HAMLET: 17 legal terms in the “Gravedigger’s Scene” and Sonnet 135

Alas poore Yorick“:  

Hamlet, Gravediggers's Scene, 17 Legal Terms, plaintextFig. 1 The signature17 (supporting Oxford as the author of the passage) is present, testifying to Oxford’s legal training.  What about letter-strings as signatures as well?: Hamlet, 5.1, Gravedigger' Scene, Vere, cover, #1Fig. 2

Hamlet, Gravedigger's Scene, 5.1., Vere covered, #2b

Fig. 3

   So, why would William Shakespeare (of Stratford-upon-Avon), to whom the play, Hamlet is attributed, place 17 legal terms (suggesting Edward de Vere either wrote or contributed to the writing of both the play and the plaintext of the ‘Gravedigger’s Scene) — then support the plaintext with word-play on the number 17 (Vere’s noble title) with letter-strings in ciphertexts, strategically placed with the plaintext of Hamlet’s dialogue?  Or, looked at another way, are the two “signatures”: mere dumb luck, random occurrence, happenstance, a trick of letter-placement, pure chance –and not deliberate placement; i.e., the result of intelligent design?

   As it is with any argument, legal or not, if what has thus far been presented in the entirety of this treatise (the present passage above included) is: “mere dumb luck, random occurrence, happenstance, a trick of letter-placement, pure chance –and not deliberate placement or the result of intelligent design”, show how this is so.

   If no responsible response is offered to the argument, then those who disagree remain on the side of the commission that questioned Sir Thomas More when it challenged him about being silent concerning his position on Henry VIII’s divorce from Katherine of Aragon.  To the question of consenting to the divorce, More chose to respond as a lawyer (which he was).  His testimony was that his personal view was not relevant to the divorce issue, and that the question asked of him was a legal one, and reminded the commission that under law, “silence is consent”; meaning that, since he chose to remain silent, the court was legally bound to interpret his silence as consent.  Therefore, More argued he could not legally be judged and found guilty of treason, as he had not defied the king.  In short, “qui tacit consentire” (who is silent, consents).

   To my original point above, then, is:  if there is no response, then silence is consent to the argument.  The “Deliberate Design” Argument has and is now supported by nothing less persuasive than the opposing point of view that codes  and number play are mere coincidences.  I have defined “coincidence”, “deliberate design” and “intelligent design” multiple times; as have those who offer puns and the interpretations of metaphors and illusions have done to support their points of view.  If “coincidence” is the conclusion offered, then define what is meant (from the point of view of your argument), what coincidence is.  Following this definition, then, offer support how this definition persuasively contradicts the encryption interpretation.

   Furthermore, I do not believe either point of view is superior to the other.  I do believe, however, that encryption, encipherment, letter-strings, codes:  are nothing less or more than another valuable means of addressing the Authorship Question.

   Interesting to me is also the interpretation that Hamlet’s monologue is a projection, that he is not just talking about the skull in the grave, but is talking about his own death and decay; that, like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, he, and all of us, might someday be use to provide “a stopp” in a “Beer-barrel” or plug a hole in a wall “to keepe the winde away”.  The word LAME in the letter-string connected to “scull” in Array 99 suggests three things to me:  (1) the only definite physical attribute we know from historical documents about the appearance of Edward de Vere is that his was “lame”; (2) and that for those of us who take Vere’s word play seriously, it will be noted that an anagram of “Hamlet” is “Th’ lame”.  And (3) the importance of this is that the play itself is considered by many to be a sort of ‘autobiography’ of Edward de Vere.


Again, Coincidence or Intelligent Design?         

III. XV. MMXIV        

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

%d bloggers like this: