Shakespeare's Notes in Oxford's Hand? Roger Stritmatter at the Blue Boar Tavern

Despite 400 years of searching, no letters, manuscripts, plays, poems, notes or marginalia exist in Will of Stratford’s handwriting, much less any proof that his hand penned Shakespeare’s plays. But does Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford’s handwriting tie him to the works of the Bard?
Our intrepid Blue Boar Tavern regulars Bonner Cutting, Dorothea Dickerman, Alex McNeil, and musical bartender Jonathan Dixon welcome Professor Roger Stritmatter to share a pint and discuss Oxford’s marginalia in his Geneva Bible and astonishing recent discoveries in the library at Audley End, a key stop during Elizabeth I’s Summer Progress of 1578.
Roger's website is shake-speares-bible.com/
Watch his 2023 conference talk further exploring these discoveries: • Roger Stritmatter: Fro...
Visit the SOF website at shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Dr Stritmatter has a remarkable mind. It is always a thrill to hear him talking on the subject of William Shakespeare's identity.

[@rstritmatter]

Thank you Alexander! Of course, likewise!

[@richardwaugaman1505]

Congratulations to our Dutch colleague Jan Scheffer for helping Roger and Shelly make this important discovery!

[@rstritmatter]

All I did was to test Jan's hypothesis. He was correct!

[@richardwaugaman1505]

What did I tell you about his modesty! When I wanted to credit Roger for his invaluable help as I tried to publish Oxford's Whole Book of Psalms marginalia and their connections with Shakespeare's works, he declined, saying he was just doing his job as editor.@@rstritmatter

[@richardwaugaman1505]

Roger is one of the most important--and modest--members of the post-Stratfordian movement.

[@richardwaugaman1505]

As Jonathan said, many Elizabethans were annotating their Bibles. However, when I persuaded Ohio State's scholar Beth Quitslund to examine Oxford's Bible at the Folger, she told me in her extensive research, she'd never seen so many annotations in an early modern Bible.

[@StarShippCaptain]

Thanks, Ladies and Gentlemen, for this Presentation! Hoorah for Edward DeVere!

[@ronroffel1462]

Thank you for another fascinating Blue Boar Tavern session. Dr. Stritmatter's work is invaluable in solving the authorship mystery. As he says, forensic analysis trumps provenance in all cases. Of course, Stratfordians will dismiss or ignore his evidence and claim their man merely had access to those books with de Vere's annotations in them and then incorporated what he found in the plays. But they cannot answer the obvious question: how would he have gotten access to a nobleman's private library? This proves once again how absurd the Stratfordian narrative is and how powerful the Oxfordian theory has become. I can't wait for his book to come out. Well done, everyone.

[@pbredder]

Roger, Congratulations! This is history in the making re: the authorship question. This is the smoking gun we have all been hoping for, if it is borne out

[@GravityBoy72]

Brilliant discussion. Thanks!

[@mayaradoczy4982]

Excellent meeting of the Blue Boar Tavern! I will be playing it back many times to get the details----Stritmatter has done some amazing work------thank you!

[@tomgoff6867]

Also good colloquy between Jonathan and Roger about the Annotator's ability to spot, and condense with clarity, a series of actions or characterizations (Cleopatra's suicide, the conspirators' influence on Brutus's character) that will make for dramatic Shakespearean "moments."

[@nickmat3153]

This is such incredible research!

[@duncanmckeown1292]

I've been waiting for this one with Roger! Love this show!

[@kathleenwalsh3713]

Thanks so much for this video and for Dr Stritmatter’s new research direction. Exciting & promising, and creeping into established, respected methods in (gasp) academic scholarship. Well done!

[@Neanderthal31416]

Wow! More please! I can't stand waiting.

[@wynnsimpson]

Excellent expert testimony for someone like me who is an Edward De Vere fan.

[@AngelEagle44]

This NAILS it! BRAVO!

[@brendanward2991]

Great discussion.

[@tomgoff6867]

Great question from Alex and response from Roger. If I guess correctly, an expensive book with quality information would be enhanced, not devalued by careful, thoughtful annotation. Are the Elizabethans the direct ancestors of recent educators who say we never truly own a book till we've written margin notes?

[@edgarsnake2857]

Thanks for a great discussion.

[@richardwaugaman1505]

If you have trouble understanding any words, check out the excellent transcript!

[@judgeaileencannon9607]

Very good thank you all

[@richardwaugaman1505]

Speaking of large margins, the margins of Oxford's Geneva Bible have been trimmed, sadly, losing as much as half an inch on some pages. Who knows what marginalia may be lost!

[@Aureantes]

Oh damn....one has to wonder rather strongly whether that was for aesthetics or as censorship.

[@richardwaugaman1505]

Indeed. I asked the Folger's chief expert on early bookbinding about it. He explained that rebinding was not uncommon when a book was read so much that the pages were coming loose. The fore-edge was then trimmed to create a smooth edge. In this case, the fore-edge was regilded after it was rebound. @@Aureantes

[@tedwong6605]

I wonder if de Vere made any annotations in the Herodotus volume which is now in the possession of SOF.

[@rstritmatter]

No, he did not, although the inscription to Thomas Berkeley may well be in his handwriting.

[@a_lucientes]

The talk of handwriting styles reminded me of the Mira Calligraphiae Monumenta. I know it's unrelated to overall topic but it's such a beautiful manuscript I couldnt help mentioning it for those that havent seen it. Getty has it scanned and online.

[@RobMGordon]

So, you accept Will of Stratford could write! 21:26. Thanks very much for this admission.

[@rstritmatter]

Maybe. But the evidence supporting this contention is quite weak given the status of the "Signatures," which show signs of being written by a professional amanuensis. But even if he could, both his parents and his daughters were effectively illiterate, so the admission, even if appropriate, scarcely moves the needle in favor of his writing these plays and poems, which at every turn show the experience and documented reading of de Vere.

[@MrAbzu]

What does the evidence support? How about a group effort over several decades with a final unifying voice revising it into perfection in 1622-1623. If this unifying voice also did some previous editing on the Quarto editions then there should be some evidence of the progression of his style of writing. Would it be so bad if the playwrights were not really all that good without an absolutely brilliant editor/reviser to homogenize the hodgepodge of plays into the singular voice of William Shakespeare in the runup to the publication of the First Folio. Bacon was alive and may have done some minor editing in the margins, but not much else. Otherwise we are left with all of the best versions of the plays lying around unpublished for 20 years and no identical copies anywhere to be found before the publication date of 1623. Does the model of the evolution of the First Folio need need to be revised in kind? It is highly unlikely that you will find a Lords handwriting outside of marginalia where plays are concerned. Good show.

[@rstritmatter]

What evidence to you have for a "group effort"? I see very little, although this is a popular way of trying to accommodate the existence of the authorship question without dealing with the substantive evidence for de Vere's authorship, which is not only copious but continuously expanding as new evidence is discovered.

[@StarShippCaptain]

Roger Stritmatter: you could have lived in Shaxpere's day, and bought books for him. Too bad, he would not have been able to read them.

[@bomagosh]

"Despite 400 years of searching, no letters, manuscripts, plays, poems, notes or marginalia exist in Will of Stratford’s handwriting . . ." Other than the Hand D material in Sir Thomas More. The identification of that hand as Shakespeare's is stronger than Roger's theory here.

[@dudleymq]

Once again, the sort of compelling evidence that, all things being equal, Shakespeare scholars should be drooling over, but instead will tie themselves into knots to ignore.

[@richardwaugaman1505]

Gotta feel bad for them! There's so much exciting evidence they shut their eyes to.

[@peckerwood6078]

"anoon scalis felden fro hise iyen resseyuede siyt." Wycliffe Bible. c1370 Acts 9:18: Oxfords new Nom de Plume - "The Audley End Annotator" Bonners' comments, on the poly vocal & linguistic versatlity aspects of the marginalia with a severe descant of the single English annotation, was cut short and not further elaborated by Roger which was unfortunate as it sounded very promising in the shortlisting of such persons whom were of such a calibre. The fluidity of the Annotators internal discourse, Roger alludes to as per his example relating to the incitement of Brutus, again goes without proper disambiguation of "Thou sleeps awake". The Matrix level nature of Brutas' deluded perception of his existence is wholely in context with Shakespeares form. As well the voice of the Bard echos in "Cleopatras' Blush" at what "properties she has not revealed" Deos passage charged with the passion the liaison they would share. Very sensual! the scribes retort would seem confirm that sentiment in that her "Purchase back" winks at her charms. Titilating wordplay for a Bawdy yet courtly riposte. The provenance of the tomes being tallied and their eventual custody, should it be delineated as Roger suggests, perhaps having its first sojourn in the tower with Essex & Southhampton would be fine fodder for further and fulsome fulminations. Congratulations Roger! Tenacity worthy of a Calydonian Boar! Lay on Meleager! Yon Stratfordians will yet play Ancaeus in the scene.

[@wayneferris9022]

Roger; I have had this burning question for sometime: What in God's name is the Folgers doing with Edward DeVere's Bible? Do they believe he was in fact the true identity of the Canon.....

[@richardwaugaman1505]

I hope Roger will reply. In the meantime, as Elizabeth Winkler reported in her fantastic book, Folger was open-minded about the Shakespeare authorship question. He was a member of the U.S. Baconian society. He purchased Oxford's Bible after one of his London booksellers telegrammed him that it would interest him, since it was originally owned by Oxford, "thought by some" to have written Shakespeare's works. What a bargain--it sole for only £25.

[@wayneferris9022]

Richard, first Thank You; and secondly I have been a follower of you, Roger, Alexander Waugh, and others for sometime so this is quite the honor to have your reply!@@richardwaugaman1505

[@sixeses]

I used to follow this until they gave out an award for Oxfordian of the year with a copy of a portrait of the Earl of Ormond misattributed as Oxford.

[@richardwaugaman1505]

Please read Lee Durkee's 2023 book Stalking Shakespeare (Scribners) to learn more about how deviously traditionalists have tried to cover up artistic evidence that Oxford wrote Shakespeare.

[@sixeses]

I agree, but Oxford wasn't Ormond, Queen Elizabeth's cousin who she called her black husband, and they didn't look anything alike. It's odd that this portrait is misatttributed since if you had an alphabetical list of earls Oxford would follow Ormond. @@richardwaugaman1505

[@ronroffel1462]

So, are you saying that due to one misattribution, you have stopped following the Oxfordian theory? I am curious to know.

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

Ironic! (because the entire body of Shakespeare's Works has been misattributed - that's why there is an Authorship Question!)

[@niemann3942]

If that's the case, it sounds like you were basically looking for an excuse, any excuse, to ignore the whole Oxfordian case and basically go, "La la la! Can't hear you!" Given your dislike of misattribution, I wonder what you think, then, of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust promoting as "Shakespeare" on their merchandise what most art historians agree is a portrait of Sir Thomas Overbury -- to the point of even photoshopping a more "Shakespearean" hair-do on to Overbury? Or the Folger calling the Ashbourne portrait of Shakespeare "Hugh Hammersley" when it looks absolutely nothing like other known portraits of Hammersley?