1999

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2264  Wednesday, 22 December 1999.

[1]     From:   Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 15:44:53 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2257 Honorific...

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 17:02:27 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2257 Honorific...


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 15:44:53 -0000
Subject: 10.2257 Honorific...
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2257 Honorific...

I hope Hardy will ensure this doesn't open the floodgates to authorship
enquiries and arguments. But can I recommend W. F. and E. S. Friedman's
*The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined* (Cambridge University Press, 1957)?
They show that the problem with anagrams is that other anagrams can be
found and hence there is no single necessary solution. This, for
cryptographers, defines a cryptogram as invalid. They also show how,
using such rules, one can 'prove' that, for example, Roosevelt wrote
Shakespeare. A greatly enjoyable book.

Seasonal congratulations to Hardy for giving all SHAKSPERians such
pleasure during the last year. (And, Hardy, don't edit out this last
sentence!)

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 17:02:27 -0500
Subject: 10.2257 Honorific...
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2257 Honorific...

Allan Blackman forwarded a "mere ... [request] to get some information"
about the supposed Bacon cypher in "honorificabilitudinitatibus"

> I have two questions:
>
> 1) What is meant by "invalid"?

"invalid" = "not valid, of no force, weight or cogency; weak; having no
force, effect or efficacy" etc. (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of
the English Language).   In fine, "bullshit"; similar to asserting
nonsense in the form of a rhetorical question.

> 2) Is the anagram above to be attributed to mere chance?

Yup.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.