1623: TO THE READER

                                                   Fig. A                                              Fig. B

   Figures A and B are facsimiles of Ben Jonson’s Commendation to the First Folio of 1623.  Both appear opposite one another when the volume is opened.   Before entering any plaintext into sequential equidistant letter sequence arrays (using a skip-of-one transposition format) I first slightly update the Elizabethan plaintext orthography for easier reading.  I change all “v”s intended to be “u”s (Ex.: “vpon” is changed to “upon”) to “u”s, and all “u”s intended to be “v”s ( Ex.:  “loue” to “love”, or “haue” to “have”) to “v”s).  The letters that look like”f”s without the horizontal crossbar are Elizabethan “s”s.  I then change all these to “s”s (“feeft” to “seest”, “braffe” to “brasse”, and so on).  Lastly, all double “v”s (“wwrit”, “dravvne”) intended to be “w”s, I change to “w”s (“writ”, “drawne).  These changes do not affect the letter-string codes.  Doing it this way makes the process of detecting codes much easier.  The two plaintexts then look like this:

                                                                  Figures C and D

   The final preparatory step is to remove all punctuation and spaces in each plaintext so that one continuous string remains to array.  Since one of my assumptions (with some exceptions) is the the symbol “&” and the number “1623” are intended to be individual units in the same way all letters are, I substitute a “Z” for every unit, as the ELS array program rejects everything not presented as a letter.  When reporting a code in an array, I replace the “Z”s with the symbol (s) and/or letter (s) as shown in the plaintext:

                                                                   Figures E and F

                                                                         Fig. G

                                                                         Fig. H

                                                                         Fig. I

                                                                         Fig. J

   First of all, the primary focus of my search in the arrays were for “Vere”.  I looked for vertical letter-strings for:  “vere”; “erev”; “reve”; and “ever”.  The last two I hoped might yield “d”s and “e”s on either end so as to produce a top-to-botton “devere” or a bottom-to-top “ereved”.  I did not search for “veer” or “reev”, even though they are variations on Oxford’s surname.  I felt that “Vere” or “E. Vere” (“Earl Vere” or “Edward Vere”) would be better choice, as this particular spelling is more convincing with regards to code letter-string validity, (when it comes to a “degree of belief”),  even though both variations may be equally as valid as the other.

   Not necessarily at all in rank order of importance, I found the arrays you see above (Figures G, H, I, J).  As can be seen, the To the Reader plaintext was placed into an ELS range  A range-set is equal to ‘high minus low plus 1’, producing 77 (R = H – L + 1) discrete groups, differing one from the other by a shift/skip of one.  I set the ELS computer program to begin with 80, subtracting one letter (unit) in the first row, which was then added to the second row (and on down the line for each search)  This  had the effect of decreasing the number of columns, thereby increasing the number or rows.  One can also do the opposite:  start with four letters per row, then add one letter from the second row to the first, thereby increasing the number of columns and decreasing the number of rows.  Each column is then searched vertically for a given keyword.  In this case, “Vere”, then “erev”, and so on for each keyword, searching each of the 77 letter-sets, and stopping at four.  As previously mentioned, this was down for each keyword placed in the search text-box.

   The plaintexts were arrayed in four ways:  1. the full text of To the Reader  2. the full text of the 1623 Frontispiece 3. the full texts of both To the Reader with the Frontispiece below   4. the full texts of both the Frontispiece and To the Reader, with the Frontispiece on top.

   This is what I found, looking at the arrays both individually and as a group:

• First of all, the individual arrays speak for themselves.  You either find what you see as more support for the existence of   codes, placed deliberately (for whatever reason was chosen at the time of their creation; i.e., for personal correspondence, government espionage, or other reasons), or  you believe in a random occurence.

• A search was done for the following keywords in each of the four conditions mentioned above:     “Vere”, “ereV”, “reve”,        “ever”, “Henri”, “Henrie”, “Henry”, “irneH”, “eirneH”, “yrneH”, “Bacon”, “nocaB”, “Nashe”, “ehsaN”, “Dyer”, “reyD”, “Marlow”, “wolraM”, “Marlowe”, “ewolraM”, “Marley”, “yelraM”, “Green”, “neerG”, “Greene”, “eneerG”.  Other keywordswere searched for as well (Ovid, Dante, and others).

• Only a top-to-bottom “VERE” was found.

• All four “VERE” arrays were found in Array 58. The fourth “VERE” survived in Array 58, despite being minus 11 letters:  “To the Reader”.  In all, a remarkable consistency.  In all, the number of shifts-of-one the plaintext makes before coming to Array 58 (including both the first 80 and the last 59) is 2,332.  But, it can also be said this is little more than pure chance.

• Ironically, and therefore likely coincidence, is the observation that the “V” in the fourth “VERE” begins in column 14, the number of lines in a sonnet, reinforcing (depending on one’s point of focus) the suggestion that Edward de Vere, not only wrote all (or much, if not most of, what has been attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon) the Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies, but also wrote the Sonnets as well.

• There are only 3 “v”s in the Commendation.  Only the first “v” in “Grave” is used for the four “VERE” top-to-bottom letter-strings.  The other two “v”s (i.e., all 3 “v”s, although shown as “u”s are clearly intended to be “v”s) are in the words:  “have” and “ever”.  In exact order, then, in somewhat clumsy syntax and grammar, is a complete declarative sentence:  “Grave have E.Ver”.  Or, “Grave have all that was E. Ver writ.”  Cherry-picking though this may be, it is still an internal plaintext suggestion that, in context, “VERE” is both in the grave (his remains–although what is “remaining” I suggest is the line (statement) in Sonnet 72:  “My name be buried where my body is.” That his “body” (“all that was E.Ver writ” is his “Booke”).  Therefore making Edward de Vere:  Shakespeare.

• The use of the word “Graver” instead of “Engraver” appears unusual to me.  When I look at it, the first thing I notice is:  “To the Reader” (me, or any other ‘reader’).  The second thing I notice is the seemingly deliberate placement of “Graver” (see Fig. K ).

                                                                            Fig. K

However, “Grave” seems like  a ‘red flag’, begging for attention.  It’s almost a ‘target’ with a red bullseye.  In fact, in the facsimile, the “G” in “Grave” appears almost as large and ‘round’ looking as the  “O” in line five.  In my mind’s eye, I see “the Grave of “O”.  Recall Jonson’s Shakespeare monument inscription with his use of the German “Sieh” (“See”).  It comes across as a command in the inscription, and in line nine:  “Reader, looke” is exclamatory, just as is “Sieh”.  Notice also (and this might be coincidence), the “R” in “Reader” is the 17th letter in line 9.  This type of exclamation identifies Ben Jonson’s writing.  The attribution of both the Shakespeare monument inscription and To the Reader is given to Jonson.  His ‘command’ to me is, “LOOKE!  Pay close attention, Reader.  Read ‘between’ the lines.”

• The above to me, as “The Reader”, is to look for a code within the plaintext.  After all, Ben Jonson was a master wordsmith, and cryptographer.

• The punning on the word “Grave” is unmistakeable.  An engraving is a drawing or carving on a hard surface.  In fact, and “engraver” suggests “ingraver”; that is “in grave”.  Of course, all this can be said to be looking for an seeing animals in cloud formations.  However, to me, it appears  planned, designed, “DRAWNE” so as to invite a closer looke.  The phrase:  “all that was E.Ver writ” appears deliberate.

• The most provocative sentence for me is line 5, which comes across as a question:  “O, could he but have drawne his wit as well in brasse”.  Embellishing this:  “O.(Oxford), the engraver in grave, could he but have drawne his wit as well in brasse?”  Or, is it possible that de Vere himself wrote his own commendation?  A wild speculation, but possible.

• The word “drawne”, I believe, is meant to refer to the designing and placing within the plaintext of clues to the identity of the occupant of the grave, and the question then  becomes:  Is someone else Shakespeare?  And who either wrote, or assisted, in the writing of To the Reader?

BARD:  Mid-15th century, from Scottish (from Old Celtish) bardos:  “poet, singer”

                                                                            Fig. L

   In light of the four Arrays 58, this one speakes for itself.  It presents 3 things:  1. de Vere’s title as ‘Earle’.  Shakespeare was not an Earle.  His death register entry  stated he was a “gentleman”.  A ‘gentleman’ was not ennobled.  2. the use of the word “BARD”.  Not only was de Vere a poet, but the present consensus is that the Sonnets were almost certainly meant to be sung.  3. the second meaning of “BARD” is “to sing”, the noun form is then “singer”.  Edward de Vere was described by professional musicians and composers as extremely gifted as a musician and composer.  Again, “poet” and “singer” fit with Sonnet 76 when he says:  “My name’s de Vere.”

    The syntax of the letter-string cluster says:  “The Earle (“read Bard”) was “gentle Shakespeare.” Coincidence or not, note that the two words “gentle Shakespeare” contain 17 letters.  Title, previous surname mentioned in the above arrays of To the Reader, identification of de Vere as both poet and musician.  And, of course, “gentle Shakespeare” appears as a horizontal ‘code’ identifying the Earle as being Shakespeare.  Not:  Sir Francis Bacon; Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene, Fulke Greville, Roger Manners, or any other.  Just “VERE“.  What a coincidence.

“Seemes Madam? Nay, it is: I know not Seemes”  (I.2.257)

   What is coincidence and what is a deliberate placement or ‘use’ of any given pun, be it a play on words or a play on numbers, notice that “VERE” is the name found in each Array 58, with the exception of Array 40, where the word “BARD” refers to poet/singer.  58 plus 14 (the number of lines in a sonnet) is 72.  Sonnet 72 is especially famous for its eleventh line:  “My name be buried where my body is . . . ”

Although both the number-play (58 + 14 = 72) and the word play on “My name be buried where my body is . . . ”, might be possible coincidence if taken as a reference to Sonnet 72 (“14” referring to a sonnet, and the sum of the numbers of the two arrays (72), one has to consider, in the context of what appears to be coincidence, may  be by intelligent design.  The ‘seeming” nature of the connection of word-to-number play, may not be anymore an illusion than is the reality that the Ghost in Hamlet is an actual character in the play, and is not in our imagination.  In the words of Hamlet, literature’s master wordsmith, there are no “coincidences”:  “I know not seemes (I.2.257).”

If the presence of codes in the Shakespeare canon is real, then an argument such as the one above, “seems” all the more reasonable.

XII.IX.MMXII