Poore Annotations in the de Vere Geneva Bible

Verse Text in the de Vere Geneva Bible Handwritten note
Deut 24.12
(VN) Orange
poore
deut 24.12
none
Deut 24.14
(VN) Orange
pore
deut 24.14
none
Prov 3.10
(VN) Orange
x
proverbs 3.10
poore
Black
proverbs 3.10 poore
Eccles 5.7
(VN) Orange
poore
eccles 5.7
Poo[ ]
Orange
eccles 5.7 poo
Isaiah 29.19
not marked
poore
isaiah 29.19
Poo[ ]
Black
isaiah 29.19 poo
Amos 5.12
(VN) Black
poore
amos 5.12
Poo[ ]
Poor[ ]
Black
amos 5.12 poo poor
Amos 8.4
not marked
poore
amos 8.4
Poo[ ]
Black
amos 8.4 poo
Ecclus 13.3
(VN) Orange
poore
ecclus 13.3
none
Ecclus 14.13
(VN) Orange
x
ecclus 14.13
poore
Black
ecclus 14.13 poore
Baruch 6.27
not marked
poore
baruch 6.27
poore
Black
baruch 6.27 poore

(VN) = Verse number

All images courtesy of the Folger Shakespeare Library Digital Image Collection  STC 2106.

Clearly, this is the hand of one annotator. And contrary to criticism that de Vere was prone to spell ‘poor’ as ‘pore’ more often than ‘poore'(fn 1), it should be noted the annotator has used the spelling as per the Bible text (see Baruch 6.27). Also, note Deuteronomy 24.14 shows ‘pore’ is a variation of ‘poor’.

It should also be noted that the annotator used an orange as well as at least two different black inks.

—–
1 Per Dr. Alan H. Nelson’s “The distinctive orthography of Edward de Vere 17th earl of Oxford” at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/oxspell.html, Oxford spells ‘pore’ six times and ‘poore’ twice in his extant letters out of 44,000 plus words written.

© 2015 All Knitwits Reserved.

Advertisements

About knitwitted

Goofette and troublemaker
This entry was posted in bible, shakespeare. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Poore Annotations in the de Vere Geneva Bible

  1. psi says:

    Very well done my friend.

    • knitwitted says:

      Thanks, psi! How could anyone not understand how one annotator would use multiple inks over the course of his lifetime? Flip side, how could anyone suggest multiple annotators had access to the same three inks? And do your critics really demand that the annotator mark his Bible in one sitting and not at various times throughout his life?

      One further note, the upright in both the small and capitalized ‘p’ are the same. And the ‘r’ in both the small and capitalized ‘poore’ are the same. Clearly, clearly these are the markings of the same annotator.

  2. psi2 says:

    The notion that the different colors of ink ipso facto prove, or even support, the notion of more than one annotator in the book is just the sort of superficial idea that we know has so often been promoted to defend the orthodox view of authorship from skeptical inquiry or new evidence.

    Your example above, of the practically iconic identity of the red ink word “Poo[r e]” at Eccles. 5.7 when compared to the same word at other places, especially the brown-black ink examples at Isaiah 29.19 and Amos 5.12 and 8.4, illustrates this beautifully. Two colors of ink, and one hand.

    In their recent report, the frauds tried to make a big deal about the scarlet ink variant, and messed it up horribly, confusing even basic facts and showing that whatever anonymous person wrote that report, he didn’t know what he was talking about, which perhaps explains why he wouldn’t put his name to it.

    Note also, however, the scrunched appearance of the lower case ‘p’ at proverbs 3.9, Ecclus. 14.13, and Baruch 6.27. Again, it is not difficult to see that by every conceivable empirical indication, these are all by the same hand.

    But, are they by the same hand as the other three samples? Tom Veal says that one of them is, but he ignores the others and creates the false impression of an anomaly where there isn’t one.

    Again, it doesn’t take that much methodological sophistication to notice that two of these three samples are written in between the lines of printed text. Therefore we may reasonably hypothesize that the foreshortened letter ‘p’ in all three of these results primarily from the exigencies of managing the space available in the writing space. Veal cherry picks just one of these and contrasts its appearance, without showing the other two.

    And if the last example (Baruch 6.27) fails to correspond exactly to this formula (sometimes the writer failed to take advantage of the more expansive horizontal space in the margins, and wrote as if his space was constricted when it was not), nevertheless its very close similarity to the other two exemplars, both written between the lines of printed text, again confirms that the incidental variations between the two major classes of evidence are a result of natural variation within a hand, not the presence of two annotators. But Tom Veal is not very educable in my experience. He believes what he wants to believe. The day of their influence is waning and will soon take some major hits.

    • knitwitted says:

      Howdy psi2,

      Many thank yous for your detailed explanation! I’d like to point out that we should also consider variations caused by a well-used vs. a fresh nib as well as variations in the viscosity of the ink(s). I would think anyone familiar with calligraphy could easily retrace how the annotator actually formed the individual letters and see that each letter is consistently formed throughout the given examples. Again, no one would expect a reader to annotate his Bible in one sitting; hence variations naturally occur over time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s