GROUP THEORY of AUTHORSHIP: Edward de VERE, HENRY (Southhampton?), Christopher MARLOE, Thomas NASHE, DANTE

Figure 1 represents a modern font presentation of the original spelling facsimile of Ben Jonson’s Eulogy to William Shakespeare in the  1623 First Folio, with the following changes (none of which alter any of the arrays shown below):  all the Elizabeth “∫ “s (“s”s) have been changed to the updated modern “s” font; all “u”s intended to be “v” are changed to “v”s (i.e., “vere” as opposed to “eure”, and so forth); all “v”s intended to be “u”s have been changed to “u”s (i.e., “unto” instead of  “vnto”); the ligature, “Æ”,  in “Æschilus” (line 26 of the Eulogy) has been changed to “Ae” (“Aeschilus”).  Critical (See Fig. 1A below) is noticing that what we may initially perceive as a typographical or printer’s error of the word’didstst” (perhaps intending to be”didst” or “dist”) has not been corrected as many other later-than-1623 First  Folio pritings have been.  it is my contention the spelling is purposeful, and represents an internal plaintext cue (or clue, if you will) that a code or codes are present.  Those in the know (at the time) would therefore be able to decrypt the plaintext contents.

To see the facsimile copy as it appeared when first published, go HERE:

Fig. 1A:

Figure 1B:

   Is “Shakespeare” a collective name, and not an actual person?  And was Edward de Vere and others (including his own pen-names) the master poet of the group?:

Edward de VERE:

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

HENRY (Southhampton?):

Fig. 5

Thomas NASHE:

Fig. 6:         “E.C.O. (Edwardus Comes Oxoniensis):  “NASHE” an Oxford pen-name.

Christopher MARLOE:

Fig. 7A:  Again:  1623 First Folio (Facsimile, New South Wales), “didstst”, the ligature as two         letters.  Raw Probabilities for ” MARLOE ” :

Fig. 7B

Fig.8

Fig. 9

DANTE (source material):

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

The Ghost of Ben Jonson:

Fig. 12

XI.XXVII.MMXIII