Here is my 2023 analysis, published in a professional journal of forensic studies, of the handwriting of the “Audley End Unknown” Annotator. These Audley End annotations are the holy grail of Shakespeare studies: they supply a window into Shakespeare’s creative process for both Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra.
I don’t know what the Stratfordians will say about this. Their belief is doomed. If anyone can find a reason to argue with the conclusion, please do so and show me where I went wrong. My guess is that even Oliver Kamm and the rest of the Oxfrauds will just pretend this didn’t happen, at least for as long as they can.
February 19, 2025 at 1:08 am
At the end of this paper, testing by other researchers and examiners is asked for. Here is my input; I thoroughly read through the paper presented above, and have to disagree with the conclusion reached. The provided lettering samples of de Vere and Audley End are similar in style and some attributes, but are often very different letter-by-letter. Here are some examples:
-Double S: Audley End’s are wider and rounder. When the writer is making the “B” shape, they draw two humps with a point between them. De Vere’s Double S characters are narrower and tend to make a concave bend along the “B”, rather than coming to a point between the two humps. (41)
-Lower case s: De Vere’s lower case s’s tend to be curved; Audley End’s are sharper at the middle, like lightning bolts. (p.48)
-“st” ligature: De Vere’s ligature has more of a swoopy, flourish; the Audley End writer connects with a slightly-sloped line. (48)
-Lower case p: The tails of the Audley End p’s are proportionately longer than de Vere’s.
-Upper case R: The Audley End writer, in the provided examples, always swoops the pen upward at the end of the “right leg” of the R; de Vere’s “right leg” ends more straight. (p 43)
-Upper case M: De Vere starts the letter with a neat, curved “left foot,” and the Audley End writer starts with a straighter “left foot.” Additionally, de Vere always writes the first “hump” of the M as rounded outward; the Audley End writer’s “hump” is much sharper. Additionally, the “right foot” of the Audley M is always long, de Vere’s “right foot” is always short. (49)
-Capital H: When beginning an H, Audley End always includes a curved “hook.” De Vere starts the letter with a straight line. For the “left foot” of the H: Audley End always curves the “left foot” outward. De Vere curves the “left foot” of the H inward. (56)
-Capital I-J: De Vere always crosses his I-J characters, at least in the provided samples. Audley End does not. To be fair, the caption of this chart acknowledges these differences. (56)
If you scrubbed all mention of de Vere from this this paper and its comparison charts, and if you replaced the name on the “de Vere” column with “Shakespeare” or “Sir Henry Neville,” I’d be just as quick to criticize its oversights and tunnel vision. Glancing similarities between the Audley End handwriting and de Vere’s do not “confirm” that they come from the same hand — the formal differences between the many of the letters are obvious. I urge the author to reconsider the methodology.
April 20, 2025 at 9:48 pm
The differences you describe are in some cases real, but you are misinterpreting them. You write:
If you scrubbed all mention of de Vere from this this paper and its comparison charts, and if you replaced the name on the “de Vere” column with “Shakespeare” or “Sir Henry Neville,” I’d be just as quick to criticize its oversights and tunnel vision. Glancing similarities between the Audley End handwriting and de Vere’s do not “confirm” that they come from the same hand — the formal differences between the many of the letters are obvious. I urge the author to reconsider the methodology.
I urge you to learn something about how forensic handwriting is done and how incidental difference is distinguished from difference that indicates distinct writership. You clearly don’t understand this distinction and are being more than a little generous to your own lack of knowledge of the relevant factors.
Moreover, Sir, you leave your readers hanging: if these notes are not in Edward de Vere’s hand, who are they? You have no answer, just as you have no concept (that one can tell by your post) of the problem of variation in early modern handwriting.
February 26, 2025 at 5:59 pm
George Gascoigne has been proposed by Robert Prechter in his book Oxford’s Voices, as one of Oxford’s voices. He is also one of the very very few 16th Century English writer who used the ae diphthong apart from de Vere. Would it be possible to compare the handwriting in the documents where his ae diphthong appears, with the handwriting of de Vere’s?
April 20, 2025 at 9:35 pm
I put little stake in much of what Robert Prechter says, but the argument that Gascoigne was used as a front by Oxford is stronger than most of his arguments. The handwriting is distinct, but the two men were clearly associated and Oxfordians long before Prechter have proposed some sort of complicated relationship between the two men. But as for Gascoigne MS material being written in Oxford’s hand, no, it just isn’t.
March 4, 2025 at 11:41 pm
In the fall I took a class with a Stratfordian professor. I raised the Oxford issues with respect to a couple of the plays that we read. In my opinion, he can see problems with the Stratford narrative if certain facts are established such as some of the Italian travel narrative, and I wrote extensively on your handwriting analysis. His response to these two issues was that (1) perhaps Stratford travelled to Italy (and particularly Rome ) during those ‘lost’ years and gained his Italian knowledge this way, and regarding Audley End, he actually proposed some sort of partnership or knowledge transfer between Oxford and Stratford. Thus, in essence, he acknowledged the facts may indeed bear on the authorship question, but he tried to find patches to the problems. His main focus on Shakespeare is arguing that the author was a Catholic and aspects of the plays reflect that (which it does seem in studying the Stratford family history there is that link though that person not the author). One other point, he wanted to see confirmation on the handwriting analysis by someone outside the Oxford world. It is hard for people to shift their paradigm and worldview. The key is to educate young people & college students and others whose life’s work does not depend on the outcome of this question, who can look at the evidence more objectively. Great work!
April 10, 2025 at 2:42 am
Prof. Stritmatter: I appreciate you posting this article. It is a remarkable piece and it represents quite a significant accomplishment on your part, both in employing recognized and detailed forensic handwriting techniques and then tying it your considerable work on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I can’t even begin to imagine how much time was put into it. Well done!