{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029424877396344182, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007579135086937138, 'mean_word_length': 4.952254641909814, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Popular Culture (review)

contraction of “Shakespeare” and “Stratfordus.” Again, a facsimile to help demonstrate this rather unconvincing explanation is not supplied. Such bold claims come as no surprise, as we would already have noted that Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s contention that Shakespeare was educated at Douai depends on a 1578 entry in the Douai Diaries, which reads simply “Guilielmus” with the surname erased (51). Further evidence is then offered in the form of a 1580 entry which was entirely erased. She then argues that even if “modern scientific techniques” (52) were used and these erased words were recovered and found not to be those of William Shakespeare, “this would still not be conclusive proof that Shakespeare did not attend the college” (52) as, of course, he would have used an alias. Such reasoning, however, is at odds with the more usual perception of the role of evidence in the process of reaching a conclusion. Ingenious reasoning is also to be found when Shakespeare’s decision to lodge with a Huguenot family is described as “a cunning move” (242) to fool the authorities into thinking he was not a secret Catholic sympathizer. Were there any material evidence to suggest he was, this might be an argument worth considering. But without it, it seems more like a means of explaining away what otherwise might suggest that Shakespeare was not a Catholic at all. This book, despite its author’s claims, adds very little to our knowledge of Shakespeare’s life, if by that we mean a reconstruction based upon the reasonable interpretation of surviving evidence. It does, however, remind us of a long-standing tradition in writings on Shakespeare, namely, a tendency to cast Shakespeare in a predetermined role—often fixed upon from a study of his work but sometimes for other reasons—which cannot be substantiated by surviving biographical evidence. In such cases, what evidence that does survive is interpreted in the interests of preconceived ideas or imaginatively created when it is lacking. Such authors, at least at times, thus inevitably skate on thin ice; indeed, some might even be said to be walking on water, sustained only by a passionate belief in their cause.