I'm wondering what the best Stratfordian counter-arguments are to the following. (N.B. I have in the past been convinced by Stratfordians that some Oxfordian arguments that I used to hang my hat on have significant shortcomings.)

I may try this list on a Stratfordian site, but for now here seems to be a good place to start.

1. Handwriting. On my blog (hardthinking.com) I have pictures of Shakespeare's signatures with those of other Elizabethan authors. The contrast is striking and in two cases, Shakespeare appears to have allowed someone else to write his first name for him.

Do Stratfordians simply say, "So he had bad handwriting, so what?"

2. "Our ever-living poet" appears to be from the eulogy in Henry VI Part 2 ("our scarce cold conqueror/that ever-living man of memory/Henry the Fifth") written by the publisher who got his hands on Shakespeare's personal poetry (circulated amongst his "private friends" since 1598). After the effusive dedications to the epic poems, the extremely personal sonnets are published without an author's dedication and then Thorpe states rather straightforwardly that the author was dead.

I assume Stratfordians start by saying the sonnets weren't personal and go on to say that the absence of an author's dedication could mean a lot of things and that ever-living doesn't necessarily mean dead and the ever-living poet might be God anyway. Is that it for the other side?

3. I don't personally see how Polonius could be other than Lord Burghley making the apparent coincidences between Hamlet's circumstances and de Vere's life rather personal and rather direct.

I assume Stratfordians say Polonius wasn't meant to be Burghley. Or do they just say even if he was, the closeness to de Vere is irrelevant?

4. Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern were real Danish courtiers that appeared in the handwritten memoir of de Vere's brother in law. This seems practically like a smoking gun to me.

Do Stratfordians say these were common names or that Shakespeare somehow saw the memoir or that he heard about it in a bar? They must say something.

5. The epic poems were dedicated to Southampton. The sonnets appear to be about Southampton. The first 17 sonnets are pleas for marriage. Southampton was being pressured to marry de Vere's daughter.

I assume Stratfordians just say we don't know who the sonnets were about and leave it at that.

6. The sonnets talk about using a pseudonym: I (once gone) to all the world must die, my name be buried where my body is, every word doth almost tell my name. There's also the lament about art made tongue-tied by authority. Another apparent smoking gun.

I assume Stratfordians just fall back on the "sonnets weren't personal argument."

7. The sudden increase in the number of published plays from 18 to 36 in 1623 implies the existence of a large number of manuscripts many years after the author's death. It's almost impossible for me to imagine these manuscripts in the hands of anyone except de Vere's relatives to whom the First Folio was dedicated. If Shakespeare's family had them, why weren't they in the will and why not publish them sooner? Same goes for his business partners.

I imagine Stratfordians would just say you can't be sure about the economics of publication. Maybe his business partners just held the 18 manuscripts and the connection to de Vere is another coincidence and coincidences aren't enough to make us believe in conspiracies and hoaxes.

Basically, I figure I need to be able to convince someone that I am a Stratfordian; otherwise, I haven't fully examined their arguments.

I don't want to go back and forth about my list of seven items. I just want to have a good understanding of the other side.

Matt,

Since I’m an Oxfordian, this will not be exactly what you’re looking for, but I think I’m fairly conversant with the relevant Stratfordian literature. Here are some observations (---) in response (inserted below your questions).
I'm wondering what the best Stratfordian counter-arguments are to the following. (N.B. I have in the past been convinced by Stratfordians that some Oxfordian arguments that I used to hang my hat on have significant shortcomings.)

I may try this list on a Stratfordian site, but for now here seems to be a good place to start.

1. Handwriting. On my blog (hardthinking.com) I have pictures of Shakespeare's signatures with those of other Elizabethan authors. The contrast is striking and in two cases, Shakespeare appears to have allowed someone else to write his first name for him.

Do Stratfordians simply say, "So he had bad handwriting, so what?"

---I have not seen any Stratfordian response to this, except to say it doesn’t really matter, that there’s obvious “no doubt” that Shakespeare was literate.

2. "Our ever-living poet" appears to be from the eulogy in Henry VI Part 2 ("our scarce cold conqueror/that ever-living man of memory/Henry the Fifth") written by the publisher who got his hands on Shakespeare's personal poetry (circulated amongst his "private friends" since 1598). After the effusive dedications to the epic poems, the extremely personal sonnets are published without an author's dedication and then Thorpe states rather straightforwardly that the author was dead.

I assume Stratfordians start by saying the sonnets weren't personal and go on to say that the absence of an author's dedication could mean a lot of things and that ever-living doesn't necessarily mean dead and the ever-living poet might be God anyway. Is that it for the other side?

---Kathman is the only one I know of that has addressed this head-on, and you’ve covered his arguments.

3. I don't personally see how Polonius could be other than Lord Burghley making the apparent coincidences between Hamlet's circumstances and de Vere's life rather personal and rather direct.

I assume Stratfordians say Polonius wasn't meant to be Burghley. Or do they just say even if he was, the closeness to de Vere is irrelevant?

---I think it is fair to say that the identification of Polonius as Burghley is well-established in Stratfordian literature and that Shaksper is presumed to have gained knowledge of Burghley through persons at Court, and that Shaksper was at Court performing on numerous occasions and would have had the opportunity to pick up this kind of information while he was there.

4. Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern were real Danish courtiers that appeared in the handwritten memoir of de Vere's brother in law. This seems practically like a smoking gun to me.

Do Stratfordians say these were common names or that Shakespeare somehow saw the memoir or that he heard about it in a bar? They must say something.

---I don’t recall any Stratfordian addressing this.

5. The epic poems were dedicated to Southampton. The sonnets appear to be about Southampton. The first 17 sonnets are pleas for marriage. Southampton was being pressured to marry de Vere's daughter.

I assume Stratfordians just say we don't know who the sonnets were about and leave it at that.

---Strats are somewhere between “we don’t know” and ‘perhaps it was Southampton, Shaksper’s good buddy and Patron’.

6. The sonnets talk about using a pseudonym: I (once gone) to all the world must die, my name be buried where my body is, every word doth almost tell my name. There's also the lament about art made tongue-tied by authority. Another apparent smoking gun.

I assume Stratfordians just fall back on the "sonnets weren't personal argument."

---Strats are all over the place with the Sonnets but most Shaksper bios detour around them. Some bring up the so-called ‘Hathway’ sonnet, supposedly an early sonnet written to Anne. The implication you make are ignored, not interpreted in the way you suggest, and are offset by the sonnet with, “My name is Will”. Strats really don’t like to talk about the Sonnets at all.

7. The sudden increase in the number of published plays from 18 to 36 in 1623 implies the existence of a large number of manuscripts many years after the author's death. It's almost impossible for me to imagine these manuscripts in the hands of anyone except de Vere's relatives to whom the First Folio was dedicated. If Shakespeare's family had them, why weren't they in the will and why not publish them sooner? Same goes for his business partners.

I imagine Stratfordians would just say you can't be sure about the economics of publication. Maybe his business partners just held the 18 manuscripts and the connection to de Vere is another coincidence and coincidences aren't enough to make us believe in conspiracies and hoaxes.

---Strats pretty uniformly argue (when they bring this up) that the manuscripts were all in the hands of the acting company.

Basically, I figure I need to be able to convince someone that I am a Stratfordian; otherwise, I haven't fully examined their arguments.

I don't want to go back and forth about my list of seven items. I just want to have a good understanding of the other side.

---Not a bad idea, but, these seven are not among the arguments that Stratfordians generally put forward as strong arguments. They are what they consider annoying inconsequentials. “ever-living poet” is the one thing you list that really bothers them.

---It would be nice to here from an actual Stratfordian. Pistol, are you out there?

On the handwriting I believe all the signatures we have are dated late in Shaksper's life (1613 or later). Three are from his will. I recall that one Strat suggested that illness or infirmity affected his ability to write and is responsible for the poor quality of the signatures. Of course there isn't any proof of that so it is no more than wild speculation.

Stratfordians don't begin by making counter-arguments; they simply point to the historical record and the many contradictory theories of alternative authorship, all based pretty much on the same fallacious arguments and evidenceless speculation.

The counter-arguments are easy enough to find: the literature is abundant and readily accessible. I'd suggest starting with Matus' Shakespeare, in Fact (1994) rather than relying on the interpretations of fellow travelers. The Wikipedia SAQ article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question, is also a good source to learn what the Stratfordian arguments really are.

Even better, see how the same 60 questions are answered by Stratfordians and authorship doubters:

Shakespeare Authorship Coalition rebuts the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

Yes, and be sure to check out the Talk pages - or is it volumes - on the Wiki SAQ article.

If Stratfordians don't make counter arguments, it follows that Matus, McCrea, and Shapiro (among others)aren't Stratfordians.

If that's the best there is, I'll have to have another look at Matus's book (I was sad to see that he died last year, I didn't know).

Matus takes the Polonius wasn't Burghley tack. I imagine he doesn't mention Thorpe's dedication or Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern but I'll check again.

In your haste to be clever, you once again demonstrate the reading skills that led you to Oxfordism.

Oh, I forgot, you're the only one here that's allowed to be "clever". Are you saying that Matus, McCrea, and Shapiro were not making "counter arguments"? How about Schoenbaum's Shakespeare's Lives? No counter arguments? You insult my "reading". You obviously haven't read Baldwin. You probably haven't read Chambers either. Or Malone. But you're the big authority.

Oh, pardon me. Ignore my previous response. You're right. I see it now. Stratfordians don't "begin" by making counter arguments. That's the very significant isn't it, a very major distinction. Except that your point was, as usual, to condescend, to posture, as though Stratfordians don't need to make "counter arguments". So, the leason I take away is that we should ignore your obvious intent and focus on what you say in the most literal sense. And we should leave the 'cleverness' to you.

Unfortunately you have only proved the point that Pistol was making above.

The approach or methodology of Strats vs Oxfordians in this debate is entirely different.

Pistol had a point?

Then there is the observaion of a 16th century gentleman (see 'The Mysterious William Shakespeare') who characterized most grammar schools of the time as "Mostly babble and motion."

So what exactly is wrong with Portia's post? I find far more objectionable Stonecastle's self-assumed superiority, sarcasm, and apparent ability to read the minds of all Stratfordians.

I see the moderating here is still biased. No wonder few or no non-Oxfordians contribute here anymore.


Morella.

I have to admit I tend to skim over the back and forth quips so I can't weigh in on whether the moderating is biased.

I am a tiny bit frustrated that none of the "local" Stratfordians have provided counter-arguments. Maybe they don't feel comfortable doing so on a site dominated by Oxfordians. I am going to read Matus again and I'm going to look for a Stratfordian site to post on. Any suggestions?

I'm still dying to know, what about Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern? Do I have my facts wrong? Is it really possible that Shakespeare could have put Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern into Hamlet without having seen the report of de Vere's brother-in-law?

Did de Vere hire Shakespeare to write Hamlet? (I imagine most Stratfordians would not want to postulate a relationship between de Vere and Shakespeare, but all kidding aside, it is possible.)

I saw nothing offensive in Portia's comment, not that I agree with it.

I'm fairly certain LAL wasn't referring to Portia.

TR

I was referring to everyone, even me. Don't make me post the rules.

I see my post showed up as a reply to Portia's post when it should have been a Quick Reply. I deleted it but here's the post again in case anybody missed it.

Let's try to not get personal, here folks. <dusts off moderator cap and puts it on>

My post above was a Quick Reply also but it's showing as a reply to Pistol. This one is appearing as a reply to me using the Full Reply Screen.

Methinks we have a glitch. I'll report it.

Morella, it's a board glitch.

I was not replying to Portia and didn't see the problem until tonight. Please don't be so quick to assume. I've notified the techy guys but until the issue can be resolved it might avoid confusion if we specify to whom we are replying as I've done in this post. Ignore the little link above.

I'm sorry you see the moderating as biased. I'm new and I try to stay neutral on the really hot topics. Our first rule is "Show respect at all times", the second is "Personal attacks are prohibited. This specifically means any text/post that is blatantly attacking another person on or off the forum, especially in a personal way". I've only stepped in when I see #1 is not happening and we're heading full speed ahead into violations of #2.

Some of us have had encounters elsewhere and may be carrying grudges. We need to leave those behind and try to stick to the topic without getting excessively snarky.

Now, can we return to the topic?

Please.

Matt, there have been some intense discussions on Amazon.com. Check out comments on reviews of recent Oxfordian books and the lengthy thread on Edward de Vere. PM me if you need some links. I'll see if I can find them.

This site may be useful to you too:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

It seems to contain most of the arguments I've seen on Amazon.

I find it hard to believe that schools geared toward turning out respectable tradespeople would spend much time on the classics except as a means to teach as much Latin as was needed to do business.

Metamorphoses? To paraphrase Tallulah Bankhead, you teach that stuff to children?

I think you've already answered your own questions, Matt.

You say on your blog that the Stratford man was almost certainly illiterate, therefore I'm sure you'll agree that it stands to reason that he cannot have read the brother-in-law's report or been hired to write plays for de Vere.

I'd be interested to know why you think an illiterate would be chosen as a frontman for a great writer. I've asked this question so many times, but never received any answer.


Morella.

Well, a quick google of 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern' brings up a Wikipedia entry (yes, I know, but it's not always unreliable) with the following information:



So it seems the names were actually very common, and probably just the sort of thing someone looking to set a play in the Danish court would go for.

Does this help?

They weren't geared to turning out respectable tradespeople; that was done by apprenticeships. They were geared to turning out government workers. See https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/browse_frm/thread/746b9007187205f4?hl=en#

For once I have to agree. Grammar school training was surely not aimed at turning our tradesmen. I read the text at the link you provided and I’d say it’s pretty much correct. However, I don’t think it is quite correct to say that the system was “geared” to turn out “government workers”. There simply weren’t many government positions to fill and I know of no evidence that there was any conscious ‘government’ effort with such an aim. And, proceeding on the point that we seem to agree upon, how do we explain 5-7 years of grammar school training for the son of a tradesman who made no effort to pursue a ‘government’ position or any position for which such training was intended? Further, if we assume, as is usually assumed, that the opportunity to send William to school would not have been passed up, would that not apply to his three brothers as well? None of them took up a profession that required training in Latin. Did John send four sons to grammar school with no intention to put such training to use?

According to this source, the sons of tradesmen were competing for places at Oxford and Cambridge.

I haven't found the source that said the boys were schooled for trade and girls to become seamstresses. If I bookmarked it it was several computers ago.

This is close:

"In other words, the aim of the schools was not so much humanistic, in the sense of imparting a training in literature, as it was practical, in attempting to give the pupils control over the instrument of all Culture of their own and preceding ages. Roman and Greek literature were studied not so much as ends in themselves as the storehouses of adequate and eloquent expression, the happy hunting-ground of the right thing to discourse about, and the right way of saying it.

The real, though not always the explicitly acknowledged ideal of the Grammar School master, was the bonus orator of Quintilian, not the classical scholarship framed upon the ideals with which later ages are familiarised by the traditions of a Bentley and a Porson and a Kennedy.

The practical aim of the i6th and 17th century Grammar School must not be regarded as depreciatory of the literary aspect of the classics. The admiration of the schoolmaster for a Muretus, a Scaliger, or a Casaubon was unbounded, but such scholarship was only for intellectual giants, whilst a working knowledge of Latin for conversation and the written expression of thoughts, with the vast accumulation of apparatus of dictionaries, grammars and phrase-books, as eminently practical. The entrance to the legal, medical, and clerical professions required a ready knowledge of Latin. Traveling and communication abroad equally demanded practical knowledge of Latin. The reading of classical authors was required, but the pupil was expected to have his note-book in hand into which he transcribed all phrases and information likely to be of use for the need of conversation and of written exercises."


http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924082458229/cu31924082458229_djvu.txt

I guess I should have said professions and not restricted them to trade.

I see we still have our glitch. I haven't been replying to anyone.

Matt, while you're asking questions I'd like to know about Lady Lennox' family history showing up in MacBeth. How is that explained?

Back to Hamlet. Horatio was a common name, I suppose. Just another coincidence..........

yes indeed Tom, the fact that R and G visited England in 1592 certainly lets them into Hamlet without a de Vere authorship. Also the fact (okay, the apparent fact, Wikipedia is surprisingly good but not always) that the names are apparently common.

It's easy to be fooled by one's own experience. The fact that I heard of R and G only through Shakespeare doesn't mean the names weren't common and/or well known in 1592.