...a rose by any other name....

So we now have a new candidate as the "true" author of the works of William Shakespeare. But does it matter? Surely the value of the works of Shakespeare lies in the works themselves, irrespective of who wrote them. Similarly, I recently read an article in a music magazine suggesting that the music of Richard Strauss should not be played because he was a Nazi. Well, I'm not sure that in fact he was in the sense in which the writer meant it, but even if he was, what relevance has that got to the worth - or otherwise - of his music? Does a great painting or a wonderful poem become any less great or wonderful if we learn that the painter or poet was a mass murderer or a paedophile or whatever? If your inclination is to answer "yes" to that then consider the opposite - does a crap painting or a terrible poem become any less crap or terrible if painted by the Dalai Lama or written by Mother Theresa? Works of art have - or don't have - an intrinsic value irrespective of who creates them. So, speaking for myself, I couldn't give two hoots about who actually wrote "Romeo and Juliet", "Julius Caesar", "Othello" et al., I am simply content to accept them as the works of genius they are.