "The Question of Authorship", in Wells, Stanley & Orlin, Lena C., Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, (2003) Oxford University Press, pp. 620–32: "in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings" (621)
^ Alter, Alexandra (9 April 2010). "The Shakespeare Whodunit", The Wall Street Journal. James S. Shapiro: "There's no documentary evidence linking their 50 or so candidates to the plays."
^ Nicholl, Charles (April 2010). "Full Circle; Cypher wheels and snobbery: the strange story of how Shakespeare became separated from his works". The Times Literary Supplement. pp. 3–4. Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a paleontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."
^ Nelson, Alan H. (2004). "Stratford Si! Essex No!". Tennessee Law Review. 72 (1): 149–171: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon".
^ Carroll, D. Allen (2004). "Reading the 1592 Groatsworth attack on Shakespeare". Tennessee Law Review. 72 (1): 277–294: 278–279: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare. ... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. Like others in my position, I know there is an anti-Stratfordian point of view and understand roughly the case it makes. Like St. Louis, it is out there, I know, somewhere, but it receives little of my attention" (278–299).
^ Siebert, Eve (5 January 2011). "'Little English and No Sense': The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy". Skeptical Humanities.
^ "News from and about SAC" Accessed 6 November 2010.

[NewYorkTimes1-1] Cite error: The named reference NewYorkTimes1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[BBC1-2] Cite error: The named reference BBC1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Hackett2009-3] Cite error: The named reference Hackett2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] "Home Page" Accessed 22 December 2022.

[5] Farouky, Jumana (13 September 2007). "The Mystery of Shakespeare's Identity". Time. Archived from the original on 16 September 2007.

[6] Kathman, David. "The Question of Authorship", in Wells, Stanley & Orlin, Lena C., Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, (2003) Oxford University Press, pp. 620–32: "in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings" (621)

[7] Alter, Alexandra (9 April 2010). "The Shakespeare Whodunit", The Wall Street Journal. James S. Shapiro: "There's no documentary evidence linking their 50 or so candidates to the plays."

[8] Nicholl, Charles (April 2010). "Full Circle; Cypher wheels and snobbery: the strange story of how Shakespeare became separated from his works". The Times Literary Supplement. pp. 3–4. Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a paleontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."

[9] Nelson, Alan H. (2004). "Stratford Si! Essex No!". Tennessee Law Review. 72 (1): 149–171: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon".

[10] Carroll, D. Allen (2004). "Reading the 1592 Groatsworth attack on Shakespeare". Tennessee Law Review. 72 (1): 277–294: 278–279: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare. ... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. Like others in my position, I know there is an anti-Stratfordian point of view and understand roughly the case it makes. Like St. Louis, it is out there, I know, somewhere, but it receives little of my attention" (278–299).

[11] Siebert, Eve (5 January 2011). "'Little English and No Sense': The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy". Skeptical Humanities.

[12] "News from and about SAC" Accessed 6 November 2010.

Declaration of Reasonable Doubt information

and 22 Related for: Declaration of Reasonable Doubt information

Declaration of Reasonable Doubt

Derek Jacobi

Mark Rylance

Presumption of innocence

Shakespeare authorship question

De Vere Society

Balfour Declaration

Great Barrington Declaration

Murder in Indian law

Alexander Waugh

United States Declaration of Independence

History of the Shakespeare authorship question

Verdict

Declaration of nullity

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

South African criminal law

Steven Truscott

Alan Dershowitz

Murder of Bob Chappell

Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa

Confrontation Clause

Exculpatory evidence