About

Shake-speare’s Bible is devoted to telling the story of a unique and startling literary object — the 1568-70 Geneva Bible owned and annotated by the man many independent scholars believe was the heart and soul behind the mask of the name “Shake-speare” — the true author of Hamlet, Measure for Measure, Merchant of Venice, and the other plays of the 1623 “first Folio.” This document, purchased in 1925 by the late Henry Clay Folger, who was deeply curious about the Shakespearean question, is today owned by the library which bears Folger’s name: the  Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington DC.

The Bible was the subject of my 2001 University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation. At that time, agents and publishers told me that it was impossible to make a book out of the project.

They were wrong.

This website will provide a repository for developing the book that couldn’t be written.

Here, as the site develops, you will find photos, analysis, and commentary on the de Vere Bible, its place in intellectual history, and the larger controversy in which it is implicated — of which my book can only hope to form a single a chapter. For more details, please visit the Authorship FAQ and or the Bible FAQ.

 

More generally, the site will delve into cutting edge research in the humanities as sciences, from the perspective of what makes a genuine paradigm shift. For example, as of February, 2012, I’ve been following very closely online news and discussions about LENR and Andrea Rossi, and will continue commenting from time to time on that discussion, and more generally on the politics, science, and epistemology of energy technology.

Who am I?

My name is Roger Stritmatter. As of 2015, I am a full Professor of Humanities at Coppin State University, a founding member and officer of The Shakespeare Fellowship, and the General Editor of Brief Chronicles: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Authorship Studies.  My first book, Shakespeare’s Tempest: A Movable Feast, co-written with critically acclaimed young adult fiction writer Lynne Kositsky, will be published this year by McFarland Press. A second book on Herman Melville may temporarily preempt the Shakespeare’s Bible project — but that book will eventually, I promise, be written and published.

Welcome. I hope you check back often —  and subscribe to my RSS. Just click on the RSS man!

*************************************************************

The work that made this web site possible has been generously supported in the past by a number of individuals and organizations, among them: William Hunt, Barbara Crowley, Carole Sue Lipman, Richard and Tiana Eustis, Isabel Holden, Virginia Renner, James Hardigg, Charles Tower, Leslie Beran Tower, William Moffett, and Elisabeth Sears. The Department of Comparative Literature at the University of Massachusetts  —  especially Marc Shell, William Moebius, David Lenson, Elizabeth  Petroff, James Freeman (English), and Edwin Gentzler —  gave me a place to stand while completing the dissertation.

I benefited immeasurably from the knowledge  and generosity of spirit of colleagues in the English Department, among them Arthur Kinney, Charlotte Spivack, Malcolm Smuts (UMass Boston),  Donald Cheney, and William Kerrigan.

University of Massachusetts Writing program staff and faculty — including Peter Elbow, Pat Zukowski, and Charlie Moran — gave me a job and taught me the craft of teaching writing.

Dr. Daniel Wright, director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Centre at Portland’s Concordia University, graciously served as an external reviewer for my dissertation and has provided many much-appreciated opportunities to present work-in-progress over the years.

The Folger Library was kind enough to extend the opportunity to me to become a reader and made available many slides as well as microfilm of the entire bible, on which the dissertation was based.

Editors at Oxford University Press’s Notes and Queries — one of the  oldest and most prestigious journals of literary history in the world — were thoughtful enough to accept for publication a series of  brief  “out-takes” from the dissertation, which are now available reproduced, here. This work has been carried forward significantly by Richard Waugaman, whose 2009 article on the influence of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms in Shakespeare, written by using the de Vere Bible as the “answer key,” is rated the 4th most visited article in the Notes and Queries data base.

Since the dissertation defense in 2001, many others have stepped forward with aid of one kind or another, of whom I must mention especially Lynne and Michael Kositsky, Richard Waugaman, Dorna Bewley, and Shelly Maycock.

To these and countless others who provided moral, intellectual, and financial support, gratiam tibi.

Since 2003 I have been blessed to work for Coppin State University.

27 Responses to “About”

  1. Mark Woodward says:

    Roger —

    Congratulations! The site is handsome, well designed, and will certainly prove a useful tool for furthering the dissemination of Oxfordism and amping up the public face of the intellectual rigor being brought to bear on the question. (I have also downloaded and am slowly reading Brief Chronicles — for which I also commend you — and may offer some comment after I’ve digested it.)

    I’ve followed the discussions online for 10-15 years as an infrequent poster on SOS, the Fellowship, and, for a while, on Phaeton — and feel privileged to have been able to watch the community come together electronically and organize itself in a way that might not have been otherwise possible. I think the work that you, and you and Lynne, are doing in the academic sphere, and that Mark Anderson has brought to the “popular” side is little short of remarkable — but I keep postponing writing fan letters. So this will have to do.

    All best wishes.

    cheers —

    “MarkW”

  2. Upstart Crow says:

    Hi Roger. Excellent site. I just wanted to point out that, since you are currently (quite correctly IMO) reaming out Shapiro re his hyphen gaffe, you might want to take care of your own use of the expression “most unique” in the first sentence of this “ABOUT” page. If something is unique there is only one instance of it in existence, or if it no longer exists, only one instance of it ever did exist. Thus you cannot apply the qualifying adjective “most” to the word “unique” because you cannot have the most of a set containing only one member. In fact, the term unique can be qualified by very few adjectives such as “very” or “quite” (two other common faux pas) because most of them lead to an oxymoron on a par with “being a little bit pregnant.”

    I’m not trying to be snarky or anything here; I would have preferred to have sent you this message privately but I cannot find your email address anywhere on this web site, so I was unable to send you an email directly – hence this more public post. Of course, Murphy’s Law almost guarantees that I will see your email address emblazoned across the very next page I visit on your site. If so, ‘c’est la vie’. I would hate to see your arguments attacking an English professor bardolater (for doing something he should have known much better than to have done given his English qualifications) be undermined – or even nullified – because some Troglodyte wag may point out that you have made a similar gaffe … because, as we all know, you can turn 9 bones into anything you want to if you use enough plaster of Paris.

    Please feel free to delete this post once you’ve read it.

    Best regards.

    an Upstart Crow

    P.S. Discretely including your email address somewhere on this site would also be a suggested site improvement (if it is not already there).

    • Roger Stritmatter says:

      Au contraire, mon ami — the difference between Dr. Shapiro and myself is that he is perfect. He never makes a mistake, as we know. Your edits are much appreciated, and will shortly be applied. The trogs you mention are very busy these days, and we must do what we can, must we not, to meet them at Thermopylae? Thanks very much.

  3. Upstart Crow says:

    Hello again. Having just witnessed how things work between my posting a message (and it awaiting moderation) and your reading it (and approving it), I guess you don’t really need to post your email address on this site after all. Because someone can send you private messages simply by asking that you delete them rather than publish them when you read them (which is kind of what I had assumed when I sent you my previous message). Consequently, you deserve big kudos for going ahead and publishing my message anyway; clearly nobody can accuse Oxfordians of not having any balls! Although, having just written that, I can’t help thinking that Stratfordians such as Shapiro and Greenblatt must both have humungous bollocks themselves in order to actually publish some of the unverifiable codswallop they seem so compelled to generate in the name of the Stratford-upon-Avon theme park.

    I have always wondered how long it would be before the Disney Corporation finally takes over the Stratford Corporation with a leveraged buy-out. Then our “Warwickshire Willy” could finally take his place on the Disney Mount Olympus alongside his peer fantasy idols of Bambi (who, I guess, he could then poach all over Charlecote without any fear of further retribution from Sir Thomas Lucy); Little Bo Peep (who presumably will have lost her sheep because Will’s wool brogging father stole ’em all); Donald Duck (who would IMO make a fine and dandy companion for the Swan of Avon); Peter Pan (who could finally be given a lead role in A Midsummer Night’s Dream); and Pinocchio (whom A.L. Rowse, if he were still alive, would no doubt confidently assure us as having “a sexy nose” just like old will’s).

    Once again, best regards.

    an Upstart Crow

  4. Roger Stritmatter says:

    LOL. I could have said that better myself. Thanks for helping me to keep things in perspective.

  5. John Harris says:

    Dear Whoever reads this,
    The historic Bible collection that I look after contains a 1607 Geneva Bible which I have reason to believe belonged to Shakespeare. The date certainly makes it possible and there is no reason to presume he had only one Bible in his lifetime. It was donated to this collection in order to preserve it about 50 years ago by an Engishman named William Lea who said it was given to him to care for by the last descendant of Shakespeare’s sister Joan Hart to bear the name Hart. Her first name name slips my mind but it is in our records. She died in about 1941. It has WS carved into the front cover, a now faded and illegible signature on the title page and a number of verses, particularly about women, marked WS. Of course all of these could have been faked. We have investigated the possibility of a William Ireland forgery but while this is not impossible, it raises the question of why the donor would have lied or, if not, why he was misled. I have come across this website by accident and wondered if anyone out there is interested in the fact of the existence of this Bible.

  6. John Harris says:

    Further to my note above, the last Hart was Alice Hart whose married name was Faulkner. She died in 1941

  7. Roger Stritmatter says:

    Dear Mr. Harris,

    Thank you for your post. Other than the fact that this Bible was published within the lifetime of the bloke from Stratford and bears the initials “W.S.,” do you have any further tangible reason for linking this book to the Stratford man? Does it contain any annotations?

    Best Wishes.

  8. John Harris says:

    Dear Roger,
    I have no absolute proof. But yes, it is annotated ‘WS’ at verses which are derogatory of women, being shrewish, gossipy etc. I know it is possible that it is a forgery as I suppose almost any Shakespeare relics could be. My ethical problem is that it was given to us in good faith by a generous donor who said that Alice Hart had given it to him. That is the name of the last descendant of Joan Hart, Shakespeare’s sister, to bear the Hart name as the male line died out. She died in USA in 1941. Her descendants are Faukners etc. So there are several possibilities to consider – 1) the donor was telling the truth . 2) the donor was not telling the truth and had fabricated the story. 3) the donor thought he was telling the truth but had been misled by Alice Hart. If the story is not a total fabrication, that is, if the donor gave it in good faith, then there are a couple of sub-possibilities related to Alice Hart. 3/a Alice Hart gave him the Bible knowing it to be her GGGG…Uncle Will S’s Bible. 3/b Alice Hart gave him the Bible in the belief that it had been WS’s Bible, but she herself was mistaken (and her ancestors had been mistaken for many centuries) 3/c Alice Hart gave him the Bible but alleged falsely that it was WS’s Bible, knowing it was not. To say this is definitely NOT WS’s Bible forces me to have to say in displaying this Bible that either the donor lied to us or Alice Hart lied to him, or to be absolutely exhaustive, that someone lied to Alice Hart or one of her ancestors. (The annotations etc in the Bible are much earlier than Alice Hart) I find these conclusions difficult in that they seem the less likely explanations. We have a dozen or so Geneva Bibles and many of them have stories narrated by the donors. Am I not to believe them? When I display this Bible am I to malign the donor or perhaps malign Alice Hart? Therein lies my dilemma. But I contacted you largely because i thought you may be interested.
    Kind Regards
    John

  9. John Harris says:

    Dear Roger,
    1) Further to the above, I am of course aware of the long standing debate about the real authorship of the Shakespearean works. I don’t say this Bible necessarily adds anything about that question but I do think it belonged to William Shakespeare of Stratford!
    2) If anyone happens to be interested I could scan a few pages and send them but i would need an actual email address.

    Regards

    John

  10. Roger Stritmatter says:

    Hi John,

    In my experience such things can easily be invented, and not necessarily in bad faith. People come to believe them because they want to — what begins as speculation becomes fact over generations. You don’t have to impute a lie to anyone (although there has certainly been plenty of that in other cases).

    I would not doubt the good faith of your donor, but would be skeptical of the claim unless there is further evidence to substantiate it. I think the initials W.S. would have been very common — off the top of my head I think of “William Stanley” (more than one) and William Strachey. There must have been thousands. Of course the provenance gives you I suppose an element of circumstantial credibility, but its still not much. If, however, it is the Stratford Shakespeare’s it would be interesting in view of the longstanding question of his religious affiliation, which is currently dividing Shakespeare scholarship.

    In my own view a substantial preponderance of the evidence does support the contention that your putative owner was a recusant, which would make his ownership of a Geneva bible something of an anomaly. When we turn, on the other hand, to the Shakespearean oeuvre the opposite is true: the works, while sympathetic in an aesthetic and spiritual sense to the great tradition of Catholicism, are firmly grounded in a Protestant nationalism which is fiercely orthodox and, imho, impossible to reconcile with a theory of Catholic authorship.

    Glad to have you acknowledge the authorship question and I agree with you that this Bible, while certainly intriguing and worthy of comment, does not provide any relevant data for the question itself, unlike the de Vere Bible which was the subject of my dissertation and this site. If it did belong to the Stratford Shakespeare, it would, on the other hand, be the only surviving example of an undisputed book originally belonging to him. Contrast that with about 300 for Ben Jonson and you will start to see why Justice Stevens asks “where are Shakespeare’s books?” and regards this fact pattern as relevant to the authorship question. Google his “Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction” for more details.

    Thanks for your interest in the site. Why don’t you read some other posts and let me know what you think?!

    Best Wishes,

    Roger

  11. John Harris says:

    Thanks Roger,
    Well I have explored your site a bit and find it interesting. Your hypothesis is well argued although I think there is still a problem with the early death of de Vere.
    Let me know if you or anyone would like a scan of any pages of this WS Bible!

    Kind Regards

    John

  12. Roger Stritmatter says:

    Dear John,

    There’s only a problem with the “early” death of de Vere if you really think that the traditional chronology is worth beans, which I don’t. It’s been constructed this way (there are a few exceptions, but the vast majority of the plays fit the patter):

    1) Subtract no more than two years off the earliest date of mention of a play to deduce its composition date;

    2) Arrange the plays, as Chambers says he does, so as to provide a “fairly even flow of production” over the years of the presumed author’s career;

    3) Take all the plays which are leftover, for which you can’t find definitive evidence of existence during the 1590’s, and place them during the period 1604-1611;

    4) Claim that these late plays — which include not only Tempest, Lear, and Macbeth, but also Pericles and Cymbeline, are united by a common “style” and “genre.”

    5) Rigidly enforce the preceding strictures so that anyone who questions their rationality is professionally marginalized and labeled a “fellow traveler” with the “Oxfordians,” who must have a hidden agenda.

    It works very well.

    Best Wishes,

    Roger

  13. Upstart Crow says:

    Dear John Harris.

    I just read your recent exchange of posts with Roger. Apropos your comment, “I think there is still a problem with the early death of de Vere,” I would just like to add that the following observations to Roger’s response …

    Nobody knows for certain when William Shakspere, the player from Stratford, actually wrote any of his plays. If anyone tells you differently then he’s lying. Any dating of the plays by Stratfordian academics (which is the vast majority of all Shakespearean academics) is pure conjecture on their part, as Roger has stated. In most cases, it is well-informed conjecture, but it is speculative conjecture – NOT a priori knowledge – nevertheless. Naturally, if one believes that the lad from Stratford is the author of the Shake-speare canon, all that conjecture is designed to fit neatly around the few limiting hard facts that we know about Will’s life; such as the surmised date of his arrival in London (approximately 1589 give or take a couple of years) and the date of his death in Stratford (23 April 1616).

    Thus the penning of Will Shakspere’s “known” canon of plays (which number approximately 40 in total; of which two are forever lost; at least a further 7 are believed to be late cooperative efforts with other playwrights; while about an additional dozen plays, which “experts” have detected the Bard’s hand in down the years, are currently considered to be Apocrypha) are generally attributed to the period 1590-1611 at the rate of about two plays per year (but perhaps as many as three or four per year when the Bard was at the peak of his creativity and popularity in the late 1590s). Note that there is no academic consensus on exactly WHICH plays Will wrote, let alone on WHEN he wrote them! Consequently, there is NO definitive Stratfordian dating for ALL of the plays, there being different schools of thought amongst Stratfordians for many of the plays re the extent of Will’s contribution (if any) to their creation, as well as disagreement over when he made that contribution (either by himself or in cooperation with others).

    So the over-simplistic dismissal by Stratfordians of the Oxfordian theory of authorship that can best be summarized as, “Oxford cannot possibly have written the Shake-speare canon because he died in 1604, a number of years before the last plays were penned,” is obviously a totally fallacious one. Because it takes non-consensual surmised dates of composition that were originally speculated based on the lifespan of Will Shakspere and then proceeds to misapply these contingent dates (as if they were a priori facts) to the lifespan of Edward de Vere in order create the seeming impossibility of the latter’s authorship. Only a four year old would be fooled by such obvious casuistry!

    Furthermore, even if you accept the orthodox (i.e., Stratfordian) scholarship for the dating of the plays, according to one of the more conventional sources of the dating (viz. Alfred Harbage’s Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare) the likely composition dates given for each of the plays in the basic canon are ALL before 1604 except in the case of two plays – “Henry VIII” and “The Tempest”. The compositional date of “Macbeth” is also marginal, and these three plays are usually the ones that are most hotly contested WRT to the June 1604 cutoff caused by de Vere’s death. However, there are very strong arguments for all three of those plays having been written prior to 1604 (which would be too long for me to go into here).

    Therefore, even using the compositional dates that were conjectured to best fit the known working lifespan of the lad from Warwick, the June 1604 cutoff caused by Oxford’s death is not, in the end, the great showstopper that the Stratfordian zealots always try to make it out to be. Of course, to do proper justice to the compositional dating of the plays with Oxford as their creator, the plays should actually be attributed to Edward de Vere’s known working lifespan using the same logic of date allocation that has been used to create the current various versions of the Stratfordian compositional timeline.

    I hoped the foregoing goes some way to resolving your perceived problem with “the early death of de Vere” !!

    an Upstart Crow

  14. Roger Stritmatter says:

    Upstart!

    Thanks so much for the lucid exposition of what’s wrong with the argument that “Oxford cannot possibly have written the Shake-speare canon because he died in 1604, a number of years before the last plays were penned.”

    It truly is a pity that so many otherwise intelligent persons fall for this “totally fallacious” argument!

    Best Wishes,

    R.

  15. Upstart Crow says:

    Well, squire, you are very welcome. 🙂

    BTW, I really feel I must take exception to the following sentence in one of your previous posts: “In my own view a substantial preponderance of the evidence does support the contention that your putative owner was a recusant, which would make his ownership of a Geneva bible something of an anomaly.”

    To date I have personally seen no evidence that Will Shaxpere was a recusant. In the case of his father and daughter I could probably accept that label – but even then with some qualifications (see below) – however, in the case of Will himself the term would appear to be inappropriately applied. If you had said that Will was possibly a “closet Catholic” (my terminology) I might accept such a label, even though we have no evidence of his being that either. However, in this latter case, our current lack of any evidence of his true Roman Catholic religious affiliations would be a direct consequence of Will having been a “closet Catholic” – which would have involved his going through all the outward motions of being a conformant Anglican (such as attending church services at least once a month and partaking of Anglican communion when he did so) while all the time privately (even secretly) practicing his Roman Catholic faith with family, friends and neighbors, any one of which might possibly have more correctly deserved the label of recusant.

    Somewhere between overt “Papist recusancy” (note: there were lots of other ideological reasons for openly rejecting the mandated orthodoxy of the Anglican Church so not ALL recusants were Papists, although they probably accounted for much of the recusancy that was reported to the authorities, and “Popish recusancy” was considered by far the most dangerous form of such overt religious rebellion because it also implied potential treason, treachery or traitorship on the part of the recusant since the main reason that King Philip II of Spain had launched the Armada attack in 1588 was to restore the country back to the orthodoxy of Roman Catholicism) and “closet Catholicism” (as I just defined it above) lies “Church Papistry” …

    Up until the nearly successful attempted regicide of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, regularly attending church (but skipping communion) was probably frowned upon by the more pious Anglicans, yet it would have still been conduct sufficient to keep one off of the “potential recusancy” lists compiled by the churchwardens in the 1590s based on observed attendance (or more accurately, observed lack of attendance) at church. After the recent shock of the attempted blowing up of both Parliament and the King, the screws were very much tightened across the realm WRT spotting potential traitors whose only aim was to overthrow the Protestant rule of the Stuart monarchy. So after the failed plot of 1605 the churchwardens were now required to report on their monthly compiled lists not only the regular non-attendees at church for that past month, but also the regular non-recipients of communion amongst those that did attend.

    In the early 1590s, Will’s father fell foul of the churchwarden’s scrutiny by his regular non-attendance at church, marking him out as a “suspected recusant”; while in 1606 Will’s daughter Susanna fell foul of the churchwarden’s increased scrutiny by her regular non-participation in communion, marking her out as a “suspected Church Papist”. Managing to have your name appear on the churchwardens’ monthly compiled lists (based on either of these criteria) did NOT mean that you were automatically considered guilty of either offence; it only meant that you were worthy of further investigation should someone in authority be so motivated. In fact, there could be quite valid excuses for both regular non-attendance at church (e.g., prolonged illness) and regular non-receipt of communion (presumably not being in a suitable state of grace each time one attended church).

    In addition to both of these independently written records of reported instances of non-attendance at church (for John) and non-participation in communion (for Susanna), in the latter’s case we do have further information. She subsequently failed to turn up in the vicar’s court despite receiving a summons to do so by the apparitor. However, the word “dismissa” was later added to her entry in the act book which would seem to indicate that when she did finally appear before her judges her case was duly dismissed by them. The obvious assumption to make from this is that she had subsequently been witnessed willingly receiving the Eucharist in Anglican communion, something a Papist recusant would never do. Of course, that is merely an assumption. She may just have equally bribed the judges to grant her clemency! There is, unfortunately, no similar surviving record of what was subsequently determined in John’s case – see next post. Consequently, for us four centuries later to label either John as being a “recusant” or Susanna as being a “Church Papist” might be stretching the terminology somewhat; but at least there may be some justification for doing so in both their particular cases.

    However, in the case of our beloved Willy, as far as I know there is no such evidence of Will’s name having ever appeared on a list of regular non-attendees at church (in the same manner that we have for his father John in 1592) nor on a list of church attendees that regularly did not receive communion (in the same manner that we have for his daughter Susanna in 1606). So IMO to label Will as being a “recusant” is even more of a misuse of appropriate terminology than it is in either his father’s or his daughter’s case.

    Best regards,

    an Upstart Crow

  16. Roger Stritmatter says:

    Hi UC:

    You make a good point abut the shades of religious non-conformism. I was not stating the results of any informed research on my own part, but only the results of a significant body of revisionist scholarship which has tried to reconcile the biographical problems of the orthodox account of authorship by postulating the author’s recusancy. I accept your correction that “possible closet Catholic” would be a more justified summary. As you indicate, there’s quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that members of the family were Catholic, and Will apparently invested in the Blackfriars gatehouse, which was reportedly a hiding place for recusants. I don’t really have any horse in this race, but as you acknowledge the circumstantial evidence for the family’s Catholicism is pretty strong, even though you are correct to emphasize that there is no direct evidence for Will’s recusancy. To me the most interesting aspect of this question is how prominent the discussion has become within Stratfordian circles as a kind of surrogate authorship question. http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xCatholic.html

    Best Wishes and thanks for contributing your informed perspective to the site.

    Roger

  17. […] five years of work on their joint project about Shakespeare’s TheTempest,Roger Stritmatter, PhD and Lynne Kositsky have completed the manuscript of A Movable Feast: Sources, Chronology and […]

  18. AnonymousMovie says:

    Hello,

    I noticed that you’ve written on the topic of Shakespeare and I wanted to let you know that Sony Pictures has just launched a new trailer for the upcoming film, Anonymous.

    Experts have debated, books have been written, and scholars have devoted their lives to protecting or debunking theories surrounding the authorship of the most renowned works in English literature. Anonymous poses one possible answer to the age old question: Who really wrote the works of William Shakespeare?

    Here is the link to the trailer. Would you be interested in posting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBmnkk0QW3Q&feature=channel_video_title

    Join us on the Facebook page for the latest updates on Anonymous: http://www.facebook.com/Anonymous

    Anonymous opens in theaters September 30.

    Thanks and have a great day!

    *The Sony Pictures Digital Marketing Team

  19. Roger Stritmatter says:

    O my.

    I just realized this moment that Sony pictures visited way back in April.

    Sorry that I did not respond in a more timely fashion.

    By now, of course Anonymous is out, and making the rounds headed into the Oscar season. Its a magnificent film and Mr. Emmerich, Mr. Orloff, and all those associated with it deserve our greatest thanks for having the audacity to make it. Let’s hope it not only does well at the box office, but stirs the reading public to further inquiry.

    Thanks!

  20. bella says:

    John Harris, I would love to take you up on your offer…if you can scan and email me a pageboy two of the Biblenthat you have…..bellaingram@hotmail.com

    Thanks

  21. bella says:

    wow…you would think that i didn’t go to school…hehe. John i meant to say scan and email me a page or two….

  22. Lurking Ox says:

    I have read this page in its entirety and must here acknowledge that I belong to the 60% of posters on this forum that do not currently own a Geneva Bible formerly belonging to William Shakespeare or some member of the Stratford Shakspere family. Roger, perhaps you could start an Annual Shake-speare’s Bible-Giveaway Swoopstakes and Beauty Review in order to award Geneva Bibles to deserving participants. It is my opinion that Bibles formerly owned by members of the Shaksper, Shakespeare, Hart, Hall, Nash, and Shakshift clans are preferable. Just food for thought…..

  23. Roger Stritmatter says:

    Nature abhors a vaccum; the history of Shakespearean inquiry is littered with claims to have found the “missing link,” as if that’s all that’s needed to restore a paradigm that is, to quote the bard’s own words, long since “dead as a doornail.” But one does one’s best to answer each inquiry — at least those which don’t begin from the assumption that you must be a moron — with some degree of respectful suspension of disbelief. People like their fetishes.

  24. Gray Joshua says:

    Roger, I just wanted to introduce myself. I am a poet who believes Oxford is Shakespeare.

    I am currently writing a poetry biopic.At least, that’s what I’m calling at the moment.

    Bill Boyle is interested and may publish it.

    I exchanged a few emails with Hank Whittemore because I reduced the sonnets to quatrains and published them on twitter, They will appear in my book, as well.

    I thought you were great in Last Will. & Testament,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Categories

  • Archives

In "From Crackpot to Mainstream"Keir Cutler, PhD, takes down the recent Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (OUP, 2013)

Criticism of Cutler's "Is Shakespeare Dead?": "A magnificently witty performance!" (Winnipeg Sun). "Highly entertaining and engrossing!" (EYE Weekly). "Is Shakespeare Dead? marshals startling facts into an elegant and often tenacious argument that floats on a current of delicious irony" (Montreal Gazette).