tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post4304133323095620561..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: "Mr. W.H.” and the Well-Wishing Adventurer by Peter FareyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-54235371741348690082014-07-31T05:57:57.124-04:002014-07-31T05:57:57.124-04:00I have been looking again at the words of "T....I have been looking again at the words of "T.T.", and think I now have a better idea of who "our ever-living poet" was (although this wouldn't necessarily prevent my original thoughts also being true, of course).<br /><br />On the title page of <i>Venus and Adonis</i> is Latin couplet, which comes from Ovid's <i>Amores</i>. Marlowe had translated this as:<br /><br />Let base-conceited wits admire vilde things,<br />Fair Phoebus lead me to the Muses' springs.<br /><br />This appears in Elegy 15, right at the end of Book One, an elegy with the description <i>Ad invidos, quod fama poetarum sit perennis</i> (To the envious, that the fame of poets lasts forever) and the lines which complete it are:<br /><br />About my head be quivering myrtle wound,<br />And in sad lovers' heads let me be found.<br />The living, not the dead, can envy bite,<br />For after death all men receive their right:<br />Then though death rakes my bones in funeral fire,<br />I'll live, and as he pulls me down, mount higher.<br /><br />I think it is this sort of "eternity" he has in mind, and therefore that Ovid is probably the best bet for "our ever-living poet".Peter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-38621217654442855932014-07-27T10:34:31.886-04:002014-07-27T10:34:31.886-04:00Well, Dave, it is an interesting theory, but I'...Well, Dave, it is an interesting theory, but I'm afraid it has been suggested before – by Calvin Hoffman, no less! For me, however, it fails on two counts, neither of which he could have known. Firstly, he was unaware of what Foster's research would reveal concerning what the word 'begetter' would have meant at the time, i.e. the author. Second, he thought that Thomas Walsingham was younger than Marlowe (which many sonnets would have reflected) whereas he was in fact a few years older. In fact I thought that I had covered all of this my article!Peter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-61438361139712698962014-07-25T14:33:13.701-04:002014-07-25T14:33:13.701-04:00I have been doing a lot of reading lately - always...I have been doing a lot of reading lately - always a dangerous thing - and have come up with what I believe is a more simple explanation of the dedication. I don't remember seeing this suggested before, but if it has, I apologize.<br /><br />Suppose "Mr. W.H." is Thomas Walsingham? If the surname is hyphenated, i.e., Walsing-Ham, then it is easy to make sense of it. It would simply mean something along the lines of: "To the only inspiration of these poems, [Thomas Walsingham] we wish all the happiness and that eternity promised by the author." And the second part would just be "So I [Thomas Thorpe] wish, in adventuring to set forth these poems in print."daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/06067533090226229731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-62415883229043186202011-08-30T12:56:58.466-04:002011-08-30T12:56:58.466-04:00Peter's post cites the opening lines of Sonnet...Peter's post cites the opening lines of Sonnet 135, first of the two "Will" sonnets, as a hint that Marlowe went by the first name "Will" as well. (An article on his website suggests the name William Hall.) I see more hints, in the form of references to Will the author and Will the public face, throughout Sonnets 135 and 136:<br /><br />"to hide my will in thine" <br /><br />- one Will hiding behind the name of the other<br /><br />"Shall will in others seeme right gracious, / And in my will no faire acceptance shine:" <br /><br />- contrast of "will in others" being recognized vs. "my will" being unrecognized<br /><br />"Thinke all but one, and me in that one Will."<br /><br />- The multiple Wills are but one person, and it's me, the author says.<br /><br />"In things of great receit with ease we prooue, <br />Among a number one is reckon'd none. <br />Then in the number let me passé vntold, <br />Though in thy stores account I one must be,"<br /><br />- A number of phrases here are quite curious:<br />What could "one is reckon'd none" possibly mean? Perhaps that a living person is reckoned to be dead: Marlowe. Further this is a thing "with ease we prooue" - perhaps a reference to the official record "proving" Marlowe's death. Then the author accepts this: "let me passé vntold". But finally he asserts his being alive: "I one must be".<br /><br />That makes me very curious about the phrase "in thy stores account". If only we knew for sure who the "Dark Lady" was, and where her store's account was!<br /><br />[Here is a highly speculative theory: given the repeated references to "thy Will/will" and "my Will/will", and given that the latter refers to the author himself...could the "Dark Lady" be the actual William Shakespeare himself? But more likely the "Dark Lady" was the lover of both Marlowe and Shakespeare. An actor and theatre impresario could be just as attractive as a poet and playwright, after all.]Edward Clybournhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03793918076933711244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-25544682615477903402011-08-07T11:06:21.070-04:002011-08-07T11:06:21.070-04:00Hi Peter -
why make a deal with Shakespeare at al...Hi Peter -<br /><br />why make a deal with Shakespeare at all though? <br /><br />Before anyone says anything, I get the analogy with McCarthy-era Hollywood, which is valid, but let's not forget the important differences. The blacklisted writers were living at a time, and in a studio system when some sort of frontman would have been essential. They'd have needed to sign contracts, receive pay checks etc. They needed someone flesh and blood to be a stand-in, didn't they? <br /><br />How does this apply to Shakespeare's time? Payments would have been in cash, and easily passed on through intermediaries. Engaging a real-life stand-in was highly risky (what if he talked, got careless, *died* inconveniently??). Why go to all this risk and trouble when M's works could have been published anonymously, or under a simple nom de plume?<br /><br />And - another thought - if <i> Hero and Leander</i> could be published under his own name after his death, then why not <i> Venus and Adonis</i>? <br /><br />I'm Devil's Advocating here, you know, not offering definite opinions! <br /><br />Any thoughts?ElviraCardigannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-83736119611627461492011-08-06T05:56:50.539-04:002011-08-06T05:56:50.539-04:00ElviraCardigan said..."I mean what point in h...ElviraCardigan said..."I mean what point in having a pseudonym and then telling everyone that's what it is?) And if Marlowe was living under the name 'William Harrison' or similar, why couldn't he then have published his works under that name? Why involve Shakespeare at all?)"<br /><br />First of all, thanks for the kind comments you made, both here and at the "Prosecute it to the full" thread.<br /><br />In the period between when the "Shakespeare" deal was first set in motion (1593) and the publication of the Sonnets 16 years later, I imagine that Marlowe would have had several different identities, including whatever "W.H." might have stood for at that particular time. Why change a system which seemed to be working and if, by doing so, long silenced awkward questions might result? <br /><br />Despite whatever the usual usage was, it seems fairly clear that most people have always assumed that the begetter "Mr. W.H." was the inspirer of the Sonnets, just as they have always assumed that the "Tombe" mentioned on the monument is the monument itself. Why? Because it just doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.<br /><br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-50490647944025741162011-08-04T03:18:24.805-04:002011-08-04T03:18:24.805-04:00Meant to add, P - your reading of the dedication ...Meant to add, P - your reading of the dedication does render it sensible for the first time! It looks inevitable that WH is the author, though gaaawd knows what that does to the debate! I mean, is it a typo? (seems massively unlikely). Is it an admission Shakespeare had or was a pseudonym? (seems most obvious but also ridiculously perverse; I mean what point in having a pseudonym and then telling everyone that's what it is?) And if Marlowe was living under the name 'William Harrison' or similar, why couldn't he then have published his works under that name? Why involve Shakespeare at all?)<br /><br />Mr WH seems to make no sense in any scenario, and yet - there he is!ElviraCardigannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-51575998011939543682011-08-03T08:18:31.091-04:002011-08-03T08:18:31.091-04:00Mikael missed the major clue here.
The text makes...Mikael missed the major clue here.<br /><br />The text makes two TRIANGLES, right?<br /><br />And where were the Adventurers heading?<br /><br />AMERICA, right?<br /><br />And what island is off the coast of America?<br /><br />BERMUDA!!!<br /><br />Coincidence? I think not! <br /><br />Obviously Oxford/Shakespeare was really a half-breed alien who didn't die but returned to the mothership via that infamous trans-dimensional portal where so many mariners have been lost!<br /><br />"Ever the Forth" is a phonetic spelling of the name he goes by on Zeta Reticuli <br /><br />And all those portraits of the Bard were retouched to conceal his huge almond-shaped eyes which would just have been a give away.ElviraCardigannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-56031406462340600512011-07-08T09:05:58.601-04:002011-07-08T09:05:58.601-04:00Instead of asking who the ‘onlie begetter of these...Instead of asking who the ‘onlie begetter of these isuing sonnets Mr. W.H.’ is, ask who is the ‘well-wishing adventurer in setting forth’. The adventurer refers to an investor in the second Charter of Virginia 23 May 1609, who is set fourth in this list of adventurers? In the order as they appear in the charter: Robert, Earl of Salisbury, Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, Henry, Earl of Southampton, William, Earl of Pembroke. ‘Well-wishing’ would be appropriate for an adventurer in the second charter as a well is what these investors wished for. The winter of 1609 was the Starving Time for Jamestown. Excavations dated the Jamestown well to 1609.DavidDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03849670474819238668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-8857922142870158722011-05-02T17:13:24.250-04:002011-05-02T17:13:24.250-04:00"Mr. W.H" was most likely a code used by..."Mr. W.H" was most likely a code used by Francis Bacon (which he had learned from his mother, Anne Bacon.) She used it when she wanted to write freely about risky subjects. <br /><br />It involved using greek letters instead of european letters. W and H are the only letters that will get new meaning in this way. W=omega=o, H=Eta=e. <br /><br />Check out Petter Amundsen's work on this subject. He has done his homework. (He was also the subject of a Norwegian documentary in 2009, in which he traveled to Oak Island to dig for what he hoped would be Shakespeares manuscripts.)Denebhttp://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150267817813266&set=a.229649793265.180653.215494918265&type=1&theaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-47596911122487645042011-05-01T16:43:19.640-04:002011-05-01T16:43:19.640-04:00I'm glad that I've found this marlowe-shak...I'm glad that I've found this marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com site. I'm so surprised by your way of thinking and writing. Have you thought about writing a book?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-73005196585198843402011-04-06T14:19:30.844-04:002011-04-06T14:19:30.844-04:00Ha ha, Peter's new dedication / grille is bril...Ha ha, Peter's new dedication / grille is brilliant, and hilarious!Dan Sayersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-59585794561981380932010-01-16T05:00:51.235-05:002010-01-16T05:00:51.235-05:00And finally:
An inverted triangle seems, at that t...And finally:<br />An inverted triangle seems, at that time , to have been a very fashionable way to set out type . It crops up all over the place sometimes singly sometimes one triangle on top of another. Thorpe was just using a popular convention.Rado Klosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12146122797016138783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-49526123810809268202010-01-15T11:35:14.413-05:002010-01-15T11:35:14.413-05:00Mikael
Another thought. Leaving out any alternativ...Mikael<br />Another thought. Leaving out any alternative Shakespeare candidates and the whole 624 534 thing. Your problem is that the name Wriothsley is chopped for no reason whatever if it is the start point of a text. If however Thorpes' real purpose was to pass on a greeting in the way Peter is suggesting here then compromises had to be made. Mainly to his concealed name, but also to the word order of the dedication somewhat . Perhaps we should admire the dedication as an elegant little conceit of which Thorpe was probably rather proud.Rado Klosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12146122797016138783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-55756529721915615582010-01-15T08:33:11.206-05:002010-01-15T08:33:11.206-05:00Peters' point that the encrypter starts with a...Peters' point that the encrypter starts with a coherent message or phrase is surely the overriding one. At the start of the process the dedication we have does not exist, only the message to be hidden does, Don't tell me that that these fantastically cunning people could not have written a fine sounding dedication containing the the message in plain view once squared. .If chopping the message up was meant as a further layer of concealment it failed as the great secret yielded itself to the 20th centuries' cryptographers rather easily. Then one must ask with whom did Thorpe imagine he was communicating? From whom was he concealing ? The unwashed masses who rushed down to Waterstones? Presumably in the secretive and paranoid atmosphere of his times plenty of people were familiar with these procedures. "Look funny shaped text let's square it up shall we" <br />Mikael mentioned that the monument inscription similarly treated yields further confirmation of Oxford ( unless, of course you are looking for Bacon or whoever else),<br />What it actually yields, given that u has to be taken to be v is ungrammatical gibberish. This from Ben Johnson , master <br />cryptographer.Rado Klosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12146122797016138783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-1390264085524004532010-01-14T06:17:34.797-05:002010-01-14T06:17:34.797-05:00(and here is what disappeared earlier:)
Anthony, ...(and here is what disappeared earlier:)<br /><br />Anthony, now to your points<br /><br />1: I think I just answered this one, but anyway. I actually think Thorpe DID it a little too complicated, the reason being that he wanted to put everything in it, and as compact as possible as well. Had he written 'eternity' instead, everything else had to be changed as well. <br />I have already showed you the solution to the full stops and the 6-2-4 code. There is actually STILL another solution, if you make a Grille using an ELS of 19 (which is actually the number of letters in the title 'SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS'). You will now see the name VERE in the 9th column, and it is possible, though a bit awkward, to find the message; TO VERE HIS EPIGRAM W.S. (W.S. clearly standing for William Shakespeare). I am not clear about my opinion about this one though. But the reason could very well be that Thorpe, as I said, just tried to catch a fish too big for him.<br /><br />2: If the decoder knows nothing more than the message he is not in the position to solve the riddle. As a decoder you have to make an educated guess of what it's all about, otherwise you are lost. That's the whole point of it; someone is hiding esoteric knowledge which is not for anyone's eye. Only someone with a knowledge of what to look for will find the answer, otherwise the riddle is too easy. The scientific process of finding a hidden word in a Cardano Grille is not described here by me, but anyway it involves trying out words that you suspect are there. You must sort of 'ask a question' to the text and see what result you get.<br /><br />3: It doesn't really matter more than it strengthens what is already found. By signing the dedication 'T.T.' and making the same letters reappear vertically in both the 15 ELS grid and the 18 is just a sign that Thorpe 'signed' the solution, nothing more.<br /><br />4: The poet William Shakespeare (who-ever he was) only made two non-fiction statements in the whole of his career; both are dedications to Southampton, making the relation between these two men crucial to all aspects of the Authorship Question. Southampton's motto (in English One for All, All for One) is quoted in Lucrece (dedicated to S.) and is frequently, in different forms, appearing in the Sonnets as well. Therefore, the first name we should check when looking for the real 'Fair Youth' is Henry Wriothesley. I see nothing strange in this. It is the simplest and most logic solution. AND, it is also confirmed by the solution of the riddle in the dedication that this assumption is correct.<br /><br />Mikael KjellgrenMikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12708930624195946172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-26201979604384147842010-01-14T06:16:41.800-05:002010-01-14T06:16:41.800-05:00Anthony
I actually posted an answer to your earl...Anthony <br /><br />I actually posted an answer to your earlier list of remarks, but that seems to have disappeared in cyberspace. In case you still care, I add it at the end of this post instead. <br /><br />Your last opus was pretty funny, but it also shows that you simply don't care about mathematical fundamentals. Again, expressing an OPINION of Thorpe's ability as cryptographer ("Surely, having Wriothesley written out as one continuous word would be far more convincing; wouldn’t it?") doesn't prove that he was none, does it?. What he DID was to write out the name HENRY very clear in one piece and to cut WR-IOTH-ESLEY into three parts. The odds that he didn't do this on purpose is, as I told you, less than 1 in 400 billions. <br /><br />The REASONS for this tearing apart of the second name is of course open to discussion, and I have given several options here (and one more in the comments below): he wanted a short dedication, he wanted several cryptos to "work together", maybe he didn't want it to be easily detected etc. You and Peter have expressed the opinion that it was a bad idea. I can agree or not, but we all three have to admit that there is an intelligent design behind it, or we have to believe in a mathematical miracle. <br /><br />In your last paragraph you are again compairing apples with pears (as we sometimes say in Sweden). I have in my comments here tried to strictly stay with the theme of the dedication, since this was the subject of Peter's essay. When it comes to the Stratford Monument and the solution to its riddle, let me be very short; the Monument is, in opposite to the dedication which is rather poorly done, a brilliant example of a genuine Cardano Grille composed by a true master of the game, namely the editor of the Folio, Ben Ionson. It reveals the name of the true author of the Shakespeare Canon.<br /><br />Best regards, MikaelMikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12708930624195946172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-39655720843877202602010-01-13T11:25:37.800-05:002010-01-13T11:25:37.800-05:00I like this better;
TOTHEONLIEBEGETTER……...…OFTHE...I like this better;<br /><br />TOTHEONLIEBEGETTER……...…OFTHE<br />SEINSVINGSONNETS…….M…..RWHALL<br />HAPPINESSEANDTH……A…..TETERNIT<br />IEPROMISEDBYOV……R………………....<br />…………………...EVER.LIVING……………<br />………………………....POET……….WISHETHTE<br />LL………….......W………...ISHINGADVE<br />NTVRERINS…..E….....TTINGFORTHAnthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-45031047808936699752010-01-13T10:01:13.629-05:002010-01-13T10:01:13.629-05:00Hi Mikael,
Therefore, in effect, you are saying t...Hi Mikael,<br /><br />Therefore, in effect, you are saying that Thorpe made the answer a nonsensical jumble of groups of letters to ‘prove’ it was a code? Surely, having Wriothesley written out as one continuous word would be far more convincing; wouldn’t it? <br /><br />It can also be illustrated in the following way (I just add the stops to fool you):<br /><br /><br />TOTHEONLIEBEGETTER……… OFTHE<br />SEINSVINGSONNETS…….M… RWHALL<br />HAPPINESSEANDTH……A… TETERNIT<br />IEPROMISEDBYOV……R… EVER……..<br />………………………....….L…………… .IVIN<br />……GP……………… O…..E….TWISHET<br />HTHEWELL………. W….ISHINGADVENT<br />VRERINS………..E……….TTINGFORTH<br /><br />This grid is 32 by 8. Therefore 32+8 equals 40 which must be “Christopher Marlowe; sole writer of the sonnets” and 32 divided by 8 is exactly four which, as everyone knows, was the number of people at the fateful Deptford meeting.<br /><br />I’m sorry for being flippant, Mikael; I’ve been working for some time, trying to disprove Peter Farey’s solution to the ‘Stratford Monument Riddle’. There, I am up against a solution that not only spells ‘Christofer Marley’ (as Marlowe was referred to by himself and the Privy Council) but is in that precise order AND is grouped (roughly) in syllables (Christ - ofer – Mar – ley). Your ‘solution’ is a poor second by comparison, in my opinion.Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-25355230252762325772010-01-12T11:14:47.579-05:002010-01-12T11:14:47.579-05:00I felt a bit rude not to answer so here I go...
I...I felt a bit rude not to answer so here I go...<br /><br />Isabel<br /><br />Sorry for misunderstanding you, I suddenly felt the Alan H. "de Vere could not have been a literary genius since he was a man without moral" Nelson smell. My mistake.<br /><br />Peter and Anthony<br /><br />Of course, Peter, your solution is much superiour to the one chosen by "T.T." when it comes to clearness, so from the aspect of literary criticism I can see your point. But you are doing a mistake here, since what we are talking about here is not the QUALITY of the hidden message, but the question of the EXISTENCE of a hidden message, put there by intelligent design. What you must try to achieve, if you want a fair comparison, is a dedication written the way you want it without thoughts of a hidden message (since this is what Thorpe did according to you). THEN start to look for hidden words in it! Maybe you will find "KIT" somewhere in the grid, and "MAR-...LOWE" somewhere else, but more probably not. The truth is that even after billions of constructed dedications and grids you will most probably NOT find neither Kit Mar-lo-we, nor Henry Wr-ioth-esley nor anyone else connected to this story. <br /><br />What you actually say is that Thorpe was a lousy cryptographer. If you want to say that he was no cryptographer at all you need other ammunition. But the only one that will do is to say that you believe in miracles.<br /><br />You both misunderstand what I was trying to say about the single 'Y' in the dedication. You are again talking about the construction of the message where I am talking about odds. IF there had been another 'Y' in the text providing en easy way to form the word 'HENRY', that would in fact have been an argument for YOUR position, since it lowers the odds. As it stands now, the single 'Y' forced Thorpe to put all the letters ESLEYRNEH in line, every position determined by that single'Y'. The odds for this is astronomical. It can be illustrated in the following way (I add stops just to fool the software): <br /><br />.................................TOTHE<br />ONLI.....E...BEGETTEROFT..H....E<br />SEIN.....S...VINGSONN..E....TSMR<br />WHAL...L..H..APPI...N...ESSEAND<br />THAT....E..T..E...R.....NITIEPROMI<br />SEDB....Y..O.........VREVERLIVING<br />POETW......I...SHETHTHE..W...ELL<br />WISHINGADVENTV............R...ERI<br />NSETTINGFORTH <br /><br />So, I'm not evaluating Thorpe's work as cryptographer (for the moment), as you actually are, just proving, with maths, that he really was one.<br /><br />MikaelMikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12708930624195946172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-40777900962088761902010-01-11T13:53:33.507-05:002010-01-11T13:53:33.507-05:00Fascinating article. I've heard the suggestion...Fascinating article. I've heard the suggestion that the "Onlie begetter" and the "ever-living poet" is actually God. I'm intrigued by this idea; what do you think?Sothisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-13945856051172953542010-01-11T10:04:58.595-05:002010-01-11T10:04:58.595-05:00Isabel Gortázar said...
> "I am still to ...Isabel Gortázar said... <br />> "I am still to receive a reply to my question as<br />> to why was the Earl of Oxford's historical<br />> presence in Agincourt deleted in Henry V. "<br /><br />In fact, this issue was dealt with in some<br />detail by Charlton Ogburn in his Mysterious <br />W.S." He suggests that, after going over-<br />board in his juvenile depiction of his <br />ancestor in "The Famous Victories", Oxford <br />went the other way in Henry V, mainly to <br />conceal or obscure his authorship. <br /><br />Isabel refers to All's Well:<br />> " . . this penitential washing of his very<br />> dirty linen not for an elite group of intimate<br />> friends, but for the lumpen-proletariat that<br />> attended the plays in the London theaters.<br /><br />All's Well, Loves Labours Lost and the <br />other canonical plays) were not, of <br />course, written for the illiterate or <br />barely literate masses. This fact can <br />be gleaned from the merest glance at <br />any of the texts.<br /><br />Isabel also refers to <br />> . . the VER Song in Loves Labours Lost (V.2):<br />> <br />> "The cuckoo then, on every tree,<br />> Mocks married men; for thus sings he, <br />> Cuckoo; <br />> Cuckoo, cuckoo: O word of fear,<br />> Unpleasing to a married ear!<br />> <br />> "We all know that the earl of Oxford had accused<br />> his wife, Anne Cecil, of adultery branding his<br />> eldest daughter, Elizabeth de Vere as<br />> illegitimate. In view of this fact, one wonders<br />> how can the Oxfordians escape the obvious<br />> reference of this VER SONG to their chap.<br />> <br />> "Of course, a man who would torture his ego to<br />> the extent of describing himself as the spineless<br />> Bertran de Rousillon, might just as well admit he<br />> is a cuckold . . "<br /><br />LLL was written for the visit of the <br />French Commissioners in May/June 1581<br />- about the only period when Henri of <br />Navarre was on speaking terms with his <br />wife Magaret (the "Princess of France") <br />and when any such portrayal would have <br />been diplomatically acceptable. <br /><br />In early 1581, Oxford was still in <br />"loud complaint mode" about the <br />supposed behaviour of his wife, Anne.<br />Given his noble but quite impoverished <br />state, his further social disgrace <br />following his denunciation of his <br />Catholic cousins and their libels <br />against him, his utter dependence <br />on royal favour, and the political <br />power of his father-in-law, how else <br />was he likely to react?<br /><br />Here's an Oxfordian challenge:<br /> . . . Name any other author (at any<br />time) who would have been as likely to<br />compose a roughly similar complaint<br />about his wife.<br /><br />Or to approach this from another angle: <br />The quarto of LLL was published in 1598 <br />over the name "W.Shakespere". In it,<br />we have (a) a clear pointer to De Vere <br />(with the name 'VER'), and <br />(b) to him being cuckolded -- as was<br />well known at the time.<br /><br />Why should and how could a commoner <br />(the Stratman or someone using him<br />as a front, or both) make fun of the <br />17th Earl of Oxford on the public<br />stage? (Of course, that is in the <br />wider context of the permissibility <br />of a comic portrayal, on the public <br />stage, of the monarch of an allied <br />country during a long and bitter war.)<br /><br />I don't expect answers to these <br />questions -- any more than Peter got <br />them on the Fellowship site. When your <br />theoretical framework does not match <br />the historical facts, little can make<br />sense, and silence is your best <br />recourse. <br /><br />Paul CrowleyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847725989815546661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-73285841201970010572010-01-11T09:30:13.329-05:002010-01-11T09:30:13.329-05:00Michael: There seems to be a misunderstanding as t...Michael: There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what my comments mean. Of course this is not about good or bad guys. It is about whether any reasonably intelligent normal guy, let alone a genius, would go out of his way to present himself as an arrogant, cheating liar like Bertram de Rousillon, and would insert songs to cuckolded husbands, such as he had declared himself to be, while erasing his name from the most extraordinary battle described in the Histories. <br />A bad guy may be an excellent poet; an excellent poet who is also an Elizabethan earl does not write such things about himself for the enjoyment of the London theatre goers. <br />A genius may describe himself as Falstaff, but not as Bertram. Goodness or badness have nothing to do with it.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-12839549959545437022010-01-11T07:07:59.633-05:002010-01-11T07:07:59.633-05:00Mikael may have gone, but there is something which...Mikael may have gone, but there is something which I would nevertheless like to point out about Rollett's "Henry Wriothesley" cipher.<br /><br />The major flaw in it is that the name is split into chunks, reads in different directions, and requires two different "grilles" for it to be seen. What its supporters seem unable to understand is that the cryptographer is in complete control of what is said, so (for example) Mikael's argument that the second was needed because there was only the one "Y" in the dedication misses the point. Just rewrite it so that it has more than one!<br /><br />The following was knocked off in less than half an hour, but I am sure that it could be greatly improved given the sort of time that would have been available to the cryptographer in this case. It should be centred, but the software won't let me!<br /><br /> THOMAS*THORPE*<br /> THE*WELL-WISHING*NOBODY*<br /> PRAYS*FOR*BLEST*ETERNITY*<br /> AND*HAPPINESS*<br /><br /> TO*<br /> THESE*FOLLOWING*SONNETS'*<br /> TRUE*BEGETTER*<br /><br /> WHICH*WAS*EVER*PROMISED*<br /> BOTH*BY*THE*POEMS*AND*<br />THE*EVER-LIVING*EDITOR*HIMSELF*<br /><br /> SO*MAY*ALL*MEN*<br /> LIVE*OUT*SUCH*YEARS*OF*<br /> ETERNITY*GOD*WILLING*<br /><br />Now lay it out in the form of a 15-wide Cardano Grille, including the *s too and read down the second column. <br /><br />T <b>H</b> O M A S * T H O R P E * T<br />H <b>E</b> * W E L L - W I S H I N G<br />* <b>N</b> O B O D Y * P R A Y S * F<br />O <b>R</b> * B L E S T * E T E R N I<br />T <b>Y</b> * A N D * H A P P I N E S<br />S <b>*</b> T O * T H E S E * F O L L<br />O <b>W</b> I N G * S O N N E T S ' *<br />T <b>R</b> U E * B E G E T T E R * W<br />H <b>I</b> C H * W A S * E V E R * P<br />R <b>O</b> M I S E D * B O T H * B Y<br />* <b>T</b> H E * P O E M S * A N D *<br />T <b>H</b> E * E V E R - L I V I N G<br />* <b>E</b> D I T O R * H I M S E L F<br />* <b>S</b> O * M A Y * A L L * M E N<br />* <b>L</b> I V E * O U T * S U C H * <br />Y <b>E</b> A R S * O F * E T E R N I<br />T <b>Y</b> * G O D * W I L L I N G *<br /><br />That Rollett's cryptographer didn't do something like this shows quite clearly to me that no such person and no such hidden name ever existed. <br /><br />Peter FareyPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-87069574585857291032010-01-11T05:20:27.115-05:002010-01-11T05:20:27.115-05:00First, I agree with Peter that, if I were the comp...First, I agree with Peter that, if I were the compiler, I would not have made the construction so difficult. You go to great lengths to explain the fact that a single letter ‘Y’ was a handicap; so why not put two in the dedication? ‘Eternitie’ (spelt as it was in Sonnets 122 and 125) would be the obvious place.<br /><br />Second, your explanation of how the decoder was able to tell the puzzle was solved (since a second grid was required) is rather unsatisfactory. You say the proof it is ‘solved’ is when we have 33 letters (which is the sum of two figures from the two grids) which equals the number of letters in “Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton” AND 18-15 equals 3 (as in 3rd Earl). Is that a serious suggestion? The decoder knows nothing other than the message. He may not know that Henry Wriothesley is the Earl of Southampton, for one thing. At the point that he has that name decoded, you suggest he adds the two grids together and gets 33, he has the name with 16 letters, so he is 17 letters short and he thinks, “well, if we add ‘Earl of Southampton’ we get the 33…that’ll do!”. Why would he not think, “hmm…17 letters missing, there must be another grid”<br /><br />Third, you say it is signed TT because that appears in the grid. Does that matter? I am at a loss on that one.<br /><br />Though this is not a complete list of my concerns, I will finish with (perhaps) a more contentious point. You say (elsewhere) that: “The answer must be a person with some sort of relation to the Sonnets”. How is Southampton related to the Sonnets for the decoder? At best, he is only related to some of them; and then, only if you are privy to the theory that he was the ‘fair Youth’. You see Southampton because you are looking for him (or one of the other ‘modern contenders’). What if the answer is a name for which you are NOT looking? In these circumstances, I would think it was all but impossible to come up with Henry Wriothesley, based on the disjointed jumble of the solution. What is the standard method that the decoder must use to compile the solution AFTER the solution is obtained (and this excludes the fact that we have to compile two separate grids). It seems that the solution must be a person known by the decoder; which also seems most unsatisfactory. Then again, perhaps these codes were only meant to be decoded by someone with such an insight; I am not in a position to judge that possibility.<br /><br />All-in-all, I remain a little sceptical, at this point.Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.com