Sonnets Dedication: TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.

# 1 Begetter, Dedication Page  JPEG

                     Fig. 1

   The 1609 Dedication to Shakespeare’s Sonnets is one of the most poured over and analyzed plaintexts in the entire canon.  My approach is unorthodox, and parts of how the material is presented and interpreted have never, to my knowledge, been written about before now.

     What I initially see are the periods, or dots, after each of the twenty-nine individual words in the plaintext.  The five abbreviated words (Mr, W., H., T. and T.) I consider “units” as well as words, as a dot separates, or should I say, demarcates each of the five abbreviations from each letter before and after them in the plaintext.  This is an important distinction to make as ELS arrays, especially those made with computerized ELS array-makers such as the one I use, eliminate punctuation and numbers.  Many of the arrays I present, however, involve the use of the 30 dots and two hyphens because their use is integral to the codes (letter-strings) revealed when they have been given a ‘unit’ status (a place) as if they were letters.

   Figure 2 is the Dedication with all letters and the two hyphens eliminated.  The dots appear deliberately placed for some reason as yet to be known for certain:

Dots only, JPEG

                                                                             Fig. 2

Embellished, the dot design looks like this:

Embellished dots, JPEG

                                                                          Fig. 3

There is no attribution to ‘Shakespeare’.

The design appears mathematical.

The number of dots separate the number of words in each line:  taken line for line, the number total of each line are prime numbers (in mathematics, a prime number is a number having as variables, only the number 1 and itself; i.e., “7” is the product of “1” and itself (“7”)–see Fig. 1 ).

Number and word play:  (a kind of substitution cipher):  the word “ONLIE”, when seen in the context of prime numbers–as well as the meaning of the word “prime” itself (only, unique, first)–hints at the obvious statement in line one (that there is only one begetter of the sonnets), but that number play is prominent in the following ways:

The first four words are a partial set in a Fibonacci Sequence, where each number is the total of itself and the number before it:  “TO” has 2 letters, “THE” has 3, “ONLIE” has 5, and “begetter” has 8.  The Fibonacci set therefore looks like this: beginning with “2” (the sum of 1 + 1), adding itself with the number before it (“1”) yields “3”.  3 + 2 (the number before it) = 5.  “5” + 3 = “8”.

The process stop at “8”.  There is no reason to continue the sequence, as the point of the design is to draw attention to the mathematical construction of the Dedication, as well as to present clues, essentially stating the astute reader should pay close attention (“SIEH!” in Ben Jonson’s words) to what the numbers you see, refer to.

There are 13 lines (‘lines’ in a loose sense; i.e., lines as ‘units’ placed horizontally, one set of words/letters below the other).

The design of the Dedication:  three triangular sets (5, 3, 5), totalling 13.

The 7th line contains the declaration:  “OUR EVER-LIVING POET”, a total of  17 letters.  The sentence can be seen as a play on words (E.Ver), implying, or directly stating, Edward Vere is the poet and begetter of the sonnets.  There is furthermore the suggestion that de Vere is still alive (in a physical sense) as well as ‘alive” metaphorically in his poetry.

The line:  “OUR EVER-LIVING POET” is placed directly in the center of the Dedication.  As such there are 6 lines above it, and 6 below.  The total of 12 (as seen from the perspective of ‘number play’) suggests the well-known “6-2-4” pattern, representing the respective number of letters in each part of de Vere’s name:  “Edward (6)  de (2)  Vere  (4)”.

“OUR EVER-LIVING POET” is in line 7.  There are 6 lines below it.  The seventh sentence contains the pun on de Vere’s name.  7 and 6 are 13 (a number seemingly embedded in the design of the Dedication), but side-by-side they represent the number 76.  As previously noted, do some of the numbers refer themselves?

Let’s take a look at Sonnet 76 to see if there is a reference to de Vere as suggested by line 7, with its 17 letters:

# 1 Sonnet 76, Array 14, JPEG

                                                                              Fig. 4 

   Perhaps this is merely coincidence.  The focus of the preceeding paragraph was on the plaintext words.  So, let’s take a look at the dots.

   There are 30 dots in the Dedication.  Since we are dealing with sonnets, let’s see if we can find anything in Sonnet 30 that mirrors the hint that “our ever-living poet” might be de Vere, as is the case of Sonnet 76:

Sonnet 30, DEVERE (inke), Array 50 JPEG

                                                                          Fig. 5

     Coincidence or deliberate design?  The two letter-strings “DEVERE” are the only (or should I say “ONLIE”) encryptions in all 154 sonnets that directly spell out de Vere’s complete surname.

   And both sonnets appear to have been numerically referred to in the Sonnets Dedication of 1609.

The next two arrays are straight forward.  The first plainly says:  “The onlie begetter is here:  Vere.”


                                                                           Fig. 6

#3B SD, Raw Pr. %22ISHEREV%22, JPEG

                                                                         Fig. 7

The second:


                                                                           Fig. 8

White Crow, Black Swan


                                                                             Fig. 9


                                                                           Fig. 10  

   In the past several years I have literally examined hundreds of documents and performed thousands of equidistant letter sequences.  But not with dots as placeholders.  Until now.

   In many cases, the addition or subtraction of a single letter (or unit) in a plaintext can nullify results.  Imagine the mechanics involved in a skip-of-one transposition ELS (‘shift’-of-one, if you prefer).  The shift causes all rows and columns to align differently each time this is done.  The addition of 30 dots (as units, and place holders in the arrays) cause vertical letter-strings, assuming they are there in the first place, to change enormously.  As such, the presence in the ciphertext of “VEREH” after adding 30 dots is stunning.  I found no string (s), in any form, for Bacon, Marlowe, Shakespeare (Stratford), Sackville, Greville, Howard, or any other contender in the ELS ciphertexts.  “ONLIE” “VEREH” survives.

   Once again, the dots used as integral parts of the Dedication design, and placed in the horizontal plaintext, then arrayed, keep intact the phrase identifying the writer of the Sonnets (“THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.”):  “Vere is here” (Fig. 9).  That upon closer examination, and taking into consideration all the clues presented in the design of the Dedication, the careful and astute reader (perhaps only those ‘in the know’; i.e., the designers of the plaintext and those who knew de Vere was the real Shakespeare and author of the sonnets) will discover that “VERE” is present in the Sonnets, and can be found with the same method of encryption with which his name was found in Array 22.

   The Sonnets frontispiece is clear testimony to Edward de Vere as the author of the “ensuing sonnets).  And, as will be shown, the presence of Edward de Vere in the sonnets themselves is basically an “in-your-face” presence, an inescapable and silent scream for recogniton.

The Scream (Edvard Munch, 1893, JPEG

                                                                             Fig. 11


1 Comment (+add yours?)

    Oct 17, 2014 @ 18:02:22

    You ought to be a part of a contest for one of the most useful blogs online.

    I will highly recommend this blog!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: