An Annotated Bible: Any Interest to Scholars?

Would anyone think an annotated Bible dated 1568-70 would be of interest to Bible scholars, Renaissance scholars, social historians, and/or other similar groups based on its marked thematic content?

Per William H. Sherman’s *Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England* (2008): p. 72: “[S]cholars have been surprisingly slow to take a closer look at what the growing number of readers did with the growing number of religious texts that were made available to them. Despite the fact that Renaissance households were far more likely to contain a Bible than any other volume, religious books have attracted less attention from historians of reading than used books from the fields of literature, rhetoric, politics, law, mathematics, and medicine.”

p. 79: He goes on to say: “Very often the notes and underlinings simply serve to highlight noteworthy passages, but it can be interesting to see which sections particular readers took a special interest in.”

p. 109: And thusly: “Even when we cannot know how representative a single object or practice is, it can shed light on larger logics (structural, social, and symbolic) that only can be glimpsed in their particular manifestations.”

Thanks in advance for any comments!!

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

My First Mistake Ever!!

All:

Help please… I have made a terrible, terrible mistake re Dr. Stritmatter and his dissertation¹.

Per his thesis (p. 11), the de Vere Bible does “bring to bear for the first time a cornucopia of hitherto unnoticed confirmatory evidence supporting the Oxfordian thesis.”

Further, “The new evidence contained in this document should be evaluated in a comparative context, as one element in a larger circumstantial case, other pieces of which have been assembled through many decades of past research.”

Finally, Doc S quotes Looney’s Oxfordian thesis: “The predominating element in what we call circumstantial evidence is that of coincidence. A few circumstances we may treat as simply interesting; a number of coincidences we regard as remarkable; a vast accumulation of extraordinary coincidences we accept as conclusive proof.”

It should be noted AFAIK there is no knowledge of Mr. Looney’s research methodology other than coincidentally.

With that said, it appears Doc S did successfully prove his thesis by adding to such “cornucopia of hitherto unnoticed confirmatory evidence supporting the Oxfordian thesis” via his arguments that there is a correspondence between marked passages in de Vere’s Bible and biblical allusions in the Shakespearean canon.

But wait! His arguments were based on non-Oxfordian research techniques. i.e. Doc S grounded his arguments on prior scholars of Shakespeare and the Bible! oops!!

That would seem to be a foul to add new evidence to the Oxfordian thesis by using… horrors!! scholarly arguments. i.e. Per his “The new evidence contained in this document should be evaluated in a comparative context,” Doc S cannot compare his scholarly arguments with any coincidentally-gotten evidence and hence in actuality, he has not added anything to the Oxfordian cornucopia. Said no-can-do constitutes further proof of a doubly-terminated oops.

Another research technique Doc S used was to compare and contrast other contemporary writers and their usage of the Bible in their own works with not only the marked verses in de Vere’s Bible but also with prior Shakespeare-and-the-Bible scholars’ say-so on which Bible verses Shakespeare alluded to.

But wait! Doc S not only did such comparison, he also did so using other prior non-Shakespeare-and-the-Bible scholars’ knowledge of those other contemporary writers use of the Bible. Another foul example of using non-Oxfordian research techinques of grounding one’s arguments on prior scholars?

But wait! What about the compare and contrast of de Vere’s Bible with those other contemporary writers? Bingo!! Yet another foul attempt at non-Oxfordian research techniques! i.e. What do the literary works of other contemporary writers have to do with coincidental evidence for Oxford?

Based on too many foul attempts in his promotion of scholarly research, I suggest Doc S appears to be nothing more than a mere goat in the Oxfordian camp.

He walks the walk.
He talks the talk.
But yet his research techniques typically reeks non-Oxfordian.

In all, appearances can be quite deceiving. Shame on Doc S for fooling us all!!

Whew!! That would have been a major blunder to forego such folly!

_____

¹ Roger A. Stritmatter, The Marginalia of Edward de Vere’s Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence, February 2001

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

Assessment of Dr. James Shapiro’s Assessment

Assessment of Edward de Vere’s Genevan Bible

Per chaired Columbia University professor Dr. James Shapiro’s assessment of Dr. Stritmatter’s dissertation per his *Contested Will* (2010):

On p. 214, Shapiro states “When independent scholars David Kathman, Tom Veal, and Terry Ross looked at the evidence, they pointed out a good deal that Stritmatter’s dissertation committee had apparently failed to notice.” Per his “Bibliographical Essay” (pp. 315-6), Shapiro notes “For criticism of his [Stritmatter's] argument, see Kathman’s “Oxford’s Bible,” which I have drawn on and quoted above, accessible at shakespeareauthorship.com. See too Tom Veal’s online critique at …”

Based on his “see too” comment, it should be noted that Dr. Shapiro does not refer to Veal’s critique in his book nor does he cite Ross’ critique in said bibliography, leaving Mr. Kathman the sole critic of Dr. Stritmatter’s research.

Further, I suggest Dr. Shapiro accurately paraphrases and quotes (pp. 214-5) Kathman’s assessment of Dr. S’s dissertation. However, had Dr. Shapiro himself read Dr. S’s dissertation he would have known Kathman’s assessment is completely groundless. Based on my own assessment of Dr. S’s research, the de Vere Bible was not used as a workbook to write the Shakespearean plays, but rather for his own spiritual growth as did other readers of the Bible, and hence any overlap between the two canons would be considered significant. Kathman has failed to distinguish this important fact and hence his noodle that the de Vere Bible must overlap near 100% with Shakespeare is irrelevant… i.e. As an independent scholar, he has not properly conducted his own independent evaluation and therefore his critique is unreliable.

Had Dr. Shapiro reviewed Dr. S’s research on his own, he would have undoubtedly come to the same conclusion as I did. Dr. S’s research is grounded on prior scholars of Shakespeare and the Bible most notably Dr. Naseeb Shaheen (1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1999), as well as Peter Milward (1987), Richmond Noble (1935) and Thomas Carter (1905). My assessment of Dr. S’s work is similarly grounded on Dr. Shaheen’s work. [http://www.amazon.com/review/RRZ3HLRBGA0V1/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0006RMWTY&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=]

Dr. Shapiro’s failure to do his own homework by instead trolling the internet for an easy fix proves what a poor reseacher he is. Even if Kathman’s review had been accurate, Dr. Shapiro’s reliance on his assessment is irresponsible as Kathman’s review was neither published in a peer-reviewed journal nor did he offer an opportunity for his readers to publicly post comments to his said criticism. To his credit, Kathman is neither an authority on the subject of Shakespeare and the Bible nor is he a competent researcher based on his inability to offer a viable solution to his perceived problems in Dr. S’s research… i.e. He is merely a writer of empty criticisms. Dr. Shapiro unjustifiably held Kathman’s own opinions as the de facto expert on the subject of Dr. Stritmatter’s dissertation.

As for Dr. Shapiro’s reliance (p. 215) on University of California, Berkeley’s Emeritus Professor Dr. Alan Nelson’s (“the leading expert on Oxford’s handwriting”) statement that the “hand is simply not the same hand that wrote [Oxford's] letters” as quoted in *The Chronicle of Higher Education* 4 June 1999, again Dr. Shapiro has failed to ascertain the accuracy of Dr. Nelson’s statement. Per Dr. Stritmatter’s online blog, [http://shake-speares-bible.com/bible-faq/], he notes Dr. Nelson’s previous assessment of de Vere’s Bible on 6/3/95 via personal communication to R. Stritmatter and Phaeton online discussion forum: “I am 99 and 44/100 percent certain that the annotating hand is Oxford’s; I am 100 percent sure (if its possible to be that) that the Bible is Oxford’s.” To date, Dr. Nelson has not given his professional opinion as to why he changed his statement. Also, Dr. Shapiro neglects to identify the existence of a forensics report on the examination of de Vere’s handwriting by Certified Document Examiner, Emily J. Wills as appended to Dr. Stritmatter’s dissertation.

Per Dr. Shapiro’s re-telling (p. 215) of Supreme Court Justice Stevens’ story published in the *Wall Street Journal* about Shakespeare’s usage of the “bed trick” and his reasoning that de Vere “would have underlined” the relevant Genesis 29.23 passage in his Bible, again per my assessment of Dr. Stritmatter’s research, de Vere did not use his Bible to write the plays and hence the fact that Genesis 29.23 is not underlined is irrelevant. Again, had Dr. Shapiro done his own homework, he would have disregarded Justice Stevens’ reasoning as an error in judgment.

It is sad to see Dr. Shapiro, a chaired Columbia University professor, make such horrendous bad-faith mistakes in the name of scholarship by misrepresenting another scholar’s well-grounded research.

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

Shakespeare’s Usage of the Bible and Its Themes

I. Scholarly Facts

According to Naseeb Shaheen, Shakespeare, in writing his plays, “seldom borrows biblical references from his sources, even when those sources contain many references.”(fn. 1)

R. A. L. Burnet states: “[A]s Professor E. P. Dickie has pointed out to me, words found in the margin [of the Geneva Bible] will not have circulated very readily nor become proverbial sayings. Shakespeare would not have heard these words either in church or in conversation; he could only have read them.”(fn. 2)

Steven Marx suggests “a thorough familiarity with the Scriptures” is a prerequisite to understanding the Biblical references in the plays, and that the plays’ references to the Bible “illuminate fresh and surprising meanings in the biblical text.”(fn. 3)

II. Specific Examples

In 2 Henry VI, Shakespeare suggests his own biblical verses. Per Shaheen:(fn. 4)

“The many biblical references that occur throughout the play are Shakespeare’s own. Shakespeare’s use of Scripture in the play can be seen in the way he drew the character of the king. [Edward] Hall depicts Henry as “a man of a meke spirite, and of a simple witte, preferryng peace before warre, reste before businesse, honestie before profite, and quietnesse before laboure…. There could be none, more chaste, more meke, more holy, nor a better creature…. He gaped not for honor, nor thirsted for riches, but studied onely for the health of his soule: the savyng wherof, he estemed to bee the greatest wisedome” [Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, first published in 1548] (3.105). But Hall makes no biblical references when depicting Henry as a meek, pious ruler, void of ambibition. Shakespeare, however, gives the entire play a religious cast, and puts many biblical references and religious expressions in the mouths of his characters.”

“Some of these religious utterances strongly suggest Scripture, but do not seem to be biblical references.” Shaheen notes for example the lines “O Lord, that lends me life, Lend me a heart replete with thankfulness!” (1.1.19-20) and “God’s goodness hath been great to thee. Let never day nor night unhallowed pass, But still remember what the Lord hath done.” (2.1.82-84) contain “strong overtones of Scripture, but no actual references seem to be involved. The play contains many similar passages that are difficult to deal with, passages that are best classified as religious sentiments rather than actual biblical references.”

In 3 Henry VI, Shakespeare took a biblical theme from a prior source and expanded its usage of biblical references. Per Shaheen:(fn. 5)

“[Edward] Hall’s theme [per his Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, first published in 1548] was moral. He sought to demonstrate God’s providence towards England, and repeatedly points out that those who commit evil will sooner or later be punished. Yet his account contains very few biblical references. Inspired by Hall’s theme of divine retribution, Shakespeare adds biblical references that reflect that theme (1.4.168 “My blood upon your heads!”; 2.2.129 “Their blood upon thy head.”; 2.6.55 “Measure for measure must be answered.”).”

“An example of how Shakespeare added biblical references to what he found in his sources can be seen in the passage in Hall relating the death of Warwick’s brother. Hall simply says: “He [Lord Fitzwater] was slayne, and with hym the Bastard of Salisbury, brother to the erle of Warwycke, a valeaunt yong gentelman.” (3.181). In 2.3.14-23 Shakespeare expands that statement into a passage that contains at least three biblical references.”

2.3.15: Thy brother’s blood the thirsty earth hath drunk. (Gen. 4.10-11)
2.3.17: And in the very pangs of death he cried. (Compare 2 Sam. 22.5)
2.3.22: [Possible biblical reference] “gave up the ghost” (Gen. 49.33; Compare also Gen. 35.18; Matt. 27.50; Acts 5.10)
2.3.23: Then let the earth be drunken with our blood! (Per Shaheen, “A common biblical expression.” Compare Judith 6.4; Isa. 49.26; Rev. 17.6. Compare also Deut. 32.42; Jer. 46.10; Ezek. 39.19)

In Henry V, Shakespeare adds biblical themes to his prior sources. Per Shaheen: “[T]here is nothing in any of Shakespeare’s sources that is parallel to Henry’s discussion on the responsibilty for war and the fate of the soldiers who die therein (4.1.124-91), or to Henry’s musings on kingship (4.1.230-84), which contain a large number of biblical and liturgical references. These passages with their references are original with Shakespeare.”(fn. 6)

Per Shaheen, “Shakespeare’s use of the book of Revelation in Antony and Cleopatra is outstanding…. Since only three chapters of Revelation were read during Morning and Evening Prayer in the Church of England (…[reference to chapters and church days]…), Shakespeare must have privately read much of Revelation shortly before of during the composition of the play.” He further states, “The references to Exodus in act 3 scene 13 are also noteworthy.”(fn. 7)

Per Shaheen, Timon of Athens “provides rare insights into his manner of composition and has several biblical references that are of considerable interest.” He further states, “As is Shakespeare’s custom throughout his plays, his use of Scripture in Timon is primarily intended to serve dramatic ends rather than to have theological significance.”(fn. 8 )

All of the foregoing examples as provided by Shaheen suggest that Shakespeare was well-acquainted with the Bible and its various themes via individual verses spread throughout its various chapters enough so that he could easily expand upon any said theme with his own continuation of such verses.

III. The Evidence

Where is the evidence that William of Stratford was “a magnificent and a very learned and religious man” as Sir George Buc had characterized Oxford? I suggest only one who is intimate with the Bible could assimilate verses throughout the Bible into their respective thematic store.

An interesting sidelight should be noted per J. B. Selkirk: “Amongst those zealous biographers of Shakspeare who have laboured to shew what employment or profession he was educated for, and what office in life he was originally intended to fill (…), I have often wondered that no ingenious critic should ever have attempted to shew that he must have been intended for the church.”(fn. 9)

Roger Stritmatter has already ascertained that the annotator of the de Vere Geneva Bible “seemed clearly preoccupied with certain definite themes, among them:”

1. The responsibilities of the rich and powerful.
2. The virtue of charity.
3. The evils of usury.
4. The nature of sin.
5. Prophecy.
6. The value of secret works.
7. The nature of providence in eschatological end times.
8. The nature of proper speech.

Further, per Stritmatter: “Such details are inconsistent with any theory of a casual or one-time annotator of the de Vere Bible. Instead, they suggest an annotator who was in possession of the Bible over an extended period of time, who returned on many successive close readings, who underlined and annotated the Bible over a period of years, and who, apparently towards the end of his life, carefully repaired letters damaged through heavy use in the concluding chapter of the Book of Revelations.”(fn. 10)

IV. Request for Further Analysis

How well do these themes in the de Vere Bible overlap themes in the Shakespeare canon? And further, how well do they overlap the writings of others? Stritmatter has already assessed individual Bible verses in the writings of Bacon, Spenser, Marlowe, as well as Montaigne and Rabelais, versus the de Vere Bible. On a thematic level, how well do these writers fit the de Vere Bible?

And most importantly, do the themes in the Shakespeare canon commonly appear in the writings of others?

Per my recent essay on de Vere’s Bible(fn. 11), there is no expectation of a one-to-one correspondence between its individually marked verses and the verses represented in the Shakespeare canon. As I argued, the de Vere Bible was not used as a workbook per the Genevan parallels as supplied by Shaheen. Therefore, the crux of the de Vere Bible lies with its thematic interpretations and the resulting overlap with the themes of the Shakespeare canon.

______

(1) Naseeb Shaheen, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays, 1999, 2011, p. 90

(2) R. A. L. Burnet, “Shakespeare and the Marginalia of the Geneva Bible,” Notes and Queries 26(2), April 1979, p. 113

(3) Steven Marx, Shakespeare and the Bible, 2000, p. 13

(4) Shaheen p. 301

(5) Shaheen p. 324, 328-9

(6) Shaheen p. 449

(7) Shaheen p. 644

(8) Shaheen p. 670, 671

(9) J.B. Brown (Selkirk), Bible Truths with Shakspearean Parallels, 1862, p. 136

(10) Roger A. Stritmatter, The Marginalia of Edward de Vere’s Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence, February 2001, pp. 433-4

(11) “Assessment of Edward de Vere’s Genevan Bible,” December 7, 2012

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.