Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: September ::
An Early Instance of Code
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1646  Tuesday, 27 September 2005

[Editor's Note: When this was another thread, I ended it. Now, it 
appears again in another guise. No more, please.]

[1] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Monday, 26 Sep 2005 21:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code

[2] 	From: 	Stefan Andreas Sture <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 27 Sep 2005 09:06:21 +0200
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 21:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code

Stephen Rose writes, all in the left margin, a nice crisp acrostic.

David Basch writes,  "Concerning the fact of hidden codes in 
Shakespeare's work...As I have already pointed out, J.M. Rollett, a 
retired physics professor from Ipswich England, not at all a 'conspiracy 
theorist,' found Henry Wriothesley's full name in the Dedication of the 
Sonnets embedded in Equal Letter Skip (ELS) codes. (The ELS code is a 
cryptographic device in which messages are presented in a text through 
equal letter spacing.)   Cannot readers believe the evidence of their 
own eyes concerning this presence since I showed a text matrix 
demonstrating this on list? I found this cipher code about seven years 
ago. Apparently it eluded that great expert, Bill Arnold. But Bill ought 
not to feel bad since for 400 years everyone else missed it, including 
the Friedmans."

As noted by Stephen Rose, some cryptology is amply clear.  Of late the 
same kind of clear acrostic was done by none other than poet Anne Sexton.

Edgar Allan Poe did a beauty in which the first letter of the first 
line, keyed with the second letter of the second line, and so forth, 
created the name of a woman admirer.

The famous Voltaire used his name in an anagram.

One would suspect if Shakespeare were so intended, he would have 
resorted to the historical methodology accepted by other poets of 
acrostics and anagrams dating back to Greek poet Lycophron in 260 BC.

So, David Basch is sure Shakespeare used crypto in his writings and the 
Friedmans and yours truly missed it.  As all know, I have a book out 
there on the alleged Shakespeare signature in the KJV.  In the final 
analysis, I presented the tentative evidence without drawing any 
conclusions of whether or not it was intentional and that Will 
Shakespeare took part in it.

Now, to David Basch's allegations about codes in Shakespeare. Indeed, 
there might be: but he has yet to present a credible case.

What the Friedmans suggested and David Basch ignores is that there is 
more to it than meets *HIS* eye!  The rest of us must see what he sees 
and conclude, when all is said and done, that Will Shakespeare 
*intended* it.   That is a tall order.

The poet Goethe did just that when he presented a ring to Rosette 
Stadel.  The gems were, reading the first letters, in German, Rubin, 
Opal, Saphir, Emeraude, Tturckis, Topas, Emeraude.  OK: they spelled her 
name.

David Basch states that his finding of a crypto message eluded the 
Friedmans and myself.  Where David Basch is standing on quicksand rather 
than solid ground is in the fact that his alleged ciphers are not 
crystal clear.  He sees them because he has made them up in his own 
mind, and that is why it eluded the Friedmans and me.  We are not mind 
readers.

He need not commit the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority in citing 
physics professor Rollett, retired or not.  Such is not proof, and he 
should know that, as well.

In order for a case to be made, the methodology has to be precise and 
irrefutable.  If it is not precise and irrefutable, then it is a 
standing allegation.  So noted: what David Basch has presented to 
SHAKSPER is a standing allegation but it is not as he states, "...fact 
of hidden codes in Shakespeare's work."

His so-called "text matrix" is not fact, but a contrivance of his 
creation, not convincing at all, leaves much to be desired, and stands 
as a standing allegation.  So be it.  I give him credit for it, created 
as he states "about seven years ago," and by my calculation, that was 
*about 1998.*  Scholarship takes note!

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Stefan Andreas Sture <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 27 Sep 2005 09:06:21 +0200
Subject: 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code

Right on!, Stephen. This was fun.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.