Love’s Labour’s Lost, 1598
The plaintext contains a single “V”, and begins the word “VERE”. Coincidence or intelligent design?
Note: The double “v“s in the word “vvas” were retained under the assumption that the letter-string revealing the word “VERE“ does not appear when a “w“ is used. Looking at this logically, the case is not: that a “w“ was changed to double “v“s, so as to allow the “VERE“ to appear — but rather the “w” in “vvas“, can be seen (and often is) as a cryptographic method used (1) to thwart a decoder, especially when the plaintext is long. In 1598, decoding meant writing out a plaintext by hand. The decoder had to decide whether the double “v“s, were an internal clue to alert those in the know that a coded message was present, and that two “units“ were required in order to reveal the letter-string; and/or (2) to change the two “vv“s to a “w“ as the two “vv“s are ‘intended‘ to be pronounced as a “w“, even though double “v“ is shown — in order to reveal a letter-string; and/or (3) to array the plaintext using both methods.
In the above plaintext, a decoder would necessarily have to spend an enormous amount of time writing out each array, being sure to use a shift-of-one transposition equidistant letter sequence–using all the above methods — to cover all bases. And even then, finding a letter-string might just be considered an anomaly, a quirk of letter-placement, hardly damning (in the case of the plaintext under study) to Edward de Vere with respect to bringing criminal charges against him.
The above in condensed form is: I personally array plaintexts using all methods when I come across a “vv“ rather than a “w“ (as they are intended to be) because I have the time, a computer, the passion to do so, and the degree of belief that some letter-strings are deliberately placed by intelligent design. Therefore, the time is well-spent.