Edward de Vere Geneva Bible FAQ

Yes. Four independent lines of evidence converge to prove this point:

1) The Folger STC 2106 in question  is bound in scarlet velvet with silver engraved armorial devices belonging the Earldom of Oxford. Given the publication date, the only Earl of Oxford for whom this binding can plausibly have been created is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl (1550-1604).

2) Surprising as it may seem, the original bill of sale for STC 2106 is still preserved in records for the Court of Wards from 1570, as reprinted in B.M. Ward’s 1928 biography of Oxford:

“To William Seres, stationer, for a Geneva Bible gilt, a Chaucer, Plutarch’s works in French, and other books and papers…£2 7d 10p.”  The Folger volume, like the Geneva Bible described in the 1570 purchase order, has a [e-]gilded foredge.

3) The handwriting in the book – which contains approximately 32 short handwritten notes (often of no more than one word and just as often cropped during the book's rebinding) – has been verified through independent forensic paleography, to be that of the 17th Earl. 

Board certified examiner Ms. Emily Will concluded  that “After thorough examination of the documents presented in this case, it is my expert opinion that it is highly probable that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is the author of the Q1 questioned annotations. It is the limitations of the questioned materials, rather than any significant difference between the known and questioned writings, which prevents an unqualified opinion” (Will 2000).

4) As Dr. Stritmatter’s dissertation has  shown (55-59), many themes reflected in the marked passages in the de Vere Bible can be traced directly to known biographical facts of Oxford’s life. This confirms the evidence of handwriting:  not only was Oxford the original owner of the book, but  it was he who made the annotations and their contents can be referred to many events and circumstances of his life.

We do not know. Presumably it was somewhere in Leicestershire during the early 20th century, since Folger’s bookseller was from that county. It has been suggested that it may have been deacquisitioned around 1925 from Kenilworth castle. Although this is a plausible scenario, at this time it cannot be supported with any known tangible evidence.

No. In 1995 Dr. Stritmatter and colleagues (specifically, Mark K. Anderson and George Anderson, a chemist) requested that the Folger library undertake such tests, and offered to help design protocols and arrange funding. These requests were refused.

No. Despite claims to the contrary by Professor James Shapiro in his Oxfordian-baiting Contested Will, written  annotations appear in all three major ink groups of the Bible in the same 16th century hand.

In several cases, annotations in orange ink (also used elsewhere to underline) are found in association with underlining in brown, and visa-versa.

By and overwhelming preponderance of evidence the book was read and annotated over many years in several different colors of ink by the one individual for whom it was purchased and bound in 1570.

The following claims are documented in Dr. Stritmatter’s dissertation or in follow up analysis by Dr. Richard Waugaman:

1) Of the approximately 1043 underlined or marked verses in shelfmark 1427, 147 are cited in previous authorities (Carter, 1905; Milward, 1984; Shaheen, 1987, 1989, 1993, 1999) as Shakespearean influences (Stritmatter 311-315).

2) 20 more marked verses contain language that is at least as close as that found in the verse identified by one or more of these authorities as a Shakespearean influence (Stritmatter 315).

3) 81 marked verses contain language that, although not cited by previous authorities as influencing Shakespeare, exhibit more or less definite traces of influence, documented in the dissertation (Stritmatter 316-318).

4) Of sixteen psalms marked in the Sternhold and Hopkins 1569 metrical psalms which is bound with the de Vere Bible, nine have been  cited in previous authorities as influencing Shakespeare. Subsequent work by R. Waugaman, published in Notes and Queries,  shows that the actual number of marked psalms significantly influencing Shakespeare is much greater than was known in 2001.

5) The more times a Shakespearean verse is cited by Shakespeare, the more likely it is to be marked in the de Vere Bible.

6) At least two marked verses as well as a number of underlined notes contain language reflected in Shakespeare that is found only in the Geneva Bible.

7) Of 81 Bible verses or groups of verses that Shakespeare alludes to four or more times (accounting for as many as 22.5% of all Shakespeare’s Bible references), no less than thirty are directly marked in the de Vere Bible (Stritmatter 78; 267-304).

Many of the annotations fall into one of several definite thematic emphases, all of them with implications for better understanding their relationship to the field of Shakespeare’s references to the Bible. These include:

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.
9. The discrepancy between truth and appearance.

No. This is a rumor started by the Folger Shakespeare Library, in a 1993 pamphlet, Roasting the Swan of Avon, and later perpetuated by the Smithsonian Magazine. Despite being promulgated by such supposed authorities as the Folger library and Smithsonian, the argument, as Mark K. Anderson and Roger Stritmatter demonstrated in 1996, was based on erroneous facts and indefensible reasoning.

That depends when you talk to him. Here is a partial chronology of Dr. Nelson’s opinions on the matter:

• 6/3/95, 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.”
• 6/4/99, to the Chronicle of Higher Education: “The hand is simply not the same hand that wrote [the] letters. The people who claim this is clearly Oxford’s hand just don’t know their paleography.”

In a 2000 conversation with William Boyle and Roger Stritmatter, Dr. Nelson explained his transformation this way: “Um…I wanted it to be Oxford’s handwriting….yes, that’s what I’m going to say.”

At the present time, this is the most complete explanation that Dr. Nelson has given for his remarkable “about face” on the fundamental question of the handwriting of the annotations. If you don’t find it to be thorough or convincing, perhaps you can ask Nelson yourself….