Oxfordian Attack #1: There is no way that Shakespeare could have written 37 plays and over a hundred sonnets in his lifetime.

Stratfordian Defense: This is the most common attack for Oxfordians, and is weak. Keep in mind that Oxford was simply a mortal man, as well. He did not live dramatically longer than Shakespeare, and would most likely have had less time than Shakespeare, being preoccupied with the duties assigned to nobility. Shakespeare, however, would have had more time than the Earl, being a simple actor.

Oxfordian Attack #2: Why is there no documentation of any original Shakespearian manuscripts, and why didn't Shakespeare pass down the manuscripts in his will?

Stratfordian Defense: This is a complicated question to answer. The section about his will is more simple, so I will start with that. Shakespeare did not pass down any of his manuscripts in his will because he did not own them. All manuscripts of plays at the time were owned by the theatre company. In Shakespeare's case, the company was Lord Chamberlain's Men. The documentation question is a good attack, but is counterable. In order to counter this, one must realize that the value of stage plays was much lower. In fact, they were considered "things of slight literary merit." In 1612 the founder of the famous Bodleain Library, at Oxford, took up the library keeper's task of catolouging "riffraffs," a category that included plays. He was recorded as once saying: "Some plays, may be worth keeping, but hardly one in forty." Not one of Shakespeare's plays was one of those select few. Now, surely, if the Earl of Oxford was the True Author of William Shakespeare's works, the library of the town thar he ruled would have copies of his plays. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Shakespeare's contemporaries attatched any more importance to their manuscripts than he did. Not a leaf of a Ben Jonson (a very famous playwrite of Shakespear's era) play in his had has come down to us. Anthony G. Petti concluded, in his book English Literary Hands From Chaucer to Dryden: "there are references to over three thousand plays in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period... only a hanful of manuscript copies survive, and a mere fraction is extant in print."

Oxfordian Attack #3: What about the fact that the Lord Chamberlain's Men might have really ment not Lord Hunson, the Lord Chamberlain of the Household, but rather the Lord Great Chamberlain of England- who happened to be Oxford?

Stratfordian Defense: Aside form the fact that the actors in what had been Chamberlain's Men had been in the King's service for nearly ten months at the time, this unpersuasive hypothesis also ignore one key accountwhich makes it certain that the actors' pervious patron was Lord Hunsdon. In The Time Triumphant by Gilberd Dugdale, which was in print two weeks after the event, the author wrote of the new sovereign that he "to the mean gave grace: as taking to him the late lord Chamberlain's Servants, now the King's Actors." This is an unmistakable reference to Hunsdon, who had died six month earlier. And, not to Oxford, who survived another three months. This issue is truly not an issue at all, but another instance of Oxfordians warping legitamate figures to suit their own purposes.

Oxfordian Attack #4: What about the absence of autographs? Surely a man as famous as Shakespeare would have many adoring fans getting autographs from him!

Stratfordian Defense: To answer this attack, one must again think in the time of Shakespeare. Collecting autographs of authors or famous people did not become "in style" until the 18th centuary! And it did not become popular until the 19th! This seems a perfectly reasonable idea in the twentieth century, and even more so in this decade, when a person can be famous simply for being famous, and trashy journalists will root through garbage to find every scrap of paper that may hold some secret to the personality of the celebrity. But there is leittle evidence that the Elizabethans shared our exalted opinion of the media.

Oxfordian Attack #5: How can you prove that Shakespeare went to school, and was able to learn how to write?

Stratfordian Defense: Well, honestly, we can't. But we can prove that he had as good of a chance as the Earl at having classical schooling. The proof is as follows. Shakespeare was documented as an actor. This is an undisputable fact. All actors at the time were expected to know Latin. To be able to know Latin, Shakespeare must have attended school.

Oxfordian Attack #6: How can you defend the fact that Shakespeare was never documented as having attended to school he was supposed to?

Stratfordian Defense: Sadly, this is just another fact warped by the Oxfordians. While Shakespeare was not documented as having attended school, neither was any other child. In fact, there was no documentation until 1715, of anybody attending that school.

STRATFORDIAN DEBATE PLAN: 1st Affirmative 1st Cross 2nd Affirmative) 2nd Cross Rebuttal

1ST AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT DEBATE STRATAGIES:

- Evidence on schools: Impressive schooling at even public schools in Shakespeare's time. - Many authors signed names differently, differenty spellings were accepted. - Shakespeare was listed among the hired men of one of the founders of Lord Chamberlain's Men. - Named in grant of cloth to men of "Chamber," probably part of kings men. - Shakespeare is named, with Burbage and Kempe, as payees for a 1594 court performance. - True that Shakespeare's name never appears in the provincial records of payments to his company; but the fact is without signifigance since no member of the company is ever named in 38 records of performance over the course of 18 years! It is equally true that his name never appears in Henslowe's diary. But neither do he names of Burbage, Phillips, or Heminges. William Sly appears because he bought a jewel from Henslow, Thomas Pope because Henslow lent someone money to sue him, and Will Kemp only well after he had left the Chamberlain's Men. - Camden names, in Remaines (1605,) William Shakespeare as one of the poets of his time "whom succeeding ages may justly admire." The mere form of this is signifigant. Camden names ten poets and concludes with an et cetra: "and other most pregnant wits of these our times." Shakespeare is the tenth and last specified; and, thus, since there is no measurable rhetorical difference between either nine or ten specifics bifore the final et al, Camden must honestly have thought Shakespeare on of the sge's most preganant wits, or, alternatively, he was guilty of a most incoherent and gratuitous falsehood. - If Shakespeare was not author, why was he buried in a prominant place in the floor of Stratford, and why was there a statue there? - John Shakespeare was not a prole of the lower class as many believe. He was a solid and prominent citizen of Stratford who was a prosperous tradesman. for a while, he was even the high baliff of Stratford, the equivalent of being mayor of a small villiage today. - 20th centuary research reveals that grammer schools of the time were open to all but the sons of the poorest ranks. Since his father was successful, he would, of course, had gone to school. - The remaining signatures of Shakespeare match the secretary hand that was taught at grammer schools. - Stratford Grammer school one of finest in England. The graduates had recieved as much latin training of those a a modern British University. - Many of Shakespeare's characters and ideas for plots were in the text books that were an essential part of the syllabus prescibed in the schools of the time. - Stratford was not a "sleepy backwater," as most anti-Stratfordians like to claim, but an important stopping point for travaling players. Shakespeare probabaly saw enough plays to boost his young imagination. - Why is so little known about him? Well, it was not common in the Elizabethan era to keep records of schools, directories, census reports, resumes, or doctors reports. Almost any documentation of these was non-existant. How would you like it if the only record of you in 450 years was a few unpaid parking tickets? - "Gent" is most likely engraved over Shakespears tomb because he was not a playwritght, but rather because he was. "Gent" was quite a mark of social status in the Elizabethan age, and would have been listed before being a playwright, which was an inferior status. - Ben Jonson, one of Shakespeare's contemporaries, wrote of the him: "I loved the man, and do honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any. He was (indeed) honset, and of an open and free nature: had an exellent Phantsie; brave notions, and gentle expressions: wherein he flowed with that facility, that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped:.... His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too.... There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned.

2ND AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT DEBATE STRATAGIES:

- Evidence that the Earl was listed as many things "drunkard, spendthrift, profligate, fop, seducer, cuckold, adulterer, sodomite, liar, blasphemer, traitor, informer, bully, feudist, would-be assassin, and a murderer." but never as author. - Poems of Earl, other claimed authors were not in iambic pentameter. - Earl was a patron to many playwrights, why would he do this if he was a playwright himself? - Orthodox claim that The Tempest relies on the Bermuda pamphlets of 1610 cannot be allowed because de Vere died in 1604. *THIS IS COUNTERABLE AND SHOULD PROBABLY NOT BE USED!!* **- Henery VIII could not have been written by the Earl of Oxford because he was dead. This can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In 1613 the Globe theater burned down. (Coincidentally, during a performance of Henery VIII) That same year, Sir Henery Wotton, (nobility himself) recorded seeing Shakespeare's NEW Play. This letter was writtem July 2nd, 1613; nine years after the death of de Vere. - There is no reason to suppose that the Oxfordian secret died with the last of the Kings Men, or that it would ever had been lost to human memory. Out of all of the childrend of the King's Men, many grew up to be authors, playwrights, actors, etc. Not one mentioned that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare. -*THIS IS A VERY GOOD ARGUEMENT AND, DEPENDING ON HOW IT WAS CHANGED, COULD POSSIBLY GO IN THE 1ST AFFIRMATIVE* Yet, following the line of inquiry that Oxford was secretly Shakespeare produces no the relatively small number of the knowledgeable claimed; it produces not single spies, but battalion. For starters, the secret would have had to be generally known in the Lord Chamberlain'/ King's Men Company. As the years went by, servants wearing the de Vere livery continually deposited masterpices at the theater, and the boob from Stratford sturggled witht the spelling of his name, the identiry of the Real Author would obviously have become common knowledge in the troupe (Assuming that the Earl didn't attend rehersals.) However, this would have lacked the communication and collaboration necessary for the staging of the plays, the inevitable intimacy that daily work develops, and the well-documeted closeness and even affection in the group would have made knowledge of the great secret inevitable for all the company. "All" would not have indicated no just the company's eight to twelve sharers, but also the regular minor actors, boy-actress apprentices, musicians, stage hands, bookkeepers, 21 recorded individuals in all. Merely within Shakespeare's own company there were more than fifty people, indentifiable by name, who would have known of his supposed imposture. Furthermore, if there secret were genrally known by the King's Men, it would quickly be known to the general public, because many playwrights often colloborated, actors moved to different companies, and theater managers carefully watched the competition. If the dramatic writers knew, obviously the non-damatic writed did too, due to the fact that almost all playwrights were both. From here the "secret" would have spread to publishers, printers, and booksellars, who were directly connected to the public. There was literally nobody in England who would not know of the scandal! - Shakespeare's plays were full of delight in the English countryside, something that nobility, like de Vere, never would have known intimately. In Midsummer Night's Dream, Oberon tells puck where he will find Titania in words that only a country boy would have known: "I know a bank whereon the wild thyme blows, Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows, Quite over-canopied with lucious woodbine, With sweet musk-roses, and with eglantine" - Shakespeare knew vocab that royalty would not have wasted their time learning. such as batlet, ballow, geck and pash.