Posted By Roger Stritmatter on November 29, 2009
Welcome to Shake-Speare’s Bible.com.
Our topic is Shake-speare’s Bible. The one he owned.
Really. No joke.
To learn what that means, please visit the “about” page.
Of course, since we don’t believe in censorship and bullying here, and we’re interested in a lot of different subjects — being, as it were, on an intellectual adventure of our lives — you’ll find a lot of extras here.
For example, every once in a while, we diverge to consider other topics in intellectual history — lately, the intense and exciting developments in online news and debate over the resurgence of “Cold Fusion”/LENR energy production, hailed by Gerald Celente and many others in 2011 as a new industrial revolution “in statu nascendi.”
For more information on LENR, please visit e-catworld.com or coldfusionnow!
You won’t be disappointed. For a selection of some of the very best online de Vere/Shakespeare resources, visit my links page. – Ed
If your site fits well with this list, let me know and I can list it.
Update 3/16- categories are not working! Sorry for any confusion. Still working on it.
Posted By Roger Stritmatter on October 19, 2016
Quite an interesting illustration for measuring the quality of a website.
Posted By Roger Stritmatter on September 26, 2016
Somewhat to my surprise, On the Date, Sources, and Design of Shakespeare’s Tempest, my 2011 book written with Lynne Kositsky, has been rather favorably reviewed in the most recent issue of OUP’s Years Work in English Studies by Sheilagh Ilona O’Brien, a PhD candidate in School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics at the University of Queensland and contributing reviewer to the Oxford journal! Details.
Posted By Roger Stritmatter on September 5, 2016
A growing collection of 16th century manicules is available on pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/carter0184/manicules/
I continue to get inquiries along the lines of, “how do we know those manicules (see previous two posts) are really in de Vere’s handwriting?”
This is a legitimate question deserving of a leisurely analysis in the not-to-distant-future.
On the other hand I happen to have in my files some background materials that I’ve been preparing for some time now to provide a more comprehensive review of the handwriting question more generally, including the manicules and other design elements from the Bible.
The advent of high resolution image capacity can cast a new and revealing light on relevant pages and parts of pages of the de Vere Bible, clearing away several popular misconceptions, promulgated by Tom Veal, Tom Reedy, and the Oxfraud gang among others, that could not be fully addressed at the time of the dissertation due to questions of sample resolution.
This post is about another kind of “map,” the map to all the passages that are marked in the Bible and which Shakespeare passages, if any, allude to those marked verses.
Originally this was Appendix G of the dissertation, but has been greatly supplemented with additional findings since the dissertation version and is being made generally available in public here in .pdf for the first time.
You know what to do:
This is a large file of over 170 pages.
Posted By Roger Stritmatter on September 4, 2016
Manicule from de Vere Bible pointing to Psalm 30.
The attached .pdf shows a close comparison between the manicules of the de Vere bible and those found in the volume of Tyndale’s Exposition (1548) recently brought to light on ShakesVere.
Comparison of multiple examples allows the examiner to see for the first time the way the samples form patterns that are distinct from their representational content. There is a clear divergence between the two samples in terms of the way the writer idealizes the shape of the manicule in his mind and then translates that image onto the page.
The example is a good illustration of how important it is to compare multiple exemplars of a form in order to see how the samples diverge (or, if they are in fact of common origin, converge). This evidence in my opinion fairly definitively rules out the possibility that both samples are by one writer. I had hoped to see otherwise, but that’s what it looks to me.