(7 x 9 = 63)

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

Peter Nockolds wrote:

<<Well that's two leads Art gave me which he's renounced. It's a bit like me coming to be an Oxfordian through studying a cipher. I now have doubts about the cipher but am still for now an Oxfordian. Studying the cipher meant that I was able to consider the hypothesis that E of O didn't die on 24/6/1603 which I'd not previously wanted to consider because it seemed just one more level of conspiracy.>>
...................................
. The claim is that Oxford died on mid-summer: 24/6/1604
.
. a half year before his daughter Susan married Philip
. Herbert at the royal court on mid-winter: 27/12/1604.

(It seemed a good time to come out with _Hamlet_ Q2 (1604).)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Nockolds wrote:

<<I think most of Art's ELSs are meaningless.>>
...................................
If the ELS depend's *primarily* upon someone's personal
obsession with Oxford (or the number 63) then I agree.
------------------------------------------------------
https://people.cas.sc.edu/dubinsk/Engl650-Ling505/Miller.FQ.intro.pdf p. 148

<<Ben Jonson's annotated Faerie Queen II, ix, 22 which discourses on the numbers 7 and 9. (7 x 9 = 63)

In the first editions of Don Quixote, Spanish and English we have variously, in chapter 3 I think the equations 7 x 9 = 73 (star hexagonal number) and 7 x 9 = 61 (centred hexagonal number)

63 wasn't just any number, it was a significant number.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
. . . . YADA-YADA-YADA.

I consistently test skips up to 66
and there are few skips of 63 that come up.

I think most of Peter's numerology is meaningless!
-------------------------------------------------
Art N.

[Peter Nockolds]

Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Well that's two leads Art gave me which he's renounced. It's a bit like me coming to be an Oxfordian through studying a cipher. I now have doubts about the cipher but am still for now an Oxfordian. Studying the cipher meant that I was able to consider the hypothesis that E of O didn't die on 24/6/1603 which I'd not previously wanted to consider because it seemed just one more level of conspiracy.>>
...................................
. The claim is that Oxford died on mid-summer: 24/6/1604
.
. a half year before his daughter Susan married Philip
. Herbert at the royal court on mid-winter: 27/12/1604.
(It seemed a good time to come out with _Hamlet_ Q2 (1604).)
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<I think most of Art's ELSs are meaningless.>>
...................................
If the ELS depend's *primarily* upon someone's personal
obsession with Oxford (or the number 63) then I agree.
------------------------------------------------------
https://people.cas.sc.edu/dubinsk/Engl650-Ling505/Miller.FQ.intro.pdf p. 148
<<Ben Jonson's annotated Faerie Queen II, ix, 22 which discourses on the numbers 7 and 9. (7 x 9 = 63)
In the first editions of Don Quixote, Spanish and English we have variously, in chapter 3 I think the equations 7 x 9 = 73 (star hexagonal number) and 7 x 9 = 61 (centred hexagonal number)
63 wasn't just any number, it was a significant number.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
. . . . YADA-YADA-YADA.
I consistently test skips up to 66
and there are few skips of 63 that come up.
I think most of Peter's numerology is meaningless!
-------------------------------------------------
Art N.

There's a lot more I could cite about 63. Alistair Fowler wrote a chapter on the significance of 63 in Dryden's Song for St Cecilia's day and elsewhere. I don't think it's a contentious issue.

I'm not claiming that every skip of 63 is meaningful, it's just that I think this one may be because it led me to find other things when I arranged the letters from the ending of the poem on a 63 grid. However skips of 63 may be better bets for further investigation than other numbers.

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Nockolds wrote:

<<I think most of Art's ELSs are meaningless.>>
...................................
Neufer wrote:

<<If the ELS depend's *primarily* upon someone's personal
obsession with Oxford (or the number 63) then I agree.>>
------------------------------------------------------
https://people.cas.sc.edu/dubinsk/Engl650-Ling505/Miller.FQ.intro.pdf p. 148

<<Ben Jonson's annotated Faerie Queen II, ix, 22 which discourses on the numbers 7 and 9. (7 x 9 = 63)

In the first editions of Don Quixote, Spanish and English we have variously, in chapter 3 I think the equations 7 x 9 = 73 (star hexagonal number) and 7 x 9 = 61 (centred hexagonal number)

63 wasn't just any number, it was a significant number.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Neufer wrote:

<<. . . . YADA-YADA-YADA.

I consistently test skips up to 66
and there are few skips of 63 that come up.

I think most of Peter's numerology is meaningless!>>
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Nockolds wrote:

<<There's a lot more I could cite about 63. Alistair Fowler wrote a chapter on the significance of 63 in Dryden's Song for St Cecilia's day and elsewhere. I don't think it's a contentious issue.

I'm not claiming that every skip of 63 is meaningful, it's just that I think this one may be because it led me to find other things when I arranged the letters from the ending of the poem on a 63 grid. However skips of 63 may be better bets for further investigation than other numbers.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
No one is preventing *YOU* from searching for 63 ELS skips.

. . . Go knock yourself out!

(Since Trump got booted out of office it's back
to being a free country in the U.S., atleast.)
-------------------------------------------
Art N.

[Peter Nockolds]

Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<I think most of Art's ELSs are meaningless.>>
...................................
<<If the ELS depend's *primarily* upon someone's personal
obsession with Oxford (or the number 63) then I agree.>>
------------------------------------------------------
https://people.cas.sc.edu/dubinsk/Engl650-Ling505/Miller.FQ.intro.pdf p. 148
<<Ben Jonson's annotated Faerie Queen II, ix, 22 which discourses on the numbers 7 and 9. (7 x 9 = 63)
In the first editions of Don Quixote, Spanish and English we have variously, in chapter 3 I think the equations 7 x 9 = 73 (star hexagonal number) and 7 x 9 = 61 (centred hexagonal number)
63 wasn't just any number, it was a significant number.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<<. . . . YADA-YADA-YADA.
I consistently test skips up to 66
and there are few skips of 63 that come up.
I think most of Peter's numerology is meaningless!>>
----------------------------------------------------------
<<There's a lot more I could cite about 63. Alistair Fowler wrote a chapter on the significance of 63 in Dryden's Song for St Cecilia's day and elsewhere. I don't think it's a contentious issue.
I'm not claiming that every skip of 63 is meaningful, it's just that I think this one may be because it led me to find other things when I arranged the letters from the ending of the poem on a 63 grid. However skips of 63 may be better bets for further investigation than other numbers.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
No one is preventing *YOU* from searching for 63 ELS skips.
. . . Go knock yourself out!
(Since Trump got booted out of office it's back
to being a free country in the U.S., atleast.)
-------------------------------------------
Art N.

Dear Art, It is not my priority to search for ELS skips, nobody would listen if I tried to publish them. I'm interested in publishable stuff. Did anyone say the USA was not free under Trump? But I'm interested in any 63 skips you might come across,
Peter