The Earl of Oxford's final surviving letter, to James I, Jan. 30, 1603. Copyright, private collection, UK. Please do not reproduce without permission.

As some readers are aware,  a question lurks over the de Vere Bible: who is responsible for the handwriting — and therefore the underlining and other notations –  it contains?  Contradictory statements by some scholars dedicated to the traditional view of Shakespearean authorship have confused the issue.

In the coming weeks, therefore, I will be reproducing a number of samples of de Vere’s handwriting, both in the form of complete documents such as the present Jan. 30, 1603 letter to King James, and in the form of detailed paleographical analysis, that will allow the reader to form his or her own judgment on the matter.

I am pleased to offer this first sample, kindness the English owner, who preferred to remain anonymous. A transcript appears below. I will defer further comment until a later time.

Seinge yt yt hathe pleased yowre Magestye of yowre moste gratious inclinatione to[ward]
Justice & ryght to restore me to be keper of yowre game as well in yowre forest
Waltham, as also in Haveringe parke I can doo no lesse in dwtye and love t[o]
Yowre Magestye, but imploye my selfe in the executione thereof. And to the end
yow myght the better knowe in what sorte boothe the forreste, & the parke have be[ene]
Abused, and yet continued, as well in distroyinge of the Dere, as in spoylinge of yowre
demesne woode, by suche as have patents, & had lycenses heretore for sellinge of Tymb[er]
in the Quienes tyme latlye deceasede, præsuminge therby that they may doo what they
lyste. I was bowlde to send unto yowre Magestye a man skillfull, lerned, & experiencede in foreste causes, who being a dweller and eyewytnes therof myght informe yowe of the
truthe. And because yowre Mtye vpon a bare informatione, cowlde not be so well
satisfyde of every particular as by laufull testemonye & examinatione of credible
wytnese vpon othe, accordinge to yowre Magestyes appoyntmente by commissione
a course hathe bene taken, In which yowre Magestyes shalbe fully satisfysde of [the]
truthe. This commissione together wth the depositiones of the witnes I doo sende to [illeg.]
yowre Mtye by ys bearer, whoo brieflye can informe yow of the whole contence. So yt
now, hauinge laufullye provede unto yowre Magestye yt Sr John Graye hathe kylled
and destroyedge yowre Dere in Haveringe parke wythoute any warrante for the same
hys patent us voyde in lawe, & therefore I moste humblye beseche yowre Magestye
to make hym an example for all others that shall in leke sort abuse there places &
to restore me to the possession thereofe, in boothe whiche yowre Mtye shall doo but
Justice and ryght to the one & other. This 30 of Januarie 1603.

Yowre Magestyes

Most

Humble

Subiect and

Servant

E Oxenforde

According to Waugaman’s abstract,

There is now abundant evidence that Freud was correct in believing Edward de Vere (1550-1604) wrote under the pseudonym “William Shakespeare.” One common reaction is “What difference does it make?” I address that question by examining many significant connections between de Vere’s life and The Tempest.

Such studies promise to bring our understanding of Shakespeare’s works back into line with our usual psychoanalytic approach to literature, which examines how a great writer’s imagination weaves a new creation out of the threads of his or her life experiences.

One source of the intense controversy about de Vere’s authorship is our idealization of the traditional author, about whom we know so little that, as Freud noted, we can imagine his personality was as fine as his works.

]]> http://shake-speares-bible.com/2009/12/17/waugaman-publishes-oxfordian-analysis-of-the-tempest/feed/ 3