The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1343 Thursday, 18 August 2005
Date: Wednesday, 17 Aug 2005 16:52:13 -0400
Subject: 16.1335 Roses
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1335 Roses
Peter Bridgman wrote:
Since the page resembles other dedication pages written by
T.T., and bears no resemblance whatever to dedication pages
written by W.S., does this mean that the hapless printer was
yet another of David Basch's crypto-cabalists?
And he also wrote:
David Basch finds hidden meanings in the dedication page to
Shakespeare's Sonnets ...
OVR EVERLIVING POET
RL and RL
Some members of the list are so willing to ignore reality. The fact that
Henry Wriothesley's full name appears in a skip code in the dedication
of the Sonnets already tells that the dedication was carefully crafted.
That it would also contain configurations that give the same name in
its actual pronunciation, (R-IS-L-Y as alleged by one member of the
list), is something to be taken seriously. (It could well be that the
scholar who came up with this pronunciation may not think this
appearance to be insignificant.) In any case, does anyone actually think
that one of the compositors put this name in the words of the
dedication? Now that would be farfetched.
As long as we are at it, let us see some other configurations in the
dedication. One of these others is Hatcliffe's name as pronounced,
"Hatliffe," "HAT-L-V," which rises from the word "tHAT" that appears on
the fourth line and connects vertically with the "L" and the "V" that
sequentially rises above it directly over the "T" of "tHAT" as follows:
Still another is a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, which appears
This is read by reading the "I" as a "J," which it would be in
Elizabethan alphabet, and pronouncing it with the "H" diagonally below
(JH) and then reading the "W" together with the "H" (WH) to finish the
name. Similarly, one can read another Tetragrammaton transliteration as:
And there are others.
What makes this significant is that, as I argue, the Sonnets were
dedicated to the Lord. Hence it would not be spurious that His name
would appear configured in the dedication, which, by the way, contains
some skip letter codes that also represent the Divine name in a few
I argue that the other names configured are misdirections, diversions,
so this dangerous content would not be readily discovered. That it is
even disturbing to some readers of the list at this late date in history
gives an inkling of its potential explosiveness.
While some may argue with my interpretations of the findings, they would
have to argue against reality if they want to make the case that the
sightings are not there. These so called accidents are so numerous in so
short a dedication that it would really amount to an astronomically low
probability that this happened by itself. And no compositor could have
done all that on his own without direction.
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
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.