Discussion:
Peter Bull's "Cipher"
(too old to reply)
Terry Ross
2004-11-24 20:54:51 UTC
Permalink
A few weeks ago, in a post that has disappeared from my server, Peter Bull
posted that he was now convinced that the message he thought he had found
in *Shakespeare's Sonnets* "has no validity as a cipher." See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@posting.google.com

I held off responding here in order to give people a chance (if they so
desired) to try their luck at Peter's Marlowe "cipher"; since nobody has
chimed in, I guess I may as well have my say.

Peter found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" in the first letters of the lines of
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*, and he believed that what he had found was a
genuine cipher. I looked at Peter's methods, and I was able to satisfy
myself that what he had found was NOT a genuine cipher, but when I told
Peter of my findings I was very surprised to hear him say that he agreed.
This is a very rare occurrence; in my experience, once a person has
persuaded himself that he has found a genuine Baconian or Oxfordian or
Marlite cipher in Shakespeare, he finds it almost impossible to surrender
his belief, even if his proposed cipher fails to meet the standards
described by William and Elizebeth Friedman in *The Shakespearean Ciphers
Examined*, and even if he himself claims to accept the soundness of the
Friedmans' methods.

I have put up a page showing what Peter found:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

This page contains an array of the first letters of each line of the
sonnets. The header row lists the numbers of the sonnet lines from 1 to
15 (Shakespeare's 99th sonnet is 15 lines long), and the first column
gives the number of each sonnet in descending order, from 154 down to 1.

If you look in the line for sonnet 132, in the column for sonnet-line 2,
you will see a red "K"; this is the first letter in Peter's message.
Let's call this position 132.2 (i.e., the position containing the first
letter of the second line of sonnet 132). At 126.5 there is an "I"; at
120.8 there is a "T"; at 114.11 there is an "M". Notice that the letters
K-I-T-M are separated by the same interval; for any letter, the next one
is 6 rows down and 3 columns to the right.

The interval now changes. The next letter is the "A" at 107.8, which is 7
columns down and 3 to the left of the "M" at 114.11; then comes "R" at
100.5 and "L" at 93.2. Then the interval changes again. Here are all the
letters in Peter's message and their locations in the array:

K 132.2
I 126.5
T 120.8
M 114.11
A 107.8
R 100.5
L 93.2
O 88.7
W 83.12
E 70.10
W 57.8
R 44.13
O 39.9
T 34.5
E 32.8
T 30.11
H 29.10
I 28.9
S 27.9

The resulting message is KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.

Why is this not a valid cipher? There is no unambiguous rule or key that
determines the location of the letters that are selected. Rather, Peter
arbitrarily changes the intervals between the letters he is selecting in
order to force the kind of result he wishes to find. Peter speaks of the
"sections" of the "zigzag" that comprises his message as having equally
spaced intervals, but the sections are very short. "KITM" and "MARL," at
4-letters in length, are the longest "sections" in Peter's message. The
minimum possible length for any section is 2, so a 4-letter maximum does
not seem extraordinary, and two of Peter's sections are at the minimum
possible length. Here are his sections with their respective lengths:

4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 IS

The message is 19 letters long, but since the letters at the ends of the
sections within the message are counted twice, the sum of the zigzag
section lengths is 27. There are 9 sections in Peter's message, giving
him an average section length of 3.00.

Peter's loosest "rule" or "key" -- the one used to choose the final "S" --
seems to allow picking any letter at any interval so long as it is in a
row below the previous one. Peter had 29 different S's to choose from
that were below the "I" in "THIS". Using his loosest "rule" it would be
possible to construct many kinds of messages. Given that the minimum
average section length is 2, an average of 3.00 seems unimpressive. In
fact, the average length declines throughout Peter's zigzag; each segment
after the second one reduces the average further.
It also needs to be pointed out that with nine sections of zigzag there
is an average of exactly three equally spaced letters on each section -
I maintain that it is a virtual impossibility to find any other such
highly ordered message in the grid using the same method. It might be
possible to concoct some rather weird, meaningless and short message -
but even so, there is no way the average number of letters per section
would anywhere close to three.
Peter's requirements seemed arbitrary. Suppose I had found an alternative
message that was comparable in overall length but had a slightly lower
average section length - say 2.80 to Peter's 3.00. On what basis would
his be declared the on that had been intentionally placed into the
*Sonnets* by their author or arranger? Still, I thought I could meet his
challenge without too much difficulty.

I thought the easiest way would be to find a word or phrase to add to the
beginning or end of Peter's message that would change its meaning.
Peter's final word "this" seemed open-ended: "this" what? There could be
a noun or noun phrase that could be added after "this" that would turn the
message around. On the other hand, it might be possible to find something
to insert before his message that would turn it into indirect discourse;
something such as "You'd have to be a fool to believe that ..."

I wrote a little script that searched for strings, and I played around
with the array; the result may be seen here:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html

Where Peter had found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS," I found "TWITS WISH" to
stick at the head of his message, revealing that what he had found was
merely a subset of the true message:

TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.

Here are the locations for the letters I inserted before Peter's:

T 148.12
W 146.12
I 144.12
T 142.12
S 138.7
W 137.7
I 136.7
S 135.7
H 134.7

Here are the sections and their lengths for the full message:

4 TWIT
2 TS
5 SWISH
2 HK
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 THIS

My message is at least as meaningful as Peter's, but it is 47% longer (28
letters compared to his 19), and it has a longer average section length
(40 letters in 13 sections gives an average length of 3.08, compared to
Peter's 3.00). What Peter had declared was a "virtual impossibility"
proved to be easy to do, and within a day of Peter's sending me the
details of his proposed "cipher," I had sent him my refutation.

The news for me was not that Peter had failed to find a demonstrably valid
cipher. As I told the members of the Shakespeare Fellowship when I spoke
at their conference in October, one useful notion to keep in mind whenever
one is faced with a proposed Shakespearean "cipher" is that the "cipher"
is probably not valid. There have been innumerable claims to have found
Shakespearean ciphers in the last 120 years or so, and I don't know of any
one of them that can be shown to be valid. Similar claims will continue
to be made, and it is very likely that most if not all of the proposed
ciphers will also turn out not to be valid.

Thus even before I looked at Peter's "cipher," I thought it was likely
that it was not valid; I also thought it would not be hard to show the
invalidity; but I thought it was extremely doubtful that I could ever
persuade Peter. Instead, to my surprise, he made a very gracious
concession. The usual reaction I get from people who think they have
found valid ciphers, and whose methods I have looked at and found wanting,
is that I must be blind, that I lack imagination, or that I have an
insufficient appreciation of the Elizabethan fondness for something or
other.

Let me not overestimate the extent of Peter's concession. He still thinks
he has found SOMETHING, and he will send me more details of the "special
form of cryptogram" (albeit not a demonstrably valid cipher) that he
thinks lurks in the *Sonnets*. I doubt he has found anything other than
what he has projected onto an innocent set of letters, but I will take a
look. I think the shift from "cipher" to "cryptogram" is probably an
attempt to avoid having to make a case; Peter may think the rules for
"cryptograms" are so loose that he can get away with whatever he wants,
but this dodge will not save him, and it demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptography.

I have taken a look at Peter's page wherein he used to make these claims
about his "cipher":

"This message is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of
cryptology."

"The form of the message is cryptologically sound in its own right."

The page has since been revised, but Peter says nothing about his now
knowing that his earlier claims were false. In fact, one would never know
that Peter had ever changed his mind at all. Peter now says this:

"A sensational cryptogram is revealed by means of an acrostic letter grid,
in which 'Kit Marlowe' claims authorship of the Sonnets. The text of the
message is explicitly signalled and it also embodies cabalistic features
that prove its intentionality beyond doubt. The acrostic grid also has
other underlying patterns pointing to Marlowe's claim to authorship."

http://www.masoncode.com/Marlowe%20wrote%20Shakespeare's%20Sonnets.htm

This is, of course, utter tosh, and more than a little misleading, since
Peter knows that there is an even more "sensational cryptogram" that
characterizes those who think Marlowe wrote the *Sonnets* as "twits."
Why does he hide this news from visitors to his site?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-11-25 13:50:36 UTC
Permalink
--------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

132 T K H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T I A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A T O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A M A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I A N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D R I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S L M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V O T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F W
----------------------------------
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over wrack,
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1850 Melville: "IN Shakespeare's TOMB LIES infinitely more than
Shakepeare EVER wrote. And if I magnify Shakepeare it is not so much
for what he did do but for what he did not do, or refrained from doing.
For in this world of LIES, TRUTH is forced to fly like a scared
white doe in the woodlands; and only by cunning glimspes
will she REVEal herself, as in Shakespeare.."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Titus Andronicus Act 2, Scene 3

TITUS ANDRONICUS:

For, by my father's r[EVEREND TOMB, I] vow

______________ "DE VERE IN TOMB"
______________ "MENTE VIDEBOR"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL
WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUICK, a. [As. cWic, CUCU, cWiCU, cWUCU, LIVING;
L. ViVus LIVING, VIVERE to LIVE]
--------------------------------------------------------------
As You Like It Act 5, Scene 1 SCENE I. The forest.

to[UC]h. So, so, is good, VERY good, VERY excellent good:
and yet it is not, it is but so, so: Art thou VVise?

VVIL[]L. I sir, I haue a prettie VVIT.

to[UC]h. VVhy, thou saist VVell. I do now remember a say-
ing: The Foole doth thinke he is VVise, but the VViseman
knowes himselfe to be a Foole. The Heathen Philoso-
pher, VVhen he had a desire to eate a Grape, VVould open
his lips VVhen he put it into his mouth, meaning there-
by, that Grapes VVere made to eate, and lippes to open.
You do loue this maid?

VVIL[]L. I do sir.
to[UC]h. Giue me your hand: Art thou Learned?

VVIL[]L. No sir.
to[UC]h. Then learne this of me, To haue, is to haue.
For it is a figure in Rhetoricke, that drink being powr'd out
of a CUp into a glasse, by filling the one, doth empty the
other. For all your VVriters do consent, that ipse is hee:
now you are not ipse, for I am he.

VVIL[]L. VVhich he sir?
to[UC]h. He sir, that must marrie this VVoman: Therefore
you Clowne, abandon: VVhich is in the VULGAR, leaue the
societie: VVhich in the boorish, is companie, of this fe-
male: VVhich in the common, is VVoman: VVhich toge-
ther, is, abandon the society of this Female, or Clowne
thou perishest: or to thy better vnderstanding, dyest; or
(to VVIT) I kill thee, make thee away, translate thy life in-
to death, thy libertie into bondage:

I VVILL deale in poy-son VVITh thee, or in bastinado, or in steele:
I VVILL bandy VVITh thee in faction,
I VVILL ore-run thee VVITh policie:
I VVILL kill thee a hundred and fifty VVayes,
therefore trem-ble and depart.
----------------------------------------------
<<As You Like It (1936) is noteworthy for two reasons:
it was the first feature-length British sound
Shakespeare film - though it came after
Hollywood adaptations of The Taming of the Shrew (1929),
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935)
and Romeo and Juliet (1936) -
and it contains the earliest of Laurence Olivier's
Shakespeare performances to be recorded for posterity.

VVILLiam, a Country Fellow .... Peter Bull (actor)

Son of Sir VVILLiam Bull, MP for South Hammersmith
(& ELEANOR Bull?)

Art Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------
Post by Terry Ross
A few weeks ago, in a post that has disappeared from my server, Peter Bull
posted that he was now convinced that the message he thought he had found
in *Shakespeare's Sonnets* "has no validity as a cipher." See
I held off responding here in order to give people a chance (if they so
desired) to try their luck at Peter's Marlowe "cipher"; since nobody has
chimed in, I guess I may as well have my say.
Peter found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" in the first letters of the lines of
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*, and he believed that what he had found was a
genuine cipher. I looked at Peter's methods, and I was able to satisfy
myself that what he had found was NOT a genuine cipher, but when I told
Peter of my findings I was very surprised to hear him say that he agreed.
This is a very rare occurrence; in my experience, once a person has
persuaded himself that he has found a genuine Baconian or Oxfordian or
Marlite cipher in Shakespeare, he finds it almost impossible to surrender
his belief, even if his proposed cipher fails to meet the standards
described by William and Elizebeth Friedman in *The Shakespearean Ciphers
Examined*, and even if he himself claims to accept the soundness of the
Friedmans' methods.
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
This page contains an array of the first letters of each line of the
sonnets. The header row lists the numbers of the sonnet lines from 1 to
15 (Shakespeare's 99th sonnet is 15 lines long), and the first column
gives the number of each sonnet in descending order, from 154 down to 1.
If you look in the line for sonnet 132, in the column for sonnet-line 2,
you will see a red "K"; this is the first letter in Peter's message.
Let's call this position 132.2 (i.e., the position containing the first
letter of the second line of sonnet 132). At 126.5 there is an "I"; at
120.8 there is a "T"; at 114.11 there is an "M". Notice that the letters
K-I-T-M are separated by the same interval; for any letter, the next one
is 6 rows down and 3 columns to the right.
The interval now changes. The next letter is the "A" at 107.8, which is 7
columns down and 3 to the left of the "M" at 114.11; then comes "R" at
100.5 and "L" at 93.2. Then the interval changes again. Here are all the
K 132.2
I 126.5
T 120.8
M 114.11
A 107.8
R 100.5
L 93.2
O 88.7
W 83.12
E 70.10
W 57.8
R 44.13
O 39.9
T 34.5
E 32.8
T 30.11
H 29.10
I 28.9
S 27.9
The resulting message is KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.
Why is this not a valid cipher? There is no unambiguous rule or key that
determines the location of the letters that are selected. Rather, Peter
arbitrarily changes the intervals between the letters he is selecting in
order to force the kind of result he wishes to find. Peter speaks of the
"sections" of the "zigzag" that comprises his message as having equally
spaced intervals, but the sections are very short. "KITM" and "MARL," at
4-letters in length, are the longest "sections" in Peter's message. The
minimum possible length for any section is 2, so a 4-letter maximum does
not seem extraordinary, and two of Peter's sections are at the minimum
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 IS
The message is 19 letters long, but since the letters at the ends of the
sections within the message are counted twice, the sum of the zigzag
section lengths is 27. There are 9 sections in Peter's message, giving
him an average section length of 3.00.
Peter's loosest "rule" or "key" -- the one used to choose the final "S" --
seems to allow picking any letter at any interval so long as it is in a
row below the previous one. Peter had 29 different S's to choose from
that were below the "I" in "THIS". Using his loosest "rule" it would be
possible to construct many kinds of messages. Given that the minimum
average section length is 2, an average of 3.00 seems unimpressive. In
fact, the average length declines throughout Peter's zigzag; each segment
after the second one reduces the average further.
It also needs to be pointed out that with nine sections of zigzag there
is an average of exactly three equally spaced letters on each section -
I maintain that it is a virtual impossibility to find any other such
highly ordered message in the grid using the same method. It might be
possible to concoct some rather weird, meaningless and short message -
but even so, there is no way the average number of letters per section
would anywhere close to three.
Peter's requirements seemed arbitrary. Suppose I had found an alternative
message that was comparable in overall length but had a slightly lower
average section length - say 2.80 to Peter's 3.00. On what basis would
his be declared the on that had been intentionally placed into the
*Sonnets* by their author or arranger? Still, I thought I could meet his
challenge without too much difficulty.
I thought the easiest way would be to find a word or phrase to add to the
beginning or end of Peter's message that would change its meaning.
Peter's final word "this" seemed open-ended: "this" what? There could be
a noun or noun phrase that could be added after "this" that would turn the
message around. On the other hand, it might be possible to find something
to insert before his message that would turn it into indirect discourse;
something such as "You'd have to be a fool to believe that ..."
I wrote a little script that searched for strings, and I played around
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Where Peter had found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS,"
I found "TWITS WISH" to stick at the head of his message,
revealing that what he had found was
TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.
T 148.12
W 146.12
I 144.12
T 142.12
S 138.7
W 137.7
I 136.7
S 135.7
H 134.7
4 TWIT
2 TS
5 SWISH
2 HK
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 THIS
My message is at least as meaningful as Peter's, but it is 47% longer (28
letters compared to his 19), and it has a longer average section length
(40 letters in 13 sections gives an average length of 3.08, compared to
Peter's 3.00). What Peter had declared was a "virtual impossibility"
proved to be easy to do, and within a day of Peter's sending me the
details of his proposed "cipher," I had sent him my refutation.
The news for me was not that Peter had failed to find a demonstrably valid
cipher. As I told the members of the Shakespeare Fellowship when I spoke
at their conference in October, one useful notion to keep in mind whenever
one is faced with a proposed Shakespearean "cipher" is that the "cipher"
is probably not valid. There have been innumerable claims to have found
Shakespearean ciphers in the last 120 years or so, and I don't know of any
one of them that can be shown to be valid. Similar claims will continue
to be made, and it is very likely that most if not all of the proposed
ciphers will also turn out not to be valid.
Thus even before I looked at Peter's "cipher," I thought it was likely
that it was not valid; I also thought it would not be hard to show the
invalidity; but I thought it was extremely doubtful that I could ever
persuade Peter. Instead, to my surprise, he made a very gracious
concession. The usual reaction I get from people who think they have
found valid ciphers, and whose methods I have looked at and found wanting,
is that I must be blind, that I lack imagination, or that I have an
insufficient appreciation of the Elizabethan fondness for something or
other.
Let me not overestimate the extent of Peter's concession. He still thinks
he has found SOMETHING, and he will send me more details of the "special
form of cryptogram" (albeit not a demonstrably valid cipher) that he
thinks lurks in the *Sonnets*. I doubt he has found anything other than
what he has projected onto an innocent set of letters, but I will take a
look. I think the shift from "cipher" to "cryptogram" is probably an
attempt to avoid having to make a case; Peter may think the rules for
"cryptograms" are so loose that he can get away with whatever he wants,
but this dodge will not save him, and it demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptography.
I have taken a look at Peter's page wherein he used to make these claims
"This message is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of
cryptology."
"The form of the message is cryptologically sound in its own right."
The page has since been revised, but Peter says nothing about his now
knowing that his earlier claims were false. In fact, one would never know
"A sensational cryptogram is revealed by means of an acrostic letter grid,
in which 'Kit Marlowe' claims authorship of the Sonnets. The text of the
message is explicitly signalled and it also embodies cabalistic features
that prove its intentionality beyond doubt. The acrostic grid also has
other underlying patterns pointing to Marlowe's claim to authorship."
http://www.masoncode.com/Marlowe%20wrote%20Shakespeare's%20Sonnets.htm
This is, of course, utter tosh, and more than a little misleading, since
Peter knows that there is an even more "sensational cryptogram" that
characterizes those who think Marlowe wrote the *Sonnets* as "twits."
Why does he hide this news from visitors to his site?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
richard kennedy
2004-11-28 05:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.

Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.

For this touch of grace, Ross then puts Bull in the company of
"twits."

Ross fancies himself an expert in cryptography, and I suppose
he knows no more than I do. Therefore, a challenge. If Ross
would like to discuss the Scudamore poem, as printed and
discussed by the Friedmans, I'll defend the acrostic spelled
out, and he may take Friedman's argument or invent one of his
own. Let him begin, he seems to have time for such foolery.
Post by Terry Ross
A few weeks ago, in a post that has disappeared from my server, Peter Bull
posted that he was now convinced that the message he thought he had found
in *Shakespeare's Sonnets* "has no validity as a cipher." See
I held off responding here in order to give people a chance (if they so
desired) to try their luck at Peter's Marlowe "cipher"; since nobody has
chimed in, I guess I may as well have my say.
Peter found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" in the first letters of the lines of
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*, and he believed that what he had found was a
genuine cipher. I looked at Peter's methods, and I was able to satisfy
myself that what he had found was NOT a genuine cipher, but when I told
Peter of my findings I was very surprised to hear him say that he agreed.
This is a very rare occurrence; in my experience, once a person has
persuaded himself that he has found a genuine Baconian or Oxfordian or
Marlite cipher in Shakespeare, he finds it almost impossible to surrender
his belief, even if his proposed cipher fails to meet the standards
described by William and Elizebeth Friedman in *The Shakespearean Ciphers
Examined*, and even if he himself claims to accept the soundness of the
Friedmans' methods.
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
This page contains an array of the first letters of each line of the
sonnets. The header row lists the numbers of the sonnet lines from 1 to
15 (Shakespeare's 99th sonnet is 15 lines long), and the first column
gives the number of each sonnet in descending order, from 154 down to 1.
If you look in the line for sonnet 132, in the column for sonnet-line 2,
you will see a red "K"; this is the first letter in Peter's message.
Let's call this position 132.2 (i.e., the position containing the first
letter of the second line of sonnet 132). At 126.5 there is an "I"; at
120.8 there is a "T"; at 114.11 there is an "M". Notice that the letters
K-I-T-M are separated by the same interval; for any letter, the next one
is 6 rows down and 3 columns to the right.
The interval now changes. The next letter is the "A" at 107.8, which is 7
columns down and 3 to the left of the "M" at 114.11; then comes "R" at
100.5 and "L" at 93.2. Then the interval changes again. Here are all the
K 132.2
I 126.5
T 120.8
M 114.11
A 107.8
R 100.5
L 93.2
O 88.7
W 83.12
E 70.10
W 57.8
R 44.13
O 39.9
T 34.5
E 32.8
T 30.11
H 29.10
I 28.9
S 27.9
The resulting message is KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.
Why is this not a valid cipher? There is no unambiguous rule or key that
determines the location of the letters that are selected. Rather, Peter
arbitrarily changes the intervals between the letters he is selecting in
order to force the kind of result he wishes to find. Peter speaks of the
"sections" of the "zigzag" that comprises his message as having equally
spaced intervals, but the sections are very short. "KITM" and "MARL," at
4-letters in length, are the longest "sections" in Peter's message. The
minimum possible length for any section is 2, so a 4-letter maximum does
not seem extraordinary, and two of Peter's sections are at the minimum
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 IS
The message is 19 letters long, but since the letters at the ends of the
sections within the message are counted twice, the sum of the zigzag
section lengths is 27. There are 9 sections in Peter's message, giving
him an average section length of 3.00.
Peter's loosest "rule" or "key" -- the one used to choose the final "S" --
seems to allow picking any letter at any interval so long as it is in a
row below the previous one. Peter had 29 different S's to choose from
that were below the "I" in "THIS". Using his loosest "rule" it would be
possible to construct many kinds of messages. Given that the minimum
average section length is 2, an average of 3.00 seems unimpressive. In
fact, the average length declines throughout Peter's zigzag; each segment
after the second one reduces the average further.
It also needs to be pointed out that with nine sections of zigzag there
is an average of exactly three equally spaced letters on each section -
I maintain that it is a virtual impossibility to find any other such
highly ordered message in the grid using the same method. It might be
possible to concoct some rather weird, meaningless and short message -
but even so, there is no way the average number of letters per section
would anywhere close to three.
Peter's requirements seemed arbitrary. Suppose I had found an alternative
message that was comparable in overall length but had a slightly lower
average section length - say 2.80 to Peter's 3.00. On what basis would
his be declared the on that had been intentionally placed into the
*Sonnets* by their author or arranger? Still, I thought I could meet his
challenge without too much difficulty.
I thought the easiest way would be to find a word or phrase to add to the
beginning or end of Peter's message that would change its meaning.
Peter's final word "this" seemed open-ended: "this" what? There could be
a noun or noun phrase that could be added after "this" that would turn the
message around. On the other hand, it might be possible to find something
to insert before his message that would turn it into indirect discourse;
something such as "You'd have to be a fool to believe that ..."
I wrote a little script that searched for strings, and I played around
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Where Peter had found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS," I found "TWITS WISH" to
stick at the head of his message, revealing that what he had found was
TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.
T 148.12
W 146.12
I 144.12
T 142.12
S 138.7
W 137.7
I 136.7
S 135.7
H 134.7
4 TWIT
2 TS
5 SWISH
2 HK
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 THIS
My message is at least as meaningful as Peter's, but it is 47% longer (28
letters compared to his 19), and it has a longer average section length
(40 letters in 13 sections gives an average length of 3.08, compared to
Peter's 3.00). What Peter had declared was a "virtual impossibility"
proved to be easy to do, and within a day of Peter's sending me the
details of his proposed "cipher," I had sent him my refutation.
The news for me was not that Peter had failed to find a demonstrably valid
cipher. As I told the members of the Shakespeare Fellowship when I spoke
at their conference in October, one useful notion to keep in mind whenever
one is faced with a proposed Shakespearean "cipher" is that the "cipher"
is probably not valid. There have been innumerable claims to have found
Shakespearean ciphers in the last 120 years or so, and I don't know of any
one of them that can be shown to be valid. Similar claims will continue
to be made, and it is very likely that most if not all of the proposed
ciphers will also turn out not to be valid.
Thus even before I looked at Peter's "cipher," I thought it was likely
that it was not valid; I also thought it would not be hard to show the
invalidity; but I thought it was extremely doubtful that I could ever
persuade Peter. Instead, to my surprise, he made a very gracious
concession. The usual reaction I get from people who think they have
found valid ciphers, and whose methods I have looked at and found wanting,
is that I must be blind, that I lack imagination, or that I have an
insufficient appreciation of the Elizabethan fondness for something or
other.
Let me not overestimate the extent of Peter's concession. He still thinks
he has found SOMETHING, and he will send me more details of the "special
form of cryptogram" (albeit not a demonstrably valid cipher) that he
thinks lurks in the *Sonnets*. I doubt he has found anything other than
what he has projected onto an innocent set of letters, but I will take a
look. I think the shift from "cipher" to "cryptogram" is probably an
attempt to avoid having to make a case; Peter may think the rules for
"cryptograms" are so loose that he can get away with whatever he wants,
but this dodge will not save him, and it demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptography.
I have taken a look at Peter's page wherein he used to make these claims
"This message is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of
cryptology."
"The form of the message is cryptologically sound in its own right."
The page has since been revised, but Peter says nothing about his now
knowing that his earlier claims were false. In fact, one would never know
"A sensational cryptogram is revealed by means of an acrostic letter grid,
in which 'Kit Marlowe' claims authorship of the Sonnets. The text of the
message is explicitly signalled and it also embodies cabalistic features
that prove its intentionality beyond doubt. The acrostic grid also has
other underlying patterns pointing to Marlowe's claim to authorship."
http://www.masoncode.com/Marlowe%20wrote%20Shakespeare's%20Sonnets.htm
This is, of course, utter tosh, and more than a little misleading, since
Peter knows that there is an even more "sensational cryptogram" that
characterizes those who think Marlowe wrote the *Sonnets* as "twits."
Why does he hide this news from visitors to his site?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-11-28 09:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.
For this touch of grace,
Ross then puts Bull in the company of "twits."
Peter Bull (assuming that he is a real Marlovian) deserves to be
called a "twit" if he was convinced by Ross's pathetic argument.

------------------------------------------------------------

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

137 T T T Y I B[W]W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I[I]A[T]T F T
135 W A M[T]W N[S]A[T]A S O
134 S A M[T]B F[H]V[T]T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T[I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
------------------------------------
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK,
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
--------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
2004-11-28 15:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.
For this touch of grace,
Ross then puts Bull in the company of "twits."
Peter Bull (assuming that he is a real Marlovian) deserves to be called
a "twit" if he was convinced by Ross's pathetic argument.
The argument was not "pathetic"; there was no particular appeal to the
emotions, but rather I showed that according to the standards Peter Bull
himself proposed, my solution was superior to his.

Peter Bull:

I maintain that it is a virtual impossibility to find any other
such highly ordered message in the grid using the same method.
It might be possible to concoct some rather weird, meaningless
and short message - but even so, there is no way the average
number of letters per section would anywhere close to three.

The message "TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" is no weirder and is at
least as meaningful as "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS"; the fuller message is 47%
longer, AND it has a higher "average number of letters per section" (3.08
compared to Peter's 3.00).

Peter Farey independently found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE BADLY" and "KIT MARLOWE
WRIT HONESTLY" -- each of which is meaningful, is longer than Peter Bull's
message, and has an "average number of letters per section" that is just a
tad under 3.00 (2.82 and 2.91, respectively).

Thus Peter Bull's claim has been refuted, as he has gracefully conceded.

Unfortunately, Peter still believes that "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" -- sans
the prefixes and suffixes suggested by Peter Farey and me -- is a genuine
"cryptogram" that was deliberately concealed by Christopher Marlowe. He
has no rational basis for this belief that I can see, but at least he has
dropped the claim that what he found in his word-find game was "a message
[that] is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of cryptology."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-11-28 16:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by richard kennedy
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bringing London's History Alive
By RICHARD LOURIE
Published NY Times, November 28, 2004

<<It is in the specialized tours that the talents and passions of the
Blue Badge Guide [http://www.blue-badge-guides.com] come to the
fore. For example, Guide No. 1609, the effervescent, erudite,
eccentric Simon Rodway, not only creates his own tours but will,
with reasonable notice, also tailor one to a client's own tastes
and interests. His walks last from an hour to an hour and a half
and adhere to his principle that the distance covered should
not exceed that between subway stops. Mr. Rodway's walk
entitled "Will on the Hill" brings Shakespeare's success to
life by saying that he was rich enough to have a hedgehog
in his kitchen to eat the cockroaches. >>
-----------------------------------------------------
PALINDROME: "GIPSY'S PIG" the hedgehog. (OED2)
-----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Weir wrote HLAS:
.
<<I just stumbled on to a recipe in the OED, of all places.
It described this dish in which almonds were stuck into
slits in hog jowls. It was called 'Urchin' which evokes
both baked hedgehog (herchin) and sea Urchin. >>
-----------------------------------------------------
As Francis Bacon, in Sylva Sylvorum, a natural historic,
observes, " The Bear, the Hedgehog. . . . wax fat when they Sleep."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Urchin, n. [OE. urchon, irchon, a hedgehog, OF. ire[,c]on, eri[,c]on,
heri?on, herichon, F. h['e]risson, a derivative fr. L. ericius, from
er a hedgehog, for her; akin to Gr. ?. Cf. {Herisson}.]

1. A hedgehog.

3. A mischievous elf supposed sometimes to take the form a hedgehog.

``We 'll dress [them] like Urchins, ouphes, and fairies.'' --Shak.
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her
flamingo: she succeeded in getting its body tucked away,
comfortably enough, under her arm, with its legs hanging down,
but generally, just as she had got its neck nicely straightened
out, and was going to give the hedgehog a blow with its head,
it would twist itself round and look up in her face, with
such a puzzled expression that she could not help bursting out
laughing: and when she had got its head down, and was going to
begin again, it was very provoking to find that the hedgehog had
unrolled itself, and was in the act of crawling away: besides all
this, there was generally a ridge or furrow in the way wherever
she wanted to send the hedgehog to, and, as the doubled-up
soldiers were always getting up and walking off to other parts
of the ground, Alice soon came to the conclusion
that it was a very difficult game indeed.

'I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a
complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't
hear oneself speak--and they don't seem to have any rules in
particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them--and
you've no idea how confusing it is all the things being alive;
for instance, there's the arch I've got to go through next
walking about at the other end of the ground--and
I should have croqueted the Queen's hedgehog just now,
only it ran away when it saw mine coming!'

The hedgehog was engaged in a fight with another hedgehog,
which seemed to Alice an excellent opportunity for croqueting one
of them with the other: the only difficulty was, that her flamingo
was gone across to the other side of the garden, where Alice
could see it trying in a helpless sort of way to fly up into a tree.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by richard kennedy
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.
For this touch of grace,
Ross then puts Bull in the company of "twits."
Peter Bull (assuming that he is a real Marlovian) deserves to be
called a "twit" if he was convinced by Ross's pathetic argument.
The argument was not "pathetic"; there was no particular appeal to the
emotions, but rather I showed that according to the standards Peter Bull
himself proposed, my solution was superior to his.
Unfortunately, Peter still believes that "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" -- sans
the prefixes and suffixes suggested by Peter Farey and me -- is a genuine
"cryptogram" that was deliberately concealed by Christopher Marlowe. He
has no rational basis for this belief that I can see, but at least he has
dropped the claim that what he found in his word-find game was "a message
[that] is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of cryptology."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Peter <***@tnn.net>,

You wrote HLAS:

<<A few weeks ago I wrote a thread related to a cipher message
I believed I'd found written into an acrostic letter grid derived from
the Sonnets, attributing authorship to Marlowe. Since then I have been
corresponding with Terry and trying to prove to him the validity of my
cipher. Unfortunately for me, Terry has been able to turn the tables
and convince me instead that the message has no validity as a cipher.
Following the same rules that I used to discover the message, Terry
was able to prefix it with the two words "TWITS WISH . . ." He thereby
demonstrated that my methodology was far too loose to constitute
legitimate ciphering ( and made me look rather foolish at the same
time). However I do have reasons for believing that the message
may yet be justified, albeit by different criteria
(as a special form of cryptogram).>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Indeed! The name is the important & unambiguous part.

Besides: "TWIT" wasn't a noun in Shakespeare's day
(WIT was however).

Your 14 letter "TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW" is somewhat
less impressive but quite similar to John Rollett's 15 letter
discovery of HENRY-WR-IOTH-ESLEY in the
Sonnets dedication (: i.e., a name closely associated
with William Shakespeare which is broken into 4 pieces).

Rollett's solution is clearly statistically significant
in its own right. Your "TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW"
is probably statistically significant as well given
the apriori existence & legitimacy of Rollett's find.
----------------------------------
TIK: (Dutch) count, knock, tick.
----------------------------------
Love's Labour's Lost Act 3, Scene 1

BIRON : I seek a wife!
A woman, that is like a German clock,
Still a-repairing, ever out of frame,
And never going aright, being a watch,
But being watch'd that it may still go right!
----------------------------------
The Watch that Was Hatched from the "Nuremburg Egg"
http://www.love-watches.com/Invention-Watch.htm

<<"Every day," wrote Johannes Coeuleus, in 1511,
"produces more ingenious inventions. A clever and comparatively young
man--Peter Henlein--creates works that are the admiration of leading
mathematicians, for, out of a little iron he constructs clocks with
numerous wheels, which, without any impulse and in any position,
indicate time for forty hours and strike, and which can be
carried in the purse as well as in the pocket."

It is said that Edward VI was the first Englishman to possess a watch.
Mary Queen of Scots had a small watch shaped like a skull-
-a cheerful fashion of the time.

Queen Elizabeth and her court selected watches as modern women do their
hats--to match their various costumes. These watches were usually worn on a
chain or ribbon round the neck and were largely for display. Several outside
cases were often supplied with watches of that period, and they were made
to fit on over that which held the works; these were variously ornamented
with jewels, tortoise-shell and intricate pierced work in gold, almost as
delicate as lace. The covers were decorated with miniature paintings.>>
----------------------------------
[T]ou wilt restore, to be my comfort still:
[I]s't not enough to torture me alone,
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK, [short sonnet!]
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
------------------------------------------------------------
[W]hy of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
[I]n things of great receipt with ease we prove
[S]hall Will in others seem right gracious,
[H]e learn'd but surety-like to write for me
------------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

137 T T T Y I B[W]W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I[I]A[T]T F T
135 W A M[T]W N[S]A[T]A S O
134 S A M[T]B F[H]V[T]T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T[I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
--------------------------
Sincerely Yours,

Art Neuendorffer
richard kennedy
2004-11-28 23:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to
debate the Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh
my memory of the arguments on either side, and found that in
discussing the matter with Ross, he advanced his debating technique
in this way.

"…let us not give up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen
off the wagon, torn up the pledge.'

"…you might want to lay off the loco weed…"

"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and
have it looked at."

"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have
been in recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the
livestock again?"

Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had
forgotten his style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and
schoolboy waggery. Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion
of the Scudamore cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who
supposes such pandering repartee to be scholarship and a display
of his wit.

Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.

We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s. The cipher spells out the name of Edward
de Vere. Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers
out the name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the
point, and the original solution stands.
Terry Ross
2004-11-30 20:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to debate the
Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh my memory of the
arguments on either side, and found that in discussing the matter with
Ross, he advanced his debating technique in this way.
"…let us not give up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen off the
wagon, torn up the pledge.'
The entire post from which Richard quotes is available here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-***@mail.bcpl.net

I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.
"…you might want to lay off the loco weed…"
Let's see a bit more context on this one:

==================================
But the Scudamore
Terry:

At last you admit that Gascoigne's poem is for John Scudamore. I guess it
finally dawned on you that Scudamore = l'escu d'amor = shield of love.
Thus is Scudamore's name both ciphered and deciphered in the poem's very
first line.
poem is a cud for Terry Ross to chew, and he can chew it for a long,
long time without doing any better than the solution we have, and at
long last he must stomach it though it settle like sour ball in his
guts.
Terry:

Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in recent
contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock again? How
many times do I have to tell you: alfalfa good; sour balls bad. I guess
we know now why the milk went bad so quickly. And don't let the the
cattle graze in the loco weed again (come to think of it, you might want
to lay off the loco weed yourself).

=================

It all seems rather mild by newsgroup standards -- certainly milder than
many of Richard's own posts -- and he probably SHOULD lay off the loco
weed.
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."
Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"
See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had forgotten his
style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and schoolboy waggery.
Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion of the Scudamore
cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who supposes such pandering
repartee to be scholarship and a display of his wit.
Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
own repartee:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7v62ms%247re%***@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net

Noel Coward he ain't.
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book-- if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.
The title of the poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his
name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth."

Gascoigne wrote a number of poems for other people, as he tells us, and
this one seems to have been written for Sir John Scudamore -- variations
on the family name and motto appear in the poem's first two lines.

L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,

As the Friedmans note, "One of the most plausible theories put forward so
far is the work of Prof. Charles T. Prouty. In *A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowers* (University of Missouri Studies, 1942) he clarifies the enigma by
suggesting that the name 'in ciphers' is Scudamore. The motto of the
Scudamore family was a pun on their name, 'Scuto Amoris Divini'; the poem
parallels this by beginning with the words 'L'Escu d'amor'."
The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.
It does not. Have you even read the poem? The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.
Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.
The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted.
Ward's method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key
selects the positions of the letters to be selected.

The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.

This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
as many of the names that can be found in it by the string-cipher method:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.

Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.

The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
say this about their "Lewis Carroll" solution:

"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."

Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.

I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-11-30 20:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Gee, Terry; how come you'll talk to Richard and not me.

Scared?

Art
Terry Ross
2004-11-30 22:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Gee, Terry; how come you'll talk to Richard and not me.
Art, believe I have responded to you more than to anyone else (and on two
different forums) the last few weeks.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Scared?
That must be it.

I see you've been playing with Peter Bull's array and your favorite
statistical toy, but you seem to be relying on Peter's counts, which may
not be accurate. How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments"
comprising the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array of
first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-01 00:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Gee, Terry; how come you'll talk to Richard and not me.
Art, believe I have responded to you more than to anyone
else (and on two different forums) the last few weeks.
You should talk to your wife more then.
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Scared?
That must be it.
That's what I figured.
Post by Terry Ross
I see you've been playing with Peter Bull's array and your favorite
statistical toy, but you seem to be relying on Peter's counts, which may
not be accurate. How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments"
comprising the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
I haven't taken anyone's word.

I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations.
What would you calculate?
---------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

<= 12 =>

137 T T T Y I B W W W W O T
136 I S A T W I I A T T F T
135 W A M T W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability ~ 1/760
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):

4 K's
68 M's
41 L's

This automatically gives:

4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
68 x 41 "M-L" pairs

However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns

Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
in the Bull array

"K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
"M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
----------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
to count (for whole 14 lines):

50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)

"IT" probability: 50/4000
"AR" probability: 8/4000
"OW" probability: 31/4000
----------------------------------------------------
Now applying the

"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500

to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings

gives [E]xpected [V]alue of

"KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
"MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500

Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
-------------------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!

For these two strings to share the SAME "M"

"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:

[L]M T F T I I
F A F T W I T
S S S A W B A
N I A A C G T
A S A T T A I
A V A W V[O]T
A T M F A T A
B T M W A N G
W R A I A T I

Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.

How does this compare with and
expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
the final "OW" is ~0.39

"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760

A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now things get interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:

<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.

2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"

The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":

S
A M
A M[T]
F[I]B M
[K]H L A B
A F T Y
C[I I]
I[I]
V [T] [T]

[T]

So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
[; ignoring the "K" & "T"]

Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
left right pairs in the "Bull array":
-----------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
-------------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s

~ 1 / (760 x 4700) ~1 / 3,600,000!!!
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
richard kennedy
2004-12-01 03:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown
as a Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward
de Vere solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed,
and the acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to
believe that its presence could be due to chance."

Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution. Greg
was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur. The
Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll solution.
That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away from the
poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.

I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business. The Scudamore poem
offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one of the claimants to
the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore, they went to a bunko
solution of the cipher.

The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA…
HAS BEEN OF INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."

The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship of
the Works of Shakespeare. If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a
poem, what matter? Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what
matter is that? It isn't even much of a poem, and would get little attention
except in the title we are told that the thing spells out a name in cipher.
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.

So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do. But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and
stands solid against the Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland
Ross wants to put in its place.

And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about
because the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem
of no worth in deciding the authorship question. Like Claudius, Ross is
frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford heats his trousers, his
cool is gone, and pissing on the cipher, or on me, is not going to help him.

-------------
Post by richard kennedy
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to
debate the Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh
my memory of the arguments on either side, and found that in
discussing the matter with Ross, he advanced his debating technique
in this way.
"?let us not give up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen
off the wagon, torn up the pledge.'
"?you might want to lay off the loco weed?"
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and
have it looked at."
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have
been in recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the
livestock again?"
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had
forgotten his style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and
schoolboy waggery. Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion
of the Scudamore cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who
supposes such pandering repartee to be scholarship and a display
of his wit.
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s. The cipher spells out the name of Edward
de Vere. Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers
out the name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the
point, and the original solution stands.
Terry Ross
2004-12-01 18:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown as a
Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward de Vere
solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed, and the
acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to believe
that its presence could be due to chance."
Greg's reluctance, such as it was (and it would be unwise to exaggerate
it), could have been overcome. He did not, at that time, have the benefit
of Prouty's explanation of the poem's real ciphering (Scudamore == L'escu
d'amour == the shield of love) or of the Friedmans' demonstration that
other names could be found following Ward's methods.

Greg did NOT, by the way, think Oxford had written that poem -- or any of
the poems Ward tried to steal from Gascoigne. Even if the acrostic had
been genuine (which it is not), that would not mean that it was a
signature.
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution.
Indeed one does not -- all one needs to know is that Gascoigne from time
to time wrote poems on behalf of other people, and (to identify the
"absent lover") that Sir John Scudamore's family name and motto could have
to do with a "shield of love." Even if one has not made the
"Scudamore/l'escu d'amour/shield of love" connection, there is still no
reason whatsoever for stealing some of Gascoigne's poems and assigning them
to Oxford.
Greg was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur.
Greg thoroughly debunked ward's "case" for Oxford's contribution to
Gascoigne's *Hundreth Sundrie Flowres*. Prouty was no cryptographer, but
he deciphered Gascoigne's light cipher. The Friedmans, of course, WERE
experts, but one does not have to be an expert to be able to understand
their analysis.
The Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll
solution. That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away
from the poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.
No, they offered the "Lewis Carroll" as one counterexample -- only one is
needed -- but they said that it would be easy to find others. I have
followed their lead and found the names or titles of some of Gascoigne's
contemporaries (and more could be found) as well as the names of people
who lived long after. See some examples here:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

If an amateur such as I am could use Ward's methods and find several names
other than "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll," then perhaps the amateur
Richard Kennedy could find still more names.

If Ward had found a genuine cipher, finding multiple solutions would have
been impossible. Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and
title.

E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
D enying duty, where to I am bound:
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
R ight well I might refrayne to handle pen:
D enouncing aye the company of men.

D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his fame whom Honnor dooth imbrace.

V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
E xampled by your deeds of lasting fame:
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.

E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
A s though I should encroche for priuate gayne:
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.

O r once can say, he deales with flatterye:
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.

O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
X ephirus blowe your Fame to Orient skyes:
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
O r Hanniball loe Hercules in place:
R ing foorth (I say) his Fame both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.

Anybody who takes the first letter of each line will get the same answer
as anybody else who applies the same technique. You will NOT get "Lewis
Carroll" or "Edward Sibthorpe" or "Edith Sitwell" -- a few of the many
names that can be found if looks for a string-(non)cipher in Gascoigne's
poem, as Ward did.
I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business.
If you had read the book you would know that they discuss another invalid
Oxfordian cipher -- although most of their attention is devoted to
Baconian cipher-mongering.
The Scudamore poem offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one
of the claimants to the works, he must be put out of the way.
Therefore, they went to a bunko solution of the cipher.
There was no particular need to "put [Oxford] out of the way" since he was
never IN the way. Oxford never claimed to have written any of
Shakespeare's or Gascoigne's works. The Friedmans' interest in Ward's
string-cipher was an offshoot of their detailed examination of Baconian
string-ciphers.
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA… HAS BEEN OF
INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."
If you have read the book's dedication, why not read the rest of the book?
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship
of the Works of Shakespeare.
There is no genuine cipher of Oxford's name in Gascoigne's poem, but there
IS in the poem I quoted above, and that poem proves nothing at all
regarding Oxford's authorship of the works of Shakespeare OR of Oxford's
authorship of the poem that DID contain an acrostic on his name. In fact
the author of that poem was Anthony Munday.
If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a poem, what matter?
See Anthony Munday's poem, in which (unlike in Gascoigne's poem) Oxford's
name was deliberately placed by the author.
Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what matter is that?
No, there's no question who wrote the Gascoigne poem; it was George
Gascoigne.
It isn't even much of a poem,
The extended "shield of love" metaphor is reasonably well handled.
and would get little attention except in the title we are told that the
thing spells out a name in cipher.
It gets some attention from readers of Gascoigne's works -- a rather small
set. It gets more attention from Oxfordians who have for the better part
of a century allowed Ward's many, many, many errors and misreadings to
blind them.
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.
I'm sure Gascoigne hoped Scudamore would enjoy it.
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do.
Edward de Vere is not in the question. Ward was wrong to try to steal
some of Gascoigne's poems for Oxford, Greg dealt very well with Ward's
arguments in his review of the book. Prouty's work should have finished
off whatever was left of Ward's boo-boos, and the Friedmans' exploded
Ward's claim that he had found Oxford's name uniquely concealed.
But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and stands solid against the
Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland Ross wants to put in its
place.
I'm sure there are other Oxfordians who are as reluctant to give up the
theft from Gascoigne as you appear to be, and who are as incapable of
accepting Greg's, Prouty's, and the Friedmans' dismantling of Ward.
And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about because
the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem of no
worth in deciding the authorship question.
See the Munday poem, quoted above. I have no problem with Oxford's name
appearing in Munday's poem -- in fact, I have often uses it as an example
of a genuine cipher. Ward's string method, however, is demonstrably not
valid, as it may be used to produce multiple "solutions."
Like Claudius, Ross is frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford
heats his trousers, his cool is gone, and p*ss*ng on the cipher, or on
me, is not going to help him.
You must have seen a very strange production of *Hamlet*.

I see Richard has once again snipped my response to him so that he can
pretend in his usual fashion that his prose is unanswerable, rather than
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to debate the
Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh my memory of the
arguments on either side, and found that in discussing the matter with
Ross, he advanced his debating technique in this way.
" let us not give up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen off the
wagon, torn up the pledge.'
The entire post from which Richard quotes is available here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-1000
***@mail.bcpl.net

I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.
" you might want to lay off the loco weed "
Let's see a bit more context on this one:

========================= =========
But the Scudamore
Terry:

At last you admit that Gascoigne's poem is for John Scudamore. I guess it
finally dawned on you that Scudamore = l'escu d'amor = shield of love.
Thus is Scudamore's name both ciphered and deciphered in the poem's very
first line.
poem is a cud for Terry Ross to chew, and he can chew it for a long,
long time without doing any better than the solution we have, and at
long last he must stomach it though it settle like sour ball in his
guts.
Terry:

Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in recent
contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock again? How
many times do I have to tell you: alfalfa good; sour balls bad. I guess
we know now why the milk went bad so quickly. And don't let the the
cattle graze in the loco weed again (come to think of it, you might want
to lay off the loco weed yourself).

=================

It all seems rather mild by newsgroup standards -- certainly milder than
many of Richard's own posts -- and he probably SHOULD lay off the loco
weed.
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."
Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"
See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had forgotten his
style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and schoolboy waggery.
Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion of the Scudamore
cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who supposes such pandering
repartee to be scholarship and a display of his wit.
Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
own repartee:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7v62ms%247re%***@bgtnsc03.worldnet.a
tt.net

Noel Coward he ain't.
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book-- if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.
The title of the poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his
name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth."

Gascoigne wrote a number of poems for other people, as he tells us, and
this one seems to have been written for Sir John Scudamore -- variations
on the family name and motto appear in the poem's first two lines.

L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,

As the Friedmans note, "One of the most plausible theories put forward so
far is the work of Prof. Charles T. Prouty. In *A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowers* (University of Missouri Studies, 1942) he clarifies the enigma by
suggesting that the name 'in ciphers' is Scudamore. The motto of the
Scudamore family was a pun on their name, 'Scuto Amoris Divini'; the poem
parallels this by beginning with the words 'L'Escu d'amor'."
The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.
It does not. Have you even read the poem? The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.
Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.
The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted. Ward's
method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key selects the
positions of the letters to be selected.

The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.

This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
as many of the names that can be found in it by the string-cipher method:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.

Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.

The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
say this about their "Lewis Carroll" solution:

"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."

Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.

I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-03 23:36:27 UTC
Permalink
------------------------------------------------------------
dd VV-R-I-OTHES(l)EY
------------------------------------------------------------
_Faerie Queene_ Dedication
[http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/fqintro.html]

T(O)
THE MOST HIG(H),
MIGHTI(E)
an{d}
MAGNIFICEN(T)
EMPRESSE RENO(VV-)
MED FOR PIETIE, VE(R-)
TVE, AND ALL GRATIOV(S)
GOVERNMENT ELIZABETH B(Y)
THE GRACE OF GOD QVEEN(E)
OF ENGLAND FRAVNCE an{d}
IRELAND AND OF VIRG(I-)
NIA, DEFENDOVR OF THE
FAITH, &. HER MOST
HVMBLE SERVANT
EDMVND SPENSER
DOTH IN ALL HV-
MILITIE DEDI-
CATE, PRE-
SENT
AND CONSECRATE THESE
HIS LABOVRS TO LIVE
VVITH THE ETERNI-
TIE OF HER
FAME.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From the Ross/Kathman site
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/barksted.html

<<The Oxfordian reading of Barksted assumes that living poets were
never spoken of in terms that might also apply to the dead, but this
assumption is false. In fact, Shakespeare was apparently referred to as
dead as early as 1598, six years before Oxford died (and eighteen years
before Shakespeare himself died). Here is a passage from Richard
Barnfield's poem "A Remembrance of Some English Poets,"
which appeared in his Poems in DiVERs Humours (1598):

[BARNFIELD, RICHARD, 1605,
Remembrance of some English Poets. ]

"And Shakespeare thou, whose hony-flowing Vaine,
(Pleasing the World) thy Praises doth obtaine.
Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece (sweete, and chaste)
Thy Name in FAMES immortall Booke haue plac't.
LIVE EVER YOU, at least in FAME LIVE EVER:
Well may the Bodye DYE, but FAME DIES NEVER."

.. Not only does Barnfield seem to allude to
Shakespeare's death, but he says "live EVER" twice,
parallel to the "EVER-living" of the Sonnets dedication.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and title.
E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
D enying duty, where to I am bound:
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
R ight well I might refrayne to handle pen:
D enouncing aye the company of men.

D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his FAME whom Honnor dooth imbrace.

V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
E xampled by your deeds of lasting FAME:
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.

E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
A s though I should encroche for priuate gayne:
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.

O r once can say, he deales with flatterye:
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.

O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
X ephirus blowe your FAME to Orient skyes:
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
O r Hanniball loe Hercules in place:
R ing foorth (I say) his FAME both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.
-------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 3, Scene 1

PRINCE EDWARD:
That Julius Caesar was a FAMOUS man;
With what his valour did enrich his wit,
His wit set down to make his valour live
Death makes no conquest of this conqueror;
For now he lives in FAME, though not in life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Vere/1580s/1580.html

1580: *Dedication to Oxford* by Anthony Munday
in _Zelauto, The fountaine of *FAME* _ :

Not long it will be before the rest be finished and
the renowned *Palmerin of England* with all
speede shall be sent you. Thus praying for
your prosperitie, and the increase of your
Honourable dignitie: I commend your
woorthye state to the heauenly erernitie.

Your Honours moste dutifull
seruaunt at all assayes.
Antony Munday.
--------------------------------------------------
Samuel Taylor Coleridge epitaph

Stop, Christian passer-by: Stop, child of God,
And read, with gentle breast. Beneath this sod
A poet lies, or that which once seem'd he--
O, lift one thought in prayer for S. T. C.--
That he who many a year with toil of breath
Found death in life, may here find life in death:
Mercy for praise--to be forgiven for *FAME* --
He ask'd, and hoped through Christ. Do thou the same.
------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part ii Act 1, Scene 1

GLOUCESTER O peers of England, shameful is this league!
Fatal this marriage, cancelling your FAME,
Blotting your names from books of MEMORY,
Razing the characters of your renown,
Defacing monuments of conquer'd France,
Undoing all, as all had never been!
----------------------------------------------------------
Stanley TONG epitaph

Ask who lyes heare but do not weep
He is not dead he doth but sleep
This stoney register is for his BONES
His FAME is more perpetual than these STONES
And his own goodness with himself being gone
Shall lyve when earthlie monument is none

Not monumental stone preserve our FAME
Nor SKY aspyring PYRAMIDS our NAME
The MEMORY of Him for whom this stands
Shall outlive marble and defacers Hands
When all to tyme's consumption shall be geaven
Standley for whom this stands shall stand in Heaven.
----------------------------------------------------
John Milton (Second Folio)

What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd BONES,--
The LABOUR of an age in piled STONES?
Or that his hallow'd relics should be HID [HUT]
Under a STAR-y-pointing PYRAMID?
Dear son of *MEMORY*, great HEIR of FAME,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy NAME?
-----------------------------------------------------
SONNET 33

Full many a glorious morning have I seen
Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,

http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html

<= 33 =>

T OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
O NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
R NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
W IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTHEO /N/LIE BEG E. TTER [oF] THESEINS
UINGS /O/NNET SMRW\H\ ALLH [A] PPINESSE
ANDT /H/ATETE RNITI\E\ PRO [M] ISEDBYOU
REV /E/RLIVIN GPOETW\I\ SH [E] THTHEWEL
LW /I/SHINGAD VENTURE\R\ IN SETTINGF
O /R/TH

"Leaving *NO HEIR* begotten of his body" -- Henry VI Part 1
-------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 3, Scene 1

GLOUCESTER I say, without characters, FAME lives long.

[Aside] Thus, like the formal vice, Iniquity,
I moralize two meanings in one word.
-----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 4, Scene 4

LUCY His FAME lives in the world, his shame in you.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 3, Scene 2

LUCIANA: Shame hath a bastard FAME, well managed;
Ill deeds are doubled with an EVIL word.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Love's Labour's Lost Act 1, Scene 1

FERDINAND Let FAME, that all hunt after in their lives,
LIVE register'd upon our BRAZEN TOMBS
And then grace us in the disgrace of death;
When, spite of cormorant devouring Time,

BIRON Why, all delights are vain; but that most vain,
Which with pain purchased doth inherit pain:
As, painfully TO PORE upon a book
To seek the light of TRUTH; while TRUTH the while
Doth falsely blind the eyesight of his look:
Light seeking light doth light of light beguile:
So, ere you find where light in darkness lies,
Your light grows dark by losing of your eyes.
Study me how to please the eye indeed
By fixing it upon a fairer eye,
Who dazzling so, that eye shall be his heed
And give him light that it was blinded by.
Study is like the heaven's glorious sun
That will not be deep-search'd with saucy looks:
Small have continual plodders ever won
Save base authority from others' books
These earthly godfathers of heaven's lights
That give a name to every fixed star
Have no more profit of their shining nights
Than those that walk and wot not what they are.
Too much to know is to know nought but FAME;
And every godfather can give a name.
------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 5, Scene 5

CRANMER: Let me speak, sir,
For heaven now bids me; and the words I utter
Let none think flattery, for they'll find 'em TRUTH.
This royal infant--heaven still move about her!--
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a THOUSAND THOUSAND blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness: she shall be--
But few now living can behold that goodness--
A pattern to all princes living with her,
And all that shall succeed: Saba was never
More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue
Than this pure soul shall be: all princely graces,
That mould up such a mighty piece as this is,
With all the virtues that attend the good,
Shall still be doubled on her: TRUTH shall nurse her,
Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her:
She shall be loved and fear'd: her own shall bless her;
Her foes shake like a field of beaten corn,
And hang their heads with sorrow: good grows with her:
In her days every man shall eat in safety,
Under his own vine, what he plants; and sing
The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours:
God shall be truly known; and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honour,
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.
Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new create another heir,
As great in admiration as herself;
So shall she leave her blessedness to one,
When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness,
Who from the sacred ashes of her honour
Shall star-like rise, as great in FAME as she was,
And so stand fix'd: peace, plenty, love, TRUTH, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant,
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him:
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honour and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations: he shall flourish,
And, like a mountain CEDAR, reach his branches
To all the plains about him: our children's children
Shall see this, and bless heaven.
------------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 5, Scene 2

KATHARINA: Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy FAME as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing Act 2, Scene 1

BENEDICK Troth, my lord, I have played the part of Lady FAME.
I found him here as melancholy as a lodge in a
warren: I told him, and I think I told him true,
that your grace had got the good will of this young
lady; and I offered him my company to a willow-tree,
either to make him a garland, as being forsaken, or
to bind him up a rod, as being worthy to be whipped.

Act 5, Scene 3

Done to death by slanderous tongues
Was the Hero that here lies:
Death, in guerdon of her wrongs,
Gives her FAME which never dies.
So the life that died with shame
Lives in death with glorious FAME.
Hang thou there upon the tomb,
Praising her when I am DUMB.
------------------------------------------------------
Pericles Prince of Tyre Act 3, DUMB SHOW.

FAME answering the most strange inquire,
To the court of King Simonides
Are letters brought,

Act 3, Scene 2

First Gentleman: The heavens,
Through you, increase our wonder and set up
Your FAME forever.
------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 3, Scene 3

ACHILLES I see my reputation is at stake
My FAME is shrewdly gored.

Act 4, Scene 5

HECTOR Not Neoptolemus so mirable,
On whose bright crest FAME with her loud'st Oyes
Cries 'This is he,' could promise to himself
A thought of added honour torn from Hector.
------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 4, Scene 7

KING CLAUDIUS We'll put on those shall praise your
excellence And set a double varnish on the FAME
------------------------------------------------------
The Rape of Lucrece Stanza 172

'This brief abridgement of my will I make:
My soul and body to the skies and ground;
My resolution, husband, do thou take;
Mine honour be the knife's that makes my wound;
My shame be his that did my FAME confound;
And all my FAME that lives disbursed be
To those that live, and think no shame of me.

Sonnet 80

O, how I faint when I of you do write,
Knowing a better spirit doth use your name,
And in the praise thereof spends all his might,
To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your FAME!

Sonnet 84

That to his subject lends not some small glory;
But he that writes of you, if he can tell
That you are you, so dignifies his story,
Let him but copy what in you is writ,
Not making worse what nature made so clear,
And such a counterpart shall FAME his wit,
Making his style admired every where.
---------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXI

"Thou speakest not amiss, Sancho," answered Don Quixote, "but before that
point is reached it is requisite to roam the world, as it were on probation,
seeking adventures, in order that, by achieving some, name and FAME may be
acquired, such that when he betakes himself to the court of some great
monarch the knight may be already known by his deeds, and that the boys, the
instant they see him enter the gate of the city, may all follow him and
surround him, crying, 'This is the Knight of the Sun'-or the Serpent, or any
other title under which he may have achieved great deeds.
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE KNIGHT OF THE SUN, ALPHEBO, TO DON QUIXOTE.

MY sword could not at all compare with thine,
Spanish Alphebo! full of courtesy;
Nor thine arm's valour can be match'd by mine,
Though I was fear'd where days both spring and die.
Empires I scorn'd, and the vast monarchy
Of th' Orient ruddy (offer'd me in vain),
I left, that I the sovereign face might see
Of my Aurora, fair Claridiane,
Whom, as by miracle, I surely lov'd:
So banish'd by disgrace, even very hell
Quak'd at mine arm, that did his fury tame.
But thou, illustrious Goth, Quixote! hast prov'd
Thy valour, for Dulcinea's sake, so well
As both on earth have gain'd eternal FAME.
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
richard kennedy
2004-12-02 04:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Terry Ross puts up several pages to say a simple thing. His dog
don't hunt. Ross can't search out a solution to the Scudamore
acrostic/cipher that's any better than what the Friedmans could
find. The "Lewis Carroll" solution is admirable, and cost the
Friedmans a good deal of labor no doubt, but the good Rev.
Dodgson has no business in an Elizabethan poem. Unless Ross
can do better, he must be happy with the "Edward de Vere"
solution. There is no rabbit hole for him to duck into, and that
Jabberwocky poem is on his case.

A quotation from Fletcher Pratt's "Secret and Urgent. The Story
of Codes and Ciphers," 1939:

"…the use of acrostic signatures was not even new in Elizabethan
times. Some of the most delicate of Villon's ballads are acrostic…
More recently Edgar Allan Poe had published his "Enigma" sonnet,
in which the name of Sarah Anna Lewis can be discovered by
reading the first letter of the first line, the second of the second, the
third of the third and so to the end…In cryptography acrostics are
difficult – it takes more literary skill than most cipherers possess
to construct a text which reads well yet contains an acrostic
meaning – but not impossible…"

From Fred B. Wrixon's "Codes and Ciphers," 1998:

"During the First World War, the Germans tried to disguise a secret
dispatch in a press cable as follows:

PRESIDENT'S EMBARGO RULING SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATE
NOTICE. GRAVE SITUATION AFFECTING INTERNATIONAL LAW.
STATEMENT FORESHADOWS RUIN OF MANY NEUTRALS.
YELLOW JOURNALS UNIFYING NATIONAL EXCITEMENT
IMMENSELY.

The first letters of each word spell, "Pershing sails from N.Y. June 1."

And the Friedman's testify against themselves with this quotation, p. 100.

"The second point in their favor (acrostic hunters) is that acrostics
have unquestionably been used to establish claims to authorship. A
striking example is found in an anonymous Latin work published in
1616. The consecutive initial letters of each of the fifty-three section
into which the book is divided spell, without a single deviation, the
sentence ‘Franciscus Godwinvvs Landavensis Episcopus hos
conscripsit'….

The Scudamore is one level more complicated than this example below,
but the method is the same. See if you can find the acrostic "Richard
Kennedy."

"Rather than preach, I will teach the cipher hidden in the Scudamore
acrostic. You must read carefully to discover the hidden name. Those
with a knack for puzzles might enjoy this nice number, which enters
my name into this dear labor of lines as you will see."

----------------------------
Post by richard kennedy
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown
as a Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward
de Vere solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed,
and the acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to
believe that its presence could be due to chance."
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution. Greg
was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur. The
Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll solution.
That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away from the
poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.
I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business. The Scudamore poem
offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one of the claimants to
the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore, they went to a bunko
solution of the cipher.
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA?
HAS BEEN OF INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship of
the Works of Shakespeare. If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a
poem, what matter? Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what
matter is that? It isn't even much of a poem, and would get little attention
except in the title we are told that the thing spells out a name in cipher.
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do. But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and
stands solid against the Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland
Ross wants to put in its place.
And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about
because the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem
of no worth in deciding the authorship question. Like Claudius, Ross is
frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford heats his trousers, his
cool is gone, and pissing on the cipher, or on me, is not going to help him.
-------------
Post by richard kennedy
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to
debate the Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh
my memory of the arguments on either side, and found that in
discussing the matter with Ross, he advanced his debating technique
in this way.
"?let us not give up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen
off the wagon, torn up the pledge.'
"?you might want to lay off the loco weed?"
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and
have it looked at."
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have
been in recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the
livestock again?"
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had
forgotten his style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and
schoolboy waggery. Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion
of the Scudamore cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who
supposes such pandering repartee to be scholarship and a display
of his wit.
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s. The cipher spells out the name of Edward
de Vere. Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers
out the name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the
point, and the original solution stands.
Terry Ross
2004-12-02 16:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
Terry Ross puts up several pages to say a simple thing.
Evidently not simple enough for one reader.

The simple thing is if a cipher method is valid, there is only one
meaningful solution that it can produce from a given ciphertext. A
standard way to demonstrate that a proposed system is invalid is to show
that it may produce multiple solutions. Ward incorrectly thought his
method uniquely produced "Edward de Vere" from Gascoigne's poem for Sir
John Scudamore; the Friedmans proved that other solutions were possible,
including "Lewis Carroll." Therefore Ward's proposed cipher is not valid.
Post by richard kennedy
His dog don't hunt. Ross can't search out a solution to the Scudamore
acrostic/cipher that's any better than what the Friedmans could find.
Their solution is as valid as Ward's; in fact, the fact that they were
able to produce an alternative solution is enopugh to invalidate Ward's
methods. I have found several more solutions using Ward's methods (to be
more precise, by using a script that searches for solutions that satisfy
his methods), and even Richard could probably do the same, with a bit of
coaching and effort.
Post by richard kennedy
The "Lewis Carroll" solution is admirable, and cost the Friedmans a good
deal of labor no doubt, but the good Rev. Dodgson has no business in an
Elizabethan poem.
I doubt it took a great deal of effort for the Friedmans, but the energy
expended is not the test. The fact is that Ward's method does NOT produce
a unique solution and is therefore to be rejected. If you don't think
Lewis Carroll has any place in an Elizabethan poem, then you might wonder
why the author of the poem, George Gascoigne, put him there. The answer
is that he did not; nor did he put Edward de Vere or Lord Admiral or
Edward Sibthorpe or Edith Sitwell or any of the many other names that
Ward's system may be used to generate.
Post by richard kennedy
Unless Ross can do better, he must be happy with the "Edward de Vere"
solution. There is no rabbit hole for him to duck into, and that
Jabberwocky poem is on his case.
Once again, here is a page showing Gascoigne's poem, Ward's "Edward
deVere" solution, the Friedmans' "Lewis Carroll" solution, and several
other demonstrations of the invalidity of Ward's methods:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
Post by richard kennedy
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown as a
Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward de Vere
solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed, and the
acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to believe
that its presence could be due to chance."
Greg's reluctance, such as it was (and it would be unwise to exaggerate
it), could have been overcome. He did not, at that time, have the benefit
of Prouty's explanation of the poem's real ciphering (Scudamore == L'es cu
d'amour == the shield of love) or of the Friedmans' demonstration that
other names could be found following Ward's methods.

Greg did NOT, by the way, think Oxford had written that poem -- or any of
the poems Ward tried to steal from Gascoigne. Even if the acrostic had
been genuine (which it is not), that would not mean that it was a
signature.
Post by richard kennedy
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution.
Indeed one does not -- all one needs to know is that Gascoigne from time
to time wrote poems on behalf of other people, and (to identify the
"absent lover") that Sir John Scudamore's family name and motto could have
to do with a "shield of love." Even if one has not made the
"Scudamore/l'escu d'amour/shield of love" connection, there is still no
reason whatsoever for stealing some of Gascoigne's poems and assigning
them to Oxford.
Post by richard kennedy
Greg was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur.
Greg thoroughly debunked ward's "case" for Oxford's contribution to
Gascoigne's *Hundreth Sundrie Flowres*. Prouty was no cryptographer, but
he deciphered Gascoigne's light cipher. The Friedmans, of course, WERE
experts, but one does not have to be an expert to be able to understand
their analysis.
Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll
solution. That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away
from the poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.
No, they offered the "Lewis Carroll" as one counterexample -- only one is
needed -- but they said that it would be easy to find others. I have
followed their lead and found the names or titles of some of Gascoigne's
contemporaries (and more could be found) as well as the names of people
who lived long after. See some examples here:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

If an amateur such as I am could use Ward's methods and find several names
other than "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll," then perhaps the amateur
Richard Kennedy could find still more names.

If Ward had found a genuine cipher, finding multiple solutions would have
been impossible. Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and
title.

E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
D enying duty, where to I am bound:
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
R ight well I might refrayne to handle pen:
D enouncing aye the company of men.

D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his fame whom Honnor dooth imbrace.

V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
E xampled by your deeds of lasting fame:
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.

E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
A s though I should encroche for priuate gayne:
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.

O r once can say, he deales with flatterye:
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.

O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
X ephirus blowe your Fame to Orient skyes:
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
O r Hanniball loe Hercules in place:
R ing foorth (I say) his Fame both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.

Anybody who takes the first letter of each line will get the same answer
as anybody else who applies the same technique. You will NOT get "Lewis
Carroll" or "Edward Sibthorpe" or "Edith Sitwell" -- a few of the many
names that can be found if looks for a string-(non)cipher in Gascoigne's
poem, as Ward did.
Post by richard kennedy
I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business.
If you had read the book you would know that they discuss another invalid
Oxfordian cipher -- although most of their attention is devoted to
Baconian cipher-mongering.
Post by richard kennedy
The Scudamore poem offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one
of the claimants to the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore,
they went to a bunko solution of the cipher.
There was no particular need to "put [Oxford] out of the way" since he was
never IN the way. Oxford never claimed to have written any of
Shakespeare's or Gascoigne's works. The Friedmans' interest in Ward's
string-cipher was an offshoot of their detailed examination of Baconian
string-ciphers.
Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA HAS BEEN OF
INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."
If you have read the book's dedication, why not read the rest of the book?
Post by richard kennedy
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship
of the Works of Shakespeare.
There is no genuine cipher of Oxford's name in Gascoigne's poem, but there
IS in the poem I quoted above, and that poem proves nothing at all
regarding Oxford's authorship of the works of Shakespeare OR of Oxford's
authorship of the poem that DID contain an acrostic on his name. In fact
the author of that poem was Anthony Munday.
Post by richard kennedy
If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a poem, what matter?
See Anthony Munday's poem, in which (unlike in Gascoigne's poem) Oxford's
name was deliberately placed by the author.
Post by richard kennedy
Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what matter is that?
No, there's no question who wrote the Gascoigne poem; it was George
Gascoigne.
Post by richard kennedy
It isn't even much of a poem,
The extended "shield of love" metaphor is reasonably well handled.
Post by richard kennedy
and would get little attention except in the title we are told that the
thing spells out a name in cipher.
It gets some attention from readers of Gascoigne's works -- a rather small
set. It gets more attention from Oxfordians who have for the better part
of a century allowed Ward's many, many, many errors and misreadings to
blind them.
Post by richard kennedy
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.
I'm sure Gascoigne hoped Scudamore would enjoy it.
Post by richard kennedy
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do.
Edward de Vere is not in the question. Ward was wrong to try to steal
some of Gascoigne's poems for Oxford, Greg dealt very well with Ward's
arguments in his review of the book. Prouty's work should have finished
off whatever was left of Ward's boo-boos, and the Friedmans' exploded
Ward's claim that he had found Oxford's name uniquely concealed.
Post by richard kennedy
But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and stands solid against the
Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland Ross wants to put in its
place.
I'm sure there are other Oxfordians who are as reluctant to give up the
theft from Gascoigne as you appear to be, and who are as incapable of
accepting Greg's, Prouty's, and the Friedmans' dismantling of Ward.
Post by richard kennedy
And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about because
the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem of no
worth in deciding the authorship question.
See the Munday poem, quoted above. I have no problem with Oxford's name
appearing in Munday's poem -- in fact, I have often uses it as an example
of a genuine cipher. Ward's string method, however, is demonstrably not
valid, as it may be used to produce multiple "solutions."
Post by richard kennedy
Like Claudius, Ross is frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford
heats his trousers, his cool is gone, and p*ss*ng on the cipher, or on
me, is not going to help him.
You must have seen a very strange production of *Hamlet*.

I see Richard has once again snipped my response to him so that he can
pretend in his usual fashion that his prose is unanswerable, rather than
Post by richard kennedy
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to debate the
Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh my memory of the
arguments on either side, and found that in discussing the matter with
Ross, he advanced his debating technique in this way. "let us not give
up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen off the wagon, torn up the
pledge.'
The entire post from which Richard quotes is available here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-1000
***@mail.bcpl.net

I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.
Post by richard kennedy
" you might want to lay off the loco weed "
Let's see a bit more context on this one:

========================= =========
Post by richard kennedy
But the Scudamore
Terry:

At last you admit that Gascoigne's poem is for John Scudamore. I guess it
finally dawned on you that Scudamore = l'escu d'amor = shield of love.
Thus is Scudamore's name both ciphered and deciphered in the poem's very
first line.
Post by richard kennedy
poem is a cud for Terry Ross to chew, and he can chew it for a long,
long time without doing any better than the solution we have, and at
long last he must stomach it though it settle like sour ball in his
guts.
Terry:

Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in recent
contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock again? How
many times do I have to tell you: alfalfa good; sour balls bad. I guess
we know now why the milk went bad so quickly. And don't let the the
cattle graze in the loco weed again (come to think of it, you might want
to lay off the loco weed yourself).

=================

It all seems rather mild by newsgroup standards -- certainly milder than
many of Richard's own posts -- and he probably SHOULD lay off the loco
weed.
Post by richard kennedy
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."
Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.
Post by richard kennedy
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"
See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.
Post by richard kennedy
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had forgotten his
style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and schoolboy waggery.
Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion of the Scudamore
cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who supposes such pandering
repartee to be scholarship and a display of his wit. >
Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
own repartee:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7v62ms%247re%***@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net

Noel Coward he ain't.
Post by richard kennedy
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book-- if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.
Post by richard kennedy
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.
The title of the poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his
name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth."

Gascoigne wrote a number of poems for other people, as he tells us, and
this one seems to have been written for Sir John Scudamore -- variations
on the family name and motto appear in the poem's first two lines.

L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,

As the Friedmans note, "One of the most plausible theories put forward so
far is the work of Prof. Charles T. Prouty. In *A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowers* (University of Missouri Studies, 1942) he clarifies the enigma by
suggesting that the name 'in ciphers' is Scudamore. The motto of the
Scudamore family was a pun on their name, 'Scuto Amoris Divini'; the poem
parallels this by beginning with the words 'L'Escu d'amor'."
Post by richard kennedy
The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.
It does not. Have you even read the poem? The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.
Post by richard kennedy
Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.
The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted. Ward's
method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key selects the
positions of the letters to be selected.

The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.

This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
as many of the names that can be found in it by the string-cipher method:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.

Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.

The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
say this about their "Lewis Carroll" solution:

"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."

Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.

I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb
2004-12-03 03:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
Terry Ross puts up several pages to say a simple thing.
Evidently not simple enough for one reader.
The simple thing is if a cipher method is valid, there is only one
meaningful solution that it can produce from a given ciphertext. A
standard way to demonstrate that a proposed system is invalid is to show
that it may produce multiple solutions. Ward incorrectly thought his
method uniquely produced "Edward de Vere" from Gascoigne's poem for Sir
John Scudamore; the Friedmans proved that other solutions were possible,
including "Lewis Carroll." Therefore Ward's proposed cipher is not valid.
It is scarcely possible to explain the Friedmans' refutation more
clearly and succinctly than this, but I fear that for Richard Kennedy
the light still has not dawned.
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
His dog don't hunt. Ross can't search out a solution to the Scudamore
acrostic/cipher that's any better than what the Friedmans could find.
Their solution is as valid as Ward's; in fact, the fact that they were
able to produce an alternative solution is enopugh to invalidate Ward's
methods. I have found several more solutions using Ward's methods (to be
more precise, by using a script that searches for solutions that satisfy
his methods), and even Richard could probably do the same, with a bit of
coaching and effort.
I marvel at your optimism, Terry -- you have undoubtedly read much
more of Kennedy's drivel than I have, yet you are more sanguine than I
concerning his ability to benefit from coaching, effort, and other thus
far ineffectual expedients. In Kennedy's own forays into cryptanalysis,
anagramming, etc., he has been unable even to keep the letters straight:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=haec+group:humanities.lit.authors.*+au
thor:ross&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.44.0208110527470.11503-10000
0%40mail&rnum=2>.
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
The "Lewis Carroll" solution is admirable, and cost the Friedmans a good
deal of labor no doubt, but the good Rev. Dodgson has no business in an
Elizabethan poem.
I doubt it took a great deal of effort for the Friedmans, but the energy
expended is not the test. The fact is that Ward's method does NOT produce
a unique solution and is therefore to be rejected. If you don't think
Lewis Carroll has any place in an Elizabethan poem, then you might wonder
why the author of the poem, George Gascoigne, put him there. The answer
is that he did not; nor did he put Edward de Vere or Lord Admiral or
Edward Sibthorpe or Edith Sitwell or any of the many other names that
Ward's system may be used to generate.
Post by richard kennedy
Unless Ross can do better, he must be happy with the "Edward de Vere"
solution. There is no rabbit hole for him to duck into, and that
Jabberwocky poem is on his case.
Once again, here is a page showing Gascoigne's poem, Ward's "Edward
deVere" solution, the Friedmans' "Lewis Carroll" solution, and several
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
Post by richard kennedy
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown as a
Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward de Vere
solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed, and the
acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to believe
that its presence could be due to chance."
Greg's reluctance, such as it was (and it would be unwise to exaggerate
it), could have been overcome. He did not, at that time, have the benefit
of Prouty's explanation of the poem's real ciphering (Scudamore == L'es cu
d'amour == the shield of love) or of the Friedmans' demonstration that
other names could be found following Ward's methods.
Greg did NOT, by the way, think Oxford had written that poem -- or any of
the poems Ward tried to steal from Gascoigne. Even if the acrostic had
been genuine (which it is not), that would not mean that it was a
signature.
Post by richard kennedy
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution.
Indeed one does not -- all one needs to know is that Gascoigne from time
to time wrote poems on behalf of other people, and (to identify the
"absent lover") that Sir John Scudamore's family name and motto could have
to do with a "shield of love." Even if one has not made the
"Scudamore/l'escu d'amour/shield of love" connection, there is still no
reason whatsoever for stealing some of Gascoigne's poems and assigning
them to Oxford.
Post by richard kennedy
Greg was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur.
Greg thoroughly debunked ward's "case" for Oxford's contribution to
Gascoigne's *Hundreth Sundrie Flowres*. Prouty was no cryptographer, but
he deciphered Gascoigne's light cipher. The Friedmans, of course, WERE
experts, but one does not have to be an expert to be able to understand
their analysis.
Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll
solution. That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away
from the poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.
No, they offered the "Lewis Carroll" as one counterexample -- only one is
needed -- but they said that it would be easy to find others. I have
followed their lead and found the names or titles of some of Gascoigne's
contemporaries (and more could be found) as well as the names of people
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
If an amateur such as I am could use Ward's methods and find several names
other than "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll," then perhaps the amateur
Richard Kennedy could find still more names.
If Ward had found a genuine cipher, finding multiple solutions would have
been impossible. Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and
title.
E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
D enouncing aye the company of men.
D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his fame whom Honnor dooth imbrace.
V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.
E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.
O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
R ing foorth (I say) his Fame both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.
Anybody who takes the first letter of each line will get the same answer
as anybody else who applies the same technique. You will NOT get "Lewis
Carroll" or "Edward Sibthorpe" or "Edith Sitwell" -- a few of the many
names that can be found if looks for a string-(non)cipher in Gascoigne's
poem, as Ward did.
Post by richard kennedy
I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business.
If you had read the book you would know that they discuss another invalid
Oxfordian cipher -- although most of their attention is devoted to
Baconian cipher-mongering.
That is a VERY big "if"! One of my favorite Kennedy threads is the
Chamberlain diary thread (although Kennedy, true to form, confuses John
Chamberlain with John Manningham -- but that's pretty close for him).
In that thread Kennedy, not having read the text itself, had evidently
confined himself to reading the index (if even that), and thereby was
deluded into the belief that the diarist had mentioned Beaumont, Field,
Chapman, Hayward, Middleton, Sidney, Suckling, etc., when in fact many
of these men were mentioned not by the diarist but by the commentator:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=stark+reminder+group:humanities.lit.au
thors.*+author:kathman&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=EHI8EH.1qs%40midway.uchica
go.edu&rnum=3>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=stark+reminder+group:humanities.lit.au
thors.*+author:kathman&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=EtDxMG.KBD%40midway.uchica
go.edu&rnum=2>

An excerpt from Dave Kathman's very informative reply still makes very
amusing reading:
----------------
As for Kennedy's supposed examples, he's wrong on
just about every count, but I'm pretty sure I know how
he got his bogus "facts". I'll go through them one by one.

* Francis Beaumont is nowhere mentioned in the letters,
though Chamberlain does note the death in 1598 of the
future dramatist's father and namesake, who was a Justice
of the Common Pleas. McClure does mention Beaumont
the dramatist twice in his notes and commentary, but I'm
hesitant to believe that even Kennedy would be so confused
as to not distinguish between the letters themselves and
scholarly commentary written 300 years later.

* George Chapman is likewise nowhere mentioned in the
letters, but Chamberlain does make a 1596 reference (well
known to theater historians) of a newly popular "play of
humours"; this has been conjectured to be Chapman's
*Humorous Day's Mirth*, and McClure's noting of this
conjecture is the only place he mentions Chapman in his
commentary.

* Nathan Field, like Beaumont and Chapman, is never
once mentioned by Chamberlain, though his name occurs
once in McClure's footnotes.

* By "Hayward", I assume Kennedy means Sir John Hayward,
the author of *The Historie of Henry the IIII* (1599).
Chamberlain does mention Hayward once (as "Dr. Hayward"),
but Hayward was not a playwright. Was Kennedy confusing
him with Thomas Heywood? Hayward's *Henry IIII* was
a prose history which got Hayward into trouble because his
fawning dedication to the Earl of Essex, attached to a work
describing the deposition of a king, caused a scandal at a time
when Essex was widely (and correctly) though to have designs
on the throne. Even so, Chamberlain's letter where he discusses
the scandalous book makes no mention of its author; his lone
mention of Hayward comes years later.

* Thomas Middleton, like Beaumont, Chapman, and Field,
is never mentioned a single time by Chamberlain. There is
one famous letter where Chamberlain discusses the scandal
aroused by Middleton's play *A Game at Chess* (which he calls
"the play of Gondomar"), but he does so without ever
mentioning the author of the play, or showing any apparent
interest in who the author was.

In addition to the above playwrights, Chamberlain also failed
to ever mention John Fletcher, John Marston, Thomas Dekker,
John Webster, and Philip Massinger, among many others; as I
said, the only professional playwright he mentions is Jonson.
McClure writes in his introduction: "Of the theatre Chamberlain
wrote little. In an age when great drama was being made possible
by the support of the unlettered crowd and of courtiers and
gallants, he shared the half-hostile, half-tolerant view of the
sober, respectable middle class. To the players themselves he
applies the somewhat contemptous terms 'fellows' and
'companions'." McClure then goes on to describe the few times
Chamberlain did report theatrical news, including those I cited
above, but he notes that "[i]nteresting as these glimpses of the
theatre are, they disappoint; they omit what moderns readers
would value most." It is then that McClure notes that Chamberlain
never mentions Shakespeare, but Kennedy has predictably
omitted most of the sentence in which he does so. Here it is in
full: "Doubtless Chamberlain often passed [Shakespeare] in the
street, often rubbed elbows with him in the crowded center aisle
of St. Paul's, often heard mention of him and his plays, often
saw his thin quartos offered for sale in St. Paul's Churchyard;
he may have known the man well, may have talked with him
often; but nowhere in the letters is there any indication that
Chamberlain even so much as knew of the existence of
Shakespeare." Or of any playwright except the self-promoting
Jonson, I might add. As McClure had just shown, in the few
times Chamberlain relayed theatrical news, he showed little interest
in the names of those involved.

Chamberlain does mention a few nondramatic poets, but here
again Kennedy has distorted things. One by one:

* Sir Philip Sidney is mentioned twice in successive letters, but
only because his daughter had died; Chamberlain was reporting
the rumor that she would be buried next to her father.

* Chamberlain does mention Spenser's death once in a famous
passage, calling him "our principall poet". Spenser was by far
the most famous poet in England at the time, being routinely
compared to Chaucer.

* I assume that by "Suckling", Kennedy means the poet Sir
John Suckling, but he is nowhere to be found in the letters.
Chamberlain does mention (several times) the courtier Sir John
Suckling, but McClure makes it clear in his notes that this is the
father of the more famous poet. Since Kennedy assures us that
he has read the letters (as opposed to just finding "Suckling" in
the index, for example), I find it hard to see how he could have
made this mistake.

* George Wither is mentioned once, in a 1623 letter describing
how Ben Jonson has made fun of Wither.

* Sir Walter Raleigh is mentioned many times, since he was
a very famous public figure, but Chamberlain unsurprisingly
makes no mention of the poetry Raleigh had written years before.
If you're going to include Raleigh as a poet mentioned by
Chamberlain, you might as well include Queen Elizabeth and
King James too, since they both also wrote poetry.

* John Donne is mentioned numerous times, but almost always
in connection with a sermon he had given or an office he was
seeking (two of Chamberlain's favorite topics). Chamberlain
does mention Donne's poetry a couple of times, but makes it clear
that he thinks such frivolity was below the Dean of St. Paul's:
"I send you here certain verses of our Dean of Paules upon the
death of the Marquis Hamilton, which though they be reasonably
wittie and well don yet I could wish a man of his yeares and place
to geve over versifying."

I've written about enough. If you ask me, it looks like what
Kennedy did was go through the index of McClure's edition
looking for the names of poets and playwrights, never actually
looking in the text to see whether those names occur in the
actual letters or in McClure's notes and commentary, or whether
they refer to the right person as opposed to a namesake. That's
a pretty shoddy excuse for scholarship, coming from a man who
feels entitled to lecture others on their "ignorance".
---------------------------------
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
The Scudamore poem offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one
of the claimants to the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore,
they went to a bunko solution of the cipher.
There was no particular need to "put [Oxford] out of the way" since he was
never IN the way. Oxford never claimed to have written any of
Shakespeare's or Gascoigne's works. The Friedmans' interest in Ward's
string-cipher was an offshoot of their detailed examination of Baconian
string-ciphers.
Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA HAS BEEN OF
INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."
If you have read the book's dedication, why not read the rest of the book?
See above!
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship
of the Works of Shakespeare.
There is no genuine cipher of Oxford's name in Gascoigne's poem, but there
IS in the poem I quoted above, and that poem proves nothing at all
regarding Oxford's authorship of the works of Shakespeare OR of Oxford's
authorship of the poem that DID contain an acrostic on his name. In fact
the author of that poem was Anthony Munday.
Post by richard kennedy
If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a poem, what matter?
See Anthony Munday's poem, in which (unlike in Gascoigne's poem) Oxford's
name was deliberately placed by the author.
Post by richard kennedy
Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what matter is that?
No, there's no question who wrote the Gascoigne poem; it was George
Gascoigne.
Post by richard kennedy
It isn't even much of a poem,
The extended "shield of love" metaphor is reasonably well handled.
Post by richard kennedy
and would get little attention except in the title we are told that the
thing spells out a name in cipher.
It gets some attention from readers of Gascoigne's works -- a rather small
set. It gets more attention from Oxfordians who have for the better part
of a century allowed Ward's many, many, many errors and misreadings to
blind them.
Post by richard kennedy
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.
I'm sure Gascoigne hoped Scudamore would enjoy it.
Post by richard kennedy
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do.
Edward de Vere is not in the question. Ward was wrong to try to steal
some of Gascoigne's poems for Oxford, Greg dealt very well with Ward's
arguments in his review of the book. Prouty's work should have finished
off whatever was left of Ward's boo-boos, and the Friedmans' exploded
Ward's claim that he had found Oxford's name uniquely concealed.
Post by richard kennedy
But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and stands solid against the
Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland Ross wants to put in its
place.
To paraphrase Nabokov freely, better Terry's supposed wonderland than
Kennedy's grotesque blunderland.
Post by Terry Ross
I'm sure there are other Oxfordians who are as reluctant to give up the
theft from Gascoigne as you appear to be, and who are as incapable of
accepting Greg's, Prouty's, and the Friedmans' dismantling of Ward.
Post by richard kennedy
And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about because
the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem of no
worth in deciding the authorship question.
See the Munday poem, quoted above. I have no problem with Oxford's name
appearing in Munday's poem -- in fact, I have often uses it as an example
of a genuine cipher. Ward's string method, however, is demonstrably not
valid, as it may be used to produce multiple "solutions."
Post by richard kennedy
Like Claudius, Ross is frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford
heats his trousers, his cool is gone, and p*ss*ng on the cipher, or on
me, is not going to help him.
You must have seen a very strange production of *Hamlet*.
Kennedy evidently sees a great many strange things.
Post by Terry Ross
I see Richard has once again snipped my response to him so that he can
pretend in his usual fashion that his prose is unanswerable, rather than
Post by richard kennedy
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to debate the
Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh my memory of the
arguments on either side, and found that in discussing the matter with
Ross, he advanced his debating technique in this way. "let us not give
up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen off the wagon, torn up the
pledge.'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-1000
I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.
Post by richard kennedy
" you might want to lay off the loco weed "
========================= =========
Post by richard kennedy
But the Scudamore
At last you admit that Gascoigne's poem is for John Scudamore. I guess it
finally dawned on you that Scudamore = l'escu d'amor = shield of love.
Thus is Scudamore's name both ciphered and deciphered in the poem's very
first line.
Post by richard kennedy
poem is a cud for Terry Ross to chew, and he can chew it for a long,
long time without doing any better than the solution we have, and at
long last he must stomach it though it settle like sour ball in his
guts.
Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in recent
contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock again? How
many times do I have to tell you: alfalfa good; sour balls bad. I guess
we know now why the milk went bad so quickly. And don't let the the
cattle graze in the loco weed again (come to think of it, you might want
to lay off the loco weed yourself).
=================
It all seems rather mild by newsgroup standards -- certainly milder than
many of Richard's own posts -- and he probably SHOULD lay off the loco
weed.
Post by richard kennedy
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."
Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.
Post by richard kennedy
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"
See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.
Post by richard kennedy
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had forgotten his
style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and schoolboy waggery.
Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion of the Scudamore
cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who supposes such pandering
repartee to be scholarship and a display of his wit. >
Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
t
There are other examples of Kennedy's scintillating wit as well, but
they are definitely not for the squeamish:

Here's a sample of Richard Kennedy's own prose, which evidently is
what he takes for the civility he finds wanting in Terry Ross, among the
mildest, most civil, and unprovocable participants in the newsgroup's
history:

"Maybe Grumman wants to enter the contest, which is to guess at the
Zensearch Kennedy. He says he has an opinion, and let us hear what
it is. And, as he says, I must confess that I have long time
disturbed the Stratfordians at this place. Zensearch has been
disturbed down to the cost and trouble of a new email address, down
to his ratsoul , down to his loins, and he is down on his knees
sucking at my cyber-cock . Guarantee yourself that I can keep him
there until he has knee-scabs and a sore glottis, for I can fuck
him in his cyber-mouth till his eyes goggle, his brains gurggle
and his sinus spouts ratshit, believe it."

Astonishingly, Kennedy later speaks approvingly and even with pride of
the above effusion:

"Rather well done, a choice bit of righteous indignation put in the
language that the Strat bastard could understand...."

In view of posts like this and the one that Terry quoted above, it is
really rather amazing that Richard Kennedy characterizes Terry Ross as
"a nasty-minded man"; the case is a classic instance of the pot calling
the kettle black (or perhaps of the crackpot calling the kettle black).
Of course, Kennedy has severe difficulties in ascertaining authorship,
and like Dr. Stritmatter, in the past he has confused Terry Ross with
Tom Reedy (and perhaps with others as well), so such errors in
attribution may account for at least some of his animus -- but Tom Reedy
does not merit such opprobrium either.
Post by Terry Ross
Noel Coward he ain't.
Agreed -- although he might have a future as a radio shock-jock, for
whom invective substitutes for wit.
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book--
I don't know for certain, but I can make an educated guess. In any
case, the most charitable interpretation is that he has never read it.
Post by Terry Ross
if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.
If he had read the Chamberlain diary he would have known who was and
who was not mentioned therein -- but if frogs had wings, they could fly.
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.
The title of the poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his
name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth."
Gascoigne wrote a number of poems for other people, as he tells us, and
this one seems to have been written for Sir John Scudamore -- variations
on the family name and motto appear in the poem's first two lines.
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
As the Friedmans note, "One of the most plausible theories put forward so
far is the work of Prof. Charles T. Prouty. In *A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowers* (University of Missouri Studies, 1942) he clarifies the enigma by
suggesting that the name 'in ciphers' is Scudamore. The motto of the
Scudamore family was a pun on their name, 'Scuto Amoris Divini'; the poem
parallels this by beginning with the words 'L'Escu d'amor'."
Post by richard kennedy
The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.
It does not. Have you even read the poem?
See above.
Post by Terry Ross
The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.
Post by richard kennedy
Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.
The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted. Ward's
method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key selects the
positions of the letters to be selected.
The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.
This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.
Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.
The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."
Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.
I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-03 17:10:44 UTC
Permalink
---------------------------------------------------------
You must have some colleagues
who can do REAL Mathematics, Dave.

Ask them to figure out the probability for Peter Bull's
"KITM-MARL-LOW" PLUS 4 close "KIT"s (the first 12 lines)
---------------------------------------------------------
I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations.
What would you calculate?
---------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

<= 12 =>

137 T T T Y I B W W W W O T
136 I S A T W I I A T T F T
135 W A M T W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability ~ 1/760
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):

4 K's
68 M's
41 L's

This automatically gives:

4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
68 x 41 "M-L" pairs

However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns

Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
in the Bull array

"K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
"M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
----------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
to count (for whole 14 lines):

50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)

"IT" probability: 50/4000
"AR" probability: 8/4000
"OW" probability: 31/4000
----------------------------------------------------
Now applying the

"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500

to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings

gives [E]xpected [V]alue of

"KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
"MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500

Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
-------------------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!

For these two strings to share the SAME "M"

"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:

[L]M T F T I I
F A F T W I T
S S S A W B A
N I A A C G T
A S A T T A I
A V A W V[O]T
A T M F A T A
B T M W A N G
W R A I A T I

Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.

How does this compare with and
expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
the final "OW" is ~0.39

"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760

A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now things get interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:

<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.

2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"

The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":

S
A M
A M[T]
F[I]B M
[K]H L A B
A F T Y
C[I I]
I[I]
V [T] [T]

[T]

So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
[; ignoring the "K" & "T"]

Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
left right pairs in the "Bull array":
-----------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
-------------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s

~ 1 / (760 x 4700) ~1 / 3,600,000!!!
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
richard kennedy
2004-12-03 05:22:03 UTC
Permalink
The solution to the acrostic I put up goes like
this, first the text:

Rather than preach, I will teach the cipher hidden
in the Scudamore acrostic. You must read carefully
to discover the hidden name. Those with a knack for
puzzles might enjoy this nice number, which enters
my name into this dear labor of lines as you will see.

R Rather
I I
C cipher
H hidden
A acrostic
R read
D discover

K knack
E enjoy
N nice
N number
E enters
D dear
Y you

Essentially, that's the drill for the Scudamore acrostic/
cipher, although the poser complicated it a bit more.
If someone were to solve this simple acrostic with the name
of Lewis Carroll, we'd suppose he couldn't do any better,

And so with the Friedmans. They could find no 16th century
man whose name could game with the poem. If they could have,
they would have, can anyone doubt it?

The Scudamore acrostic is a good example of the Elizabethan
frenzy of mind to create double-meaning and other cute
troubling with words, and the Sonnets our best model of the
day. Ben Jonson tells us a litany of word-games, escaping
such usage himself, ahem, in his "Execration on Vulcan" poem,
published when he was dead and didn't have to answer for this
damning accusation that someone had burned him out of his
house and manuscripts.

Word games and deceptions such as acrostics, anagrams, and
secret wording was a fad, Elizabethan poety is full of it.
Nothing like it today or in any other historical-literary
context. They were word-freaks, they could fold a sentence
like a omelet, so mouth-watering and lovely besides, but
there's always the question of what's in it. And the best
cook of this scramble was Shakespeare.

But there's no trust in ciphers entirely, Mary lost her head.
Ross has also lost his.
Post by Terry Ross
Post by richard kennedy
Terry Ross puts up several pages to say a simple thing.
Evidently not simple enough for one reader.
The simple thing is if a cipher method is valid, there is only one
meaningful solution that it can produce from a given ciphertext. A
standard way to demonstrate that a proposed system is invalid is to show
that it may produce multiple solutions. Ward incorrectly thought his
method uniquely produced "Edward de Vere" from Gascoigne's poem for Sir
John Scudamore; the Friedmans proved that other solutions were possible,
including "Lewis Carroll." Therefore Ward's proposed cipher is not valid.
Post by richard kennedy
His dog don't hunt. Ross can't search out a solution to the Scudamore
acrostic/cipher that's any better than what the Friedmans could find.
Their solution is as valid as Ward's; in fact, the fact that they were
able to produce an alternative solution is enopugh to invalidate Ward's
methods. I have found several more solutions using Ward's methods (to be
more precise, by using a script that searches for solutions that satisfy
his methods), and even Richard could probably do the same, with a bit of
coaching and effort.
Post by richard kennedy
The "Lewis Carroll" solution is admirable, and cost the Friedmans a good
deal of labor no doubt, but the good Rev. Dodgson has no business in an
Elizabethan poem.
I doubt it took a great deal of effort for the Friedmans, but the energy
expended is not the test. The fact is that Ward's method does NOT produce
a unique solution and is therefore to be rejected. If you don't think
Lewis Carroll has any place in an Elizabethan poem, then you might wonder
why the author of the poem, George Gascoigne, put him there. The answer
is that he did not; nor did he put Edward de Vere or Lord Admiral or
Edward Sibthorpe or Edith Sitwell or any of the many other names that
Ward's system may be used to generate.
Post by richard kennedy
Unless Ross can do better, he must be happy with the "Edward de Vere"
solution. There is no rabbit hole for him to duck into, and that
Jabberwocky poem is on his case.
Once again, here is a page showing Gascoigne's poem, Ward's "Edward
deVere" solution, the Friedmans' "Lewis Carroll" solution, and several
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
Post by richard kennedy
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown as a
Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward de Vere
solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed, and the
acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to believe
that its presence could be due to chance."
Greg's reluctance, such as it was (and it would be unwise to exaggerate
it), could have been overcome. He did not, at that time, have the benefit
of Prouty's explanation of the poem's real ciphering (Scudamore == L'es cu
d'amour == the shield of love) or of the Friedmans' demonstration that
other names could be found following Ward's methods.
Greg did NOT, by the way, think Oxford had written that poem -- or any of
the poems Ward tried to steal from Gascoigne. Even if the acrostic had
been genuine (which it is not), that would not mean that it was a
signature.
Post by richard kennedy
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution.
Indeed one does not -- all one needs to know is that Gascoigne from time
to time wrote poems on behalf of other people, and (to identify the
"absent lover") that Sir John Scudamore's family name and motto could have
to do with a "shield of love." Even if one has not made the
"Scudamore/l'escu d'amour/shield of love" connection, there is still no
reason whatsoever for stealing some of Gascoigne's poems and assigning
them to Oxford.
Post by richard kennedy
Greg was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur.
Greg thoroughly debunked ward's "case" for Oxford's contribution to
Gascoigne's *Hundreth Sundrie Flowres*. Prouty was no cryptographer, but
he deciphered Gascoigne's light cipher. The Friedmans, of course, WERE
experts, but one does not have to be an expert to be able to understand
their analysis.
Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll
solution. That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away
from the poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.
No, they offered the "Lewis Carroll" as one counterexample -- only one is
needed -- but they said that it would be easy to find others. I have
followed their lead and found the names or titles of some of Gascoigne's
contemporaries (and more could be found) as well as the names of people
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
If an amateur such as I am could use Ward's methods and find several names
other than "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll," then perhaps the amateur
Richard Kennedy could find still more names.
If Ward had found a genuine cipher, finding multiple solutions would have
been impossible. Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and
title.
E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
D enouncing aye the company of men.
D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his fame whom Honnor dooth imbrace.
V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.
E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.
O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
R ing foorth (I say) his Fame both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.
Anybody who takes the first letter of each line will get the same answer
as anybody else who applies the same technique. You will NOT get "Lewis
Carroll" or "Edward Sibthorpe" or "Edith Sitwell" -- a few of the many
names that can be found if looks for a string-(non)cipher in Gascoigne's
poem, as Ward did.
Post by richard kennedy
I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business.
If you had read the book you would know that they discuss another invalid
Oxfordian cipher -- although most of their attention is devoted to
Baconian cipher-mongering.
Post by richard kennedy
The Scudamore poem offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one
of the claimants to the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore,
they went to a bunko solution of the cipher.
There was no particular need to "put [Oxford] out of the way" since he was
never IN the way. Oxford never claimed to have written any of
Shakespeare's or Gascoigne's works. The Friedmans' interest in Ward's
string-cipher was an offshoot of their detailed examination of Baconian
string-ciphers.
Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA HAS BEEN OF
INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."
If you have read the book's dedication, why not read the rest of the book?
Post by richard kennedy
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship
of the Works of Shakespeare.
There is no genuine cipher of Oxford's name in Gascoigne's poem, but there
IS in the poem I quoted above, and that poem proves nothing at all
regarding Oxford's authorship of the works of Shakespeare OR of Oxford's
authorship of the poem that DID contain an acrostic on his name. In fact
the author of that poem was Anthony Munday.
Post by richard kennedy
If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a poem, what matter?
See Anthony Munday's poem, in which (unlike in Gascoigne's poem) Oxford's
name was deliberately placed by the author.
Post by richard kennedy
Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what matter is that?
No, there's no question who wrote the Gascoigne poem; it was George
Gascoigne.
Post by richard kennedy
It isn't even much of a poem,
The extended "shield of love" metaphor is reasonably well handled.
Post by richard kennedy
and would get little attention except in the title we are told that the
thing spells out a name in cipher.
It gets some attention from readers of Gascoigne's works -- a rather small
set. It gets more attention from Oxfordians who have for the better part
of a century allowed Ward's many, many, many errors and misreadings to
blind them.
Post by richard kennedy
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.
I'm sure Gascoigne hoped Scudamore would enjoy it.
Post by richard kennedy
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do.
Edward de Vere is not in the question. Ward was wrong to try to steal
some of Gascoigne's poems for Oxford, Greg dealt very well with Ward's
arguments in his review of the book. Prouty's work should have finished
off whatever was left of Ward's boo-boos, and the Friedmans' exploded
Ward's claim that he had found Oxford's name uniquely concealed.
Post by richard kennedy
But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and stands solid against the
Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland Ross wants to put in its
place.
I'm sure there are other Oxfordians who are as reluctant to give up the
theft from Gascoigne as you appear to be, and who are as incapable of
accepting Greg's, Prouty's, and the Friedmans' dismantling of Ward.
Post by richard kennedy
And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about because
the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem of no
worth in deciding the authorship question.
See the Munday poem, quoted above. I have no problem with Oxford's name
appearing in Munday's poem -- in fact, I have often uses it as an example
of a genuine cipher. Ward's string method, however, is demonstrably not
valid, as it may be used to produce multiple "solutions."
Post by richard kennedy
Like Claudius, Ross is frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford
heats his trousers, his cool is gone, and p*ss*ng on the cipher, or on
me, is not going to help him.
You must have seen a very strange production of *Hamlet*.
I see Richard has once again snipped my response to him so that he can
pretend in his usual fashion that his prose is unanswerable, rather than
Post by richard kennedy
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to debate the
Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh my memory of the
arguments on either side, and found that in discussing the matter with
Ross, he advanced his debating technique in this way. "let us not give
up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen off the wagon, torn up the
pledge.'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-1000
I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.
Post by richard kennedy
" you might want to lay off the loco weed "
========================= =========
Post by richard kennedy
But the Scudamore
At last you admit that Gascoigne's poem is for John Scudamore. I guess it
finally dawned on you that Scudamore = l'escu d'amor = shield of love.
Thus is Scudamore's name both ciphered and deciphered in the poem's very
first line.
Post by richard kennedy
poem is a cud for Terry Ross to chew, and he can chew it for a long,
long time without doing any better than the solution we have, and at
long last he must stomach it though it settle like sour ball in his
guts.
Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in recent
contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock again? How
many times do I have to tell you: alfalfa good; sour balls bad. I guess
we know now why the milk went bad so quickly. And don't let the the
cattle graze in the loco weed again (come to think of it, you might want
to lay off the loco weed yourself).
=================
It all seems rather mild by newsgroup standards -- certainly milder than
many of Richard's own posts -- and he probably SHOULD lay off the loco
weed.
Post by richard kennedy
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."
Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.
Post by richard kennedy
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"
See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.
Post by richard kennedy
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had forgotten his
style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and schoolboy waggery.
Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion of the Scudamore
cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who supposes such pandering
repartee to be scholarship and a display of his wit. >
Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
Noel Coward he ain't.
Post by richard kennedy
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book-- if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.
Post by richard kennedy
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.
The title of the poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his
name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth."
Gascoigne wrote a number of poems for other people, as he tells us, and
this one seems to have been written for Sir John Scudamore -- variations
on the family name and motto appear in the poem's first two lines.
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
As the Friedmans note, "One of the most plausible theories put forward so
far is the work of Prof. Charles T. Prouty. In *A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowers* (University of Missouri Studies, 1942) he clarifies the enigma by
suggesting that the name 'in ciphers' is Scudamore. The motto of the
Scudamore family was a pun on their name, 'Scuto Amoris Divini'; the poem
parallels this by beginning with the words 'L'Escu d'amor'."
Post by richard kennedy
The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.
It does not. Have you even read the poem? The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.
Post by richard kennedy
Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.
The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted. Ward's
method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key selects the
positions of the letters to be selected.
The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.
This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.
Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.
The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."
Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.
I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross
2004-12-03 17:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
Rather than preach, I will teach the cipher hidden in the Scudamore
acrostic. You must read carefully to discover the hidden name. Those
with a knack for puzzles might enjoy this nice number, which enters my
name into this dear labor of lines as you will see.
There is no deliberate acrostic in Gascoigne's poem for Sir John
Scudamore, and one must read carelessly to conclude that there is exactly
one name that can be extracted from the poem using Ward's invalid methods
-- but I give Richard this much, the preceding lines do contain hidden
wonders, most of which are unknown even to the author.
Post by richard kennedy
R Rather
I I
C cipher
H hidden
A acrostic
R read
D discover
K knack
E enjoy
N nice
N number
E enters
D dear
Y you
Essentially, that's the drill for the Scudamore acrostic/ cipher,
although the poser complicated it a bit more. If someone were to solve
this simple acrostic with the name of Lewis Carroll, we'd suppose he
couldn't do any better,
I'm sure Richard very carefully checked to make sure that the name "Lewis
Carroll" could not be found in his Wee Paragraph O' Wonders (so called
because despite its brevity, it can be made to produce marvels that
Richard himself has not imagined).

While there are names other than "Richard Kennedy" that may be found by
looking among the first letters of the words in the Wee Paragraph O'
Wonders, "Lewis Carroll" is not one of those names. Bur Richard's Wee
Paragraph O' Wonders might not be comparable to Ward's string-cipher.
There are only 47 first letters in Richard's Wee Paragraph O' Wonders:

RtpIwttchitSaYmrctdthnTwakfpmetnnwemnitdlolayws

Richard's W.P.O'W. is not comparable to Ward's cipher if we only look at
the first letters of words, because there are many more words in
Gascoigne's poem -- 304 for Gascoigne to 47 for Richard. Here are the 304
first letters of Gascoigne's poem in the order Ward used:

LEdatsoplfsoftlosTTfofwnwrdobtbtfsBTtthlbotbtmaawttb
AIddIlaaltwamwwmwAIpfpysisosswrqwdfITpwmumpIplosmuaI
bYIccamccfEfwfDTIfmhttTfDwdCcWMhsfmhdsfstisafbITStIl
adioddwahahbHFbbfwfwbfhmetttbVRbjwhdmaddodigwyAItaIf
mffwiswtftBAscmtccbtobtBtuHStIcopfrgametssOTydDtdpIm
smrsmsoWTsysafysshfahthphMMopshmdlwmdyefymlN

It should be obvious to most people, and it may one day occur to Richard,
that one is far more likely to find a name by picking the desired letters
from a set of 304 than from 47, and thus Richard's lesson would appear to
have little to teach us. But after all his effort, surely we can salvage
some benefit, some lesson, some enlightenment?

Fortunately I have found the means to help Richard "teach the ciphers
hidden" in his own Wee Paragraph O' Wonders in a way that will shed light
on why so many names can be found in Gascoigne's poem by using Ward's
loose methods. Instead of looking only at the 47 first-letters of the
words, let's look at ALL the letters in Richard's Wee Paragraph O'
Wonders. There are 208 letters in the entire paragraph -- this is still
far short of the 304 first letters in Gascoigne's poem, but it is a much
more comparable test.

Still, one might think can be sure that even if we took all 208 letters,
we would not find "Lewis Carroll," since that is the name Richard
expressly challenged us to find. Surely Richard has sufficient control
over his prose to make finding that name impossible.

It turns out that he does not. In fact, the name "Lewis Carroll" IS
there, reading backwards, which seems appropriate for Richard somehow.

Here is Richard's Wee Paragraph O' Wonders
Post by richard kennedy
Rather than preach, I will teach the cipher hidden in the Scudamore
acrostic. You must read carefully to discover the hidden name. Those
with a knack for puzzles might enjoy this nice number, which enters my
name into this dear labor of lines as you will see.
Now see how Richard's text yields the dreaded name. The letters that
spell "Lewis Carroll" are in the extreme left; all of the letters appear
in exactly the same order Richard gave us:

Rather than preach, I wi
l
l teach the cipher hidden in the Scudamore acrostic. Y
o u must read ca
r efully to discove
r the hidden name. Those with a kn
a
c k for puzzles might enjoy thi

s n
i ce number,
w hich enters my name into this dear labor of lin
e s as you wil
l see.

How can we explain this wonder? Richard constructed a short paragraph
into which he inserted his own name, and from which he hoped to exclude
the name of Lewis Carroll -- yet when we scan the letters of Richard's
paragraph in reverse order, searching for L-E-W-I-S C-A-R-R-O-L-L, we find
that despite Richard's best efforts, the name appears.

Truly this is a Wee Paragraph O' Wonders! Richard should market this as
the perfect stocking stuffer for good (but slow) little boys and girls.

How does Richard's W.P.O'W. "teach the cipher hidden in the Scudamore
acrostic"? By example. Just as Richard Kennedy never intended to place
the name "Lewis Carroll" among the 208 letters of his W.P.O'W., so
Gascoigne never intended to insert "Lewis Carroll" or "Edward de Vere" or
"Lord Admiral" or "Edward Dyer" among the 304 first-letters of the words
in his poem for Sir John Scudamore.

Yet neither Richard Kennedy nor George Gascoigne could have prevented such
accidents. In any poem of a length comparable to Gascoigne's one could
doubtless find many names using a string-cipher approach. Similarly, in
any selection of Richard Kennedy's prose that is of a length comparable to
his W.P.O'W., one could find many names appearing by accident that Richard
not only did not intend, but of whose existence he is entirely ignorant.

Thus Richard's Wee Paragraph O' Wonders teaches that Ward's string-cipher
method is not valid, and that Richard himself does not know what he is
doing, since if Richard DID know what he was doing, he never would have
inserted Lewis Carroll's name into his text.

Just how many names did Richard unwittingly insert into his Wee Paragraph
O' Wonders? Thousands. Here is the name "Henry Wriothesley":

Rat
h
e r tha
n p
r each, I will teach the cipher hidden in the Scudamore acrostic.
Y ou must read carefully to discover the hidden name. Those

w ith a knack fo
r puzzles m
i ght enj
o y
t
h is nice numb
e r, which enter
s my name into this dear
l abor of lin
e s as
y ou will see.

Here are thousand or so other names (I do not pretend fully to have
plumbed the shallows of Richard's text) that may be extracted in a similar
fashion from Richard's Wee Paragraph O' Wonders. There are names are of
Elizabethan poets, of people in David Kathman's Biographical Dictionary of
the English Theater, of other English and American writers, of various
Oxfordians, and other odds and ends. If tested Richard's Wee Paragraph O'
Wonders against a list of hlas regulars, I'd probably find more matches.

All of these may be found in Richard Kennedy's Wee Paragraph O' Wonders:

Henry VIII, Thomas Wyatt, William Gray, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey,
Robert Wever, Thomas Tusser, William Stevenson, William Hunnis, Edward
Dyer, Nicholas Breton, Philip Sidney, Thomas Watson, Thomas Morley,
Chidiock Tichborne, William Warner, Robert Greene, William Fowler, Mary
Herbert, Henry Constable, Charles Best, William Smith, Richard Lynche,
Samuel Daniel, Christopher Marlowe, William Shakespeare, James Stuart,
Thomas Nashe, Thomas Campion, Henry Wotton, Thomas Dekker, Robert Aytoun,
Martin Peerson, Ben Jonson, John Donne, William Percy, Lord Buckhurst,
Will Tudor, William Tudor, Will Shakespeare, Thomas Kyd, Francis Meres,
Joseph Hall, Robert Henryson, William Dunbar, Dante Alighieri, Thomas
Chestre, Thomas More, Sir Thomas More, Richard Edwards, John Ford, Thomas
Norton, William Drummond, John Dee, Thomas Carew, William Browne, Richard
Crashaw, Henry Vaughan, Thomas Vaughan, William Shakespear, William
Shakespere, William Shakespheare, William Shakspear, William Shakspeare,
William Shaksper, William Shakspere, Will Shackespeare, Will Shackespere,
Will Shackspeare, Will Shackspere, Will Shagspere, Will Shakespear, Will
Shakespere, Will Shakespheare, Will Shakspear, Will Shakspeare, Will
Shaksper, Will Shakspere, Lord Aboyne, Francis Acton, John Adams, Will
Adkinson, John Adson, William Ainsworth, Thomas Albanes, Thomas Albone,
Edward Allen, Giles Allen, Jeremy Allen, John Allen, Richard Allen,
William Allen, Richard Alleyn, Henry Alvey, Robert Amerie, Christopher
Anslow, John Anthony, Robert Anton, Richard Archer, Robert Archer, Robert
Armin, Earl of Arundel, Thomas Ashton, Aaron Asken, Thomas Atchelow,
Thomas Atkinson, John Atterley, John Attree, John Audelie, William
Augustine, William Aynsworth, Richard Badlowe, Robert Baker, John Ball,
Francis Balls, Richard Balls, Thomas Band, Brian Banes, William Bankes,
William Barne, Thomas Barnes, Robert Baron, Thomas Barrell, Walter
Barrett, Lording Barry, Onye Bartle, Thomas Basse, Robert Bateman, Earl of
Bath, John Bathe, William Bayley, Sir John Becon, Ellis Bedowe, William
Bee, Robert Beeston, William Beeston, William Belcher, Richard Bell,
Robert Benfield, John Bennett, Richard Bennett, John Bentley, William
Benton, Anthony Berry, William Bing, Mary Bird, William Bird, John Blaney,
William Blount, Thomas Bone, William Bonen, William Boone, Robert Booth,
Thomas Borel, William Borne, William Bourchier, Robert Bourman, William
Bourne, William Bowen, William Bower, William Bowyer, Roger Boyle, William
Boyle, Sir Richard Boyoe, Thomas Brande, Samuel Brandon, Anthony Bray,
Nicholas Brend, Thomas Brend, William Breton, Antony Brew, Francis
Bristowe, Richard Bristowe, Robert Browne, Susan Browne, Mary Bryan, Hans
Buckham, William Buckstead, John Bull, Thomas Bull, Walter Burrett, Lord
Burrow, Robert Burton, Sir John Byron, Captain Camby, Thomas Cademan,
Andrew Cane, James Candler, Peter Carew, Henry Carey, Giles Carie,
Lodowick Carlell, Thomas Carleton, William Carpenter, John Carr, John
Cart, William Cartwright, William Carver, Giles Cary, Edmund Casse, Robert
Casse, Thomas Castle, Andrew Caue, Robert Cecil, Thomas Cecil, Lord
Chamberlain, William Chamberlaine, Richard Chambers, William Chambers,
Lord Chandos, Henry Cheke, Will Cherrington, Thomas Chesson, Henry
Chettle, Sir Henry Cheyne, Richard Cholmley, Henry Clay, Richard Clayton,
Walter Clun, Abraham Coates, Lord Cobham, Sir Aston Cokayne, Francis Cole,
Robert Coles, Thomas Colley, William Combes, Anne Compton, Henry Compton,
William Compton, Henry Condell, Robert Conway, William Coock, Thomas
Cooke, William Cooke, William Corkin, John Cosnet, Samuel Costell, John
Costine, William Costine, John Cotton, Abraham Cowley, Richard Cowley,
John Cowper, Ralph Crane, Thomas Crane, Christopher Crate, Nicholas
Crispe, William Crome, Nicholas Crosse, Samuel Crosse, James Crowne, John
Cumber, James Cutler, Robert Daborne, John Dalaper, Dalapers boy, William
Dale, William Daman, Artus Damler, Edward Daniel, John Daniel, William
Daniel, John Danner, Richard Darbie, Richard Darlowe, John Daunce, Robert
Dausse, John Day, Thomas Day, Andrew De Caine, Hurfries De Lau, Lord De La
Warr, Thomas Deloney, Earl of Derby, John De Rue, Simon Detre, John de
Vere, Thomas Dickinson, William Dodd, John Dorman, Christopher Dormount,
Earl of Dorset, Robert Dorset, Thomas Doughton, Downtons boy, Thomas
Downton, Thomas Drewe, Richard Drington, Thomas Drom, Thomas Drue, William
Drury, Lord Dudley, Lord Durand, John Dutton, Richard Eades, John Earle,
William Eaton, William Ecclestone, Richard Edes, Thomas Edwards, Richard
Eedes, Thomas Egerton, William Eglestone, William Elderton, Brian Ellam,
William Elton, Ralph Eure, Henry Evans, Lord Evers, Henry Eveseed, Johann
Eydwartt, William Eyton, Richard Farnaby, Richard Farrant, William Felle,
William Fennor, James Ferret, David Ferris, William Fetherston, William
Fidge, Henry Field, William Field, Robert Finch, Robert Fintrye, John
Fisher, Henry Fitzalan, Lawrence Fletcher, Richard Fletcher, Phineas
Fletcher, Francis Flower, Edward Ford, Simon Forman, Miles Forrest, Edward
Forsett, Sir Henry Fortescue, Richard Fortescue, Sir Henry Foster, Richard
Fouch, Richard Fowler, Abraham Fraunce, Sir Ralph Freeman, William
Freshwater, Mary Frith, Richard Frith, John Frost, Thomas Fulcis, Thomas
Fuller, Henry Fussell, Francis Gardiner, Adam Gerdler, Thomas Gibborne,
Thomas Giles, Robert Gilman, Robert Goffe, Robert Gomersall, Thomas
Goodale, Henry Gosson, Francis Grace, Thomas Greene, William Greene,
Francis Greenrod, Ellis Gret, Henry Greum, Henry Grey, Arthur Grimes,
Thomas Grymes, Ellis Guest, Robert Guilman, Richard Gunnell, William
Gwalter, Matthew Gwinne, Thomas Gyles, Robert Gylman, Sir John Hales,
Richard Haley, Edward Hall, William Hall, Richard Halley, Cuthbert
Halsall, Henry Hamerton, Robert Hamlen, Robert Hamlett, Henry Hammersley,
Nicholas Hammerton, Thomas Hamond, Richard Hanly, Nicholas Hanson, John
Harris, Richard Harris, Richard Harrison, William Harrison, Charles Hart,
William Hart, Robert Hartsius, William Harvey, Robert Hasell, Thomas
Hasell, Thomas Hassall, Richard Hathway, William Haughton, Peter Hausted,
William Hawkins, Richard Hawley, John Hayden, William Haynes, John Hearne,
Thomas Hearne, John Helle, Christopher Helowe, William Heminges, Agnes
Henslowe, Francis Henslowe, Philip Henslowe, Henry Herbert, Lord Herbert,
William Herbert, John Herne, Earl of Hertford, Richard Heton, Richard
Hewse, Peter Heyleyn, Christopher Heylie, Richard Hickes, Henry Hickman,
Henry Highman, James Hill, John Hill, Otwell Hill, Robert Hint, Thomas
Hobbes, Samuel Hodson, William Holcrofte, Aaron Holland, Hugh Holland,
John Holland, William Holles, Thomas Holman, John Holt, Barton Holyday,
Richard Honnan, Thomas Honte, Richard Honyman, Richard Hoope, Richard
Hoult, Joan Hovell, William Hovell, Philip Howard, Thomas Howard, William
Howard, Oliver Howes, Robert Hoyt, Thomas Hughes, John Hull, Lord Hunsdon,
John Hunt, Richard Hunt, Robert Hunt, Thomas Hunt, Thomas Hunter, Dick
Huntley, Richard Huse, William Hutchinson, Leonard Hutton, Thomas Hutton,
Robert Huyt, John Hyde, Adam Islipp, Abraham Ivory, Tom Jay, Simon Jewell,
Henry Johnson, Laurence Johnson, Paul Johnson, Richard Johnson, Robert
Johnson, Thomas Johnson, William Johnson, Anne Jones, Francis Jones,
Oliver Jones, Richard Jones, Robert Jones, Thomas Jones, William Jones,
Israel fl Jordan, Thomas Jordan, Richard Juby, William Juby, Ralph Jutsam,
Andrew Kane, Andrew Kayne, William Keble, Thomas Keene, Andrew Kein,
William Kemp, Richard Kendall, Thomas Kendall, William Kendall, Richard
Kenede, Robert Kerchen, Ralph Keyes, Robert Keyes, Andrew Keynes, Robert
Keysar, Thomas Kid, Baron Kinderton, Thomas Kitchin, William Knell,
Lettice Knollys, Philip Kynder, John Lacy, Robert Ladyman, Philip Lane,
Sir Robert Lane, Robert Lane, Robert Laneham, Henry Laneman, Henry Lanman,
Lord Latimer, John Law, Henry Lawes, William Lawes, Walter Lawman, John
Ledy, Sir Henry Lee, Sir Peter Lee, Robert Lee, William Lee, Peter Legh,
Earl of Leicester, Lord Leonard, Robert Leveson, William Leveson, John
Lewis, John Lillie, Earl of Lincoln, David Linsell, Edward Lister, Philip
London, Lord Admiral, Lord Bishop, Lord President, Lord Steward, Lord
Warden, Nicholas Lowe, Ralph Lowick, John Lowin, Walter Lowman, Sir Thomas
Lucy, John Lyddiat, Ralph Lyddiat, Lord Lyle, Lewis Machin, Richard
Machin, William Mago, Lady Manche, Samuel Mannery, John Mansell, JohnII
Mansell, Cosmo Manuche, Samuel Marcupp, Mary Markham, Edward Marrant,
Charles Marshall, Hamlet Marshall, John Marshall, Hamlet Martial, Henry
Martin, Angelica Martinelli, Drusiano Martinelli, Thomas Marton, William
Martyn, John Mason, Thomas Massey, Philip Massinger, Master Controller,
Amb Matchit, Tobie Matthew, Nathan May, Randolph May, Thomas May, William
May, William Maycocke, Robert Mead, Peter Mease, William Megus, John
Methen, William Methold, William Mewe, Tobias Mils, Samuel Minion, Edward
Mishaw, Michael Mohun, Henry Momford, William Monke, Peter Moon, Robert
Moon, Michael Moone, Thomas Moore, Roger Morcell, Lewis Mordaunt, Henry
Mordaunt, Roger More, William More, Lord Morley, William Morley, Roger
Morrell, Mathias Morris, Thomas Morris, Ann Mossack, Walter Mountfort,
Ralph Mullins, William Munday, John Myhen, Thomas Nabbes, Robert Naile,
Richard Nashe, Henry Nation, Thomas Neale, Thomas Nelson, Henry Neville,
John Neville, Robert Neville, John Newman, Thomas Newman, Maurice Newport,
John Newton, Richard Newton, Robert Newton, Thomas Newton, William Newton,
Richard Niccols, Robert Nicholls, Nick Nicholas, Francis Nicolini, Basil
Nicoll, John Nicols, Leonard Nidd, John Nill, Henry Noel, Roger Nore,
Robert Norman, Henry Norris, Roger North, Thomas North, Thomas Nuce,
Donatus OChaine, Henry Oley, Thomas Orton, William Ostler, Robert Pallant,
John Pallin, Thomas Pant, William Parr, Mercurius Paten, William Pateson,
William Patten, William Paulet, Salomon Pavy, William Pavy, Robert Payne,
Abraham Peadle, Thomas Peadle, William Peadle, William Pedel, James Peele,
Thomas Peers, Nathan Peet, Charles Pendry, Robert Penn, William Penn,
William Penson, Henry Percy, Robert Percy, Will Perkins, William Perry,
Thomas Pestell, John Peter, Peter Pett, Robert Pharo, Robert Phillippe,
William Pine, Henry Porter, Robert Postell, Walter Pother, Nicholas Potte,
Thomas Potte, Thomas Pound, Rice Powell, Samuel Pratt, Thomas Preston,
Daniel Price, Richard Price, Thomas Price, David Prothro, William Prynne,
Richard Pryore, Henry Punter, Baly Pursell, William Pynne, Richard Pytes,
Henry Radcliffe, Robert Rafton, William Rankins, William Rastall, Thomas
Rawlins, William Rawlyns, Ralph Raye, Andrew Rayne, John Rayner, Emanuel
Reade, John Reade, Timothy Reade, William Reading, Elys Redferne, Ralph
Reeve, William Reignolds, Robert Remer, Robert Reyner, Henry Reynolds,
Robert Reynolds, William Reynolds, Francis Rhodes, John Rhodes, John Rice,
Richard Rich, Robert Rich, William Richards, Thomas Riley, William
Robbins, Henry Roberts, William Robins, Richard Robinson, Thomas Robinson,
William Robinson, Simon Robson, Thomas Rockley, William Roe, Thomas
Rogers, William Rogers, John Roods, William Rookes, Philip Rosseter,
Samuel Rowley, Thomas Rowley, William Rowley, Matthew Roydon, Francis
Russell, John Russell, Robert Russell, Robert fl Rutson, John Sadler, Sir
Rafe Sadler, Peter Saintly, William Sampson, Richard Samwell, William
Sanders, Cicely Sands, Henry Sands, John Sands, Thomas Sands, William
Sands, Bernhardt Sandt, William Sandys, William Saunders, Raphe Savage,
Abraham Savery, Arthur Savill, John Scarlett, Richard Scarlett, Sebastian
Schadleutner, Henry Scrope, Jehan Sehais, Robert Selby, William Selby,
Robert Sempill, John Senear, Peter Seyntley, John Shaa, Robert Shaa,
William Shakeshafte, William Shakshafte, Thomas Sharman, Lewis Sharpe,
Richard Sharpe, Robert Shatterell, John Shaw, Robert Shaw, Thomas Sherman,
Henry Shirley, Susan Shore, Anthony Sibes, Francis Sidney, Mary Sidney,
Robert Sidney, Richard Simpson, Robert Simpson, William Sinckler, John
Sincler, John Slater, Martin Slater, William Slaughter, William Sly,
Thomas Slye, Robert Smedly, Abraham Smith, Anthony Smith, Sir Francis
Smith, Henry Smith, John Smith, Leonard Smith, Mathew Smith, Robert Smith,
Thomas Smith, Wentworth Smith, William Smyght, Ralph Snape, Francis Snell,
Thomas Snell, James Sneller, Henry Somer, Henry Somerset, William
Somerset, William Soyles, Thomas Sparrow, Nathan Speede, Alice Spencer,
Anne Spencer, William Spencer, Rod Stafford, Alice Stanley, Anne Stanley,
Henry Stanley, Thomas Stanley, William Stanley, Lancelot Stanton, Laurence
Stanton, Hans Stockfish, William Stokes, John Stone, Philip Stone, Robert
Str, Ralph Strachey, William Strachey, Robert Stratford, William
Stratford, William Strayker, Ralph Streche, Peter Street, Sir Anthony
Strelley, John Stretch, Philip Stringer, William Strode, Esme Stuart,
Ludovic Stuart, John Studle, John Sturt, William Styles, John Sucar, Lord
Sudder, Thomas Suell, Henry Summer, John Sumner, Thomas Sutton, Martin
Swayne, Thomas Swetherton, Richard Swift, Thomas Swinnerton, William
Sylvester, John Symons, Robert Tailor, Richard Tarlton, Hughe Tatterdell,
William Tatum, William Tawyer, Robert Taylor, Stage Taylor, Thomas Taylor,
William Taylor, John Thare, William Thayer, Thomas Thornton, Penitent
Thrum, Mark Thwaites, Robbert Tindal, Anthony Tindall, Peter Titley,
Edward Tomsett, Sam Tomson, John Tomsone, Will Tony, Nicholas Tooley,
Roger Tosedall, Harry Tottnell, John Towne, Thomas Towne, Townes boy,
William Towyer, William Trevell, Nicholas Trott, John Trout, John Trundle,
John Tufton, Anthony Turner, Cyril Turner, Drew or True Turner, Henry
Turner, Winifred Turner, Mark Twaites, Thomas Twyne, Richard Vennar,
Thomas Vincent, William Vincent, William Wager, John Waite, Francis
Wambus, Francis Wanibus, Robert Ward, Thomas Warner, Robert Warren, Thomas
Warren, William Warren, Thomas Warrin, David Waterhouse, John Waters,
Thomas Waters, Francis Waymus, Richard Webster, William Wedwer, John Wend,
William West, Sebastian Westcott, Thomas Weste, John Whalye, Philip
Wharton, Thomas Whetstone, Francis White, John White, Robert White, Thomas
White, Robert Wild, William Wilkinson, Ralph Williams, Walter Williams,
Richard Willis, Robert Wilmot, Arthur Wilson, Henry Wilson, Nicholas
Wilson, Robert Wilson, William Wilson, Richard Winter, William
Wintershall, John Withy, John Witter, Nicholas Wolfe, Mary Wood, Ralph
Wood, Richard Wood, William Wood, Earl of Worcester, William Worshipp,
Ellis Worth, Sir Henry Wotton, Christopher Wren, Thomas Wrench, Abraham
Wright, Henry Wriothesley, Lady Mary Sidney Wroth, Richard Zouche, Thomas
Regnier, Dan Wright, Ren Draya, Roger Stritmatter, Charles Berney, Marty
Hyatt, Ron Hess, Hank Whittemore, Ron Halstead, Charles Boyle, Michael
Dunn, Tom Hunter, David Yuhas, Mark Anderson, Richard Horne, Alan Nelson,
Tom Skeyhill, Anne Askew, William Byrd, Sir Edward Dyer, Richard Carew,
John Wilbye, Thomas Ford, Richard Corbet, Walter Porter, Anne Bradstreet,
Andrew Marvell, John Dryden, Thomas Sprat, Thomas Traherne, Sir Charles
Sedley, Aphra Behn, Nahum Tate, Daniel Defoe, Tom Brown, Matthew Prior,
Isaac Watts, Mary Monck, Thomas Parnell, Thomas Tickell, Allan Ramsay,
William Oldys, Robert Blair, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, Samuel Johnson,
William Shenstone, Thomas Gray, Mark Akenside, William Collins, Mary
Leapor, Christopher Smart, Martin Madan, Thomas Percy, Charles Churchill,
William Cowper, Francis Grose, William Mickle, Charlotte Smith, Thomas
Chatterton, Philip Morin Freneau, William Roscoe, Phillis Wheatley,
William Blake, Mary Robinson, Robert Burns, Catherine Maria Fanshawe,
Amelia Opie, Sydney Smith, Robert Southey, Charles Lamb, Thomas Campbell,
Ann Taylor, Jane Taylor, Leigh Hunt, Barron Field, Anne Hecht, Charles
Wolfe, John Clare, Thomas Carlyle, Thomas Hood, Mary Howitt, Mother Goose,
William Barnes, Susanna Moodie, David Bates, Abraham Lincoln, William
Miller, Edward Lear, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Anne Bronte,
William Allingham, Phoebe Cary, Robert Lowry, Rosanna Eleanor, Emily
Dickinson, Christina Rossetti, David Mills, William Morris, Mark Twain,
Walter Pater, Thomas Hardy, William Cosmo Monkhouse, Sidney Lanier, Ernest
Myers, Arthur O'Shaughnessy, Alice Meynell, William Ernest Henley, Emma
Lazarus, Percy French, Oscar Wilde, Toru Dutt, Edith Nesbit, Bliss Carman,
Amy Levy, Ernest Dowson, Henry Lawson, Stephen Crane, Arthur Guiterman,
Robert Frost, Perceval Gibbon, Harold Monro, Mary Webb, Thomas Ernest
Hulme, Sara Teasdale, Elinor Wylie, Marianne Moore, Aline Kilmer, Eugene
O'Neill, Alan Seeger, Claude McKay, William Hamilton, Wilfred Owen, Thomas
Craig, Marge Piercy, Mark Doty, Annie Finch, Lynn Crosbie, Richard Barnes,
Barnaby Riche, William Cecil, Lord Treasurer, Pierce Penniless, Kit
Marlowe, Christopher Sly, Charles Nicholl, Christopher Ocland, Doctor
Edes, Edward Ferris, Master Rowley, Master Edwards, Richard Stanyhurst,
Samuel Langley, Ruth Loyd Miller, Malone Society, Richard Edwardes, Thomas
Nash, London Theaters, Lord Chesterfield, Philip Stanhope, Thomas Warton,
Ann Radcliffe, Penelope Rich, Madame d' Arblay, Jane Austen, Sir Robert
Ayton, John Bale, William Beckford, Fanny Burney, Edward Capell, William
Congreve, Thomas Coryate, Charles Cotton, Hannah Cowley, John Crowne,
Erasmus Darwin, Madame D'Arblay, John Dyer, Sir Thomas Elyot, William
Falconer, Matthew Green, Anne Hathaway, Richard Head, Richard Hurd,
Nathaniel Lee, Sir David Lindsay, Sir David Lyndsay, David Mallet, William
Mason, Edward Moore, Sir Thomas North, Dorothy Osborne, Thomas Otway,
William Painter, Peter Pindar, Samuel Purchas, Barnabe Rich, Nicholas
Rowe, Thomas Rymer, Sir Richard Steele, Laurence Sterne, Elkanah Settle,
Anna Seward, Frances Sheridan, Thomas Southerne, Philip Sydney, Hester
Lynch Thrale, Thomas Tyrwhitt, Nicholas Udall, William Whitehead, William
Wotton, William Wycherley, Andrew Fortescue, Anthony Strelley, Aston
Cokayne, Charles Sedley, Christopher Hatton, David Lindsay, David Lyndsay,
Francis Smith, Francis Vere, Henry Cheyne, Henry Fortescue, Henry Foster,
Henry Lee, John Becon, John Byron, John Hales, Peter Lee, Rafe Sadler,
Ralph Freeman, Richard Boyoe, Richard Hatton, Richard Rogers, Richard
Stapleton, Richard Steele, Richard Wayneman, Robert Ayton, Robert Howard,
Thomas Cartley, Thomas Cawerden, Thomas Elyot, Thomas Hesketh, Thomas
Lucy, Thomas Metcalf, Walter Scott, William Berkeley, William Davenant,
William D'Avenant, William Fortescue, William Lower, William Stropworth,
Ethan ALLEN, Samuel J. BARROWS, Elisabeth Luther CARY, Willa CATHER,
Samuel L. CLEMENS, Richard Henry DANA, Henry JAMES, Sinclair LEWIS, Marion
P. MAUS, John MUIR, Frank NORRIS, Mary RANDOLPH, Edith WHARTON, Robert
CAWDREY, Wilkie COLLINS, Hohn DONNE, Anne FINCH, Richard HAKLUYT, Thomas
HULL, Aemilia LANIER, William LAW, John Stuart MILL, John REDFORD, William
ROPER, Mary SHELLEY, Richard SHERRY, Thomas SPRATT, Alfred TENNYSON,
Thomas WEBSTER, Thomas WILSON, Mary WROTH, Bram STOKER, Charles WOLF,
David HUME, Lloyd OSBOURNE, John McCRAE, Robert W. SERVICE, Robert
SERVICE, Marvin Bell, John Berryman, Roberth Bly, Amy Clampitt, Robert
Creeley, Rita Dove, Robert Duncan, Russel Edson, Peter Everwine, Carolyn
Forchi, Louise Gluck, Allen Grossman, Thom Gunn, Donald Hall, Michael S.
Harper, Robert Hass, Seamus Heaney, Anthony Hecht, William Heyen, Richard
Howard, Ted Hughes, Richard Hugo, Randall Jarrel, Rodney Jones, Larry
Levis, Robert Lowell, James Merrill, Les Murray, Frank OHara, Sharon Olds,
Mary Oliver, Sylvia Plath, Michael Ryan, Charles Simic, Dave Smith, Gerald
Stem, Mark Strand, May Swenson, James Tate, Dylan Thomas, Derek Walcott,
Charles Wright, Dannie Abse, Richard Aldington, Alfred Austin, Alfred
Noyes, Laurence Binyon, Lord Byron, Edward Carpenter, Charles Murray,
Wendy Cope, Craig Raine, Nora Chesson, Cecil Day-Lewis, Walter de la Mare,
Jane Draycott, Helen Dunmore, Douglas Dunn, William Empson, Laurence
Eusden, Richard Flecknoe, Francis Berry, Roy Fuller, Robert Graves, Philip
Gross, Ivor Gurney, Tony Harrison, Hedd Wyn, Hamish Henderson, William
Henley, Geoffrey Hill, Edmond Holmes, David Jones, Laurie Lee, Lawrence
Durrell, Alun Lewis, Tim Liardet, Maurice Lindsay, Lionel Johnson, Hugh
MacDiarmid, Charlotte Mew, Richard Monckton Milnes, Andrew Motion, Edwin
Muir, Norman Nicholson, Don Paterson, Paul Muldoon, Tom Paulin, Pascale
Petit, Ruth Pitter, Kathleen Raine, Tom Raworth, Herbert Read, Anne
Ridler, John Riley, Robert Montgomery, Iain Sinclair, Edith Sitwell,
Charles Sorley, Lewis Spence, Stevie Smith, Arthur Symons, Terence Tiller,
Chris Torrance, Henry Treece.
Post by richard kennedy
And so with the Friedmans. They could find no 16th century
man whose name could game with the poem. If they could have,
they would have, can anyone doubt it?
They did not fail, because that is not what they were trying to do. They
knew that ANY name would serve, and the name of "Lewis Carroll" worked
wonderfully. If you really need to see some Elizabethan names that can be
made to appear using Ward's methods, look at this page:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
Post by richard kennedy
The Scudamore acrostic is a good example of the Elizabethan frenzy of
mind to create double-meaning and other cute troubling with words, and
the Sonnets our best model of the day.
There is no acrostic in Gascoigne's Scudamore poem. If you would like to
see some genuine acrostics, so that you may learn the meaning of the word
"acrostic," this page has a few samples:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/acros.html
Post by richard kennedy
Ben Jonson tells us a litany of word-games, escaping such usage himself,
ahem, in his "Execration on Vulcan" poem, published when he was dead and
didn't have to answer for this damning accusation that someone had
burned him out of his house and manuscripts.
Actually, Ben Jonson had done many of the things that the speaker of the
poem pretends might have justified Vulcan. If you'll look at my page of
acrostics, you'll see one by Ben Jonson. We have no similar effort by
William Shakespeare.
Post by richard kennedy
Word games and deceptions such as acrostics, anagrams, and secret
wording was a fad, Elizabethan poety is full of it.
English "poety" may be "full of it" -- I've even known people to be "full
of it" -- but the great majority of English poems do not use acrostics or
anagrams. On the other hand, using the "string-cipher" method, it should
be possible to find many accidental words or names in just about any
English text of a reasonable length -- this is as true of works written in
the 16th Century as it is of modern works, and it has nothing whatsoever
to do with the intentions of the original authors.
Post by richard kennedy
Nothing like it today or in any other historical-literary context.
You appear to know as little about contemporary literature as you do about
Elizabethan. If you looked in any Robert Frost poem or set of poems that
was comparable in length to Gascoigne's poem for Sir John Scudamore, you
could use Ward's methods to find a great many accidental names. On the
other hand, deliberate acrostics may be found in some contemporary works,
just as they may be found in some Elizabethan works.
Post by richard kennedy
They were word-freaks, they could fold a sentence like a omelet, so
mouth-watering and lovely besides, but there's always the question of
what's in it. And the best cook of this scramble was Shakespeare.
Actually, Shakespeare was much less given to such "scrambled eggs" as
acrostics than Ben Jonson was -- but why am I telling you this? If you
had read Shakespeare and Jonson you would know this.
Post by richard kennedy
But there's no trust in ciphers entirely, Mary lost her head.
Ross has also lost his.
I'm sure I've lost my head from time to time, but I always get it back,
and the change generally does us both some good. You, on the other hand,
seem irredeemably yoked to the unfortunate object that is fastened to the
top of your neck, and that you are condemned never to lose, even for a
minute. Thus while your "head" (for lack of a better term) may enable you
to compose your Wee Paragraph O' Wonders, it does not allow you to see the
thousands of names that you have innocently strung through that short
text.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
richard kennedy
2004-12-03 23:10:05 UTC
Permalink
The Scudamore cipher asks us to find a hidden name in the poem.
Cipra is right to suggest that irrelevant names might occur, and
such is the case with the Friedman's solution. The name of Lewis
Carroll is totally out of context.

Cipra says, "…isn't it incumbant on the proposer of a cipher solution
to show that the author intended a cipher…?" In the case of a military
acrostic, for example, the answer is no. Only the receiver would know
how to find the message. In the case of the Scudamore, the title above
the poem is this:

"The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his name, doth crave some
speedy relief as followeth."

And so the hunt is on, and we would expect the name of a living
man to be the quarry. (Edith Sitwell wasn't born yet, it's as foolish
as the other examples given by Ross.)

The sleuther might try out several solutions, attempting to make his
way through the bramble of so many letters. It could be that the first
letter of each line spells out a name, such as in a simple acrostic, but
they are known at a glance. Or perhaps the acrostic letters should be
plucked from the first letter of the second word in each line, or maybe
the third. Or maybe the last letter of certain words give the solution.
The puzzler must try several tracks. At last, his candle guttering and
the sun coming up, the man hits on the solution, which goes like this
in the case of the Scudamore. I will show with capital letters how the
puzzler solves the acrostic, using the short poem I posted today.

THE friedmans have set us a daunting chore:
to solve the ENIGMA of scudamore.
the name "lewis carroll" can hardly be RIGHT,
a RIGOROUS finding, but not very bright.
his YEARS are all wrong, he just doesn't fit,
so logic REJECTS him, the poem was writ
OVER three centuries before he existed,
SUCH SLEUTHING is nonsense, rightly resisted.

The first letters of those capital words give us the name of Terry Ross,
as you see. And yet the Scudamore acrostic is much more complex
than this. It's 36 lines long and spells out the name of "Edward de Vere"
from the top down and once again spells the name from the bottom up.

The Friedmans concluded that this was accidental, and proved to such
as Ross that "Lewis Carroll" was a valid, alternate solution, which is
silly of course.
Buffalo
2004-12-04 06:16:17 UTC
Permalink
I'm new to this. Also, lost on this.

I've been trawling old posts, trying to find out the rules Ward was
following. I took your compressed list of initial letters off your post of
30 May 1999 - news:Pine.GSO.4.10.9905300723310.29099-***@mail.bcpl.net ,
but while trying to figure out the method, I noticed some discrepancies
between your letter sequence and the text. For convenience I've divided your
continous list up into groups, each representing a line, with the group on
the right being the even-numbered line where the reading is right to left.
Groups followed by an asterisk represent lines where the letter sequence
doesn't match the text of the poem.

ledatsopl fsoftlost
tfofwnwr dobtbtfsb
ttthlbotb tmaawttba

iddilal * twamwwmwa
ipfpysinos * swrqwdfi
tpwmumpip losmuaiby

iccamcc fefwfdt
ifmhffft * dwdccw
mhsfmhdsf stisafbit

stiladiod dwahahbh
fbbfwfwb * hmetttbu
rbjwhdm * addodigwya

itaifmf * wiswtft *
ascmtcc btobtbtuh
stucopfr * gametsso

tyddtdpim smrsmsow
tsysafyss hfahthphm
mopshmdl wmdyefymln

Of course, that was five years ago, and you might have already corrected the
errors. But if you haven't, they might throw your findings into disarray. I
compiled my own sequence, and I double-checked at every point where my
version diverged from yours, and I believe it is correct. Here it is:-

ledatsopl fsoftlost
tfofwnwr dobtbtfsb
ttthlbotb tmaawttba

iddilaal twamwwmwa
ipfpysisos swrqwdfi
tpwmumpip losmuaiby

iccamcc fefwfdt
ifmhtttf dwdccw
mhsfmhdsf stisafbit

stiladiod dwahahbh
fbbfwfwbf hmetttbv (or u)
rbjwhdma addodigwya

itaifmff wiswtftb
ascmtcc btobtbtuh
sticopfr gametsso

tyddtdpim smrsmsow
tsysafyss hfahthphm
mopshmdl wmdyefymln

Meantime, maybe you could just summarise what Ward's rules actually were by
which he found the enciphered name. I'd like to write a program to test out
some Elizabethan names. At the moment I'm under the impression that the name
has to be found going both ways, snakewise through the text. But what are
the rules by which letters are either accepted or rejected?

Buffalo
Terry Ross
2004-12-04 13:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buffalo
I'm new to this. Also, lost on this.
It's hardly worth getting found on this.
Post by Buffalo
I've been trawling old posts, trying to find out the rules Ward was
following.
Look at the new posts; or better yet, look for some examples at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

You will first see Gascoigne's poem printed straight.

Next you will see the same poem headed "Edward de Vere (according to B.
M. Ward)."

You will see direction arrows for each line: ">>>>" means look at the
letters from left to right in that line, while "<<<<" means look at the
Post by Buffalo
Post by Terry Ross
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
<<<< The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,

Take the first letters of each word in the appropriate order. Thus for
line one take "LEdatsopl" while for line 2 take "fsoftlost".

Once you've gone through forwards, go through again backwards.

You could use these as variables for your script:

$lesc_down="LEdatsoplfsoftlosTTfofwnwrdobtbtfsBTtthlbotbtmaawttbAIddIlaaltwamwwmwAIpfpysisosswrqwdfITpwmumpIplosmuaIbYIccamccfEfwfDTIfmhttTfDwdCcWMhsfmhdsfstisafbITStIladioddwahahbHFbbfwfwbfhmetttbVRbjwhdmaddodigwyAItaIfmffwiswtftBAscmtccbtobtBtuHStIcopfrgametssOTydDtdpImsmrsmsoWTsysafysshfahthphMMopshmdlwmdyefymlN";

$lesc_up="wmdyefymlNMopshmdlhfahthphMTsysafysssmrsmsoWTydDtdpImgametssOStIcopfrbtobtBtuHAscmtccwiswtftBItaIfmffddodigwyARbjwhdmahmetttbVFbbfwfwbfdwahahbHStIladiodstisafbITMhsfmhdsfDwdCcWIfmhttTffEfwfDTIccamcclosmuaIbYTpwmumpIpswrqwdfIIpfpysisostwamwwmwAIddIlaaltmaawttbATtthlbotbdobtbtfsBTfofwnwrfsoftlosTLEdatsopl";
Post by Buffalo
I took your compressed list of initial letters off your post of
but while trying to figure out the method, I noticed some discrepancies
between your letter sequence and the text.
One mistake I made then was to try to pick the letters by eye rather than
having a script do the work.
Post by Buffalo
For convenience I've divided your continous list up into groups, each
representing a line, with the group on the right being the even-numbered
line where the reading is right to left. Groups followed by an asterisk
represent lines where the letter sequence doesn't match the text of the
poem.
[snip]
Post by Buffalo
Of course, that was five years ago, and you might have already corrected
the errors. But if you haven't, they might throw your findings into
disarray. I compiled my own sequence, and I double-checked at every
point where my version diverged from yours, and I believe it is correct.
Here it is:-
I made corrections some eyars ago, and most of your changes are accurate.

[snip]
Post by Buffalo
fbbfwfwbf hmetttbv (or u)
Throughout the text (and for any name you check) you should treat "i" and
"j" as the same letter, and do the same for "u" and "v". This was
standard practice in genuine acrostics at the time.
Post by Buffalo
rbjwhdma addodigwya
This is not correct; it should be

rbjwhdma ddodigwya
Post by Buffalo
Post by Terry Ross
Reviv'd by joyes, when hope doth most abound,
<<<< And yet with grief, in depth of dollors drownd.

You have an extra "a" at the beginning of your second substring.
Post by Buffalo
Meantime, maybe you could just summarise what Ward's rules actually were
by which he found the enciphered name. I'd like to write a program to
test out some Elizabethan names.
You needn't limit yourself to Elizabethan names that you know. There are
some demonstrably valid acrostics where the one solution is clearly a
name, but not the name of a person that we know was acquainted with or
known to the author. Sometimes we aren't sure which of several people
around at that time might have been meant. If the cipher method is
genuine, and if the only solution it produces is "Lewis Carroll," and if
the cipher were created before OUR Lewis Carroll was around, then you
might have to see which contemporary of the poet could have been the
match, but that last step is outside the cryptanalysts's purview.

Since you're writing a program, you might consider trying different rules,
as outlined later.
Post by Buffalo
At the moment I'm under the impression that the name has to be found
going both ways, snakewise through the text. But what are the rules by
which letters are either accepted or rejected?
That's pretty much it. Since "Edward de Vere" begins and ends with an
"E", Ward says the name should begin and end on the same letter, which is,
of course, an ad-hoc restriction designed to force his desired result, but
it doesn't prevent the thing's working on "Lewis Carroll" or "Lord
Admiral". Keep in mind that this is Ward's 20th-Century method, not
Gascoigne's 16th-Century method that we're talking about; the "rules" are
arbitrary and ad hoc. In fact, Ward's condition that the name should begin
on the first "or other prominent letter" of the first line is itself a
cheat. The REAL answer is "Lewis Carroll" (or "Lord Admiral" or some
other "L...l" solution) which begins on the very first line of the poem
reading downwards and which ends on the first line of the poem reading
upwards.

Here is the basic rule for your program: make a string containing the
first letters of each word in "snake" order, and find any name whose
letters appear in order within that string (there can be as many
intervening letters as you like). You do not have to take the first
matching letter that comes along (Ward does not say this explicitly, but
this is his practice). See which names match when you use the "downwards"
string; see which names match when you use the "upwards" string; see which
names match both ways, as "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll" and "Lord
Admiral" do.

Further restriction: the name should start on the first line reading
downwards and end on the last; the word should start on the last line
reading upwards and end on the first. NOTE: since Ward does not always
take the next possible matching letter, you can wait for the final letter
until you need it.

Further restriction: the name should start and end on the same letter
(this is actually an ad-hoc cheat designed to make the force of "Edward de
Vere" more likely). This would limit you right out of the box to names or
titles (or phrases, or mottoes -- the solution need not be a name) that
begin AND end with "L" or "E" or "D", and we don't have to take it just
becasue Ward needs it.

Suggested further restriction: the name should start and end with the
first letter of the first line of the poem (Ward's "first or any prominent
letter" shows a slackness designed to allow "Edward de Vere" even though
the correct answer is "Lewis Carroll" or "Lord Admiral"). Here we have an
easy way to tighten the rules in a reasonable way. The fact that this
tightening would have worked against Ward's desired outcome should not
sway us either way.

Suggested further restriction: you may not reuse a letter. Again, Ward
allows some letters to be used in both directions because otherwise he
would not find the name, but it might be fun to see what happens when you
tighten the rule. You could modify this rule and only allow reuse of the
very first letter.

The third version of the poem at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html shows something that
Ward missed. You do not have to "snake" your way through the poem. You
can find "Edward de Vere" if you take the first letters of each line in
reverse order.

<<<< L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
<<<< The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,

The first letters are "lpostadel fsoftlost"; if you follow this procedure
throughout the poem you will have another big string to search for names.
You can find "Edward de Vere" reading both downwards and upwards in this
fashion. (Can you find "Lewis Carroll" this way?).
Post by Buffalo
Post by Terry Ross
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The big string begins "Ledatsopl Tsoltfosf". How many names can you find
reading downwards AND upwards this way? Can you find "Edward de Vere"
Can you find "Lewis Carroll"?

Now take the letters in right-to-left order throughout the poem:
<<<< L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
<<<< The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,

The big string begins "Ledatsopl Tsoltfosf". How many names can you find
reading downwards AND upwards this way? Can you find "Edward de Vere" Can
you find "Lewis Carroll"?


Now we are ready for some serious string-ciphering. Is there any name
that meets the following conditions:

1. It may be found reading downwards and upwards if the letters are
chosen in Ward-snake order.

2. It may ALSO be found reading downwards and upwards if the letters are
chosen in reverse-Ward-snake order (i.e., take letters right to left in
even numbered lines, and left to right in odd-numbered lines).

3. It may ALSO be found reading upwards and downwards if the letters are
chosen in left-to-right order in each line.

4. It may ALSO be found reading upwards and downwards if the letters are
chosen in right-to-left order in each line.

These are much more stringent conditions than those Ward proposed, and
they are not designed on an ad-hoc basis to force or prevent any
particular answer. Are there any names that can pass ALL of these tests?
Since you're writing a program to do Wardish searches, it should be easy
to do these other searches as well. Can you find "Edward de Vere" in each
of these searches? Can you find "Lewis Carroll"?

If you are determined to search for Elizabethan names only, then you
really should get a complete list of the names of all Elizabethans, with
all the possible spellings of each name. Gascoigne spent time overseas,
so you probaly should not limit yourself to English names.

Note, finally, that none of this has anything to do with genuine ciphers,
although it may still be find to write a name-find program. In a genuine
cipher, the rule or key gives the position or the transformation to be
performed for each letter in the solution. It is never a question of
something like this:

"I need an A -- is there an A in the next line? What about the line after
that? What about the line after that?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo
2004-12-04 19:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Buffalo
I'm new to this. Also, lost on this.
It's hardly worth getting found on this.
Post by Buffalo
I've been trawling old posts, trying to find out the rules Ward was
following.
Look at the new posts; or better yet, look for some examples at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
You will first see Gascoigne's poem printed straight.
Next you will see the same poem headed "Edward de Vere (according to B.
M. Ward)."
You will see direction arrows for each line: ">>>>" means look at the
letters from left to right in that line, while "<<<<" means look at the
Post by Buffalo
Post by Terry Ross
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
<<<< The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
Take the first letters of each word in the appropriate order. Thus for
line one take "LEdatsopl" while for line 2 take "fsoftlost".
Once you've gone through forwards, go through again backwards.
$lesc_down="LEdatsoplfsoftlosTTfofwnwrdobtbtfsBTtthlbotbtmaawttbAIddIlaaltwa
mwwmwAIpfpysisosswrqwdfITpwmumpIplosmuaIbYIccamccfEfwfDTIfmhttTfDwdCcWMhsfmh
dsfstisafbITStIladioddwahahbHFbbfwfwbfhmetttbVRbjwhdmaddodigwyAItaIfmffwiswt
ftBAscmtccbtobtBtuHStIcopfrgametssOTydDtdpImsmrsmsoWTsysafysshfahthphMMopshm
dlwmdyefymlN";
$lesc_up="wmdyefymlNMopshmdlhfahthphMTsysafysssmrsmsoWTydDtdpImgametssOStIco
pfrbtobtBtuHAscmtccwiswtftBItaIfmffddodigwyARbjwhdmahmetttbVFbbfwfwbfdwahahb
HStIladiodstisafbITMhsfmhdsfDwdCcWIfmhttTffEfwfDTIccamcclosmuaIbYTpwmumpIpsw
rqwdfIIpfpysisostwamwwmwAIddIlaaltmaawttbATtthlbotbdobtbtfsBTfofwnwrfsoftlos
TLEdatsopl";
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Buffalo
I took your compressed list of initial letters off your post of
but while trying to figure out the method, I noticed some discrepancies
between your letter sequence and the text.
One mistake I made then was to try to pick the letters by eye rather than
having a script do the work.
Post by Buffalo
For convenience I've divided your continous list up into groups, each
representing a line, with the group on the right being the even-numbered
line where the reading is right to left. Groups followed by an asterisk
represent lines where the letter sequence doesn't match the text of the
poem.
[snip]
Post by Buffalo
Of course, that was five years ago, and you might have already corrected
the errors. But if you haven't, they might throw your findings into
disarray. I compiled my own sequence, and I double-checked at every
point where my version diverged from yours, and I believe it is correct.
Here it is:-
I made corrections some eyars ago, and most of your changes are accurate.
[snip]
Post by Buffalo
fbbfwfwbf hmetttbv (or u)
Throughout the text (and for any name you check) you should treat "i" and
"j" as the same letter, and do the same for "u" and "v". This was
standard practice in genuine acrostics at the time.
Post by Buffalo
rbjwhdma addodigwya
This is not correct; it should be
rbjwhdma ddodigwya
Post by Buffalo
Post by Terry Ross
Reviv'd by joyes, when hope doth most abound,
<<<< And yet with grief, in depth of dollors drownd.
You have an extra "a" at the beginning of your second substring.
Post by Buffalo
Meantime, maybe you could just summarise what Ward's rules actually were
by which he found the enciphered name. I'd like to write a program to
test out some Elizabethan names.
You needn't limit yourself to Elizabethan names that you know. There are
some demonstrably valid acrostics where the one solution is clearly a
name, but not the name of a person that we know was acquainted with or
known to the author. Sometimes we aren't sure which of several people
around at that time might have been meant. If the cipher method is
genuine, and if the only solution it produces is "Lewis Carroll," and if
the cipher were created before OUR Lewis Carroll was around, then you
might have to see which contemporary of the poet could have been the
match, but that last step is outside the cryptanalysts's purview.
Since you're writing a program, you might consider trying different rules,
as outlined later.
Post by Buffalo
At the moment I'm under the impression that the name has to be found
going both ways, snakewise through the text. But what are the rules by
which letters are either accepted or rejected?
That's pretty much it. Since "Edward de Vere" begins and ends with an
"E", Ward says the name should begin and end on the same letter, which is,
of course, an ad-hoc restriction designed to force his desired result, but
it doesn't prevent the thing's working on "Lewis Carroll" or "Lord
Admiral". Keep in mind that this is Ward's 20th-Century method, not
Gascoigne's 16th-Century method that we're talking about; the "rules" are
arbitrary and ad hoc. In fact, Ward's condition that the name should begin
on the first "or other prominent letter" of the first line is itself a
cheat. The REAL answer is "Lewis Carroll" (or "Lord Admiral" or some
other "L...l" solution) which begins on the very first line of the poem
reading downwards and which ends on the first line of the poem reading
upwards.
Here is the basic rule for your program: make a string containing the
first letters of each word in "snake" order, and find any name whose
letters appear in order within that string (there can be as many
intervening letters as you like). You do not have to take the first
matching letter that comes along (Ward does not say this explicitly, but
this is his practice). See which names match when you use the "downwards"
string; see which names match when you use the "upwards" string; see which
names match both ways, as "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll" and "Lord
Admiral" do.
Further restriction: the name should start on the first line reading
downwards and end on the last; the word should start on the last line
reading upwards and end on the first. NOTE: since Ward does not always
take the next possible matching letter, you can wait for the final letter
until you need it.
Further restriction: the name should start and end on the same letter
(this is actually an ad-hoc cheat designed to make the force of "Edward de
Vere" more likely). This would limit you right out of the box to names or
titles (or phrases, or mottoes -- the solution need not be a name) that
begin AND end with "L" or "E" or "D", and we don't have to take it just
becasue Ward needs it.
Suggested further restriction: the name should start and end with the
first letter of the first line of the poem (Ward's "first or any prominent
letter" shows a slackness designed to allow "Edward de Vere" even though
the correct answer is "Lewis Carroll" or "Lord Admiral"). Here we have an
easy way to tighten the rules in a reasonable way. The fact that this
tightening would have worked against Ward's desired outcome should not
sway us either way.
Suggested further restriction: you may not reuse a letter. Again, Ward
allows some letters to be used in both directions because otherwise he
would not find the name, but it might be fun to see what happens when you
tighten the rule. You could modify this rule and only allow reuse of the
very first letter.
The third version of the poem at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html shows something that
Ward missed. You do not have to "snake" your way through the poem. You
can find "Edward de Vere" if you take the first letters of each line in
reverse order.
<<<< L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
<<<< The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The first letters are "lpostadel fsoftlost"; if you follow this procedure
throughout the poem you will have another big string to search for names.
You can find "Edward de Vere" reading both downwards and upwards in this
fashion. (Can you find "Lewis Carroll" this way?).
Post by Buffalo
Post by Terry Ross
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The big string begins "Ledatsopl Tsoltfosf". How many names can you find
reading downwards AND upwards this way? Can you find "Edward de Vere"
Can you find "Lewis Carroll"?
<<<< L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
<<<< The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The big string begins "Ledatsopl Tsoltfosf". How many names can you find
reading downwards AND upwards this way? Can you find "Edward de Vere" Can
you find "Lewis Carroll"?
Now we are ready for some serious string-ciphering. Is there any name
1. It may be found reading downwards and upwards if the letters are
chosen in Ward-snake order.
2. It may ALSO be found reading downwards and upwards if the letters are
chosen in reverse-Ward-snake order (i.e., take letters right to left in
even numbered lines, and left to right in odd-numbered lines).
3. It may ALSO be found reading upwards and downwards if the letters are
chosen in left-to-right order in each line.
4. It may ALSO be found reading upwards and downwards if the letters are
chosen in right-to-left order in each line.
These are much more stringent conditions than those Ward proposed, and
they are not designed on an ad-hoc basis to force or prevent any
particular answer. Are there any names that can pass ALL of these tests?
Since you're writing a program to do Wardish searches, it should be easy
to do these other searches as well. Can you find "Edward de Vere" in each
of these searches? Can you find "Lewis Carroll"?
If you are determined to search for Elizabethan names only, then you
really should get a complete list of the names of all Elizabethans, with
all the possible spellings of each name. Gascoigne spent time overseas,
so you probaly should not limit yourself to English names.
Note, finally, that none of this has anything to do with genuine ciphers,
although it may still be find to write a name-find program. In a genuine
cipher, the rule or key gives the position or the transformation to be
performed for each letter in the solution. It is never a question of
"I need an A -- is there an A in the next line? What about the line after
that? What about the line after that?"
Okay, I understand the rules now. To decrypt the secret name you need the
secret name. Then you just trot through the text, picking out the letters
one by one, wherever you find them. The name is what generates the rules,
you might say. That means, for Gascoigne's contemporary readers, that the
cipher can be broken only by those who already know the answer, because they
are the only ones who can eliminate alternative (and better) matches. There
would be a huge number of those. Gascoigne identifies the man as an absent
lover, that's all. He might be a poet, but might equally be a haberdasher or
a horse-trader, and could have any name that sounds like a real one, and not
necessarily one that the reader would have heard of. The latest Elizabethan
super-computer would soon turn up "Lewis Carroll". Also "Lombard Bell",
which fits the rules too. They wouldn't have heard of Lombard Bell - and
neither have I - but he'd still have to be considered. It would be an
astronomically long list, but "Edward de Vere" would probably be eliminated
early on, because he doesn't quite reach the top-left of the grid (they
haven't heard of Captain Ward either, and don't know anything about the
special rule that lets his man start at the second letter). Of course, those
who knew "Edward de Vere" was the answer wouldn't go wrong, but then
finding his name in the text couldn't be called a discovery for them, could
it? Those to whom it *would* be a discovery can't break the code because
they don't already know the answer. It's a Catch-22 code. In which case, we
have to wonder what the point of it is. Gascoigne needs to get a life.

But I've got a life - that's why I won't be writing my program after all.
But thanks for all the suggestions about tightening up the rules to
eliminate Captain Ward's special-case codicils designed to filter out
everything except "Edward de Vere". This is not a real ciphering system, and
isn't worth the investment. I'm sorry I wasted two hours last night going
through the list of the usual suspects, trying to find a match according to
the rules as I understood them then. I thought I had "Thomas Heywood" in the
bag, but I didn't know about the first-and-last-letter rule at the time.

And thanks for the script variables. But if I did write a program for a
project
like that, it wouldn't be with scripts at all, which are far too slow,
considering the size of the database you would need (the contents of every
parish register in the kingdom, maybe). I've already programmed a
Shakespeare canon-searcher in assembly-language. That could be adapted for
any similar task, and is blinding fast in action. So if you've got any
decryption projects that need really fast processing, just shout. I can rig
it up for just about any job.

But, to return to the Gascoigne cipher, there's a more compelling reason
for not bothering too much with it. Even before we begin our search we
already know, or should know, a pertinent fact that Gascoigne reveals before
the poem proper begins. We know that even if we could satisfy ourselves that
a name found by Ward's or any other system is the true and intended name,
we will learn nothing earth-shattering from our labours. Since Gascoigne is
openly announcing the presence of a hidden name, there is obviously nothing
very much to hide. Not really a secret at all, just a bit of harmless
gossip, like a "really missing you" message in the Personal Ads of your
local newspaper. Nothing for Richard Kennedy or Captain Ward to get excited
about.

Buffalo
Terry Ross
2004-12-05 16:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Buffalo's response to my post is on google but has not appeared on my
usenet server, so I will respond to it here.
[snip]
Post by Buffalo
Okay, I understand the rules now. To decrypt the secret name you need
the secret name.
That's Ward's method, but not Gascoigne's. As I said in another post,

========

There IS an name that is conveyed by a kind of "code," but that is the
last name of Sir John Scudamore.

Scudamore == l'escu d'amour == shield of love

The title is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his name, doth
crave some spedie relief as followeth." Here is the first stanza:

L' Escu d' amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The force of fayth which never will remove,
But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death:
That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes,
And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throws.

The "lover," whom Gascoigne scholars have identified as Sir John
Scudamore, is away from his beloved, and his love for her has been a
shield for him until now; but he has grown weary in battle, even as he has
warded off every blow with his shield. At the conclusion of the poem he
asks for her love (her own shield) in return:

Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long.
Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong.

Thus Ward's entire project -- the search for a string-cipher version of
"Edward de Vere" in Gascoigne's poem is entirely pointless. The ciphering
and deciphering in the poem concerns that of the name "Scudamore" and its
translation as a "shield of love." The poem has no more to do with Edward
De Vere (or the Lord Admiral, or Edward Dyer, or Thomas Watson) then it
does with Lewis Carroll, or Edith Sitwell, or my uncle, Edward Rice, whose
name also may be found.

======
Post by Buffalo
Then you just trot through the text, picking out the
letters one by one, wherever you find them. The name is what generates
the rules, you might say. That means, for Gascoigne's contemporary
readers, that the cipher can be broken only by those who already know
the answer, because they are the only ones who can eliminate alternative
(and better) matches.
I think those who knew of both Gascoigne and Scudamore would have gotten
the name right off, but Gascoigne should not be blamed for Ward's folly.
Ward's method, which was devised 450 years after Gascoigne's poem was
written, was borrowed from some Baconian cipher-mongers who used a similar
method to find the name "Bacon" in Shakespeare's works. Start with a
"B:", continue until you find an "A", and so on.
Post by Buffalo
There would be a huge number of those. Gascoigne identifies the man as
an absent lover, that's all. He might be a poet, but might equally be a
haberdasher or a horse-trader, and could have any name that sounds like
a real one, and not necessarily one that the reader would have heard of.
The latest Elizabethan super-computer would soon turn up "Lewis
Carroll". Also "Lombard Bell", which fits the rules too. They wouldn't
have heard of Lombard Bell - and neither have I - but he'd still have to
be considered. It would be an astronomically long list, but "Edward de
Vere" would probably be eliminated early on, because he doesn't quite
reach the top-left of the grid (they haven't heard of Captain Ward
either, and don't know anything about the special rule that lets his man
start at the second letter).
Exactly: but I'm sure some of Gascoigne's early readers would have made
the "Scudamore == l'escu d'amour == the shield of love" connection, and
now, of course, it seems so painfully obvious (even Richard Kennedy refers
to the "Scudamore" poem) that Ward's work ought to be an embarrassment to
Oxfordians.
Post by Buffalo
Of course, those who knew "Edward de Vere" was the answer wouldn't go
wrong, but then finding his name in the text couldn't be called a
discovery for them, could it? Those to whom it *would* be a discovery
can't break the code because they don't already know the answer. It's a
Catch-22 code. In which case, we have to wonder what the point of it is.
Gascoigne needs to get a life.
Gascoigne had a pretty interesting life, actually -- soldier, poet,
playwright, novelist (sort-of); Ward had also been a soldier, but his
literary historical adventured consisted of a series of misattributions
that were soon refuted by scholars but that plague Oxfordians to this day.
Post by Buffalo
But I've got a life - that's why I won't be writing my program after
all. But thanks for all the suggestions about tightening up the rules to
eliminate Captain Ward's special-case codicils designed to filter out
everything except "Edward de Vere". This is not a real ciphering system,
and isn't worth the investment. I'm sorry I wasted two hours last night
going through the list of the usual suspects, trying to find a match
according to the rules as I understood them then. I thought I had
"Thomas Heywood" in the bag, but I didn't know about the
first-and-last-letter rule at the time.
That's why I suggested that if you wanted to play with the string-ciphers
at all, you might consider various sets of rules. Ward's methods deserve
no special honor.
Post by Buffalo
And thanks for the script variables. But if I did write a program for a
project like that, it wouldn't be with scripts at all, which are far too
slow, considering the size of the database you would need (the contents
of every parish register in the kingdom, maybe). I've already programmed
a Shakespeare canon-searcher in assembly-language. That could be adapted
for any similar task, and is blinding fast in action. So if you've got
any decryption projects that need really fast processing, just shout. I
can rig it up for just about any job.
I do my little best with perl scripts; I have a growing list of names I
use for searching, and that list has proven adequate for the purpose of
showing that Ward's system (or whatever invalid system is on the table
today) is not valid. When I find a name that matches, I can plug it into
another script that writes an html version of Gascoigne's poem using red
for the downward letters of the name, blue for the upward, and purple for
those used in both directions. Perl is pretty good for manipulating text
strings and for pattern recognition, especially if I shove things into
hashes and ask, "have you seen that before?" -- but assembly would, of
course, be much faster, and even my baby perl scrips could be sped up by
somebody who really knew what he was doing. What IS slow is to do word
searches, since I might be looking for any one of 600,000 different word
forms in a set of thousands of possible ciphertext strings.

Richard Kennedy calls me an amateur cryptographer, which is certainly true
and may even overstate the case. I am also very much an amateur
programmer -- but the ability of such a multiply amateurish person to
debunk some of these proposed ciphers only shows how feeble they are.

Of course with a genuine cipher, there will be exactly one solution, and I
could check billions of alternatives without finding an alternative.
Post by Buffalo
But, to return to the Gascoigne cipher, there's a more compelling reason
for not bothering too much with it. Even before we begin our search we
already know, or should know, a pertinent fact that Gascoigne reveals before
the poem proper begins. We know that even if we could satisfy ourselves that
a name found by Ward's or any other system is the true and intended name,
we will learn nothing earth-shattering from our labours. Since Gascoigne is
openly announcing the presence of a hidden name, there is obviously nothing
very much to hide. Not really a secret at all, just a bit of harmless
gossip, like a "really missing you" message in the Personal Ads of your
local newspaper. Nothing for Richard Kennedy or Captain Ward to get excited
about.
Exactly -- Sir John Scudamore was well enough known that Gascoigne's poem
for him was not page-one news. Ward did not know of Scudamore, but the
Gascoigne scholar Charles Prouty made the connection; and the Friedmans
mention it; and it is accepted in G. W. Pigman's recent and authoritative
edition of Gascoigne's *Hundredth Sundrie Flowres* and by Gascoigne
scholars in general. Please don't blame Gascoigne for the blunders of
20th- and 21st-Century Oxfordians such as Ward and Richard Kennedy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Cipra
2004-12-03 14:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
I doubt it took a great deal of effort for the Friedmans, but the energy
expended is not the test. The fact is that Ward's method does NOT produce
a unique solution and is therefore to be rejected. If you don't think
Lewis Carroll has any place in an Elizabethan poem, then you might wonder
why the author of the poem, George Gascoigne, put him there. The answer
is that he did not; nor did he put Edward de Vere or Lord Admiral or
Edward Sibthorpe or Edith Sitwell or any of the many other names that
Ward's system may be used to generate.
I'm even less of an expert in this area than the rest of you (although my
nickname on my company's softball team was Cipher, I think that was because
they couldn't figure me out), so the following are questions, not
statements.

I'm wondering if in one sense, Richard's point about Lewis Carroll being out
of period may be (gag, retch) valid. If Gascoigne had tested the supposed
cipher, he might have found a series of consecutive letters that looked like
a name, but it would not have been a recognizable one to him. The
appearance of so many near-hits (as "Lewis Carroll" and "Edith Sitwell"
would appear to him) should have given him pause, but wouldn't necessarily
have invalidated the system to him. If he had gotten so far as to find
"Lord Admiral", that perhaps should have caused him to abandon it. Forgive
my ignorance, but who is Edward Sibthorpe? Who, if anyone, was the Lord
Admiral in those days?

Is the broader point that: 1) a cipher system should lead you through one
and only one path through the text, or that 2) other paths permitted by the
system result in invalid messages? Obviously a system which allows both
"Bin Laden is in Tora Bora" and "Bin Laden is in Bora Bora" is worthless,
but what if the second message is "Ducks are pretty"?

Doesn't most of the technical argument about ciphers assume the author is
competent? A military cipher must be unambigous, but someone like me might
be tickled to hide name in a poem without realizing the system allowed
multiple solutions. This would mean that Bacon, an expert, wouldn't make
such mistakes, but that a competent-poet-but-incompetent-cryptographer
would. I don't find the idea that Gascoigne encoded a name in the poem
plausible on logical grounds, but it is *possible* he intended to encode a
name - just that we can't know whether he meant de Vere or the Lord Admiral.

And therefore, since it is demonstrably possible to show that there are
hidden messages everywhere, given a long enough text and sufficient time or
computing power, isn't it incumbant on the proposer of a cipher solution to
show that the author intended a cipher, either through a pattern in his
works or some other means?
richard kennedy
2004-12-03 21:46:42 UTC
Permalink
The Scudamore acrostic shows us a man at work under a candle.
Insomniacs are great with ciphers. Constructing such a poem is
like stirring alphabet soup into some order. The poet of the poem
was expert at his work, elegant, even obsessive. It's a delicate
piece of work, but very tight.

The name of Edward de Vere is spelled out, and is the singular
Elizabethan name to be found in the poem. Following the steps
of such an acrostic, the amateur code-breaker will find the
following attempt both exacting and sleepless, a 60 watt bulb
lights my way.

The Friedmans have set us a daunting chore:
To solve the enigma of Scudamore.
The name "Lewis Carroll" can hardly be right,
A rigorous finding, but not very bright.
His years are all wrong, he just doesn't fit,
And logic rejects him, the poem was writ
Over three centuries before he existed,
Such sleuthing is nonsense, rightly resisted.

The drill is the same as the previous acrostic paragraph.
Terry Ross
2004-12-04 23:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
The Scudamore acrostic shows us a man at work under a candle.
Insomniacs are great with ciphers. Constructing such a poem is
like stirring alphabet soup into some order. The poet of the poem
was expert at his work, elegant, even obsessive. It's a delicate
piece of work, but very tight.
The name of Edward de Vere is spelled out, and is the singular
Elizabethan name to be found in the poem. Following the steps of such an
acrostic, the amateur code-breaker will find the following attempt both
exacting and sleepless, a 60 watt bulb lights my way.
Not really; I have a script set up; all I have to do is plug in the string
to be searched.
Post by richard kennedy
To solve the enigma of Scudamore.
The name "Lewis Carroll" can hardly be right,
A rigorous finding, but not very bright.
His years are all wrong, he just doesn't fit,
And logic rejects him, the poem was writ
Over three centuries before he existed,
Such sleuthing is nonsense, rightly resisted.
The drill is the same as the previous acrostic paragraph.
By just using the first letters of the words, I can find the name "Terry
Ross" reading downwards:

T he Friedmans have set us a daunting chore: To solve the
e nigma of Scudamore. The name "Lewis Carroll" can hardly be
r ight, A
r igorous finding, but not very bright. His
y ears are all wrong, he just doesn't fit, And logic

r ejects him, the poem was writ
O ver three centuries before he existed,
S uch
s leuthing is nonsense, rightly resisted.


I gather this is the name Richard Kennedy meant to "hide." Once again,
however, he is not fully in control of his own prose, since he unwittingly
also hid the name of Ron Hess, reading upwards:

The Friedmans have
s et us a daunting chore: To
s olve the
e nigma of Scudamore. The name "Lewis Carroll" can
h ardly be right, A rigorous finding, but

n ot very bright. His years are all wrong, he just doesn't fit,
And logic rejects him, the poem was writ
O ver three centuries before he existed, Such sleuthing is nonsense,
r ightly resisted.

There are other names that could be found using just the 58 first-letters
of the words from Richard's Doggerel of Doom, but these two are enough to
invalidate his system. Ron Hess may not be familiar to all hlas
regulars, but he is a very active Oxfordian who has his own website and
who posts to some lists where Richard himself is not unknown. I met Ron
at the Shakespeare Fellowship conference in Baltimore, and he had some
very kind things to say about my cipher talk.

Of course it is harder to find names using only 58 letters than it would
be using the 300+ that Ward 's method allows us to play with. If we were
to use all 266 letters of Richard's Doggerel of Doom, we would have a more
reasonable set of letters to work with; even though Richard's Doggerel of
Doom has substantially fewer letters than the set Ward allows, it is still
possible to find a very large number of names. Here are 1800 or so that
can be found (forwards or backwards) among the letters of the Doggerel of
Doom:

Lewis Carroll, Edward Rice, Dan Ford, Terrence Ross, Terry Ross, Roberta
Ross, Stephen Hawes, Henry VIII, John Heywood, Thomas Wyatt, Sir Thomas
Wyatt, Edward Somerset, Thomas, Lord Vaux, Lord Vaux, Henry Howard, Earl
of Surrey, Nicholas Grimald, Robert Wever, Thomas Tusser, George
Gascoigne, William Hunnis, Barnabe Googe, Edward Dyer, Nicholas Breton,
Giles Fletcher, Edward de Vere, Edmund Spenser, Walter Ralegh, Sir Walter
Ralegh, George Peele, Thomas Watson, Thomas Morley, William Warner, Thomas
Lodge, Robert Greene, John Harrington, Robert Southwell, Mary Herbert,
Francis Bacon, Michael Drayton, Charles Best, William Smith, Richard
Lynche, Samuel Daniel, John Davies, Sir John Davies, Richard Devereux,
Earl of Essex, James Stuart, Thomas Nashe, Thomas Campion, Henry Wotton,
Barnabe Barnes, Thomas Middleton, Robert Aytoun, Martin Peerson, Ben
Jonson, John Donne, Richard Barnfield, Thomas Heywood, John Marston,
William Percy, Will Tudor, William Tudor, Arthur Golding, Francis Meres,
Robert Henryson, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Gower, Dante Alighieri, John
Barbour, Thomas Chestre, John Lydgate, Thomas More, Sir Thomas More, Gavin
Douglas, Gabriel Harvey, Arthur Gorges, Sir Arthur Gorges, Richard
Edwards, George Sandys, John Taylor, John Webster, John Ford, Stephen
Gosson, Sir John Beaumont, John Beaumont, Francis Beaumont, Thomas Norton,
George Herbert, John Dee, Thomas Carew, John Milton, George Wither, Samuel
Butler, Henry Vaughan, Thomas Vaughan, Will Shagspere, Lord Abergavenny,
Lord Aboyne, Francis Acton, John Adams, John Adson, Thomas Albanes, Thomas
Albone, Edward Allen, Giles Allen, John Allen, Richard Allen, Edward
Alleyn, Richard Alleyn, John Allingham, John Allington, John Almond, Henry
Alvey, Robert Amerie, Richard Andrewes, George Androwes, Robert Anton,
Richard Archer, Robert Archer, John Argall, Edward Armestead, Edward
Armiger, Robert Armin, Earl of Arundel, Edward Ashborne, Thomas Ashton,
Thomas Atchelow, George Attewell, John Attree, Hugh Attwell, Lord Aubigny,
John Audelie, Robert Axen, John Aynsworth, John Bacon, John Badger,
Richard Badlowe, Richard Bagby, Edward Bagly, Richard Bagstare, John
Ballard, John Ball, Francis Balls, Richard Balls, Thomas Band, Brian
Banes, Edmond Barbor, Roger Barfield, John Barnard, Thomas Barnes, Robert
Baron, Thomas Barrell, John Barrett, Thomas Barrett, Walter Barrett,
Lording Barry, Onye Bartle, Henry Bartlett, Sir Richard Bartlett,
Onesiphorus Barton, Thomas Basse, Robert Bateman, Earl of Bath, John
Bathe, Will Baxted, Richard Baxter, Robert Baxter, Simon Baylie, Edward
Bayly, Thomas Baylye, Brian Baynes, Thomas Beard, Rudolf Beart, Sir John
Becon, Earl of Bedford, Ellis Bedowe, William Bee, Thomas Beedome, Ambrose
Beeland, Christopher Beeston, Robert Beeston, William Beeston, Richard
Bell, Henry Bellamy, Richard Benfield, Robert Benfield, Sir Thomas Benger,
John Bennett, Richard Bennett, Fabian Benton, Thomaes Berghel, Richard
Bernard, Samuel Bernard, Anthony Berry, Burchard Bierdt, Matthew Billing,
William Bing, George Birch, George Birche, Mary Bird, Theophilus Bird,
William Bird, Thomas Blorern, Charles Blount, Thomas Bond, Thomas Bone,
William Bonen, William Boone, Robert Booth, Thomas Booth, Thomas Borel,
Theophilus Borne, William Borne, Lord Borough, George Bosgrave, Robert
Bourman, Theophilus Bourne, Thomas Bourne, Richard Bower, Richard Bowers,
Henry Bowes, George Bowringe, Roger Boyle, Sir Richard Boyoe, Richard
Bradshaw, John Bradstreet, Thomas Brande, Samuel Brandon, Richard
Brathwait, Anthony Bray, John Brayne, Nicholas Brend, Thomas Brend,
William Breton, Antony Brew, Anthony Brewer, Thomas Brewer, Edward Bridge,
Edmund Bridges, Giles Bridges, Grey Bridges, William Bridges, John
Brigges, Robert Briggs, Francis Bristowe, Richard Bristowe, Richard Brome,
Richard Bromefield, Thomas Bromley, John Brotherhead, Ambrose Broughton,
Rowland Broughton, Anthony Browne, Cicely Browne, Edward Browne, Francis
Browne, Gertrude Browne, Henry Browne, John Browne, Richard Browne, Robert
Browne, Robert IV Browne, Susan Browne, George Bryan, Mary Bryan, Edmund
Brydges, Giles Brydges, Grey Brydges, Sir George Buc, George Buchanan,
John Bugge, John Bull, Thomas Bull, Cuthbert Burbage, Daniel Burbage,
Richard Burbage, Robert Burbage, Robert Burges, Thomas Burgh, Lord
Burghley, Henry Burnell, Henry Burnett, Walter Burrett, Tobias Burroughs,
Lord Burrow, Nicholas Burt, Anthony Burton, Robert Burton, Samuel Bushe,
Henry Buste, John Buste, John Butcher, John Butler, Ambrose Byland, Sir
John Byron, Thomas Cademan, Andrew Cane, Peter Carew, George Carey, Giles
Carey, Henry Carey, Giles Carie, Nicholas Carleton, Thomas Carleton, John
Carr, John Cart, Sir Thomas Cartley, William Carver, Giles Cary, Edmund
Casse, Robert Casse, Thomas Castle, Andrew Caue, Sir Thomas Cawerden,
Robert Cecil, Thomas Cecil, Robert Chamberlain, Lord Chandos, Will
Cherrington, Thomas Chesson, Henry Chettle, Matthias Christmas, Anthony
Chute, Anne Clifford, Thomas Clifton, Walter Clun, Abraham Coates, Edward
Coborne, Lightfoot Codbolt, Thomas Codbolt, Francis Coffin, Francis Cole,
Robert Coles, Thomas Colley, Edward Collins, Jeffrey Collins, Anne
Compton, Robert Conway, George Corden, John Cosnet, Samuel Costell, John
Costine, William Costine, John Cotton, Richard Cowley, Robert Cox,
Augustine Coxson, Thomas Crane, Nicholas Crispe, William Crome, Thomas
Crompton, Edward Cromwell, Nicholas Crosse, Samuel Crosse, Earl of
Cumberland, James Cutler, Robert Daborne, Dalapers boy, William Dale,
William Daman, Artus Damler, Edward Damport, Edward Daniel, John Daniel,
John Danner, Audley Dannett, Edward Danyelle, Richard Darbie, Richard
Darlowe, John Daunce, Robert Dausse, Sir William Davenant, Hugh Davies,
Matthew Davies, Hugh Davis, Richard Davis, Francis Davison, John Dawes,
Robert Dawes, John Dawson, John Day, Thomas Day, Andrew De Caine, Hurfries
De Lau, Lord De La Warr, Thomas Deloney, Sir John Denham, Earl of Derby,
John De Rue, Simon Detre, John de Vere, Thomas Dixon, John Dobson, William
Dodd, John Dorman, Earl of Dorset, Robert Dorset, Thomas Doughton, Anthony
Dover, John Dowland, Robert Dowland, Rowland Dowle, John Dowman, Downtons
boy, Thomas Downton, George Drew, Thomas Drewe, Richard Drington, Thomas
Drom, Thomas Drue, Ambrose Dudley, Sir Andrew Dudley, Lord Dudley, Gilbert
Dugdale, Robert Dulandt, Lord Durand, Robert Dutlandt, Edward Dutton, John
Dutton, Laurence Dutton, Dwarf Bob, Thomas Dycconson, Richard Eades, John
Earle, William Eaton, Richard Edes, Roger Edge, John Edmonds, John
Edwards, Rebecca Edwards, Thomas Edwards, Richard Eedes, Thomas Egerton,
Brian Ellam, William Elton, John Elward, Richard Errington, Countess of
Essex, George Estotville, Ralph Eure, Gouldwais Evans, Henry Evans, Thomas
Evans, Lord Evers, Henry Eveseed, Johann Eydwartt, Mildmay Fane, Richard
Farnaby, Richard Farrant, John Fasshauer, William Felle, William Fennor,
George Ferebe, Sir Cornelius Fermedo, Alfonso Ferrabosco, George Ferrers,
James Ferret, David Ferris, William Fidge, Henry Field, Nathan Field,
William Field, Robert Finch, Robert Fintrye, Jasper Fisher, John Fisher,
John Fletcher, Richard Fletcher, Phineas Fletcher, Valentine Flood,
Francis Flower, Edward Ford, Simon Forman, Sir Cornelius Formido, Miles
Forrest, Edward Forsett, Sir Andrew Fortescue, Sir Henry Fortescue, Sir
John Fortescue, Richard Fortescue, Sir William Fortescue, Sir Henry
Foster, Richard Fouch, Richard Fowler, John Fox, William Fox, George
Freeman, Mary Frith, Richard Frith, John Frost, Thomas Fulcis, Thomas
Fuller, Ulpian Fulwell, Henry Fussell, Francis Gardiner, Thomas Gargrave,
John Garland, John Garret, Bernard Garter, Thomas Garter, Giles Gary, Sir
John Gascoigne, Gedeon Gellius, Jarvis Gennatt, Francis George, John
George, Adam Gerdler, John Gerdler, George Gibbes, Thomas Gibborne,
Anthony Gibbs, Edward Gibbs, Robert Gibbs, Giless boy, George Giles,
Gideon Giles, Nathaniel Giles, Thomas Giles, Robert Gilman, Henry
Glapthorne, Thomas Glasier, Griffin Glinn, Richard Godwin, John Goffe,
Robert Goffe, Thomas Goffe, Edward Goldingham, Henry Goldingham, Henry
Goldwell, Baptiste Goodale, Thomas Goodale, Henry Gosson, John Goughe,
Robert Goughe, Thomas Goughe, Francis Grace, John Grace, Richard Grace,
Henry Gradwell, Richard Gradwell, Margaret Gray, John Greaves, John
Greene, Thomas Greene, William Greene, Francis Greenrod, Ellis Gret, Henry
Greum, Curtis Greville, Henry Grey, Margaret Grey, Henry Griffin, John
Griggs, Arthur Grimes, Elias Grundling, Anthony Grymes, Thomas Grymes,
Ellis Guest, Robert Guilman, Richard Gunnell, Matthew Gwinne, Thomas
Gyles, Robert Gylman, Russell Gyrdler, Sir John Hales, Richard Haley,
Edward Hall, George Hall, William Hall, Richard Halley, Cuthbert Halsall,
Bernard Halsey, Henry Hamerton, Robert Hamlen, Robert Hamlett, Henry
Hammersley, Nicholas Hammerton, Thomas Hamond, Richard Hanly, Nicholas
Hanson, Samuel Harding, John Harris, Richard Harris, John Harrison,
Richard Harrison, Stephen Harrison, William Harrison, Charles Hart,
William Hart, Sir Percival Harte, Robert Hartsius, William Harvey, Robert
Hasell, Thomas Hasell, John Haslette, Thomas Hassall, Sir Edward Hastings,
George Hastings, George Hatfield, Richard Hathway, Sir Richard Hatton,
Hugh Haughton, Robert Haughton, William Haughton, Peter Hausted, Richard
Hawley, John Hayden, George Haysell, John Hearne, Thomas Hearne, Thomas
Heblethwayte, John Helle, John Heminges, William Heminges, Agnes Henslowe,
Francis Henslowe, Henry Herbert, Sir Henry Herbert, Lord Herbert, William
Herbert, John Herne, Earl of Hertford, Richard Heton, Richard Hewse,
Anthony Higgins, Griffin Higgs, Henry Highman, James Hill, John Hill,
Otwell Hill, George Hilliard, Richard Hilliard, Robert Hint, Francis
Hitchens, Anthonie Hitchman, Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Hodson, Thomas
Holcombe, Aaron Holland, Hugh Holland, John Holland, William Holles,
Thomas Holman, James Holt, John Holt, Richard Honnan, Thomas Honte, John
Honyman, Richard Honyman, Richard Hoope, Edward Hooper, James Horne,
Edward Horton, Robert Houghton, Richard Hoult, Joan Hovell, William
Hovell, Charles Howard, Thomas Howard, Thomas IV Howard, William Howard,
Oliver Howes, Robert Hoyt, Robert Hubbard, Richard Hudson, Thomas Hughes,
John Hull, John Hunnis, John Hunnyman, Lord Hunsdon, John Hunt, Richard
Hunt, Robert Hunt, Thomas Hunt, Thomas Hunter, Earl of Huntingdon, Richard
Huse, William Hutchinson, Leonard Hutton, Thomas Hutton, Robert Huyt, John
Hyde, Thomas Ingelend, Martin Inglesby, Abraham Ivory, Anthony Jarman, Tom
Jay, Anthony Jeffes, Giles Jennynges, Edward Jewby, Simon Jewell, Henry
Johnson, Laurence Johnson, Nathaniel Johnson, Richard Johnson, Robert
Johnson, Thomas Johnson, George Jolly, Anne Jones, Edward Jones, Francis
Jones, Inigo Jones, Oliver Jones, Richard Jones, Robert Jones, Thomas
Jones, Daniel Jonns, Thomas Jordan, Edward Juby, Richard Juby, Robert
Ladyman, John Lancaster, Silvester Lancaster, Sir Robert Lane, Robert
Lane, John Laneham, Robert Laneham, Henry Laneman, Robert Langdell, Robert
Langham, Francis Langley, Henry Lanman, Lord Latimer, John Lavasher, John
Law, Henry Lawes, Walter Lawman, Robert Lawranson, John Layland, Hans
Leberwurst, Robert Ledbetter, John Ledy, Sir Henry Lee, Sir Peter Lee,
Robert Lee, William Lee, Thomas Legge, Sir Peter Legh, Peter Legh, Sir
Robert Le Grys, Earl of Leicester, Robert Leigh, Lord Leonard, Sir Roger
LEstrange, John Levasher, Robert Leveson, John Lewis, Edward Lichfield,
George Lillie, John Lillie, Earl of Lincoln, David Linsell, Edward Lister,
Emmanuel Lobb, Thomas Loffday, John Long, Nicholas Long, Thomas Long, Lord
Bishop, Lord President, Lord Steward, Lord Warden, John Love, Thomas
Loveday, Richard Lovelace, Thomas Lovell, Nicholas Lowe, John Lowin,
Walter Lowman, Sir Thomas Lucy, Thomas Lupton, John Lyddiat, Lord Lyle,
Lewis Machin, Richard Machin, Stephen Magett, John Mago, William Mago,
Lady Manche, Samuel Mannery, George Mansell, Cosmo Manuche, Edward
Marrant, Henry Martin, Angelica Martinelli, Thomas Marton, John Mason,
Charles Massey, George Massey, Thomas Massey, Master Controller, Master of
the Revels, Amb Matchit, Tobie Matthew, Edward May, Nathan May, Thomas
May, William May, Robert Mead, Peter Mease, Thomas Medcalf, William Megus,
Francis Merbury, Sir Thomas Metcalf, John Methen, William Methold, Tobias
Mils, Samuel Minion, Michael Mohun, Henry Momford, John Momford, Earl of
Montgomery, Peter Moon, Robert Moon, Michael Moone, Thomas Moore, Roger
Morcell, Lewis Mordaunt, Henry Mordaunt, Roger More, William More,
Fluellen Morgan, Lord Morley, William Morley, Roger Morrell, Edward
Morris, Mathias Morris, Thomas Morris, John Motteram, John Mountsett,
Richard Mulcaster, Thomas Nabbes, Robert Naile, Richard Nashe, Henry
Nation, Thomas Neale, Thomas Nelson, Edward Neville, Henry Neville, Robert
Neville, John Newdigate, John Newman, Thomas Newman, Maurice Newport, John
Newton, Richard Newton, Robert Newton, Thomas Newton, Richard Niccols,
Robert Nicholls, Francis Nicolini, Basil Nicoll, John Nicols, Leonard
Nidd, John Nill, Thomas Noblett, Henry Noel, Roger Nore, Robert Norman,
Henry Norris, Dudley North, Roger North, Thomas North, John Norwood,
Thomas Nuce, Robert Nycowlles, Donatus OChaine, Cuthbert Ogle, Henry Oley,
Edward Oliver, Thomas Orton, William Ostler, Hugh Ottwell, Corbet Owen,
Elector Palatine, Robert Pallant, Thomas Pant, William Parr, Richard
Parsons, Thomas Parsons, Mercurius Paten, William Pateson, William Patten,
William Paulet, Salomon Pavy, William Pavy, Robert Payne, Abraham Peadle,
Thomas Peadle, William Peadle, Edward Pearce, Thomas Pearce, William
Pedel, Thomas Peers, Nathan Peet, Charles Pendry, Robert Penn, William
Penn, William Penson, Fabian Penton, Algernon Percy, Henry Percy, Robert
Percy, William Perry, Thomas Pestell, Hugh Peters, Robert Pharo, Edward
Piers, William Pine, Henry Porter, Robert Postell, Walter Pother, Nicholas
Potte, Thomas Potte, Thomas Pound, Edward Powell, Rice Powell, Thomas
Powlton, Thomas Preston, Daniel Price, Richard Price, Thomas Price,
Richard Prince, David Prothro, Edward Pudsey, Henry Radcliffe, Sir
Humphrey Radcliffe, Robert Radcliffe, Thomas Radcliffe, Robert Rafton,
Thomas Rainescrofte, John Rainolds, Thomas Randolph, Henry Ratcliffe,
Robert Raughton, Thomas Ravenscroft, Thomas Rawlins, Francis Rawlinson,
Andrew Rayne, John Rayner, Emanuel Reade, John Reade, Timothy Reade,
Gilbert Reason, Elys Redferne, Robert Remer, Robert Reyner, Henry
Reynolds, John Reynolds, Robert Reynolds, Francis Rhodes, John Rhodes,
John Rice, Richard Rich, Robert Rich, Nathaniel Richards, Thomas Richards,
Thomas Riley, Henry Roberts, John Roberts, William Robins, James Robinson,
John Robinson, Richard Robinson, Thomas Robinson, William Robinson, Simon
Robson, William Roe, Edward Rogers, Sir Richard Rogers, Thomas Rogers,
William Rogers, Francis Rollinson, John Roods, Gabriel Rosse, Samuel
Rowley, Thomas Rowley, Matthew Roydon, Rowland Rubbish, George Ruggle,
Francis Russell, John Russell, Robert Russell, Robert fl Rutson, Joseph
Rutter, John Sadler, Sir Rafe Sadler, George Salterne, Sir Thomas
Salusbury, Thomas Sampton, Richard Samwell, Georg Sanderson, Gregory
Sanderson, Cicely Sands, Henry Sands, John Sands, Thomas Sands, William
Sands, Bernhardt Sandt, Everhardt Sanss, Everhart Sauss, Raphe Savage,
Thomas Savage, John Savile, Arthur Savill, George Scarlett, John Scarlett,
Richard Scarlett, Sebastian Schadleutner, Edward Schottnell, Jehan Sehais,
Robert Selby, Robert Sempill, John Senear, Edward Seymour, John Shaa,
Robert Shaa, Thomas Sharman, Lewis Sharpe, Richard Sharpe, Edward
Shatterell, Robert Shatterell, John Shaw, Robert Shaw, Edmund Sheffield,
Sir Edward Sherburne, Sir Richard Sherburne, Thomas Sherman, Roger
Shipman, Sir Richard Shireburn, Henry Shirley, Susan Shore, Earl of
Shrewsbury, Anthony Sibes, Edward Sibthorpe, Jonathan Sidnam, Francis
Sidney, Mary Sidney, Robert Sidney, Cuthbert Simpson, Edward Simpson,
Richard Simpson, Robert Simpson, John Sincler, John Singer, Thomas
Singleton, John Slater, Martin Slater, William Sly, Thomas Slye, Robert
Smedly, Abraham Smith, Anthony Smith, Gilbert Smith, Henry Smith, John
Smith, Leonard Smith, Mathew Smith, Robert Smith, Thomas Smith, Wentworth
Smith, Francis Snell, Thomas Snell, Thomas Snelling, Henry Somer, George
Somerset, Henry Somerset, William Somerset, Earl of Southampton, Nathan
Speede, Alice Spencer, Anne Spencer, Gabriel Spencer, Nicholas Spencer,
Edward Stafford, Rod Stafford, Nicholas Stalinand, Alice Stanley, Anne
Stanley, Edward Stanley, Ferdinando Stanley, Henry Stanley, Thomas
Stanley, Lancelot Stanton, Laurence Stanton, Sir Richard Stapleton, Sir
Robert Stapleton, John Stennyt, Thomas Stevens, John Stone, John Stourton,
Robert Str, Richard Strachey, Robert Strachey, Lord Strange, Robert
Stratford, Peter Street, John Stretch, William Strode, John Strong, Esme
Stuart, Ludovic Stuart, Edmund Stubbe, John Studle, John Sturt, George
Stutfield, John Sucar, Lord Sudder, Thomas Suell, John Sugar, Henry
Summer, John Sumner, Earl of Sussex, Edward Sutton, Thomas Sutton,
Humphrey Swaine, Eyllaerdt Swanston, Thomas Swetherton, Richard Swift,
Gilbert Swinhoe, Thomas Swinnerton, Daniel Swynnerton, Richard Syferweste,
John Symons, Robert Tailor, Edward Talbot, George Talbot, Gilbert Talbot,
Richard Tarlton, John Tatham, Hughe Tatterdell, William Tatum, John
Taverner, John IV Taylor, Robert Taylor, Stage Taylor, Thomas Taylor, John
Thare, Richard Thompson, Samuel Thompson, Thomas Thornton, Penitent Thrum,
Edmund Tilney, Robbert Tindal, Anthony Tindall, Peter Titley, Edward
Tobye, Edward Tomsett, Sam Tomson, John Tomsone, Will Tony, Nicholas
Tooley, Roger Tosedall, Harry Tottnell, John Towne, Thomas Towne, Townes
boy, John Townsend, Stephen Townsend, Aurelian Townshend, William Trigg,
Nicholas Trott, John Trout, John Trundle, Alvery Trussell, John Tufton,
Anthony Turner, Cyril Turner, Drew or True Turner, Henry Turner, Winifred
Turner, Thomas Twyne, Edmund Tylney, Nicholas Underhill, Thomas Underhill,
John Underwood, Edward Vaux, Richard Vennar, Sir Francis Vere, Francis
Verney, George Vernon, George Vincent, Thomas Vincent, Anthony Wadeson,
Lewis Wager, William Wager, John Waite, Edward Wallace, Francis Walpole,
Francis Wambus, Francis Wanibus, George Wapull, Anthony Ward, Robert Ward,
Thomas Warner, Sir Edward Warren, Humphrey Warren, John Warren, Robert
Warren, Thomas Warren, William Warren, Thomas Warrin, David Waterhouse,
John Waters, Thomas Waters, John Wayde, Francis Waymus, Sir Richard
Wayneman, George Webster, Richard Webster, John Wend, Thomas Wentworth,
Earl of Strafford, William West, Sebastian Westcott, Humphrey Weste,
Thomas Weste, George Whetstone, Thomas Whetstone, Francis White, John
White, Josias White, Robert White, Thomas White, Edward Whiting, Richard
Whiting, Thomas Wiggen, Thomas Wigpitt, Robert Wild, George Wilde, George
Willans, George Williams, John Williams, Walter Williams, Richard Willis,
Robert Wilmot, Arthur Wilson, George Wilson, Germaine Wilson, Henry
Wilson, John Wilson, Nicholas Wilson, Robert Wilson, William Wilson, Miles
Windsor, Anthony Wingfield, Richard Winter, John Withy, John Witter,
Richard Woderam, Nicholas Wolfe, Mary Wood, Nathaniel Wood, Richard Wood,
William Wood, Nathaniel Woodes, Thomas Woodford, Oliver Woodliffe, John
Woode, John Woods, Earl of Worcester, Ellis Worth, Sir Henry Wotton,
Thomas Wrench, Abraham Wright, Edward Wright, John Wright, Henry
Wriothesley, John Wryght, Robert Yarington, David Yeomans, John Young,
Thomas Regnier, Daniel Wright, Dan Wright, Ren Draya, Roger Stritmatter,
Charles Berney, Tim Holcomb, Marty Hyatt, Ron Hess, Barbara Burris, Ron
Halstead, Bill Boyle, Charles Boyle, Michael Dunn, Tom Hunter, Gordon Cyr,
David Yuhas, Charlton Ogburn, Richard Horne, Alan Nelson, Venerable Bede,
Thomas Hoccleve, Thomas Lord Vaux, Isabella Whitney, William Byrd, Sir
Edward Dyer, Æmilia Lanyer, Thomas Bateson, Thomas Ford, Richard Corbet,
Orlando Gibbons, Humfrey Gifford, Walter Porter, Owen Felltham, Sir
William D'Avenant, Edmund Waller, Anne Bradstreet, Andrew Marvell, John
Bunyan, John Dryden, Sir George Etherege, Thomas Traherne, Sir Charles
Sedley, Aphra Behn, Edward Taylor, Nahum Tate, John Oldham, John Dennis,
Daniel Defoe, Tom Brown, Matthew Prior, Jonathan Swift, Sarah Fyge, Isaac
Watts, Thomas Parnell, Edward Young, John Gay, Mary Barber, Robert Blair,
Robert Dodsley, Charles Wesley, Samuel Johnson, William Shenstone, George
Whitfield, Thomas Gray, Gilbert White, Mary Leapor, Martin Madan, Thomas
Warton the younger, Thomas Percy, Oliver Goldsmith, Charles Churchill,
Francis Grose, Charlotte Smith, Robert Fergusson, Thomas Chatterton,
William Roscoe, Mary Robinson, Robert Burns, Amelia Opie, George Canning,
Sir Walter Scott, Sydney Smith, Robert Southey, Charles Lamb, Walter
Savage Landor, Thomas Campbell, Ann Taylor, Reginald Heber, Jane Taylor,
Leigh Hunt, Barron Field, Anne Hecht, Richard Harris Barham, Thomas
Pringle, Charles Wolfe, John Clare, Felicia Dorothea Hemans, Henry Francis
Lyte, Thomas Carlyle, Thomas Hood, Mary Howitt, Mother Goose, Susanna
Moodie, Sarah Fuller Adams, Evan MacColl, David Bates, Edgar Allan Poe,
Edmund Hamilton Sears, Robert Browning, Edward Lear, Daniel Decatur
Emmett, Charlotte Bronte, Emily Jane Bronte, George Eliot, Herman
Melville, Walt Whitman, Anne Bronte, Matthew Arnold, Anna Letitia Waring,
Henrietta Anne Huxley, Thomas Henry Huxley, Adelaide Procter, Robert
Lowry, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Rosanna Eleanor, Thomas Edward Brown,
Christina Rossetti, David Mills, William Morris, Richard Garnett, Celia
Thaxter, Walter Pater, John Todhunter, Henry Austin Dobson, Thomas Hardy,
Ambrose Bierce, Sidney Lanier, Robert Bridges, Ada Cambridge, Andrew Lang,
Ernest Myers, Arthur O'Shaughnessy, Alice Meynell, Julia Moore, Eugene
Field, Arthur Clement Hilton, Percy French, Oscar Wilde, Caroline Hayward,
Ernest Howard Crosby, Toru Dutt, Woodrow Wilson, Edith Nesbit, Dollie
Radford, Francis Thompson, Bliss Carman, Louise Imogen Guiney, Amy Levy,
Rabindranath Tagore, Arthur Christopher Benson, George Santayana, Richard
Hovey, Gelett Burgess, Ernest Dowson, Henry Lawson, Edgar Lee Masters,
Edwin Arlington Robinson, Stephen Crane, Arthur Guiterman, Robert Frost,
Francis Ernley Walrond, Carl Sandburg, Edward Thomas, Vachel Lindsay,
Harold Monro, Wallace Stevens, Edgar Albert Guest, Thomas Ernest Hulme,
Sara Teasdale, David Herbert Lawrence, Elinor Wylie, Marianne Moore,
Thomas Stearns Eliot, Eugene O'Neill, Alan Seeger, Isaac Rosenberg,
William Hamilton, Francis Ledwidge, Wilfred Owen, Louise Bogan, Thomas
Craig, Langston Hughes, Marge Piercy, Rosemary Sullivan, Annie Finch, Lynn
Crosbie, Thomas Churchward, Richard Barnes, Barnaby Riche, William Cecil,
Lord Treasurer, Christopher Sly, David Bevington, Charles Nicholl, John
Honterus, Doctor Legge, Doctor Edes, Edward Ferris, Doctor Gager, Master
Rowley, Master Edwards, Richard Stanyhurst, Sir Walter Raleigh, Samuel
Page, Bussy dAmbois, Samuel Langley, Edward Arber, Malone Society, Richard
Edwardes, Thomas Nash, London Theaters, Barboura Flues, Lord Chesterfield,
Edward Herbert, Earl of Stirling, Thomas Warton, Ann Radcliffe, Horace
Walpole, John Arbuthnot, Madame d' Arblay, John Aubrey, Jane Austen, Sir
Robert Ayton, John Bale, Richard Brathwaite, Sir Thomas Browne, Eustace
Budgell, Fanny Burney, John Byrom, George Cavendish, John Cleland, Thomas
Coryate, Charles Cotton, Hannah Cowley, Erasmus Darwin, Madame D'Arblay,
John Dyer, Sir Thomas Elyot, Elijah Fenton, Henry Fielding, John Florio,
Sir Samuel Garth, Matthew Green, Nicholas Grimoald, Sir John Harington,
Anne Hathaway, Richard Head, Thomas Holcroft, Sir Robert Howard, Richard
Hurd, Nathaniel Lee, John Leland, John Leyland, George Lillo, David
Mallet, William Mason, Edward Moore, Sir Thomas North, Dorothy Osborne,
Thomas Otway, Sir Thomas Overbury, William Painter, Barnabe Rich, Samuel
Richardson, Nicholas Rowe, Thomas Rymer, Richard Savage, Sir Richard
Steele, Laurence Sterne, Anna Seward, Thomas Shadwell, Frances Sheridan,
Thomas Southerne, Lewis Theobald, Thomas Tyrwhitt, Nicholas Udall, Sir
Thomas Urchard, Thomas Urchard, John Wilmot, John Wolcot, William Wotton,
Andrew Dudley, Andrew Fortescue, Anthony Ashley, Anthony Strelley, Charles
Sedley, Cornelius Fermedo, Cornelius Formido, David Lindsay, David
Lyndsay, Edward Hastings, Edward Sherburne, Edward Warren, Francis Smith,
Francis Vere, George Buc, George Etherege, Henry Fortescue, Henry Foster,
Henry Lee, Humphrey Radcliffe, John Becon, John Byron, John Denham, John
Fortescue, John Gascoigne, John Hales, John Harington, Percival Harte,
Peter Lee, Rafe Sadler, Richard Bartlett, Richard Boyoe, Richard Hatton,
Richard Rogers, Richard Sherburne, Richard Shireburn, Richard Stapleton,
Richard Steele, Richard Wayneman, Robert Ayton, Robert Howard, Robert Le
Grys, Robert Stapleton, Roger LEstrange, Samuel Garth, Thomas Benger,
Thomas Browne, Thomas Cartley, Thomas Cawerden, Thomas Elyot, Thomas Lucy,
Thomas Metcalf, Thomas Overbury, Thomas Salusbury, Walter Raleigh, Walter
Scott, William Davenant, William D'Avenant, William Fortescue, Edwin A.
ABBOTT, George ADE , Daniel La France, Louisa May ALCOTT, Ethan ALLEN,
Robert BEVERLEY, Willis BOUGHTON, Willa CATHER, Samuel L. CLEMENS, Richard
Henry DANA, Richard Harding DAVIS, Jonathan EDWARDS, Albert D. HAGAR,
Charles M. HARVEY, Nathaniel HAWTHORNE, Henry JAMES, Sinclair LEWIS,
Marion P. MAUS, John MUIR, Egar Allan POE, Mary RANDOLPH, Sarah RUTLEDGE,
Edward Noyes WESTCOTT, Edith WHARTON, Jane E. WILLIAMS, ARDEN of
Faversham, Robert CAWDREY, Mary CHUDLEIGH, Charles DARWIN, Sidney DOBELL,
Hohn DONNE, Friedrich ENGELS, Anne FINCH, Georges FOX, Goerge GASCOIGNE,
Stephen GAWES, H. Ryder HAGGARD, Felicia Dorohea HEMANS, Thomas HULL,
Aemilia LANIER, John MASTON, John REDFORD, Mary SHELLEY, Richard SHERRY,
Richard TAVERNER, Thomas TRAHEME, Anthony TROLLOPE, Thomas WEBSTER, Thomas
WILSON, Mary WROTH, Charles WOLF, James GRAHAM, David HUME, Charles G. D.
ROBERT, Robert W. SERVICE, Robert SERVICE, John Ashbery, Marvin Bell, John
Berryman, Roberth Bly, Eavan Boland, Robert Creeley, Stephen Dobyns, Rita
Dove, Norman Dubie, Robert Duncan, Cornelius Eady, Russel Edson, Peter
Everwine, Carolyn Forché, Tess Gallagher, Allen Ginsberg, Jorie Graham,
Allen Grossman, Thom Gunn, Donald Hall, Michael S. Harper, Robert Hass,
Seamus Heaney, Anthony Hecht, Georffrey Hill, Richard Howard, Ted Hughes,
Richard Hugo, Randall Jarrel, Rodney Jones, Donald Justice, Denise
Levertov, Larry Levis, John Logan, Robert Lowell, Les Murray, Howard
Nemerov, Sharon Olds, Mary Oliver, Sylvia Plath, Adrienne Rich , Michael
Ryan, Anne Sexton, Charles Simic, Louis Simpson, Dave Smith, Gary Snyder,
Gerald Stem, May Swenson, James Tate, Dylan Thomas, Ellen Bryant Voight,
Robert Penn Warren, Richard Wilbur, Charles Wright, James Wright, Dannie
Abse, Richard Aldington, Alfred Austin, Alfred Noyes, Edwin Arnold,
Francis Atterbury, Hilaire Belloc, Edmund Blunden, Edmund Bolton, Emily
Bronte, Basil Bunting, George Gordon, Lord Byron, Charles Causley, Charles
Madge, Craig Raine, Nora Chesson, Donald Davie, Cecil Day-Lewis, Walter de
la Mare, Jane Draycott, Carol Ann Duffy, Helen Dunmore, Douglas Dunn,
Laurence Eusden, Francis Berry, Roy Fuller, Robert Graves, Ivor Gurney,
Tony Harrison, Hedd Wyn, Felicia Hemans, Hamish Henderson, William Henley,
Geoffrey Hill, James Hogg, Edmond Holmes, Aldous Huxley, Jean Ingelow,
David Jones, Laurie Lee, John Lehmann, Alun Lewis, Tim Liardet, Maurice
Lindsay, Lionel Johnson, Norman MacCaig, Hugh MacDiarmid, Roger McGough,
Charlotte Mew, Hope Mirrlees, Thomas Sturge Moore, Edwin Morgan, Andrew
Motion, Edwin Muir, Norman Nicholson, Don Paterson, Tom Paulin, Ruth
Pitter, Tom Raworth, Herbert Read, Anne Ridler, John Riley, Lynette
Roberts, Michael Roberts, Siegfried Sassoon, Iain Sinclair, Edith Sitwell,
Charles Sorley, Lewis Spence, Stevie Smith, Arthur Symons, Terence Tiller,
Chris Torrance, Henry Treece, Charles Williams

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ollie
2004-12-06 07:37:51 UTC
Permalink
http://www.ardice.com/Arts/Literature/Authors/A/Abbott,_Edwin_A.
v***@search26.com
2004-12-06 11:56:12 UTC
Permalink
http://www.ardice.com/Arts/Literature/Authors/A/Ade,_George/
Terry Ross
2004-12-03 23:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Cipra
Post by Terry Ross
I doubt it took a great deal of effort for the Friedmans, but the energy
expended is not the test. The fact is that Ward's method does NOT produce
a unique solution and is therefore to be rejected. If you don't think
Lewis Carroll has any place in an Elizabethan poem, then you might wonder
why the author of the poem, George Gascoigne, put him there. The answer
is that he did not; nor did he put Edward de Vere or Lord Admiral or
Edward Sibthorpe or Edith Sitwell or any of the many other names that
Ward's system may be used to generate.
I'm even less of an expert in this area than the rest of you (although my
nickname on my company's softball team was Cipher, I think that was because
they couldn't figure me out),
When I played softball, "figuring" was about the only way I wasn't put
out.
Post by Mark Cipra
so the following are questions, not statements.
I'm wondering if in one sense, Richard's point about Lewis Carroll being
out of period may be (gag, retch) valid.
Richard has stumbled onto interesting points before, and it could happen
again, but in this case, Mark, you may cease your wondering; his point is
not valid. For one thing, there are a great many names (including
Elizabethan names) other than "Lewis Carroll" that may be found in
Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods. See a few examples here:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

For another, a key point in any valid cipher is that any two competent
cryptographers working independently will get exactly the same solution.
With a "string-cipher" approach, there are multiple possible solutions --
sometimes thousands of solutions or more, if the method is loose enough.

Here are some genuine acrostics:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/acros.html

For each of them the rule is the same: take the first letter of each line.
For each of them the solution is unique and inevitable. It is not
possible to get "Lewis Carroll" or any alternative answer from any of
these poems by following the rule.
Post by Mark Cipra
If Gascoigne had tested the supposed cipher, he might have found a
series of consecutive letters that looked like a name, but it would not
have been a recognizable one to him.
Ward does NOT use "consecutive letters." His method if to begin with an
E, then scrounge around for a D, then flit about until he stumbles over a
W, and so on. One time Ward will take the first letters of consecutive
words, another time he will let eight lines of verse pass before he takes
a letter. The method is so arbitrary that it allows a great many
"solutions," and therefore, since none of them can be unique, none is a
genuine solution to a genuine cipher.

In a genuine cipher, as in the genuine acrostics, there is a neutral rule
or key that gives the POSITION of the letter to be selected. You don't
impose your solution on a text by saying, "I will look for an F and then
an R and continue until I have spelled FRANCIS BACON" -- but this was the
method of the Baconian string-cipher-mongers whose methods Ward used.
His originality, such as it was, consisted in trying to force the name
"Edward de Vere" rather than "Francis Bacon."

Contrast Ward's cherry-picking technique with what you would find in a
genuine cipher. The rule for the genuine acrostics is completely
independent of the solution, and anybody who can apply the rule will get
the same answer as anybody else. There are, of course, much more
complicated ciphers, but they must work by the application of neutral
unambiguous rules.
Post by Mark Cipra
The appearance of so many near-hits (as "Lewis Carroll" and "Edith
Sitwell" would appear to him) should have given him pause, but wouldn't
necessarily have invalidated the system to him.
They aren't "near hits" at all -- they are just as valid (and just as
invalid) as "Edward de Vere." We can also find the names of Gascoigne's
contemporaries Thomas Watson and Edward Dyer reading both up and down
among the first letters of words in the poem. None of them is the product
of the kind of keys or rules that a genuine cipher employs. None of them
can be preferred to any of the others.
Post by Mark Cipra
If he had gotten so far as to find "Lord Admiral", that perhaps should
have caused him to abandon it.
He would never have found it because he would never have looked for it.
I don't believe anybody ever looked for it before I did, and I only found
it because I had a long list of names for testing. Nobody looked for
"Edward de Vere" before Ward did. Nobody looked for "Lewis Carroll"
before the Friedmans did. I'm sure you could find names that I haven't
found; you certainly could find names that I have not reported finding.
Post by Mark Cipra
Forgive my ignorance, but who is Edward Sibthorpe? Who, if anyone, was
the Lord Admiral in those days?
These are a title and a name taken from David Kathman's Biographical Index
of English Drama Before 1660: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bd/

Admiral. See Russell, John (I) (1540-42); Seymour, Thomas (1547-49);
Clinton, Edward (1550-53, 1558-85); Howard, Charles (1585-1619).

Various Lords Admiral were patrons of theater companies in the 16th and
17th centuries, as was Edward de Vere.

Sibthorpe, Edward (fl. 1608). Whitefriars lessee. [ES ii, 339; Nungezer,
324; Ingram, 'Playhouse as Investment', 210-13 (1985)]
Post by Mark Cipra
Is the broader point that: 1) a cipher system should lead you through
one and only one path through the text,
If the cipher is found by choosing some letters and not others, the
selection of the positions of the letters to be chosen should be made
according to a rule or key. You would go to the next position and there
you would find the next letter. In Ward's system, you know in advance the
kind of thing you're looking for. You don't care about the position of
the next letter; you'll settle for any position that contains the desired
letter.
Post by Mark Cipra
or that 2) other paths permitted by the system result in invalid
messages?
In a transposition cipher, the letters are all used, but they are
presented out of order:

ietooswiih
lsuuhhsnte
photoavcsp
pahttltrhe
unthelsets
sdielngaot
yswsbonsdi
dpeiatoecl
eegeebmane

This is an example used by John Wilkins in 1641. There are a number of
different keys one could try, but only one will give a meaningful answer.
Starting with the upper right, read the last row downwards, then the next
row upwards, then downwards, and so on. This is the result:

thepestile ncdothstil lincreasea mongstvswe eshallnotb
eabletohol doutthesie gewithoutf reshandspe edysupplie

or

the pestilenc doth still increase amongst vs wee shall not be able to
hold out the siege without fresh and speedy supplie

What would happen if you chose any other route through the ciphertext?
The result would be gibberish interspersed with short strings that
resembled words.

OK, what is the key used by Ward? Well, there isn't one -- or rather, the
key changes on every letter. The key or keys to Wilkins's transposition
cipher, like the key to a genuine acrostic, can be given independently of
the solution, and anybody who applies the proper keys will get the same
solution as anybody else who does so. What happens when we apply Ward's
methods (but without insisting in advance that the answer must be "Edward
de Vere")? We find a host of solutions, and therefore we must reject the
claim that the proposed cipher is valid.

The classic book in the field is William and Elizebeth Friedman, *The
Shakespearean Ciphers Examined*. Here are a page with some notes based on
the standards for validity described by the Friedmans:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/friedlaws.html

The Friedmans:

"Getting a correct solution is not a matter of the cryptanalyst's thinking
he has done the trick; it is not a question of opinion, but a question of
proof. No solution can be taken as valid simply because the cryptanalyst
says it is; he must in addition be able to show others that it is the
right one. His demonstration must be unbiased, systematic and logically
sound; it must be free from appeals to insight, clear of guesswork, and
should avoid imponderables like the plague; in a word, it must be
scientific.

"This is not perhaps often enough realized by laymen, so it is worth
drumming home. There is an art in devising ciphers, and an art in breaking
them down. But in setting out his results, a cryptologist is above all a
man of science. The validity of his solutions depends on the same kind of
objective tests as other scientists use, and the steps in his reasoning
are subject to the same criteria. He, like them, goes through the whole
process of observation, hypothesis, deduction and induction, and
confirmatory experiment. And in cryptanalysis, as in all science, there is
the basic demand that if two suitably qualified investigators get to work
independently on the same material they will reach identical results in
the end. Just as there is only one valid solution to a scientific or
mathematical problem, so there is only one valid solution to a cryptogram
of more than a very few letters which involves the use of a real key; to
find two quite different but equally valid solutions would be an
absurdity."
Post by Mark Cipra
Obviously a system which allows both "Bin Laden is in Tora Bora" and
"Bin Laden is in Bora Bora" is worthless, but what if the second message
is "Ducks are pretty"?
I suppose if "Ducks are pretty" is a code that somehow means "Bin Laden
has left Tora Bora and is heading for Walla Walla" then you could have
something meaningful. If several cryptographers work independently on the
same text and they each get the same result except that some have "Tora
Bora" while others have "Bora Bora," then you could have an essentially
valid system, but you might not know where to send the troops.

On the other hand, if there are several possible solutions, and if the
selection of the letters is arbitrary or whimsical, then none of the
possible solutions can be considered genuine. If I hand you a bag full of
scrabble tiles, you can make a very large number of possible messages from
the letters, but there is now way to prefer one to another, and no reason
to regard any of them as a genuine secret message. The fact that it is
possible to use some of the tiles to form "Edward de Vere" and others to
get "Lewis Carroll" counts against the notion that either one was intended
by the inventors of the game.
Post by Mark Cipra
Doesn't most of the technical argument about ciphers assume the author
is competent? A military cipher must be unambigous, but someone like me
might be tickled to hide name in a poem without realizing the system
allowed multiple solutions.
It certainly tickled Richard Kennedy, who did not realize that he had
hidden the name "Lewis Carroll" in his own "Find 'Richard Kennedy'" game,
but there is no reason to suppose in advance that Gascoigne was either so
easily tickled or that he would have been so incompetent in execution.
Post by Mark Cipra
This would mean that Bacon, an expert, wouldn't make such mistakes, but
that a competent-poet-but-incompetent-cryptographer would.
How do you distinguish that hypothetical case from the one where a
perfectly competent poet did not even attempt to conceal a name, but an
incompetent crypto-cryptanalyst insists that his favorite solution, using
a method that produces a great many solutions, must have been intended by
the poet?

The decision should be made not on the basis of whether soldiers are more
competent than poets, but on whether the person claiming to have found a
demonstrably valid cipher can meet all the standards described by the
Friedmans.
Post by Mark Cipra
I don't find the idea that Gascoigne encoded a name in the poem
plausible on logical grounds,
Gascoigne was a military man himself, and was a more than competent poet.
There IS an name that is conveyed by a kind of "code," but that is the
last name of Sir John Scudamore.

Scudamore == l'escu d'amour == shield of love

The title is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his name, doth
crave some spedie relief as followeth." Here is the first stanza:

L' Escu d' amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The force of fayth which never will remove,
But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death:
That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes,
And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throws.

The "lover," whom Gascoigne scholars have identified as Sir John
Scudamore, is away from his beloved, and his love for her has been a
shield for him until now; but he has grown weary in battle, even as he has
warded off every blow with his shield. At the conclusion of the poem he
asks for her love (her own shield) in return:

Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long.
Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong.

Thus Ward's entire project -- the search for a string-cipher version of
"Edward de Vere" in Gascoigne's poem is entirely pointless. The ciphering
and deciphering in the poem concerns that of the name "Scudamore" and its
translation as a "shield of love." The poem has no more to do with Edward
De Vere (or the Lord Admiral, or Edward Dyer, or Thomas Watson) then it
does with Lewis Carroll, or Edith Sitwell, or my uncle, Edward Rice, whose
name also may be found.
Post by Mark Cipra
but it is *possible* he intended to encode a name - just that we can't
know whether he meant de Vere or the Lord Admiral.
The name he "encoded" is Scudamore. As for whether he meant to "encode"
an entirely different and unrelated name by means of a string cipher --
the claim that it is "possible" that he so intended doesn't get us very
far, does it? The fact is that Ward's Baconian string-cipher method is so
loose that it will generate names from almost any conceivable text of a
size comparable to Gascoigne's poem. Ward is selecting a dozen letters of
his own choosing from a set of more than 300.
Post by Mark Cipra
And therefore, since it is demonstrably possible to show that there are
hidden messages everywhere, given a long enough text and sufficient time
or computing power,
Exactly. The texts don't have to be all that long, and the computing
power need not be impressive to show that accidents happen, but those
accidents should not be considered "hidden messages."
Post by Mark Cipra
isn't it incumbant on the proposer of a cipher solution to show that the
author intended a cipher, either through a pattern in his works or some
other means?
The task for the cipher-monger is to show that the proposed cipher meets
all of the Friedmans' standards.

Your own post could provide an example comparable to what Ward did with
Gascoigne's poem. There were 379 words in your post. Here are the first
letters of each word:

IeloaeitattroyamnomcstwCIttwbtcfmostf
aqnsIwiiosRpaLCboopmbgrvIGhttschmhfas
ocltllanbiwnhbarothTaosmnhaLCaESwaths
hghpbwnhitsthIhhgsfatfLAtpshchtaiFmib
wiESWiawtLAitdItbptacsslytoaooptttoto
ppbtsriimOaswabBLiiTBaBLiiBBiwbwitsmi
DapDmottaacataicAmcmbubslmmbtthniapwr
tsamsTwmtBaewmsmbtacpbicwIdftitGeanit
ppolgbiiphiteantwckwhmdVotLAAtsiidpts
ttahmegaletastocpiiiotpoacststtaiacet
apihwosom

How many names did you deliberately conceal among the first letters? I
don't, of course, know that you meant to conceal any, but I bet that any
of us (perhaps even Richard himself) could find quite a few.

Does anybody care to try?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Cipra
2004-12-04 13:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Terry. I think the key points, as far as I'm concerned, are:
It wasn't clear to me how flimsy the Ward method was. I assumed there
was a straightforward letter-path that could be applied in different ways;
for example, by rigorously selecting every 17th letter, but you only got the
intended solution by knowing which word to start with. Ward's "key" appears
to be completely arbitrary.
The appearance of a couple of Gascoigne/de Vere's contemporaries does
satisfy the uniqueness requirement, even with the quibbles about Carroll and
Sitwell. As you point out, with such a flexible key, there are undoubtedly
more that could be mined. The point being that, once you have found two
valid solutions you can't know which the author intended, or - even more to
the point - whether he intended anything at all. With multiple valid
solutions, intent seems highly unlikely in this case.
I think the issue of the incompetent cryptologist isn't demolished yet
as a general case, but I'll agree that there's no reason to think this
particular author was incompetent - because there's no need to seek further
for the cipher, once you have found the "shield of love". This is partly
what I meant when I said it was incumbant on the cipher-monger to
demonstrate intent.
[snips galore]
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Mark Cipra
so the following are questions, not statements.
If Gascoigne had tested the supposed cipher, he might have found a
series of consecutive letters that looked like a name, but it would not
have been a recognizable one to him.
Ward does NOT use "consecutive letters." His method if to begin with an
By the way, I meant "consecutive letters in a (wrong) solution". He might
find "Edith Sitwell", which looks like a name but would not be recognizable
to him - i.e., a near-hit.
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Mark Cipra
I don't find the idea that Gascoigne encoded a name in the poem
plausible on logical grounds,
Gascoigne was a military man himself, and was a more than competent poet.
There IS an name that is conveyed by a kind of "code," but that is the
last name of Sir John Scudamore.
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing that Scudamore is "encoded"; I meant the *further*
encoding of an additional name.
Post by Terry Ross
IeloaeitattroyamnomcstwCIttwbtcfmostf
aqnsIwiiosRpaLCboopmbgrvIGhttschmhfas
ocltllanbiwnhbarothTaosmnhaLCaESwaths
hghpbwnhitsthIhhgsfatfLAtpshchtaiFmib
wiESWiawtLAitdItbptacsslytoaooptttoto
ppbtsriimOaswabBLiiTBaBLiiBBiwbwitsmi
DapDmottaacataicAmcmbubslmmbtthniapwr
tsamsTwmtBaewmsmbtacpbicwIdftitGeanit
ppolgbiiphiteantwckwhmdVotLAAtsiidpts
ttahmegaletastocpiiiotpoacststtaiacet
apihwosom
How many names did you deliberately conceal among the first letters? I
don't, of course, know that you meant to conceal any, but I bet that any
Ah, well, that's for me to know and the rest of you to find out, isn't it?
Hint: look for "L" and "K".

(Just kidding)
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-04 14:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Does anybody care to try?
-----------------------------------------------------
I thought you wanted to talk about
Peter Bull's ZIG-ZAG!
-----------------------------------------------------
I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations.

What would you calculate?
---------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

<= 12 =>

137 T T T Y I B W W W W O T
136 I S A T W I I A T T F T
135 W A M T W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability ~ 1/760
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):

4 K's
68 M's
41 L's

This automatically gives:

4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
68 x 41 "M-L" pairs

However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns

Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
in the Bull array

"K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
"M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
----------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
to count (for whole 14 lines):

50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)

"IT" probability: 50/4000
"AR" probability: 8/4000
"OW" probability: 31/4000
----------------------------------------------------
Now applying the

"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500

to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings

gives [E]xpected [V]alue of

"KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
"MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500

Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
-------------------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!

For these two strings to share the SAME "M"

"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:

[L]M T F T I I
F A F T W I T
S S S A W B A
N I A A C G T
A S A T T A I
A V A W V[O]T
A T M F A T A
B T M W A N G
W R A I A T I

Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.

How does this compare with and
expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
the final "OW" is ~0.39

"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760

A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now things get interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:

<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.

2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"

The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":

S
A M
A M[T]
F[I]B M
[K]H L A B
A F T Y
C[I I]
I[I]
V [T] [T]

[T]

So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
[; ignoring the "K" & "T"]

Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
left right pairs in the "Bull array":
-----------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
-------------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s

~ 1 / (760 x 4700) ~1 / 3,600,000!!!
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
2004-12-04 22:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Terry Ross
Does anybody care to try?
-----------------------------------------------------
I thought you wanted to talk about
Peter Bull's ZIG-ZAG!
-----------------------------------------------------
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array that you have not yet
answered:

How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising the
letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array of first letters
in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Post by Terry Ross
I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000
for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.
and explained in detail my calculations.
Actually, what your explanation demonstrated is that you have no idea in
the wide world how to calculate anything concerning Peter Bull's zigzag.
Even if you knew HOW to perform the calculations, such knowledge would be
of very little use unless your methods were applied to an accurate count
of the features Peter seems to think are important. So let me ask again,
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising the
letters K, I, and T) are there in Peter Bull's array of first letters in
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*?

If your answer is close enough to the correct answer, then we can talk.
If you cannot answer this question, then you aren't ready to calculate
anything about Peter's array.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-05 00:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Terry Ross
-----------------------------------------------
I thought you wanted to talk about
Peter Bull's ZIG-ZAG!
-------------------------------------------------
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising
the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
And I asked you a simple question about Peter's array
that you have not yet answered:
-----------------------------------------------------
I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations!

What would you calculate?
---------------------------------------------------------
Post by Terry Ross
Actually, what your explanation demonstrated is that you have no idea in
the wide world how to calculate anything concerning Peter Bull's zigzag.
I explained in detail my calculations.

Why don't you do a ACTUAL calculation
(instead of waving your hands in the air)
and explain it if you can.
-----------------------------------------------------
Post by Terry Ross
Even if you knew HOW to perform the calculations, such knowledge would
be of very little use unless your methods were applied to an accurate count
of the features Peter seems to think are important.
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull thinks the "KITM-MARL-LOW" zigzag is important.

Peter Bull thinks the 4 close "KIT"s pointing
to the start of the zigzag is important.

And I think they are important too!

In the long tradition of the INPNC
such PROPER NAMES are often important.
----------------------------------------------------------
Post by Terry Ross
So let me ask again,
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising the
letters K, I, and T) are there in Peter Bull's array of first letters in
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
If your answer is close enough to the correct answer, then we can talk.
If you cannot answer this question, then you aren't ready to calculate
anything about Peter's array.
I'm sure there are hundreds of KITs if one allows for skips
between adjacent letters of up to 70 letters...SO WHAT?

Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
involves skips of no more than 10!

Peter Bull's 4 close "KIT"s involves skips of no more than 4!!

THAT IS the issue here!

Let me ask again,

-----------------------------------------------------
I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations.

What would you calculate?
------------------------------------------------
If you cannot answer this question,
then you aren't ready to calculate
anything about Peter's array.

---------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

<= 12 =>

137 T T T Y I B W W W W O T
136 I S A T W I I A T T F T
135 W A M T W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability ~ 1/760
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):

4 K's
68 M's
41 L's

This automatically gives:

4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
68 x 41 "M-L" pairs

However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns

Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
in the Bull array

"K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
"M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
----------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
to count (for whole 14 lines):

50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)

"IT" probability: 50/4000
"AR" probability: 8/4000
"OW" probability: 31/4000
----------------------------------------------------
Now applying the

"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500

to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings

gives [E]xpected [V]alue of

"KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
"MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500

Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
-------------------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!

For these two strings to share the SAME "M"

"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:

[L]M T F T I I
F A F T W I T
S S S A W B A
N I A A C G T
A S A T T A I
A V A W V[O]T
A T M F A T A
B T M W A N G
W R A I A T I

Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.

How does this compare with and
expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
the final "OW" is ~0.39

"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760

A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now things get interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:

<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.

2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"

The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":

S
A M
A M[T]
F[I]B M
[K]H L A B
A F T Y
C[I I]
I[I]
V [T] [T]

[T]

So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
[; ignoring the "K" & "T"]

Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
left right pairs in the "Bull array":
-----------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
-------------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s

~ 1 / (760 x 4700) ~1 / 3,600,000!!!
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Bull
2004-12-05 10:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising
the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Terry the answer is a simple one. There are seven regular,
straight-line KITs in the grid and seven only. These KITs are
extraordinarily regular for all seven have a left-right orientation
and all seven are perfectly aligned with just 5 squares on the right
side of the grid - and these 5 are spaced with perfect uniformity (all
have a vertical separation of 12 squares).

The Seven: There is the KIT of the zigzag message and four more KITs
starting from the same K square (132/2). There are two other KITs in
the grid and these both start at 105/5 (a point where there are also
six more adjacent square KITs that are not aligned - the only such
examples in the grid).

You may argue that you have programmed your computer to find all KIT
strings possible from the 2155 letters but this is not relevant. The
important consideration is that the KIT line should be a visible
pattern in the grid - if you cannot physically align the letters KIT
in one straight line through the grid then it is not significant.
Common sense also informs us that the higher the letter spacing
interval the more marginal the significance becomes.

What other examples of KIT do you think we should be considering?

Peter
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-05 13:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bull
Post by Terry Ross
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising
the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Terry the answer is a simple one. There are seven regular,
straight-line KITs in the grid and seven only. These KITs are
extraordinarily regular for all seven have a left-right orientation
and all seven are perfectly aligned with just 5 squares on the right
side of the grid - and these 5 are spaced with perfect uniformity (all
have a vertical separation of 12 squares).
The Seven: There is the KIT of the zigzag message and four more KITs
starting from the same K square (132/2). There are two other KITs in
the grid and these both start at 105/5 (a point where there are also
six more adjacent square KITs that are not aligned - the only such
examples in the grid).
You may argue that you have programmed your computer to find all KIT
strings possible from the 2155 letters but this is not relevant. The
important consideration is that the KIT line should be a visible
pattern in the grid - if you cannot physically align the letters KIT
in one straight line through the grid then it is not significant.
Common sense also informs us that the higher the letter spacing
interval the more marginal the significance becomes.
What other examples of KIT do you think we should be considering?
Very good, Peter.

I almost feel sorry for Terry...he looks so pathetic and alone on this
one.

When I was part of Nina Green's Oxfordian Phaeton group I spent quite a
bit of time on a stylistic computer program based on the relative number of
"who, what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works. I was surprised to find
that Shakespeare & Marlowe made by far the best matchup. I think that your
clear discovery of Kit Marlow's name is further evidence that Marlowe is
essentially early Shakespeare. (However, I should also note that the Kit
Marlowe story is a phony to me as the Will Shakespeare story).

Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
2004-12-05 14:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Bull
Post by Terry Ross
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising
the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Terry the answer is a simple one. There are seven regular,
straight-line KITs in the grid and seven only. These KITs are
extraordinarily regular for all seven have a left-right orientation
and all seven are perfectly aligned with just 5 squares on the right
side of the grid - and these 5 are spaced with perfect uniformity (all
have a vertical separation of 12 squares).
The Seven: There is the KIT of the zigzag message and four more KITs
starting from the same K square (132/2). There are two other KITs in
the grid and these both start at 105/5 (a point where there are also
six more adjacent square KITs that are not aligned - the only such
examples in the grid).
You may argue that you have programmed your computer to find all KIT
strings possible from the 2155 letters but this is not relevant. The
important consideration is that the KIT line should be a visible
pattern in the grid - if you cannot physically align the letters KIT
in one straight line through the grid then it is not significant.
Common sense also informs us that the higher the letter spacing
interval the more marginal the significance becomes.
What other examples of KIT do you think we should be considering?
Very good, Peter.
I almost feel sorry for Terry...he looks so pathetic and alone on this
one.
Peter's answer is wrong. There are far more than seven KITs that may be
found in Peter's array. Here is the question one more time: How many
"regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising the letters K, I,
and T) are there in in Peter Bull's array of first letters in
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html

Hint: Peter missed most of the KITs; that means the correct answer is at
least 15.

As for why I'm "alone" on this one -- that's probably because nobody cares
about Peter Bull's word-find game. When he came here proclaiming that he
had found a demonstrably valid cipher, it was worth paying enough
attention to his claim to be able to disprove it. That has been done, to
Peter's own satisfaction (although why, after Peter Farey had already
exploded Peter Bull's claim he needed further debunking is something of a
mystery).

So we are left with Peter's word-find game. Are you better than Peter at
it? If so, you will be able to find more than the seven KITs that he has
been able to find. If you find all of them, then tell me how many there
are. If you don't think you can find all of them, can you find at least
ONE that Peter has overlooked? It's not that hard, but there are only
three people here who will notice whether you are able to succeed, so if
you don't want to try, I will understand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-05 15:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Bull
Post by Terry Ross
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising
the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Terry the answer is a simple one. There are seven regular,
straight-line KITs in the grid and seven only. These KITs are
extraordinarily regular for all seven have a left-right orientation
and all seven are perfectly aligned with just 5 squares on the right
side of the grid - and these 5 are spaced with perfect uniformity (all
have a vertical separation of 12 squares).
The Seven: There is the KIT of the zigzag message and four more KITs
starting from the same K square (132/2). There are two other KITs in
the grid and these both start at 105/5 (a point where there are also
six more adjacent square KITs that are not aligned - the only such
examples in the grid).
You may argue that you have programmed your computer to find all KIT
strings possible from the 2155 letters but this is not relevant. The
important consideration is that the KIT line should be a visible
pattern in the grid - if you cannot physically align the letters KIT
in one straight line through the grid then it is not significant.
Common sense also informs us that the higher the letter spacing
interval the more marginal the significance becomes.
What other examples of KIT do you think we should be considering?
Very good, Peter.
Peter's answer is wrong. There are far more than seven KITs that may be
found in Peter's array. Here is the question one more time: How many
"regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising the letters K, I,
and T) are there in in Peter Bull's array of first letters in
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Hint: Peter missed most of the KITs;
that means the correct answer is at least 15.
One can almost envision the TIK-TOK mechanism
going on right now in Terry's head:

1) Discredit my calculation that close clustering of 4 "KIT"s
at the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW" is highly
improbable (~ 1/4700) by a purely handwaving argument.

After all, how many literary types are going to understand
"Fisher's Exact Test" or know how to calculate it for
themselves using the simpler binomial distribution:
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"

The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":

S
A M
A M[T]
F[I]B M
[K]H L A B
A F T Y
C[I I]
I[I]
V [T] [T]

[T]

So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
[; ignoring the "K" & "T"]

Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
left right pairs in the "Bull array":
-----------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
-------------------------------------------------


Once Terry has gotten non-mathematician HLASers
to ignore the legitimacy of the above calculation
all Terry has to do is find some other 9 letter name
("TERRY ROSS" perhaps) of someone modern broken
up in a 4-4-3 pattern a la "KITM-MARL-LOW".

With a modest probability for this only on the order
of hundreds and with thousands of possible modern
9 letter names to choose from it shouldn't be too difficult
(especially if Terry doesn't attempt to limit himself
to the first 12 columns and a pretty zigzag pattern.)

(The fact that Marlowe & Shakespeare were the
greatest Elizabethan poets and that scholars agree
that Shakespeare refered to Marlowe specifically
in his works doesn't count as important of course.)
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I almost feel sorry for Terry...
...he looks so pathetic and alone on this one.
As for why I'm "alone" on this one -- that's probably
because nobody cares about Peter Bull's word-find game.
But you cared, didn't you, Terry.
I wonder why. ;-)
Post by Terry Ross
When he came here proclaiming that he
had found a demonstrably valid cipher, it was worth paying enough
attention to his claim to be able to disprove it. That has been done, to
Peter's own satisfaction (although why, after Peter Farey had already
exploded Peter Bull's claim he needed further debunking is
something of a mystery).
Peter Bull was too impatient and neglected
to see the WAITs that should have told him
where to start and where to stop with his cipher.:
---------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

154 T L[W]C T W A W T W G F
153 C A[A]I W A A A B T I A
152 I B[I]I B W F A F O A O
151 L Y[T]L F M M T B A H T

145 T B T B S C[W A I T]D F
144 T W T[T]T T A W A S B I
143 L O S[I]W C T N S W B A
142 L H O[A]O T A R B W R T
141 I F B[W]N N N T B D W T
140 B M L T I T A N F A N M
139 O T W V T D[W]I L H A T
138 W I T V T[A]S O B A O A
137 T T T Y[I]B W W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I I A T T F T
135 W A M[T]W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M[W]C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M|A]
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T[I]
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M Y[T]
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W[T]
82 I A T O T F A S A W[T I A W]
81 O O F A Y T T W Y W[A]E
80 O K A T B T M O Y[W]O H
--------------------------------------------------
I am to WAIT, though WAITing so be hell;
Not blame your pleasure, be it ill or well. - Sonnet 58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARD , v.t. [OE. WARDien, AS. weardian to keep, protect; akin to OS.
WARD? n to WATCH, take care, G. warten to WAIT, WAIT on, attend to]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jackdawbooks.co.uk/si/10267.html

_NIMPHIDIA, The Court of Fayrie_ (1627)
by Michael Drayton (1563-1631)

She mounts her chariot with a trice,
Nor would she stay for no advice
Until her maids that were so nice
To WAIT on her were fitted,
But ran herself away alone,
Which when they heard, there was not one
But hasted after to be gone
As she had been diswitted.
HOP, and Mop, and Drop so clear,
PIP, and Trip, and Skip that were
To MAB their sovereign EVER dear,
Her special maids of honor;
FIB and TIB, and Pink and Pin,
TIcK and Quick, and Jill and Jin,
Tit and Nit, and Wap and Win,
The train that WAIT upon her.

http://www.twilightfantasy.com/RealmsFantasy/Fairy/QueenMab2.html
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html


135 W A M[T]W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Webb was first to suggest:

"HI-RAM A-BIF" <=> "MAR-LO A-FIB" (way back in 1998).
----------------------------------------------------------

Terry & Dave can be so helpful at times. ;-)
Post by Terry Ross
So we are left with Peter's word-find game.
Are you better than Peter at it?
Like José Raúl Capablanca, I'm better at the END GAME.
Post by Terry Ross
If so, you will be able to find more than the seven KITs that he has
been able to find. If you find all of them, then tell me how many there
are. If you don't think you can find all of them, can you find at least
ONE that Peter has overlooked? It's not that hard, but there are only
three people here who will notice whether you are able to succeed,
so if you don't want to try, I will understand.
I think there are more than three watching this one, Terry. ;-)

The probability remains at 1 / 3,600,000 and it's your move, Terry.
-----------------------------------------------------
I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations!

What would you calculate?
---------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
2004-12-05 15:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I almost feel sorry for Terry...he looks so pathetic
and alone on this one.
But he isn't, I'm sorry to say. There's at least one more
of us who is equally 'pathetic'. Check the back numbers.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
When I was part of Nina Green's Oxfordian Phaeton
group I spent quite a bit of time on a stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of
"who, what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works.
I was surprised to find that Shakespeare & Marlowe
made by far the best matchup.
Compared with matches of who else?

And did you you quit while you were ahead?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I think that your clear discovery of Kit Marlow's name
is further evidence that Marlowe is essentially early
Shakespeare. (However, I should also note that the Kit
Marlowe story is a phony to me as the Will Shakespeare
story).
No, I thought not.


Peter F.
***@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-05 15:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I almost feel sorry for Terry...he looks so pathetic
and alone on this one.
But he isn't, I'm sorry to say. There's at least one more
of us who is equally 'pathetic'.
Yes, well one would hardly expect Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow
Marlovian

Art Neuendorffer
Peter Bull
2004-12-05 19:16:20 UTC
Permalink
The debate today has forced me to re-examine the grid in greater
detail than previously. There are not 7 regular, straight line KITs in
the grid, but 32. However I maintain that the seven I previously
identified are noticeably independent.

As regards Art's calculations, the four KITs 'close to the message'
are predicated by letter spacings of:

1ac/1dn 1ac/2up 1ac/3up 2ac/2up

These are remarkably compact.
There are actually three more KITs generated from the K at 132/2 but
these have such large letter-spacing intervals that I think it is
correct to disregard them:

2ac/26up 6ac/47up 6ac/61up

I have not been able to find any others. I would argue that there is a
noticable contrast between the top four and the latter three that
points to the intentional clustering of the top four.

Peter
Buffalo
2004-12-06 01:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I almost feel sorry for Terry...he looks so pathetic
and alone on this one.
But he isn't, I'm sorry to say. There's at least one more
of us who is equally 'pathetic'.
Yes, well one would hardly expect Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow
Marlovian
One would expect him to stick up for what he believes, surely? Or do you
think authorship camps are like political movements where members suppress
their own beliefs for the higher good?

(You can increase the dissident-count to three. I also think Peter Bull's
cypher is a bummer.)

Buffalo
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-06 02:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buffalo
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I almost feel sorry for Terry...he looks so pathetic
and alone on this one.
But he isn't, I'm sorry to say. There's at least one more
of us who is equally 'pathetic'.
Yes, well one would hardly expect
Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow Marlovian
One would expect him to stick up for what he believes, surely?
Or do you think authorship camps are like political movements
where members suppress their own beliefs for the higher good?
The "Land of Marlovia" is complicated by the Hoffman Prizes.

Try reading _The Double Helix_ if you haven't already.
Post by Buffalo
(You can increase the dissident-count to three.
I also think Peter Bull's cypher is a bummer.)
This isn't decided by a public opinion poll.

I have calculated a probability number of 1 in 3,600,000 and I challenge
anyone to come up with a probability number significantly different.

Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
2004-12-06 12:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Yes, well one would hardly expect
Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow Marlovian
One would expect him to stick up for what he believes,
surely? Or do you think authorship camps are like
political movements where members suppress their own
beliefs for the higher good?
The "Land of Marlovia" is complicated by the Hoffman
Prizes.
Try reading _The Double Helix_ if you haven't already.
How nice. However I fear that your analogy is inapprop-
riate, even if we had been potential Nobel lauriates.

One of the Hoffman prizes is an annual one for an essay,
which I have not entered this year, and had no intention
of entering at the time Peter asked me for my opinion
of his book.

The other is the big one, which goes to the person
adjudged to have won the essay prize (which eliminates
me anyway) IF they are judged to have "furnished
irrefutable and incontrovertible proof and evidence
required to satisfy the world of Shakespearean
scholarship that all the plays and poems commonly
attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact written
by Christopher Marlowe".

Do you seriously imagine for one moment that Peter Bull
or I - even if we were right about our hidden meanings
and had submitted essays about them - would have had
a snowball's chance of meeting that criterion? Never
happen in my lifetime, squire, and frankly that's just fine
by me.

Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best matchup".

I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
(You can increase the dissident-count to three.
I also think Peter Bull's cypher is a bummer.)
This isn't decided by a public opinion poll.
I have calculated a probability number of 1 in
3,600,000 and I challenge anyone to come up with a
probability number significantly different.
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?


Peter F.
***@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-06 17:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Yes, well one would hardly expect
Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow Marlovian
One would expect him to stick up for what he believes,
surely? Or do you think authorship camps are like
political movements where members suppress their
own beliefs for the higher good?
The "Land of Marlovia" is complicated
by the Hoffman Prizes.
Try reading _The Double Helix_ if you haven't already.
How nice. However I fear that your analogy is inapprop-
riate, even if we had been potential Nobel laureates.
One of the Hoffman prizes is an annual one for an essay,
which I have not entered this year, and had no intention
of entering at the time Peter asked me for my opinion
of his book.
That doesn't mean that you aren't bitter about losing the
essay contest in the past (to less deserving candidates).
Post by Peter Farey
The other is the big one, which goes to the person
adjudged to have won the essay prize (which eliminates
me anyway) IF they are judged to have "furnished
irrefutable and incontrovertible proof and evidence
required to satisfy the world of Shakespearean
scholarship that all the plays and poems commonly
attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact
written by Christopher Marlowe".
Do you seriously imagine for one moment that Peter Bull
or I - even if we were right about our hidden meanings
and had submitted essays about them - would have
had a snowball's chance of meeting that criterion?
Exactly how much is a snowball's chance?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thesimpsons.com/bios/bios_family_snowball2.htm

<<[Lisa Simpson's grey cat] Snowball enjoyed playing with yarn, petting,
and coughing up large chunks of her own fur. Lisa cried and cried when
her beloved first (grey) cat Snowball died. (While cause of death is
unknown, foul play has been strongly ruled out.) Homer and Marge tried
to fool her by replacing the deceased feline with an identical (though
black) one. Snowball II is the scrappier, livelier replacement [who has]
been known to dance upon a ball and perform minor tricks, almost never
within the sights of any family member. She has a comfortably familiar
relationship with Santa's Little Helper, the Simpsons' pet greyhound.
Like her namesake, Snowball II enjoys yarn, petting sessions and, as
ever, coughing up large chunks of her own fur.>>

Loading Image...
----------------------------------------------------------------
"At Night all Cats are Grey" Shelton's Don Quixote Pt. 2, ch. 33

The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas.
Chapter: "At Night all Cats are Grey"

King Lear Act 3, Scene 6: EDGAR: "the cat is gray."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Peter Farey
Never happen in my lifetime, squire,
and frankly that's just fine by me.
Then why were you so hard on Peter Bull when even I (as an Oxfordian)
can appreciate parts of his work? It's bad enough that anti-Strats of
different persuasions are at each other's throats but to have
divisions within groups is intolerable, IMO.
Post by Peter Farey
Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best catchup".
I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
I missed that particular question.
(Most of your "questions" appear to be rhetorical.)

As I recall Nina Green had collected a number of works (and modernized
the spelling) from about 30 different Elizabethan authors (some
anonymous) and I was basically using Nina's own word counts for my data
base. Nina seemed quite interested in my analysis at the time and may
have even kept some sort of digital record of the discussion. You might
try asking her yourself about my stylometric posts [at Nina Green
<***@direct.ca>]. If she has kept a copy of the discussion but
doesn't wish to release the information to you directly then just
tell me and I'll ask her for it. (I can't recall if Nina's own
Super-Oxfordian theory included Marlowe but after
Peter Bull's cipher mine sure does. ;-)
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
(You can increase the dissident-count to three.
I also think Peter Bull's cypher is a bummer.)
This isn't decided by a public opinion poll.
I have calculated a probability number of 1 in
3,600,000 and I challenge anyone to come up with
a probability number significantly different.
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the starting "K")
"I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"

19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved in a "KIT"

50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left) pairs
in the full Peter Bull array.

3950: total number of left to right (& right to left) letter pairs
in the full Peter Bull array that are not "I T"

The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter pairs
near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW" zigzag" consistent
with the 50 to 3950 distribution of letter pairs one would expect
from the letter distribution of beginning Sonnets letters.

A more careful analysis might count the total number of "I T" pairs
[i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as just left to right (& right to
left)] but I was in too much of a hurry to get an answer
and challenge Terry Ross to bother.

Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
2004-12-06 20:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Yes, well one would hardly expect
Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow Marlovian
One would expect him to stick up for what he believes,
surely? Or do you think authorship camps are like
political movements where members suppress their
own beliefs for the higher good?
The "Land of Marlovia" is complicated
by the Hoffman Prizes.
Try reading _The Double Helix_ if you haven't already.
How nice. However I fear that your analogy is inapprop-
riate, even if we had been potential Nobel laureates.
One of the Hoffman prizes is an annual one for an essay,
which I have not entered this year, and had no intention
of entering at the time Peter asked me for my opinion
of his book.
That doesn't mean that you aren't bitter about losing the
essay contest in the past (to less deserving candidates).
You're just bitter about the 1988 Hoffman Prize winner, Art. You're
also bitter that there is no analogous prize for Oxfordian cryptographic
cranks. But why don't you take the bull (or the ejecta thereof) by the
horns and endow one, Art? If your uncle is a generous enough donor to
have a room named after him at Lehigh, surely he could endow a Sinn
Prize for Oxfordians. In the spirit of your parodic trolling, the prize
could be a sort of Sinn Feign.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
The other is the big one, which goes to the person
adjudged to have won the essay prize (which eliminates
me anyway) IF they are judged to have "furnished
irrefutable and incontrovertible proof and evidence
required to satisfy the world of Shakespearean
scholarship that all the plays and poems commonly
attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact
written by Christopher Marlowe".
Do you seriously imagine for one moment that Peter Bull
or I - even if we were right about our hidden meanings
and had submitted essays about them - would have
had a snowball's chance of meeting that criterion?
Exactly how much is a snowball's chance?
I thought that you were the self-proclaimed master at computing
probabilities, Art.

[...]
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Never happen in my lifetime, squire,
and frankly that's just fine by me.
Then why were you so hard on Peter Bull when even I (as an Oxfordian)
can appreciate parts of his work?
The fact that *you*, of all people, can "appreciate parts of his
work" is the kiss of death, Art!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
It's bad enough that anti-Strats of
different persuasions
That's odd -- I had not noticed that *any* of them had much power of
persuasion.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
are at each other's throats but to have
divisions within groups is intolerable, IMO.
So you do not believe in honest disagreements among anti-Stratfordian
coreligionists, Art? May I take it, then, that you enthusiastically
endorse all the findings of "Buckeye Pete"? In the interest of avoiding
"divisions within groups," you must also agree with Mr. Streitz's comic
contention thats that Oxford was the Queen's son as well as her loVER,
that "Elizabeth Petrify [sic]" served on Dr. Stritmatter's thesis
committee, that AIDS is "a hoax," and that the Bernoulli Principle is
irrelevant to the flight of aircraft -- right, Art? Undoubtedly you
also agree with Mr. Crowley's assertion that Sonnet 103 celebrates a
crapping competition between Oxford and the Queen -- not to mention the
genuineness of the "Ray Mignot" sonnet and the "aquatic apes" theory.
In fact, if you really wish to extend the harmony and unanimity to
anti-Stratfordians of all "persuasions," then surely you must agree with
Elizabeth Weird's lunatic relativity crankery. For that matter, you
must surely agree that "Dr." Faker has "solved" Fermat's Last Theorem,
and that the Apollo lunar landing was a crude, NASA-perpetrated hoax --
right, Art? Inquiring minds that don't brook dissent want to know!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best catchup".
I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
I missed that particular question.
(Most of your "questions" appear to be rhetorical.)
As I recall Nina Green had collected a number of works (and modernized
the spelling) from about 30 different Elizabethan authors (some
anonymous) and I was basically using Nina's own word counts for my data
base. Nina seemed quite interested in my analysis at the time and may
have even kept some sort of digital record of the discussion.
"Digital record"? You mean, you counted on your fingers, Art?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
You might
try asking her yourself about my stylometric posts [at Nina Green
doesn't wish to release the information to you directly then just
tell me and I'll ask her for it.
Why don't you just ask her herself and spare Peter the trouble, Art?
You might as well post your findings here -- I'm sure that many of us
would be keenly interested.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
(I can't recall if Nina's own
Super-Oxfordian theory included Marlowe but after
Peter Bull's cipher mine sure does. ;-)
Is there anyone whose work your theory does NOT include, Art? You've
already consigned Dr. Seuss, the creator of Popeye, and Monica Lewinsky
to the Masonic conspiracy; is there anyone (besides you) who is NOT
involved? Or are you the only cowan on the planet, Art?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
(You can increase the dissident-count to three.
I also think Peter Bull's cypher is a bummer.)
I see no merit in it either.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
This isn't decided by a public opinion poll.
But Art -- you were just gloating about how Terry Ross appeared to be
"alone" in his conclusion; now you have reVERsed yourself and opined
that such matters are not decided a public opinion poll! Presumably,
you prefer to decide things by trolling rather than by polling.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I have calculated a probability number of 1 in
3,600,000 and I challenge anyone to come up with
a probability number significantly different.
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the starting "K")
"I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"
19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved in a "KIT"
50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left) pairs
in the full Peter Bull array.
3950: total number of left to right (& right to left) letter pairs
in the full Peter Bull array that are not "I T"
The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter pairs
near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW" zigzag" consistent
with the 50 to 3950 distribution of letter pairs one would expect
from the letter distribution of beginning Sonnets letters.
A more careful analysis might count the total number of "I T" pairs
[i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as just left to right (& right to
left)] but I was in too much of a hurry to get an answer
and challenge Terry Ross to bother.
Haste makes W.A.S.T.E.*, Art!

* We Await Silent Tristero's Empire.
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-06 22:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Yes, well one would hardly expect
Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow Marlovian
One would expect him to stick up for what he believes,
surely? Or do you think authorship camps are like
political movements where members suppress their
own beliefs for the higher good?
The "Land of Marlovia" is complicated
by the Hoffman Prizes.
Try reading _The Double Helix_ if you haven't already.
How nice. However I fear that your analogy is inapprop-
riate, even if we had been potential Nobel laureates.
One of the Hoffman prizes is an annual one for an essay,
which I have not entered this year, and had no intention
of entering at the time Peter asked me for my opinion
of his book.
That doesn't mean that you aren't bitter about losing the
essay contest in the past (to less deserving candidates).
You're just bitter about the 1988 Hoffman Prize winner, Art.
I would be if I were a Marlovian.
Post by David L. Webb
You're also bitter that there is no analogous prize
for Oxfordian cryptographic cranks.
"Buckeye Pete" already got his prize: Wood's Shakespeare book.
And Brame got his prize: ejection from the Shakespeare Fellowship.
Post by David L. Webb
But why don't you take the bull (or the ejecta thereof) by the
horns and endow one, Art? If your uncle is a generous enough donor to
have a room named after him at Lehigh, surely he could endow a Sinn
Prize for Oxfordians. In the spirit of your parodic trolling, the prize
could be a sort of Sinn Feign.
"Uncle Frank is long gone (as is his money.)"
- He who is without Sinn and couldn't even get into Lehigh.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
The other is the big one, which goes to the person
adjudged to have won the essay prize (which eliminates
me anyway) IF they are judged to have "furnished
irrefutable and incontrovertible proof and evidence
required to satisfy the world of Shakespearean
scholarship that all the plays and poems commonly
attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact
written by Christopher Marlowe".
Do you seriously imagine for one moment that Peter Bull
or I - even if we were right about our hidden meanings
and had submitted essays about them - would have
had a snowball's chance of meeting that criterion?
Exactly how much is a snowball's chance?
I thought that you were the self-proclaimed master
at computing probabilities, Art.
Well, at least I try (which is more than I can say for you or Terry).
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Never happen in my lifetime, squire,
and frankly that's just fine by me.
Then why were you so hard on Peter Bull when even I
(as an Oxfordian) can appreciate parts of his work?
The fact that *you*, of all people, can
"appreciate parts of his work" is the kiss of death, Art!
We'll see about that.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
It's bad enough that anti-Strats of different persuasions
That's odd -- I had not noticed that *any* of them
had much power of persuasion.
--------------------------------------------
King John Act 5, Scene 5

Messenger: The Count Melun is slain; the English lords
By his persuasion are again fall'n off,
--------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 1, Scene 2

FALSTAFF: God give thee the spirit of persuasion
and him the ears of profiting, that what thou speakest
may move and what he hears may be believed, that the
TRUE prince may, for recreation sake, prove a false thief;

Act 3, Scene 1

GLENDOWER: a peevish self-wind harlotry,
one that no persuasion can do good upon.

Act 5, Scene 2

HOTSPUR: Better consider what you have to do
Than I, that have not well the gift of tongue,
Can lift your blood up with persuasion.
--------------------------------------------
The Two Gentlemen of Verona Act 3, Scene 2

DUKE: For she is lumpish, heavy, melancholy,
And, for your friend's sake, will be glad of you;
Where you may temper her by your persuasion
To hate young Valentine and love my friend.
--------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 5, Scene 2

PETRUCHIO:
See where she comes and brings your froward wives
As prisoners to her womanly persuasion.
--------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 4, Scene 2

ADRIANA: With what persuasion did he tempt thy love?
--------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 1, Scene 1

LYSANDER A good persuasion: therefore, hear me, Hermia.
--------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing Act 5, Scene 4

BEATRICE: I yield upon great persuasion;
and partly to save your life,
for I was told you were in a consumption.
--------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 3, Scene 4

ANTONIO: Will you deny me now?
Is't possible that my deserts to you
Can lack persuasion?
--------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 3, Scene 2

TROILUS:
Or that persuasion could but thus convince me,
That my integrity and truth to you
Might be affronted with the match and weight
Of such a winnow'd purity in love;
--------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 4, Scene 1

ISABELLA: for I have made him know
I have a servant comes with me along,
That stays upon me, whose persuasion is
I come about my brother.

Act 4, Scene 2

DUKE VINCENTIO: Yet since I see
you fearful, that neither my coat, integrity, nor
persuasion can with ease attempt you, I will go
further than I meant, to pluck all fears out of you.

Act 4, Scene 3

BARNARDINE: I SWEAR
I will not die to-day for any man's persuasion.
--------------------------------------------
Cymbeline Act 1, Scene 4

POSTHUMUS LEONATUS:
You are a great deal abused in too bold a persuasion;
--------------------------------------------
The Tempest Act 2, Scene 1

ANTONIO: For he's a spirit of persuasion, only
Professes to persuade,--the king his son's alive,
'Tis as impossible that he's undrown'd
And he that sleeps here swims.
--------------------------------------------
Julius Caesar Act 2, Scene 1

CASSIUS: But it is doubtful yet,
Whether Caesar will come forth to-day, or no;
For he is superstitious grown of late,
Quite from the main opinion he held once
Of fantasy, of dreams and ceremonies:
It may be, these apparent prodigies,
The unaccustom'd terror of this night,
And the persuasion of his augurers,
May hold him from the Capitol to-day.
--------------------------------------------
Timon of Athens Act 3, Scene 6

Second Lord It should not be, by the persuasion of his new feasting.
--------------------------------------------
The Rape of Lucrece Stanza 41

Away he steals with open listening ear,
Full of foul hope and full of fond mistrust;
Both which, as servitors to the unjust,
So cross him with their opposite persuasion,
That now he vows a league, and now invasion.
--------------------------------------------
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
are at each other's throats but to have
divisions within groups is intolerable, IMO.
So you do not believe in honest disagreements among anti-Stratfordian
coreligionists, Art? May I take it, then, that you enthusiastically
endorse all the findings of "Buckeye Pete"? In the interest of avoiding
"divisions within groups," you must also agree with Mr. Streitz's comic
contention thats that Oxford was the Queen's son as well as her loVER,
that "Elizabeth Petrify [sic]" served on Dr. Stritmatter's thesis
committee, that AIDS is "a hoax," and that the Bernoulli Principle is
irrelevant to the flight of aircraft -- right, Art? Undoubtedly you
also agree with Mr. Crowley's assertion that Sonnet 103 celebrates a
crapping competition between Oxford and the Queen -- not to mention the
genuineness of the "Ray Mignot" sonnet and the "aquatic apes" theory.
In fact, if you really wish to extend the harmony and unanimity to
anti-Stratfordians of all "persuasions," then surely you must agree with
Elizabeth Weird's lunatic relativity crankery. For that matter, you
must surely agree that "Dr." Faker has "solved" Fermat's Last Theorem,
and that the Apollo lunar landing was a crude, NASA-perpetrated hoax --
right, Art? Inquiring minds that don't brook dissent want to know!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best catchup".
I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
I missed that particular question.
(Most of your "questions" appear to be rhetorical.)
As I recall Nina Green had collected a number of works (and modernized
the spelling) from about 30 different Elizabethan authors (some
anonymous) and I was basically using Nina's own word counts for my data
base. Nina seemed quite interested in my analysis at the time and may
have even kept some sort of digital record of the discussion.
"Digital record"? You mean, you counted on your fingers, Art?
Are you still using vinyl, Dave?
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
You might
try asking her yourself about my stylometric posts [at Nina Green
doesn't wish to release the information to you directly then just
tell me and I'll ask her for it.
Why don't you just ask her herself and spare Peter the trouble, Art?
Oh, it's no trouble to Peter.
Post by David L. Webb
You might as well post your findings here --
I'm sure that many of us would be keenly interested.
Why, statistical analysis seems to bewilder HLAS's.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
(I can't recall if Nina's own
Super-Oxfordian theory included Marlowe but after
Peter Bull's cipher mine sure does. ;-)
Is there anyone whose work your theory does NOT include, Art? You've
already consigned Dr. Seuss, the creator of Popeye, and Monica Lewinsky
to the Masonic conspiracy; is there anyone (besides you) who is NOT
involved? Or are you the only cowan on the planet, Art?
Which planet?
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
(You can increase the dissident-count to three.
I also think Peter Bull's cypher is a bummer.)
I see no merit in it either.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
This isn't decided by a public opinion poll.
But Art -- you were just gloating about how Terry Ross appeared to be
"alone" in his conclusion; now you have reVERsed yourself and opined
that such matters are not decided a public opinion poll!
I'm gloating over the fact that a published mathematician who
posts regularly at HLAS is unable to assist Terry in his plight.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I have calculated a probability number of 1 in
3,600,000 and I challenge anyone to come up with
a probability number significantly different.
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the starting "K")
"I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"
19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved in a "KIT"
50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left) pairs
in the full Peter Bull array.
3950: total number of left to right (& right to left) letter pairs
in the full Peter Bull array that are not "I T"
The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter pairs
near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW" zigzag" consistent
with the 50 to 3950 distribution of letter pairs one would expect
from the letter distribution of beginning Sonnets letters.
A more careful analysis might count the total number of "I T" pairs
[i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as just left to right (& right to
left)] but I was in too much of a hurry to get an answer
and challenge Terry Ross to bother.
Haste makes W.A.S.T.E.*, Art!
* We Await Silent Tristero's Empire.
I'll betcha do.

Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
2004-12-07 18:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Yes, well one would hardly expect
Peter Farey to stick up for a fellow Marlovian
One would expect him to stick up for what he believes,
surely? Or do you think authorship camps are like
political movements where members suppress their
own beliefs for the higher good?
The "Land of Marlovia" is complicated
by the Hoffman Prizes.
Try reading The Double Helix if you haven't already.
How nice. However I fear that your analogy is inapprop-
riate, even if we had been potential Nobel laureates.
One of the Hoffman prizes is an annual one for an essay,
which I have not entered this year, and had no intention
of entering at the time Peter asked me for my opinion
of his book.
That doesn't mean that you aren't bitter about losing the
essay contest in the past (to less deserving candidates).
You're just bitter about the 1988 Hoffman Prize winner, Art.
I would be if I were a Marlovian.
Why? Why is the 1988 winner less deserving than a Marlovian, Art?
Have you even read the 1988 winning essay? Of course not!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
You're also bitter that there is no analogous prize
for Oxfordian cryptographic cranks.
"Buckeye Pete" already got his prize: Wood's Shakespeare book.
That isn't comparable to the Hoffman Prize.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
And Brame got his prize: ejection from the Shakespeare Fellowship.
Brame doesn't even understand his own good fortune (which admittedly
pales beside the Fellowship's good fortune) -- but that isn't comparable
to the Hoffman Prize either.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
But why don't you take the bull (or the ejecta thereof) by the
horns and endow one, Art? If your uncle is a generous enough donor to
have a room named after him at Lehigh, surely he could endow a Sinn
Prize for Oxfordians. In the spirit of your parodic trolling, the prize
could be a sort of Sinn Feign.
"Uncle Frank is long gone (as is his money.)"
A mere generation later, and all the money is *gone*? You aren't by
any chance related to the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, are you, Art? He
was a notorious wastrel.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
- He who is without Sinn
But not without tin, I hope -- at least I hope that were more
fortunate than Oxford in at least that respect. Incidentally, Art, are
you quite sure that your uncle's surname, Sinn, is not a variant of SION?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
and couldn't even get into Lehigh.
Don't feel bad, Art -- all Oxford's degrees were honorary anyway.

[...]
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Never happen in my lifetime, squire,
and frankly that's just fine by me.
Then why were you so hard on Peter Bull when even I
(as an Oxfordian) can appreciate parts of his work?
The fact that *you*, of all people, can
"appreciate parts of his work" is the kiss of death, Art!
We'll see about that.
You're priceless, Art!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
It's bad enough that anti-Strats of different persuasions
That's odd -- I had not noticed that *any* of them
had much power of persuasion.
--------------------------------------------
King John Act 5, Scene 5
Messenger: The Count Melun is slain; the English lords
By his persuasion are again fall'n off,
[Screenfuls of similar occurrences in the canon of the word "persuasion"
snipped]

Nobody doubts that Shakespeare used the word "persuasion" upon
occasion, Art; that fact does not mean that anti-Stratfordians possess
that quality. Indeed, I am hard pressed to divine just what on earth
your point, if any, might be; Jane Austen used the word as a title for a
novel -- was she a Freemason, Art?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
are at each other's throats but to have
divisions within groups is intolerable, IMO.
So you do not believe in honest disagreements among anti-Stratfordian
coreligionists, Art? May I take it, then, that you enthusiastically
endorse all the findings of "Buckeye Pete"? In the interest of avoiding
"divisions within groups," you must also agree with Mr. Streitz's comic
contention thats that Oxford was the Queen's son as well as her loVER,
that "Elizabeth Petrify [sic]" served on Dr. Stritmatter's thesis
committee, that AIDS is "a hoax," and that the Bernoulli Principle is
irrelevant to the flight of aircraft -- right, Art? Undoubtedly you
also agree with Mr. Crowley's assertion that Sonnet 103 celebrates a
crapping competition between Oxford and the Queen -- not to mention the
genuineness of the "Ray Mignot" sonnet and the "aquatic apes" theory.
In fact, if you really wish to extend the harmony and unanimity to
anti-Stratfordians of all "persuasions," then surely you must agree with
Elizabeth Weird's lunatic relativity crankery. For that matter, you
must surely agree that "Dr." Faker has "solved" Fermat's Last Theorem,
and that the Apollo lunar landing was a crude, NASA-perpetrated hoax --
right, Art? Inquiring minds that don't brook dissent want to know!
You appear to have attempted to evade the question, Art. In the
spirit of anti-Stratfordian solidarity, do you indeed endorse the
amusing conclusions of Mr. Streitz, of "Buckeye Pete," of Stephanie
Caruana, and of Brame and Popova, your Oxfordian coreligionists? In a
more ecumenical, pan-anti-Stratfordian show of solidarity, do you
endorse "Dr." Faker's "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem and his belief
that the Apollo lunar landing was a crudely executed NASA hoax? And
what about Elizabeth Weird's mathematical and physical crankery, Art --
do you endorse that as well? Inquiring minds *still* want to know to
what asinine extremes you are prepared to go in order to avoid the
anti-Stratfordian "divisions" that you have deplored as "intolerable."
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best catchup".
I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
I missed that particular question.
(Most of your "questions" appear to be rhetorical.)
You evidently have trouble with the English interrogative, Art -- you
made no attempt whateVER to answer the question that you compelled me to
repeat above, and you ignored Peter's question as well.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
As I recall Nina Green had collected a number of works (and modernized
the spelling) from about 30 different Elizabethan authors (some
anonymous) and I was basically using Nina's own word counts for my data
base. Nina seemed quite interested in my analysis at the time and may
have even kept some sort of digital record of the discussion.
[...]
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
You might
try asking her yourself about my stylometric posts [at Nina Green
doesn't wish to release the information to you directly then just
tell me and I'll ask her for it.
Why don't you just ask her herself and spare Peter the trouble, Art?
Oh, it's no trouble to Peter.
If you fear that Ms. Green may indeed be unwilling to release your
research results to Peter (and your fear is well-founded -- to join
Phaeton one must be certified as certifiable by an already committed
Oxfordian, so the curious seeked is automatically excluded), then you
*are* subjecting Peter (as well as Ms. Green) to needless bother, Art.
Why don't you ask her yourself, and post your findings here?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
You might as well post your findings here --
I'm sure that many of us would be keenly interested.
Why, statistical analysis seems to bewilder HLAS's.
By no means. The statistical gaffes in Dr. Stritmatter's thesis
(gaffes that he himself has acknowledged) arose among h.l.a.s.
discussions. I agree that h.l.a.s. has had its share of quantitatively
clueless participants, among them "Dr." Faker, Elizabeth Weird, and
whoeVER is was that announced triumphantly that the number 19 was
remarkable in that it is both the sum of two consecutive integers and
the difference of their squares, but not eVERyone is uneducated. So, by
all means post your results, Art.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
(I can't recall if Nina's own
Super-Oxfordian theory included Marlowe but after
Peter Bull's cipher mine sure does. ;-)
Is there anyone whose work your theory does NOT include, Art? You've
already consigned Dr. Seuss, the creator of Popeye, and Monica Lewinsky
to the Masonic conspiracy; is there anyone (besides you) who is NOT
involved? Or are you the only cowan on the planet, Art?
Which planet?
What planet do you live on, Art? Indeed, that is a long-standing,
VERy perplexing question to which I'm sure that almost all h.l.a.s.
particpants would welcome a candid answer.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Buffalo
(You can increase the dissident-count to three.
I also think Peter Bull's cypher is a bummer.)
I see no merit in it either.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
This isn't decided by a public opinion poll.
But Art -- you were just gloating about how Terry Ross appeared to be
"alone" in his conclusion; now you have reVERsed yourself and opined
that such matters are not decided a public opinion poll!
I'm gloating over the fact that a published mathematician who
posts regularly at HLAS is unable to assist Terry in his plight.
Terry is in no "plight," and he requires no assistance from anyone.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I have calculated a probability number of 1 in
3,600,000 and I challenge anyone to come up with
a probability number significantly different.
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the starting "K")
"I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"
19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved in a "KIT"
50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left) pairs
in the full Peter Bull array.
3950: total number of left to right (& right to left) letter pairs
in the full Peter Bull array that are not "I T"
The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter pairs
near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW" zigzag" consistent
with the 50 to 3950 distribution of letter pairs one would expect
from the letter distribution of beginning Sonnets letters.
A more careful analysis might count the total number of "I T" pairs
[i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as just left to right (& right to
left)] but I was in too much of a hurry to get an answer
and challenge Terry Ross to bother.
Haste makes W.A.S.T.E.*, Art!
* We Await Silent Tristero's Empire.
I'll betcha do.
Et in Arcadia ego, Art.
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-07 21:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David L. Webb
Why? Why is the 1988 winner less deserving than a Marlovian, Art?
The Hoffman prize should go to people to whom
Hoffman himself would have approved they go.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
You're also bitter that there is no analogous prize
for Oxfordian cryptographic cranks.
"Buckeye Pete" already got his prize: Wood's Shakespeare book.
That isn't comparable to the Hoffman Prize.
He seemed quite happy with it at the time.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
And Brame got his prize: ejection from the Shakespeare Fellowship.
Brame doesn't even understand his own good fortune (which admittedly
pales beside the Fellowship's good fortune) -- but that isn't
comparable to the Hoffman Prize either.
'Twas what he desERVED.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
"Uncle Frank is long gone (as is his money.)"
A mere generation later, and all the money is *gone*?
You aren't by any chance related to the seventeenth Earl of Oxford,
are you, Art? He was a notorious wastrel.
Like Timon of Athens?

In any event, twasn't me(; except for MIT tuition at least).
Perhaps there is buried treasure in the Sinn Room.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
- He who is without Sinn
But not without tin, I hope -- at least I hope that were more
fortunate than Oxford in at least that respect. Incidentally, Art,
are you quite sure that your uncle's surname, Sinn,
is not a variant of SION?
So I'm Priory of Sinn of the sacred bloodlynne?
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
and couldn't even get into Lehigh.
Don't feel bad, Art -- all Oxford's degrees were honorary anyway.
But nobody writes dedications to me (even in cipher).
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Art Neuendorffer
It's bad enough that anti-Strats of different persuasions
That's odd -- I had not noticed that *any* of them
had much power of persuasion.
--------------------------------------------
King John Act 5, Scene 5
Messenger: The Count Melun is slain; the English lords
By his persuasion are again fall'n off,
Nobody doubts that Shakespeare used the word "persuasion" upon
occasion, Art. I am hard pressed to divine just what on earth
your point, if any, might be; Jane Austen used the word as a title
for a novel -- was she a Freemason, Art?
Affirmative:

Mother was Cassandra Le(h?)igh, niece of Theophilus Leigh,
humorist, and for fifty years master of Balliol, Oxford
------------------------------------------------------------
5 Nov 1585 => MERCURY TRANSIT
5 Nov 1586 => Philip Sidney Day

5 Nov 1605 => Gunpowder plot

5 Nov 1699 => Gulliver shipwrecked/Venus inf. conj.

5 Nov 1715 => Gulliver returns/Venus inf. conj.

5 Nov 1718 => Tristram Shandy born
cluster of Sun, Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Saturn, Uranus.

5 Nov 1789 => Mercury TRANSIT
5 Nov 1789 => ELLIOT OF KELLYNCH HALL's still-born son
Jane Austin's Persuasion

5 Nov 1859? => Through the Looking Glass

5 Nov 1868 => Mercury TRANSIT
------------------------------------------------------------
"JANE AUSTEN." 1911 Online Encyclopedia.
http://52.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AU/AUSTEN_JANE.htm

AUSTEN, JANE (1775-1817), English novelist, was born on the 16th of
December 1775 at the parsonage of Steventon, so Hampshire, a village
of which her father, the Rev. George Austen, was rector. She was the
youngest of seven children, of her mother was Cassandra Leigh, niece of
Theophilus Leigh, m dry humorist, and for fifty years master of Balliol,
Oxford. The life of no woman of genius could have been more uneventful
than Miss Austens. She did not marry, and she never left home except on
short visits, chiefly to Bath. Her first sixteen years were spent in the
rectory at Steventon, where she began early R trifle with her pen,
always jestingly, for family entertainment. In 1801 the Austens moved to
Bath, where Mr Austen died in 1795, leaving only Mrs Austen, Jane and
her sister Cassandra, ar whom she was always deeply attached, to keep up
the home. In 1805 the Austen ladies moved to Southampton, and in 1809 fl
Chawton, near Alton, in Hampshire, and there Jane Austen remained till
1817, the year of her death, which occurred at Winchester, on July 18th,
as a memorial window in the cathedral states. During her placid life
Miss Austen never allowed her literary w mirably, keeping house, writing
many letters and reading iud. Though, however, her days were quiet and
her area curnscribed, she saw enough of middle-class provincial society
find a basis on which her dramatic and humorous faculties build,
and such was her power of searching observation d her sympathetic
imagination that there are -not in English Lion more faithful
representations of the life she knew than possess in her novels.
She had no predecessors in this genre.

Her best-known, if not her best work, Pride and Prejudice, is also her
first. It was written between October 1796 and gust 1797, although, such
was the blindness of publishers, issued until 1813, two years after
Sense and Sensibility, which was written, on an old scenario called
Eleanor and irianne, in 1797 and 1798. Miss Austens inability to find
publisher for these stories, and for Northanger Abbey, written 1798
(although it is true that she sold that MS. 111 1803 for although
Pride and Prejudice is the novel which in the mind the public is most
intimately associated with Miss Austens, both Mansfield Park and Emma
are finer achievements cnce riper and richer and more elaborate. But
the fact that Pride and Prejudice is more single-minded, that the love
story~ Elizabeth Bennet and DArcy is not only of the book but is I book
(whereas the love story of Emma and Mr Knightley, Fanny Price and
Edmund Bertram have parallel streams), has given Pride and Prejudice its
popularity above the others fong readers who are more interested by the
course of romance in by the exposition of character. Entirely
satisfactory as is Pride and Prejudice so far as it goes, it is,
however, thin beside I niceness of analysis of motives in Emma and
the wonderful inagement of two housefuls of young lovers that is
exhibited Mansfield Park.

Recognition came to Miss Austen slowly. It was not until quite
recent times that to read her became a necessity of culture.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Today's town of BATH, England contained an ancient shrine to Sulis,
the Celtic goddess of healing. In the late 1st century AD the Romans
built a bath complex around the sacred spring, calling it Aquae Sulis.

Near the baths was erected a temple to Sulis
merged with the Roman goddess of wisdom, Minerva.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_What Killed Jane Austen_- Jim Leavesley

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s18569.htm

<<Daughter of a clergyman, the 7th of 8 children, Jane Austen led a life
of gentility & ease spent entirely in quieter rural southern England.
She drew her characters from her own circle and never strayed from the
world in which she moved. Further, she was much too well bred to let her
own name grace the title-page of her novels. All her books were styled
as being written, 'By a Lady', as indeed they were. Her towering
reputation is based on only six works of fiction written between
the ages of 34 until her death at 41. They have never been out of print
in 175 years, and have flourished even more during the last decade or
so. She never married, and it appears the creative impulse, then
customarily fulfilled by the task of being a wife and mother, was in her
attained through her art. She took considerable pains to conceal from
her friends and visitors the nature of her life's work, and wrote on
small pieces of paper, the more easily to slip under a blotter or into a
drawer if chanced upon. She said her books were her children and she was
later remembered as the caring wit of the family. Jane Austen was born
20 years before Addison, in 1775, into a closely-knit family in which
she led a sheltered home life, interspersed with occasional visits to
Bath to take the waters, or to the nearby houses of her elder brothers.
It all sounds like a rural idyll, and so it was, until June 1816, when
at the age of 40, she had an attack of nausea and vomiting and low
backache. In July she was depressed and felt weak. This was put down to
her dissatisfaction with the book, 'Persuasion', which she had just
completed. Two months later it was noted she tired easily, had
uncharacteristic mood swings and further back pains. She improved and
life progressed in its customary premeditated way. In December she
declined an invitation to dinner, saying 'The walk is beyond my
strength, though I am otherwise very well.' The following months she
wrote to a friend that she was stronger but felt 'bile' was at the
bottom of her nausea and malaise. All pretty vague so far. Then in March
1817 Jane wrote to her favourite niece, Fanny, and in it gave the clue
which could lead us to the likely diagnosis. She wrote, 'I certainly
have not been very well for many weeks; I have a good deal of fever at
times, but am considerably better now and recovering my looks a little,
which have been black and white and every wrong colour. Sickness is a
dangerous indulgence at my time of life.' She wrote to a friend two
months later, recounting details of recurrent vomiting, concluding,
'My chief sufferings were from feverish nights, weakness and languor.'
We know the slightly built Austen was bright eyed and had an olive
complexion, certainly not 'black and white and every wrong colour.' A
visitor in May observed the author was looking very pale and spoke in a
weak, low voice. A concerned family moved her to Winchester to be nearer
expert medical help. It was of no avail. Over a six weeks period she
became progressively weaker and had a number of fainting fits, until on
July 18th, 1817, after several hours of unconsciousness, Jane Austen
died in the arms of her only sister, Cassandra. So what did she have?
Well I don't think she died of boredom, as someone unkindly suggested.
The story is one of unimpaired intellect but increasing languor and
intermittent backache, fainting attacks, gastrointestinal disturbances,
and fever, especially at night. Night sweats are a well-known feature of
tuberculosis. Added to all that, and crucially, is a darkening of the
face. As we have seen, it was not until 1849 that Thomas Addison first
described the malady. It's best known features are weakness and skin
discolouration which he described as 'various tints of deep amber or
chestnut brown.' One alleged feature was not displayed. My old
forthright chief used to claim, rightly or wrongly, that tubercular
patients, possibly due to their low grade persistent fever, were
almost always more sexually charged than the general run of the
population. No hint of sexual impropriety in Miss Austen has come down
to us. Whatever her private life, we know from her books that Jane
Austen was a consummate writer whose genius was tempered with gentle
humour and a subtle insight into the nature of humankind.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
(I felt pretty much the same way trying to write my SAT essay.)
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best catchup".
I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
You might try asking her yourself
If she has kept a copy of the discussion but
doesn't wish to release the information to you directly
then just tell me and I'll ask her for it.
Why don't you just ask her herself and spare Peter the trouble, Art?
Oh, it's no trouble to Peter.
If you fear that Ms. Green may indeed be unwilling to release your
research results to Peter (and your fear is well-founded -- to join
Phaeton one must be certified as certifiable by an already committed
Oxfordian, so the curious seeked is automatically excluded), then you
*are* subjecting Peter (as well as Ms. Green) to needless bother, Art.
Why don't you ask her yourself, and post your findings here?
Peter claims to belong to Phaeton, Dave;
and that it was no bother (as I said).
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
You might as well post your findings here --
I'm sure that many of us would be keenly interested.
Why...statistical analysis seems to bewilder HLAS's.
By no means. So, by all means post your results, Art.
If I end up retrieving them myself then I will post them here.

If Peter Farey obtains them, himself, then he has
my full permission to post them if he so wishes.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Art - you were just gloating about how Terry Ross appeared to be
"alone" in his conclusion; now you have reVERsed yourself and
opined that such matters are not decided a public opinion poll!
I'm gloating over the fact that a published mathematician who
posts regularly at HLAS is unable to assist Terry in his plight.
Terry is in no "plight," and he requires no assistance from anyone.
Then where O where IS Terry pray tell?

Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
2004-12-07 23:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Why? Why is the 1988 winner less deserving than a Marlovian, Art?
The Hoffman prize should go to people to whom
Hoffman himself would have approved they go.
And how do you know that Hoffman would not have approved the 1988
winner, Art? Have you been in touch with Hoffman himself via Percy
Allen's expedient, perhaps availing yourself of the offices of John
Edward, whom Ken Kaplan confidently assures us "really *does* talk to
dead people"? How can you know that Hoffman would not have approved,
Art?

And have you actually *read* the winning essay from 1988, Art? Yes
or no? You haven't? That's exactly what I expected.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
You're also bitter that there is no analogous prize
for Oxfordian cryptographic cranks.
[...]
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
"Uncle Frank is long gone (as is his money.)"
A mere generation later, and all the money is *gone*?
You aren't by any chance related to the seventeenth Earl of Oxford,
are you, Art? He was a notorious wastrel.
Like Timon of Athens?
In any event, twasn't me(; except for MIT tuition at least).
Perhaps there is buried treasure in the Sinn Room.
Why don't you excavate it and find out, Art?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
- He who is without Sinn
But not without tin, I hope -- at least I hope that were more
fortunate than Oxford in at least that respect. Incidentally, Art,
are you quite sure that your uncle's surname, Sinn,
is not a variant of SION?
So I'm Priory of Sinn of the sacred bloodlynne?
No, Art; you, at any rate, are certainly a cowan.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
and couldn't even get into Lehigh.
Don't feel bad, Art -- all Oxford's degrees were honorary anyway.
But nobody writes dedications to me (even in cipher).
Don't feel bad, Art -- nobody wrote real cipher dedications to Oxford
either. Indeed, nobody would have any reason for doing so, except
perhaps to try to secure the Earl's patronage by flattery, in which case
it would have been prudent to insure that the "cipher" was transparent.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Art Neuendorffer
It's bad enough that anti-Strats of different persuasions
That's odd -- I had not noticed that *any* of them
had much power of persuasion.
--------------------------------------------
King John Act 5, Scene 5
Messenger: The Count Melun is slain; the English lords
By his persuasion are again fall'n off,
Nobody doubts that Shakespeare used the word "persuasion" upon
occasion, Art. I am hard pressed to divine just what on earth
your point, if any, might be; Jane Austen used the word as a title
for a novel -- was she a Freemason, Art?
And you're under the impression that women are admitted to our Order,
Art?!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Mother was Cassandra Le(h?)igh, niece of Theophilus Leigh,
humorist, and for fifty years master of Balliol, Oxford
------------------------------------------------------------
5 Nov 1585 => MERCURY TRANSIT
5 Nov 1586 => Philip Sidney Day
5 Nov 1605 => Gunpowder plot
5 Nov 1699 => Gulliver shipwrecked/Venus inf. conj.
5 Nov 1715 => Gulliver returns/Venus inf. conj.
5 Nov 1718 => Tristram Shandy born
cluster of Sun, Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Saturn, Uranus.
5 Nov 1789 => Mercury TRANSIT
5 Nov 1789 => ELLIOT OF KELLYNCH HALL's still-born son
Jane Austin's [sic] Persuasion
Your familiarity with that novelist appears to be about what one
expect, in view of the lunatic logorrhea above.

[...]
Post by Art Neuendorffer
"JANE AUSTEN." 1911 Online Encyclopedia.
http://52.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AU/AUSTEN_JANE.htm
AUSTEN, JANE (1775-1817), English novelist, was born on the 16th of
December 1775 at the parsonage of Steventon, so Hampshire, a village
of which her father, the Rev. George Austen, was rector. She was the
youngest of seven children, of her mother was Cassandra Leigh [sic],
Was the above supposed to have been English?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
niece of
Theophilus Leigh, m dry [sic]
I can see that you have read this with your customary care, Art.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
humorist, and for fifty years master of Balliol,
Oxford. The life of no woman of genius could have been more uneventful
than Miss Austens [sic]. She did not marry, and she never left home
except on
short visits, chiefly to Bath. Her first sixteen years were spent in the
rectory at Steventon, where she began early R [sic] trifle with her pen,
I can see that you have read this with your customary care, Art.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
always jestingly, for family entertainment. In 1801 the Austens moved to
Bath, where Mr Austen died in 1795, leaving only Mrs Austen, Jane and
her sister Cassandra, ar [sic] whom she was always deeply attached,
to keep up
the home. In 1805 the Austen ladies moved to Southampton, and in
1809 fl [sic]
I can see that you have read this with your customary care, Art.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Chawton, near Alton, in Hampshire, and there Jane Austen remained till
1817, the year of her death, which occurred at Winchester, on July 18th,
as a memorial window in the cathedral states. During her placid life
Miss Austen never allowed her literary w mirably [sic],
Are you sure that you didn't write this yourself, Art?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
keeping house, writing
many letters and reading iud [sic].
Are you certain that you did not write this, Art?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Though, however, her days were quiet and
her area curnscribed [sic],
"Curnscribed"? That settles it, Art -- either you, Elizabeth, Mr.
Innes, or Mr. Paraleresis must have written this!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
she saw enough of middle-class provincial society
find [sic] a basis on which her dramatic and humorous faculties build,
and such was her power of searching observation d [sic]
I can see that you have read this with your customary care, Art.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
her sympathetic
imagination that there are -not in English Lion [sic?] more faithful
representations of the life she knew than possess [sic] in her novels.
If this is a Paraleresis parody, Art, then it's a VERy fine one!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
She had no predecessors in this genre.
Her best-known, if not her best work, Pride and Prejudice, is also her
first. It was written between October 1796 and gust [sic] 1797,
although, such was the blindness of publishers, issued until 1813 [sic],
Huh?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
two years after
Sense and Sensibility, which was written, on an old scenario called
Eleanor and irianne, in 1797 and 1798. Miss Austens [sic] inability
to find publisher [sic] for these stories, and for Northanger Abbey,
written 1798 [sic]
(although it is true that she sold that MS. 111 1803 [sic] for although
Pride and Prejudice is the novel which in the mind the public [sic] is
most
intimately associated with Miss Austens, both Mansfield Park and Emma
are finer achievements cnce [sic] riper and richer and more elaborate.
Have a heart, Art -- even Mr. Paraleresis is not *this* incoherent.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
But
the fact that Pride and Prejudice is more single-minded, that the love
story~ Elizabeth Bennet and DArcy is not only of the book but is
I book [sic]
"Is I book"? Perhaps Miss Austen's estate should sue Apple Computers
for trademark infringement.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
(whereas the love story of Emma and Mr Knightley, Fanny Price and
Edmund Bertram have parallel streams), has given Pride and Prejudice its
popularity above the others fong [sic] readers
Are you a "fong reader," Art? Who *is* Fong, anyway?
Post by Art Neuendorffer
who are more interested by the
course of romance in by [sic] the exposition of character. Entirely
satisfactory as is Pride and Prejudice so far as it goes, it is,
however, thin beside I niceness [sic] of analysis of motives in Emma and
the wonderful inagement [sic]
"Inagement"? I'm beginning to have my suspicions concerning the
identity of the culprit who purloined the Innes decoder ring.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
of two housefuls of young lovers that is
exhibited Mansfield [sic] Park.
Recognition came to Miss Austen slowly. It was not until quite
recent times that to read her became a necessity of culture.>>
Just being able to read *period* is a more fundamental necessity of
culture. If you eVER reach that stage, Art, then I encourage you to
read Jane Austen.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Today's town of BATH, England contained an ancient shrine to Sulis,
the Celtic goddess of healing. In the late 1st century AD the Romans
built a bath complex around the sacred spring, calling it Aquae Sulis.
Near the baths was erected a temple to Sulis
merged with the Roman goddess of wisdom, Minerva.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_What Killed Jane Austen_- Jim Leavesley
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s18569.htm
<<Daughter of a clergyman, the 7th of 8 children, Jane Austen led a life
of gentility & ease spent entirely in quieter rural southern England.
She drew her characters from her own circle and never strayed from the
world in which she moved. Further, she was much too well bred to let her
own name grace the title-page of her novels. All her books were styled
as being written, 'By a Lady', as indeed they were. Her towering
reputation is based on only six works of fiction written between
the ages of 34 until her death at 41. They have never been out of print
in 175 years, and have flourished even more during the last decade or
so. She never married, and it appears the creative impulse, then
customarily fulfilled by the task of being a wife and mother, was in her
attained through her art. She took considerable pains to conceal from
her friends and visitors the nature of her life's work, and wrote on
small pieces of paper, the more easily to slip under a blotter or into a
drawer if chanced upon. She said her books were her children and she was
later remembered as the caring wit of the family. Jane Austen was born
20 years before Addison, in 1775, into a closely-knit family in which
she led a sheltered home life, interspersed with occasional visits to
Bath to take the waters, or to the nearby houses of her elder brothers.
It all sounds like a rural idyll, and so it was, until June 1816, when
at the age of 40, she had an attack of nausea and vomiting and low
backache. In July she was depressed and felt weak. This was put down to
her dissatisfaction with the book, 'Persuasion', which she had just
completed. Two months later it was noted she tired easily, had
uncharacteristic mood swings and further back pains. She improved and
life progressed in its customary premeditated way. In December she
declined an invitation to dinner, saying 'The walk is beyond my
strength, though I am otherwise very well.' The following months she
wrote to a friend that she was stronger but felt 'bile' was at the
bottom of her nausea and malaise. All pretty vague so far. Then in March
1817 Jane wrote to her favourite niece, Fanny, and in it gave the clue
which could lead us to the likely diagnosis. She wrote, 'I certainly
have not been very well for many weeks; I have a good deal of fever at
times, but am considerably better now and recovering my looks a little,
which have been black and white and every wrong colour. Sickness is a
dangerous indulgence at my time of life.' She wrote to a friend two
months later, recounting details of recurrent vomiting, concluding,
'My chief sufferings were from feverish nights, weakness and languor.'
We know the slightly built Austen was bright eyed and had an olive
complexion, certainly not 'black and white and every wrong colour.' A
visitor in May observed the author was looking very pale and spoke in a
weak, low voice. A concerned family moved her to Winchester to be nearer
expert medical help. It was of no avail. Over a six weeks period she
became progressively weaker and had a number of fainting fits, until on
July 18th, 1817, after several hours of unconsciousness, Jane Austen
died in the arms of her only sister, Cassandra. So what did she have?
Well I don't think she died of boredom, as someone unkindly suggested.
The story is one of unimpaired intellect but increasing languor and
intermittent backache, fainting attacks, gastrointestinal disturbances,
and fever, especially at night. Night sweats are a well-known feature of
tuberculosis. Added to all that, and crucially, is a darkening of the
face. As we have seen, it was not until 1849 that Thomas Addison first
described the malady. It's best known features are weakness and skin
discolouration which he described as 'various tints of deep amber or
chestnut brown.' One alleged feature was not displayed. My old
forthright chief used to claim, rightly or wrongly, that tubercular
patients, possibly due to their low grade persistent fever, were
almost always more sexually charged than the general run of the
population. No hint of sexual impropriety in Miss Austen has come down
to us. Whatever her private life, we know from her books that Jane
Austen was a consummate writer whose genius was tempered with gentle
humour and a subtle insight into the nature of humankind.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
(I felt pretty much the same way trying to write my SAT essay.)
If your essay was no more successful in constructing a persuasive
argument than the above effusion is in supporting your contention
(enunciated explicitly above) that Jane Austen was a Freemason, then it
is no wonder that you could not get into Lehigh, Art -- not even as the
"legacy" scion of the family of a wealthy donor!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best catchup".
I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
You might try asking her yourself
If she has kept a copy of the discussion but
doesn't wish to release the information to you directly
then just tell me and I'll ask her for it.
Why don't you just ask her herself and spare Peter the trouble, Art?
Oh, it's no trouble to Peter.
If you fear that Ms. Green may indeed be unwilling to release your
research results to Peter (and your fear is well-founded -- to join
Phaeton one must be certified as certifiable by an already committed
Oxfordian, so the curious seeked is automatically excluded), then you
*are* subjecting Peter (as well as Ms. Green) to needless bother, Art.
Why don't you ask her yourself, and post your findings here?
Peter claims to belong to Phaeton, Dave;
and that it was no bother (as I said).
He wasn't in evidence the last time I looked in, but then I haven't
followed Phaeton at all.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
You might as well post your findings here --
I'm sure that many of us would be keenly interested.
Why...statistical analysis seems to bewilder HLAS's.
By no means. So, by all means post your results, Art.
If I end up retrieving them myself then I will post them here.
If Peter Farey obtains them, himself, then he has
my full permission to post them if he so wishes.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Art - you were just gloating about how Terry Ross appeared to be
"alone" in his conclusion; now you have reVERsed yourself and
opined that such matters are not decided a public opinion poll!
I'm gloating over the fact that a published mathematician who
posts regularly at HLAS is unable to assist Terry in his plight.
Terry is in no "plight," and he requires no assistance from anyone.
Then where O where IS Terry pray tell?
Probably doing something far more worthwhile than demolishing your
hydra-headed cryptographic delusions, Art.
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-08 00:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Nobody doubts that Shakespeare used the word "persuasion"
upon occasion, Art. I am hard pressed to divine just what on earth
your point, if any, might be; Jane Austen used the word as a title
for a novel -- was she a Freemason, Art?
And you're under the impression that women are admitted to our Order,
Art?!
Your Order, Dave?!
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Mother was Cassandra Le(h?)igh, niece of Theophilus Leigh,
humorist, and for fifty years master of Balliol, Oxford
------------------------------------------------------------
5 Nov 1585 => MERCURY TRANSIT
5 Nov 1586 => Philip Sidney Day
5 Nov 1605 => Gunpowder plot
5 Nov 1699 => Gulliver shipwrecked/Venus inf. conj.
5 Nov 1715 => Gulliver returns/Venus inf. conj.
5 Nov 1718 => Tristram Shandy born
cluster of Sun, Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Saturn, Uranus.
5 Nov 1789 => Mercury TRANSIT
5 Nov 1789 => ELLIOT OF KELLYNCH HALL's still-born son
Jane Austin's [sic] Persuasion
Your familiarity with that novelist appears to be about
what one expect, in view of the lunatic logorrhea above.
I'm always confusing her with Austin Powers.

(P.S., I glad you enjoyed the 1911 Online encyclopedia article
But I'm not going to bother reading your comments
about the limitations in their word reader.)
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Today's town of BATH, England contained an ancient shrine to Sulis,
the Celtic goddess of healing. In the late 1st century AD the Romans
built a bath complex around the sacred spring, calling it Aquae Sulis.
Near the baths was erected a temple to Sulis
merged with the Roman goddess of wisdom, Minerva.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_What Killed Jane Austen_- Jim Leavesley
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s18569.htm
<<Daughter of a clergyman, the 7th of 8 children, Jane Austen led a life
of gentility & ease spent entirely in quieter rural southern England.
She drew her characters from her own circle and never strayed from the
world in which she moved. Further, she was much too well bred to let her
own name grace the title-page of her novels. All her books were styled
as being written, 'By a Lady', as indeed they were. Her towering
reputation is based on only six works of fiction written between
the ages of 34 until her death at 41. They have never been out of print
in 175 years, and have flourished even more during the last decade or
so. She never married, and it appears the creative impulse, then
customarily fulfilled by the task of being a wife and mother, was in her
attained through her art. She took considerable pains to conceal from
her friends and visitors the nature of her life's work, and wrote on
small pieces of paper, the more easily to slip under a blotter or into a
drawer if chanced upon. She said her books were her children and she was
later remembered as the caring wit of the family. Jane Austen was born
20 years before Addison, in 1775, into a closely-knit family in which
she led a sheltered home life, interspersed with occasional visits to
Bath to take the waters, or to the nearby houses of her elder brothers.
It all sounds like a rural idyll, and so it was, until June 1816, when
at the age of 40, she had an attack of nausea and vomiting and low
backache. In July she was depressed and felt weak. This was put down to
her dissatisfaction with the book, 'Persuasion', which she had just
completed. Two months later it was noted she tired easily, had
uncharacteristic mood swings and further back pains. She improved and
life progressed in its customary premeditated way. In December she
declined an invitation to dinner, saying 'The walk is beyond my
strength, though I am otherwise very well.' The following months she
wrote to a friend that she was stronger but felt 'bile' was at the
bottom of her nausea and malaise. All pretty vague so far. Then in March
1817 Jane wrote to her favourite niece, Fanny, and in it gave the clue
which could lead us to the likely diagnosis. She wrote, 'I certainly
have not been very well for many weeks; I have a good deal of fever at
times, but am considerably better now and recovering my looks a little,
which have been black and white and every wrong colour. Sickness is a
dangerous indulgence at my time of life.' She wrote to a friend two
months later, recounting details of recurrent vomiting, concluding,
'My chief sufferings were from feverish nights, weakness and languor.'
We know the slightly built Austen was bright eyed and had an olive
complexion, certainly not 'black and white and every wrong colour.' A
visitor in May observed the author was looking very pale and spoke in a
weak, low voice. A concerned family moved her to Winchester to be nearer
expert medical help. It was of no avail. Over a six weeks period she
became progressively weaker and had a number of fainting fits, until on
July 18th, 1817, after several hours of unconsciousness, Jane Austen
died in the arms of her only sister, Cassandra. So what did she have?
Well I don't think she died of boredom, as someone unkindly suggested.
The story is one of unimpaired intellect but increasing languor and
intermittent backache, fainting attacks, gastrointestinal disturbances,
and fever, especially at night. Night sweats are a well-known feature of
tuberculosis. Added to all that, and crucially, is a darkening of the
face. As we have seen, it was not until 1849 that Thomas Addison first
described the malady. It's best known features are weakness and skin
discolouration which he described as 'various tints of deep amber or
chestnut brown.' One alleged feature was not displayed. My old
forthright chief used to claim, rightly or wrongly, that tubercular
patients, possibly due to their low grade persistent fever, were
almost always more sexually charged than the general run of the
population. No hint of sexual impropriety in Miss Austen has come down
to us. Whatever her private life, we know from her books that Jane
Austen was a consummate writer whose genius was tempered with gentle
humour and a subtle insight into the nature of humankind.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
(I felt pretty much the same way trying to write my SAT essay.)
If your essay was no more successful in constructing a persuasive
argument than the above effusion is in supporting your contention
(enunciated explicitly above) that Jane Austen was a Freemason, then it
is no wonder that you could not get into Lehigh, Art -- not even as the
"legacy" scion of the family of a wealthy donor!
I really think a international airport would have cinched it.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
If you fear that Ms. Green may indeed be unwilling to release your
research results to Peter (and your fear is well-founded -- to join
Phaeton one must be certified as certifiable by an already committed
Oxfordian, so the curious seeked is automatically excluded), then you
*are* subjecting Peter (as well as Ms. Green) to needless bother, Art.
Why don't you ask her yourself, and post your findings here?
Peter claims to belong to Phaeton, Dave;
and that it was no bother (as I said).
He wasn't in evidence the last time I looked in,
but then I haven't followed Phaeton at all.
He was surprised he belong himself.
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Art - you were just gloating about how Terry Ross appeared to be
"alone" in his conclusion; now you have reVERsed yourself and
opined that such matters are not decided a public opinion poll!
I'm gloating over the fact that a published mathematician who
posts regularly at HLAS is unable to assist Terry in his plight.
Terry is in no "plight," and he requires no assistance from anyone.
Then where O where IS Terry pray tell?
Probably doing something far more worthwhile than demolishing
your hydra-headed cryptographic delusions, Art.
I doubt it.

Art Neuendorffer
p***@tnn.net
2004-12-08 07:40:18 UTC
Permalink
I would like to add some evidence that supports Art's isolation of the
name 'KIT MARLOW' in the acrostic grid. It has already been pointed out
that the beginning of the name is indicated by the visually striking
cluster of tightly formed KITs at 132/2 (including the highly noticable
one formed in adjacent squares). What hasn't been commented on is that
the end of the name is also sealed by a corresponding anomaly. The word
WAIT caps the name. The reason why this is so anomalous is because it
doesn't do this once but three times over: there are three WAITs, all
of which share the same letter 'I' and this 'I' is in the square lying
immediately above the W of MARLOW. Two of the WAITs are formed from
adjacent squares (a reversed horizontal and a descending diagonal) and
one forms an ascending diagonal (moving 1ac/2up).

Looking on the grid we can see that the name is comprehensively sealed
by the WAITs. As a message "Kit Marlow Wait!" makes sense - although it
can be interpreted in a great many ways. It may be connected with the
waiting theme played out in sonnets 57 and 58.

The fact that the name is sealed by three WAITs does not obviate the
possibility that we can proceed with the message ". . . wrote this"
after a suitable delay.

I am not qualified to argue the toss on mathematical probabilities but
it seems plain to me that you don't have to be a mathematician to be
struck by the steady accumulation of anomalies occuring in respect of
the name KIT MARLOW(E) in the grid. This evidence is hard to ignore for
anyone with a functioning pair of eyes.

Peter
Mark Cipra
2004-12-08 11:52:27 UTC
Permalink
<***@tnn.net> wrote in message news:***@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Post by p***@tnn.net
Looking on the grid we can see that the name is comprehensively sealed
by the WAITs. As a message "Kit Marlow Wait!" makes sense - although it
can be interpreted in a great many ways. It may be connected with the
waiting theme played out in sonnets 57 and 58.
No, I think you've found an extraordinarily important clue! The message is
"Wait Kit Marlow". Taking into account the spelling anomalies of the
English Renaissance, this surely meant "Weight Kit Marlow" - an instruction
on how to dispose of the body which his murderers failed to recognize! Oh,
the perils of the spy trade!
Post by p***@tnn.net
The fact that the name is sealed by three WAITs does not obviate the
possibility that we can proceed with the message ". . . wrote this"
after a suitable delay.
I am not qualified to argue the toss on mathematical probabilities but
it seems plain to me that you don't have to be a mathematician to be
struck by the steady accumulation of anomalies occuring in respect of
the name KIT MARLOW(E) in the grid. This evidence is hard to ignore for
anyone with a functioning pair of eyes.
Peter
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-08 16:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@tnn.net
I would like to add some evidence that supports Art's isolation of the
name 'KIT MARLOW' in the acrostic grid. It has already been pointed
out that the beginning of the name is indicated by the visually striking
cluster of tightly formed KITs at 132/2 (including the highly noticable
one formed in adjacent squares). What hasn't been commented on is that
the end of the name is also sealed by a corresponding anomaly. The word
WAIT caps the name. The reason why this is so anomalous is because it
doesn't do this once but three times over: there are three WAITs, all
of which share the same letter 'I' and this 'I' is in the square lying
immediately above the W of MARLOW. Two of the WAITs are formed
from adjacent squares (a reversed horizontal and a descending diagonal)
and one forms an ascending diagonal (moving 1ac/2up).
Looking on the grid we can see that the name is comprehensively sealed
by the WAITs. As a message "Kit Marlow WAIT!" makes sense -
although it can be interpreted in a great many ways. It may be connected
with the WAITing theme played out in sonnets 57 and 58.
----------------------------------------------------------
I am to WAIT, though WAITing so be hell;
Not blame your pleasure, be it ill or well. - Sonnet 58
---------------------------------------------------------
Post by p***@tnn.net
The fact that the name is sealed by three WAITs does not obviate the
possibility that we can proceed with the message ". . . wrote this"
after a suitable delay.
I am not qualified to argue the toss on mathematical probabilities but
it seems plain to me that you don't have to be a mathematician to be
struck by the steady accumulation of anomalies occuring in respect of
the name KIT MARLOW(E) in the grid. This evidence is hard to
ignore for anyone with a functioning pair of eyes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross once wrote:
Does not "Trinculo" suggest "Trinoculo"?
And what does "Trinoculo" mean but "three-eyed"?
------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

154 T L[W]C T W A W T W G F
153 C A[A]I W A A A B T I A
152 I B[I]I B W F A F O A O
151 L Y[T]L F M M T B A H T

145 T B T B S C[W A I T]D F
144 T W T[T]T T A W A S B I
143 L O S[I]W C T N S W B A
142 L H O[A]O T A R B W R T
141 I F B[W]N N N T B D W T
140 B M L T I T A N F A N M
139 O T W V T D[W]I L H A T
138 W I T V T[A]S O B A O A
137 T T T Y[I]B W W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I I A T T F T
135 W A M[T]W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M[W]C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M|A]
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T[I]
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M Y[T]
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H[W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T]
84 W T I W L T B T L N[A]M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W[T]
82 I A T O T F A S A W[T I A W]
81 O O F A Y T T W Y W[A]E
80 O K A T B T M O Y[W]O H[T]
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
2004-12-07 10:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
How nice. However I fear that your analogy is inapprop-
riate, even if we had been potential Nobel laureates.
One of the Hoffman prizes is an annual one for an essay,
which I have not entered this year, and had no intention
of entering at the time Peter asked me for my opinion
of his book.
That doesn't mean that you aren't bitter about losing the
essay contest in the past (to less deserving candidates).
And it doesn't mean that I *am* bitter either. But whether
I am or not is, of course, completely irrelevant. The point
is that Peter Bull had said that he would welcome my
comments upon his theories, so I spent some time reading
his book and telling him what I thought of it. Although I
could not accept much of his argument, I nevertheless made
several suggestions as to how I thought he might improve it,
for which he said he was grateful.

My views were given to him privately and, whilst I have no
objection to his passing them on to others, that was *his*
decision, not mine. Once they had been made public, however,
I did want to ensure that they were reported accurately.

<snip>
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Never happen in my lifetime, squire,
and frankly that's just fine by me.
Then why were you so hard on Peter Bull when even I (as
an Oxfordian) can appreciate parts of his work? It's bad
enough that anti-Strats of different persuasions are at
each other's throats but to have divisions within groups
is intolerable, IMO.
I am not the slightest bit hard on Peter, whom I like a
lot. I am hard on theories which do not, in my opinion,
hold water, regardless of which particular authorship
position they appear to support. I try to be equally hard
on my own ideas too, which is partly why I post them here.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Incidentally, as usual you avoided (by snipping it) a
question that I had asked concerning your "stylistic
computer program based on the relative number of "who,
what, why, where...." in Elizabethan works, about which
you said that you were "surprised to find that Shakes-
peare & Marlowe made by far the best catchup".
I asked "Compared with which other matches?"
I missed that particular question.
(Most of your "questions" appear to be rhetorical.)
As I recall Nina Green had collected a number of works
(and modernized the spelling) from about 30 different
Elizabethan authors (some anonymous) and I was basically
using Nina's own word counts for my data base. Nina seemed
quite interested in my analysis at the time and may have
even kept some sort of digital record of the discussion.
You might try asking her yourself about my stylometric
a copy of the discussion but doesn't wish to release the
information to you directly then just tell me and I'll
ask her for it. (I can't recall if Nina's own Super-
Oxfordian theory included Marlowe but after Peter Bull's
cipher mine sure does. ;-)
Thanks, I may do that. I doubt if there will be any problem,
as I seem to be on her 'Phaeton' list anyway.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the
starting "K") "I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"
Post by Art Neuendorffer
19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved
in a "KIT"
50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left)
pairs in the full Peter Bull array.
3950: total number of left to right (& right to left)
letter pairs in the full Peter Bull array that are not
"I T"
Yes, but my question was what the total 4,023 which these
figures comprise, actually is? You can't use Fisher's
Exact Test unless you *start* with an overall population,
and *then* split it into the constituent parts,
Post by Art Neuendorffer
The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter
pairs near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
zigzag" consistent with the 50 to 3950 distribution of
letter pairs one would expect from the letter distribution
of beginning Sonnets letters.
A more careful analysis might count the total number of
"I T" pairs [i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as
just left to right (& right to left)] but I was in too
much of a hurry to get an answer and challenge Terry
Ross to bother.
Not a good idea when arguing with Terry, as I know to
my cost!

But this whole approach is wrong. It's like taking a
group of oranges and a group of lemons, and splitting
each group into 'yellow' and 'not yellow'. Of course
there is a significant difference, because you've
designed that difference into the experiment.

To measure the significance of the clustering of 'Kits'
around Sonnet 132 Line 2 (132/2) we need first to identify
how many places there are in the whole grid (assuming the
'Ks' to be where they currently are) where a regularly
spaced sequence K-I-T can occur. You will find that for
each of the 'Ks', no matter where it is, there will be
538 such possible sequences.

As there are 6 'Ks' in all, this gives a total of 3,228
possible places where the sequence 'K-I-T' could occur,
and *this* is what should be the population you start with.
The crucial thing about it, which is *not* a feature of
your table, is that each of these 3,228 'paths' has an
*equal chance* of containing the sequence 'K-I-T'

What we are interested in is whether those paths starting
at 132/2 (538 of them in all) have more 'K-I-T' sequences
than would be expected to have happened by chance. So the
first way we can split the population is into that lot vs
the rest (2,690 in all). This gives us the totals for the
two columns of the table. And each of these columns can
be split into those *with* a K-I-T sequence and those
*without*, giving us the two rows.

Peter said that he had found 7 K-I-T sequences starting
at 132/2, but I think he missed one, with 3ac/6up. So we
have our first column consisting of 8 'with' and 530
(538-8) 'without'. I don't know how many K-I-Ts Terry
has found, but I suspect that it will be rather more than
the 32 that Peter has. Let us give Peter the benefit of
the doubt, though (the more there are, the worse for his
case) and assume that the number of others he found (25)
is right. This then gives us a second column of 25 'with'
and 2,665 (2,690-25) 'without'.

Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
then gives us:

------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 8 , 25 , 530 , 2665 ]

2-Tail : p-value = 0.24062879981238935
------------------------------------------

As this value would need to be less than .05 before we
would even *start* to consider the possibility of the
132/2 cluster being significantly different from the
others, any such significance is clearly not indicated.

I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure other
than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.


Peter F.
***@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-07 11:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the
starting "K") "I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"
Post by Art Neuendorffer
19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved
in a "KIT"
50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left)
pairs in the full Peter Bull array.
3950: total number of left to right (& right to left)
letter pairs in the full Peter Bull array that are not
"I T"
Yes, but my question was what the total 4,023 which these
figures comprise, actually is? You can't use Fisher's
Exact Test unless you *start* with an overall population,
and *then* split it into the constituent parts,
Technically there is a very small overlap
between the 3,950 set and the 19 set of pairs
but I shouldn't think that would matter much
(after all...the 4,000 was just an approximation
of 2 x 154 x 13 in the first place).
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter
pairs near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
zigzag" consistent with the 50 to 3950 distribution of
letter pairs one would expect from the letter distribution
of beginning Sonnets letters.
A more careful analysis might count the total number of
"I T" pairs [i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as
just left to right (& right to left)] but I was in too
much of a hurry to get an answer and challenge Terry
Ross to bother.
Not a good idea when arguing with Terry, as I know to
my cost!
I'm not scared of arguing with Terry;
Terry is scared of arguing with me.

In Baltimore I told Terry in the morning that I was planning to tear his
arguments (about the Rollett cipher) to shreads in my afternoon talk; for
some unexplicable reason Terry couldn't show up in the afternoon.
Post by Peter Farey
But this whole approach is wrong. It's like taking a
group of oranges and a group of lemons, and splitting
each group into 'yellow' and 'not yellow'. Of course
there is a significant difference, because you've
designed that difference into the experiment.
No. The problem with the approach is that it is not technically an
experiment: A surprising event has happened and I am trying to go back after
the fact and estimate the a priori probability of that event occuring in the
future. Technically I should at least take into the account that either
"KITM-MAR- RLOW" , "KIT-MARL-LOW" could have occurred as well and therefore
the probability of, at least, one of them occurring is more like 3 /
3,600,000 = 1/ 1,200,000. Then there are numerous other one in a million
events that could have occurred with the pleasing appearance (at least for a
Marlovian) that Kit Marlowe's signiture was hidden in the Sonnets. This is a
difficult Bayesian probability problem but when one has reached the one in a
million level (Friedman minimal proper name requirement?) one can feel about
as confident as one can for discovering a highly relevant proper name.

Thanks for the analysis below. I will analyse it and respond later.

Art
-----------------------------------------------------
Post by Peter Farey
To measure the significance of the clustering of 'Kits'
around Sonnet 132 Line 2 (132/2) we need first to identify
how many places there are in the whole grid (assuming the
'Ks' to be where they currently are) where a regularly
spaced sequence K-I-T can occur. You will find that for
each of the 'Ks', no matter where it is, there will be
538 such possible sequences.
As there are 6 'Ks' in all, this gives a total of 3,228
possible places where the sequence 'K-I-T' could occur,
and *this* is what should be the population you start with.
The crucial thing about it, which is *not* a feature of
your table, is that each of these 3,228 'paths' has an
*equal chance* of containing the sequence 'K-I-T'
What we are interested in is whether those paths starting
at 132/2 (538 of them in all) have more 'K-I-T' sequences
than would be expected to have happened by chance. So the
first way we can split the population is into that lot vs
the rest (2,690 in all). This gives us the totals for the
two columns of the table. And each of these columns can
be split into those *with* a K-I-T sequence and those
*without*, giving us the two rows.
Peter said that he had found 7 K-I-T sequences starting
at 132/2, but I think he missed one, with 3ac/6up. So we
have our first column consisting of 8 'with' and 530
(538-8) 'without'. I don't know how many K-I-Ts Terry
has found, but I suspect that it will be rather more than
the 32 that Peter has. Let us give Peter the benefit of
the doubt, though (the more there are, the worse for his
case) and assume that the number of others he found (25)
is right. This then gives us a second column of 25 'with'
and 2,665 (2,690-25) 'without'.
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 8 , 25 , 530 , 2665 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.24062879981238935
------------------------------------------
As this value would need to be less than .05 before we
would even *start* to consider the possibility of the
132/2 cluster being significantly different from the
others, any such significance is clearly not indicated.
I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure other
than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.
Peter F.
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
David L. Webb
2004-12-09 20:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the
starting "K") "I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"
Post by Art Neuendorffer
19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved
in a "KIT"
50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left)
pairs in the full Peter Bull array.
3950: total number of left to right (& right to left)
letter pairs in the full Peter Bull array that are not
"I T"
Yes, but my question was what the total 4,023 which these
figures comprise, actually is? You can't use Fisher's
Exact Test unless you *start* with an overall population,
and *then* split it into the constituent parts,
Technically there is a very small overlap
between the 3,950 set and the 19 set of pairs
but I shouldn't think that would matter much
You shouldn't think period, Art -- or rather, you should, but only if
you can contrive to do so competently.

[...]
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter
pairs near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
zigzag" consistent with the 50 to 3950 distribution of
letter pairs one would expect from the letter distribution
of beginning Sonnets letters.
A more careful analysis might count the total number of
"I T" pairs [i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as
just left to right (& right to left)] but I was in too
much of a hurry to get an answer and challenge Terry
Ross to bother.
Not a good idea when arguing with Terry, as I know to
my cost!
I'm not scared of arguing with Terry;
Terry is scared of arguing with me.
You're priceless, Art!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
In Baltimore I told Terry in the morning that I was planning to tear his
arguments (about the Rollett cipher) to shreads [sic] in my afternoon talk;
for some unexplicable [sic] reason Terry couldn't show up in the afternoon.
Probably he had no idea what you meant by "shreads," Art, and hence
did not perceive your farcical admonition as a challenge. Or, perhaps
he simply had better things to do -- although for anyone with a sense of
humor and an appreciation of the bizarre, I can scarcely imagine a more
diVERting way to spend the afternoon than listening to your crackpot
cryptography.

[...]
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-09 22:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David L. Webb
Post by Art Neuendorffer
I'm not scared of arguing with Terry;
Terry is scared of arguing with me.
You're priceless, Art!
Post by Art Neuendorffer
In Baltimore I told Terry in the morning that I was planning to tear his
arguments (about the Rollett cipher) to shreads [sic] in my afternoon talk;
for some unexplicable [sic] reason Terry couldn't show up in the afternoon.
Probably he had no idea what you meant by "shreads," Art, and hence
did not perceive your farcical admonition as a challenge.
I relayed it verbally and pretty sure he got the message.
Post by David L. Webb
Or, perhaps he simply had better things to do
Than getting torn to shreds... I imagine so.
Post by David L. Webb
-- although for anyone with a sense of humor and
an appreciation of the bizarre, I can scarcely imagine a more
diVERting way to spend the afternoon than listening
to your crackpot cryptography.
Alan Nelson was even taking notes.

Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-07 11:59:11 UTC
Permalink
--------------------------------------------------
I should point out that in calculating the probability of 1/760
for "KITM-MARL-LOW" I have NOT taken into account
the esthetics of Peter Bull's "compact nearly symmetric zigzag."

The 1/760 probability was calculated merely for
three connected lines IN ANY PATTERN WHATSOEVER.

Compact NEARLY symmetric patterns form the basis of western art (from
crucifixes to the frontispiece of the Shakespeare Folio). While I have not
included this particular esoteric aspect into my calculations (other than,
perhaps, my concentrating just on the first 12 lines/columns) Peter Bull's
zigzag nonetheless does form a rather convincing and pleasing pattern to the
eye (as does the 4 close KITs...which WAS accounted for in the calculation).

Should Terry Ross come up with another nine letter name (his own say) I
would expect it to form an equally convincing & pleasing pattern to the eye.
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Post by Peter Farey
Your figure involves a very weird use of Fisher's
Exact Test, which you apply to a 4, 19, 50, 3950
array. Can you explain precisely what the population
of 4,023 - two variables of which you are apparently
comparing - is actually supposed to *be*?
4: number of nearby (i.e., skip of 4 or less from the
starting "K") "I T"'s letter pairs that produce a "KIT"
Post by Art Neuendorffer
19: total number of nearby letter pairs not involved
in a "KIT"
50: number of "I T" left to right (& right to left)
pairs in the full Peter Bull array.
3950: total number of left to right (& right to left)
letter pairs in the full Peter Bull array that are not
"I T"
Yes, but my question was what the total 4,023 which these
figures comprise, actually is? You can't use Fisher's
Exact Test unless you *start* with an overall population,
and *then* split it into the constituent parts,
Technically there is a very small overlap
between the 3,950 set and the 19 set of pairs
but I shouldn't think that would matter much
(after all...the 4,000 was just an approximation
of 2 x 154 x 13 in the first place).
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
The question is the 4 to 19 distribution of letter
pairs near the start of Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
zigzag" consistent with the 50 to 3950 distribution of
letter pairs one would expect from the letter distribution
of beginning Sonnets letters.
A more careful analysis might count the total number of
"I T" pairs [i.e., vertically & diagonally as well as
just left to right (& right to left)] but I was in too
much of a hurry to get an answer and challenge Terry
Ross to bother.
Not a good idea when arguing with Terry, as I know to
my cost!
I'm not scared of arguing with Terry;
Terry is scared of arguing with me.

In Baltimore I told Terry in the morning that I was planning to tear his
arguments (about the Rollett cipher) to shreads in my afternoon talk; for
some unexplicable reason Terry couldn't show up in the afternoon.
Post by Peter Farey
But this whole approach is wrong. It's like taking a
group of oranges and a group of lemons, and splitting
each group into 'yellow' and 'not yellow'. Of course
there is a significant difference, because you've
designed that difference into the experiment.
No. The problem with the approach is that it is not technically an
experiment: A surprising event has happened and I am trying to go back after
the fact and estimate the a priori probability of that event occuring in the
future. Technically I should at least take into the account that either
"KITM-MAR- RLOW" , "KIT-TMAR-RLOW" could have occurred as well and therefore
the probability of, at least, one of them occurring is more like 3 /
3,600,000 = 1/ 1,200,000. Then there are numerous other one in a million
events that could have occurred with the pleasing appearance (at least for a
Marlovian) that Kit Marlowe's signiture was hidden in the Sonnets. This is a
difficult Bayesian probability problem but when one has reached the one in a
million level (Friedman minimal proper name requirement?) one can feel about
as confident as one can for discovering a highly relevant proper name.

Thanks for the analysis below. I will analyse it and respond later.

Art
-----------------------------------------------------
Post by Peter Farey
To measure the significance of the clustering of 'Kits'
around Sonnet 132 Line 2 (132/2) we need first to identify
how many places there are in the whole grid (assuming the
'Ks' to be where they currently are) where a regularly
spaced sequence K-I-T can occur. You will find that for
each of the 'Ks', no matter where it is, there will be
538 such possible sequences.
As there are 6 'Ks' in all, this gives a total of 3,228
possible places where the sequence 'K-I-T' could occur,
and *this* is what should be the population you start with.
The crucial thing about it, which is *not* a feature of
your table, is that each of these 3,228 'paths' has an
*equal chance* of containing the sequence 'K-I-T'
What we are interested in is whether those paths starting
at 132/2 (538 of them in all) have more 'K-I-T' sequences
than would be expected to have happened by chance. So the
first way we can split the population is into that lot vs
the rest (2,690 in all). This gives us the totals for the
two columns of the table. And each of these columns can
be split into those *with* a K-I-T sequence and those
*without*, giving us the two rows.
Peter said that he had found 7 K-I-T sequences starting
at 132/2, but I think he missed one, with 3ac/6up. So we
have our first column consisting of 8 'with' and 530
(538-8) 'without'. I don't know how many K-I-Ts Terry
has found, but I suspect that it will be rather more than
the 32 that Peter has. Let us give Peter the benefit of
the doubt, though (the more there are, the worse for his
case) and assume that the number of others he found (25)
is right. This then gives us a second column of 25 'with'
and 2,665 (2,690-25) 'without'.
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 8 , 25 , 530 , 2665 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.24062879981238935
------------------------------------------
As this value would need to be less than .05 before we
would even *start* to consider the possibility of the
132/2 cluster being significantly different from the
others, any such significance is clearly not indicated.
I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure other
than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.
Peter F.
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-07 16:33:50 UTC
Permalink
-----------------------------------------------------
Post by Peter Farey
To measure the significance of the clustering of 'Kits'
around Sonnet 132 Line 2 (132/2) we need first to identify
how many places there are in the whole grid (assuming the
'Ks' to be where they currently are) where a regularly
spaced sequence K-I-T can occur. You will find that for
each of the 'Ks', no matter where it is, there will be
538 such possible sequences.
As there are 6 'Ks' in all, this gives a total of 3,228
possible places where the sequence 'K-I-T' could occur,
and *this* is what should be the population you start with.
The crucial thing about it, which is *not* a feature of
your table, is that each of these 3,228 'paths' has an
*equal chance* of containing the sequence 'K-I-T'
What we are interested in is whether those paths starting
at 132/2 (538 of them in all) have more 'K-I-T' sequences
than would be expected to have happened by chance. So the
first way we can split the population is into that lot vs
the rest (2,690 in all). This gives us the totals for the
two columns of the table. And each of these columns can
be split into those *with* a K-I-T sequence and those
*without*, giving us the two rows.
Peter said that he had found 7 K-I-T sequences starting
at 132/2, but I think he missed one, with 3ac/6up. So we
have our first column consisting of 8 'with' and 530
(538-8) 'without'. I don't know how many K-I-Ts Terry
has found, but I suspect that it will be rather more than
the 32 that Peter has. Let us give Peter the benefit of
the doubt, though (the more there are, the worse for his
case) and assume that the number of others he found (25)
is right. This then gives us a second column of 25 'with'
and 2,665 (2,690-25) 'without'.
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 8 , 25 , 530 , 2665 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.24062879981238935
------------------------------------------
As this value would need to be less than .05 before we
would even *start* to consider the possibility of the
132/2 cluster being significantly different from the
others, any such significance is clearly not indicated.
I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure
other than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.
-----------------------------------------------------

I don't think you DO appreciate it, Peter.

It is PRECISELY the tight clustering of the 'KITs'
around 132/2 that IS THE IMPORTANT FACTOR and the
very thing that you have TOTALLY ignored in your analysis.

Peter Bull's solution IS NECESSARILY pleasing to the
eye; it is not simply an abstract mathematical concept
of some 'KITs' found along some arbitrary straight line
by computer or very careful observation.

Besides, I have already stated that the chance of any given pair being
"I T" is 1 in 80. Therefore the expected number of random 'KITs' in
your 3,228 'paths' would be 40 not 32 (by my estimate). Since at least
6 'KITs' are probably intentional Terry will no doubt tell us the
number is more like 46. If you are going to perform your calculation
on abstract 'KITs' along a straight line you might as well use a
more realistic number of 40 or 46 (that's what I would have used).
Any analysis that ignores the compact clustering of 'KITs' around
132/2 is irrelevant in any event.

Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
2004-12-08 07:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Peter Farey
To measure the significance of the clustering of 'Kits'
around Sonnet 132 Line 2 (132/2) we need first to identify
how many places there are in the whole grid (assuming the
'Ks' to be where they currently are) where a regularly
spaced sequence K-I-T can occur. You will find that for
each of the 'Ks', no matter where it is, there will be
538 such possible sequences.
As there are 6 'Ks' in all, this gives a total of 3,228
possible places where the sequence 'K-I-T' could occur,
and *this* is what should be the population you start with.
The crucial thing about it, which is *not* a feature of
your table, is that each of these 3,228 'paths' has an
*equal chance* of containing the sequence 'K-I-T'
What we are interested in is whether those paths starting
at 132/2 (538 of them in all) have more 'K-I-T' sequences
than would be expected to have happened by chance. So the
first way we can split the population is into that lot vs
the rest (2,690 in all). This gives us the totals for the
two columns of the table. And each of these columns can
be split into those *with* a K-I-T sequence and those
*without*, giving us the two rows.
Peter said that he had found 7 K-I-T sequences starting
at 132/2, but I think he missed one, with 3ac/6up. So we
have our first column consisting of 8 'with' and 530
(538-8) 'without'. I don't know how many K-I-Ts Terry
has found, but I suspect that it will be rather more than
the 32 that Peter has. Let us give Peter the benefit of
the doubt, though (the more there are, the worse for his
case) and assume that the number of others he found (25)
is right. This then gives us a second column of 25 'with'
and 2,665 (2,690-25) 'without'.
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 8 , 25 , 530 , 2665 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.24062879981238935
------------------------------------------
As this value would need to be less than .05 before we
would even *start* to consider the possibility of the
132/2 cluster being significantly different from the
others, any such significance is clearly not indicated.
I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure
other than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't think you DO appreciate it, Peter.
It is PRECISELY the tight clustering of the 'KITs'
around 132/2 that IS THE IMPORTANT FACTOR and the
very thing that you have TOTALLY ignored in your analysis.
Peter Bull's solution IS NECESSARILY pleasing to the
eye; it is not simply an abstract mathematical concept
of some 'KITs' found along some arbitrary straight line
by computer or very careful observation.
To remind you, Art. These letters are scattered across
five pages of of the 1609 quarto (Sig.H3). They didn't
start life as one of your technicolor production numbers.
Post by Terry Ross
Besides, I have already stated that the chance of any
given pair being "I T" is 1 in 80. Therefore the expected
number of random 'KITs' in your 3,228 'paths' would
be 40 not 32 (by my estimate).
The 32 was Peter B's count of how many 'KITs' he had
actually *found* and not an estimate, as far as I know.
Post by Terry Ross
Since at least 6 'KITs' are probably intentional Terry
will no doubt tell us the number is more like 46. If
you are going to perform your calculation on abstract
'KITs' along a straight line you might as well use a
more realistic number of 40 or 46 (that's what I would
have used).
OK, 46 it is.

Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
then gives us:
------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 8 , 38 , 530 , 2665 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.8424252278169432
------------------------------------------
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Peter Farey
As this value would need to be less than .05 before we
would even *start* to consider the possibility of the
132/2 cluster being significantly different from the
others, any such significance is clearly not indicated.
Any analysis that ignores the compact clustering of
'KITs' around 132/2 is irrelevant in any event.
So you say.


Peter F.
***@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-08 12:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Art Neuendorffer
It is PRECISELY the tight clustering of the 'KITs'
around 132/2 that IS THE IMPORTANT FACTOR and the
very thing that you have TOTALLY ignored in your analysis.
Peter Bull's solution IS NECESSARILY pleasing to the
eye; it is not simply an abstract mathematical concept
of some 'KITs' found along some arbitrary straight line
by computer or very careful observation.
To remind you, Art. These letters are scattered across
five pages of of the 1609 quarto (Sig.H3). They didn't
start life as one of your technicolor production numbers.
They might have done just that:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelangelo's Crucifixion of Saint Peter. [1546-1550.]
Frescoes. Pauline Chapel, Vatican.
Loading Image...
----------------------------------------------------------
Sonnet's dedication:

T O T H E O N L I E B E G E T T
E R O F T H E S E I N S V I N G
S O N N E T S M R W H A L L H A
P P I N E S S E A N D T H A T E
T E R N I T I E P R O M I S E D
B Y O V R E V E R L I V I N G P
O E T W I S H E T H T H E W E L
L W I S H I N G A D V E N T V R
E R I N S E T T I N G F O R T H
-------------------------------------------------
"Globe" burned down on St.Peter's day 1613
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Famous Tragedy of The Rich Iew of Malta.
As it was playd before the King and Qveene,
in His Majesties Theatre at White-Hall,
by her Majesties Servants at the Cock-pit.
Written by Christopher Marlo.

FERNEZE.: Why, Barabas, wilt thou be christened?

BARABAS.: No, governor, I will be no convertite.
-------------------------------------------------------
John Calvin's last sermon [February 6, 1564]
Christopher Marlo born [February 6, 1564]

Michelangelo dies at age 89! [February 18, 1564]

Christopher Marlo christened
at St Georges Church Canterbury [February 26, 1564]

Shakespeare christened [April 26, 1564]

Calvin dies in Switzerland at age 55! [May 27, 1564]
{no gravestone!}
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
2004-12-07 21:00:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <T8mdnSn5-eeLDSncRVn-***@comcast.com>,
"Art Neuendorffer" <***@comcast.net>

(***@comicass.nut) wrote:

[...]
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Then why were you so hard on Peter Bull when even I (as an Oxfordian)
can appreciate parts of his work? It's bad enough that anti-Strats of
different persuasions are at each other's throats but to have
divisions within groups is intolerable, IMO.
Have you been elected anti-Stratfordian party whip, Art? Your effort
to enforce ideological purity and uniformity among the faithful is no
doubt praiseworthy, but it is conspicuously at variance with your own
past practice. Here are a few excerpts from the roughly 12,600 posts of
***@comicass.nut:

"Buckeye Pete is a blithering idiot!!!!"

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/6d277ab8ab4117ca?dmode=source>

"Buckeye Pete is an idiot!"

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/69ee1c614c0a1210?dmode=source>

"Buckeye Pete is a fool for not seeing the damage Woods [sic] is
going to inflict upon the antiStrat's credibility which was just
starting to gain momentum."

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/63c52def749fc25b?dmode=source>

"Yes...Mr. Streitz is wrong."

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/f6ddc7e5279c93cc?dmode=source>

"Paul figures that the Bernoulli principle is OK for toys & such but
that it could never begin to lift a large plane. Airplane wings must
of necessity be cocked in order to redirect the flow downward. (The
enormous drag & subsequent stalling that would result from Paul's
scheme apparently lies outside of his aerodynamic expertesse [sic].)
Streitz actually corners airline pilots at cocktail parties in order
to explain these revolutionary new facts. Hopefully this has not
resulting [sic] in to [sic] many plane crashes."

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/6fcf75cbcdb57503?dmode=source>

[...]
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-07 21:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David L. Webb
"Buckeye Pete is a blithering idiot!!!!"
"Buckeye Pete is an idiot!"
"Buckeye Pete is a fool for not seeing the damage Woods [sic] is
going to inflict upon the antiStrat's credibility which was just
starting to gain momentum."
"Yes...Mr. Streitz is wrong."
"Paul figures that the Bernoulli principle is OK for toys & such but
that it could never begin to lift a large plane. Airplane wings must
of necessity be cocked in order to redirect the flow downward. (The
enormous drag & subsequent stalling that would result from Paul's
scheme apparently lies outside of his aerodynamic expertesse [sic].)
Streitz actually corners airline pilots at cocktail parties in order
to explain these revolutionary new facts. Hopefully this has not
resulting [sic] in to [sic] many plane crashes."
David L. Webb
2004-12-08 19:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David L. Webb
"Buckeye Pete is a blithering idiot!!!!"
"Buckeye Pete is an idiot!"
"Buckeye Pete is a fool for not seeing the damage Woods [sic] is
going to inflict upon the antiStrat's credibility which was just
starting to gain momentum."
"Yes...Mr. Streitz is wrong."
"Paul figures that the Bernoulli principle is OK for toys & such but
that it could never begin to lift a large plane. Airplane wings must
of necessity be cocked in order to redirect the flow downward. (The
enormous drag & subsequent stalling that would result from Paul's
scheme apparently lies outside of his aerodynamic expertesse [sic].)
Streitz actually corners airline pilots at cocktail parties in order
to explain these revolutionary new facts. Hopefully this has not
resulting [sic] in to [sic] many plane crashes."
No, Art; I did not write the quoted text -- *you* did.

Until now, I had thought that Elizabeth Weird was the only h.l.a.s.
regular so farcically incompetent as to be capable of attributing her
own words to others. Now I see that Elizabeth has company.

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/6d277ab8ab4117ca?dmode=source>

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/69ee1c614c0a1210?dmode=source>

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/63c52def749fc25b?dmode=source>

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/f6ddc7e5279c93cc?dmode=source>

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/6fcf75cbcdb57503?dmode=source>
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-08 21:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David L. Webb
Post by David L. Webb
"Buckeye Pete is a blithering idiot!!!!"
"Buckeye Pete is an idiot!"
"Buckeye Pete is a fool for not seeing the damage Woods [sic] is
going to inflict upon the antiStrat's credibility which was just
starting to gain momentum."
"Yes...Mr. Streitz is wrong."
"Paul figures that the Bernoulli principle is OK for toys & such but
that it could never begin to lift a large plane. Airplane wings must
of necessity be cocked in order to redirect the flow downward. (The
enormous drag & subsequent stalling that would result from Paul's
scheme apparently lies outside of his aerodynamic expertesse [sic].)
Streitz actually corners airline pilots at cocktail parties in order
to explain these revolutionary new facts. Hopefully this has not
resulting [sic] in to [sic] many plane crashes."
No, Art; I did not write the quoted text -- *you* did.
Well, we're easily confused.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

Art
Peter Bull
2004-12-05 11:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array that you have not yet
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising the
letters K, I, and T) are there in Peter Bull's array of first letters in
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
I have found seven KITs visibly aligned in the grid. Five starting
from 132/2 and two starting at 105/5.

Could you show me where the others lie? I suspect the letter spacings
involved will be so great as to make them of little significance. The
point about the grid used as the basis of a cryptogram is that the
patterns need to be visibly significant (their probability levels
could not have been a priority for for the poet).

Peter
Terry Ross
2004-12-05 12:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bull
Post by Terry Ross
I asked you a simple question about Peter's array that you have not yet
How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments" comprising the
letters K, I, and T) are there in Peter Bull's array of first letters in
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
I have found seven KITs visibly aligned in the grid. Five starting
from 132/2 and two starting at 105/5.
Your count is woefully short.
Post by Peter Bull
Could you show me where the others lie? I suspect the letter spacings
involved will be so great as to make them of little significance.
You can't have it all possible ways, Peter. You cannot claim a special
significance to there being five KITs starting at 132.2 when there are, in
fact, two other "K" locations from which at least five KITs radiate.

Moreover, the fact that you are unable accurately to do even so simple a
task as count the KITs correctly suggests that you have not searched for
"segments" or done any other proper assessment of your array with the kind
of diligence your readers have a right to expect. After all, you make
very large claims for the importance of what you have found, but if you
cannot even find most of the KITs in the arrays, how can we take seriously
anything else you say about your array?
Post by Peter Bull
The point about the grid used as the basis of a cryptogram is that the
patterns need to be visibly significant (their probability levels could
not have been a priority for for the poet).
Ha! You make my horse to laugh, Peter. The whole point of your array is
to create an artificial "visible significance" for something that is not
and could not be visible to any reader of *Shakespeare's Sonnets*.
NOBODY can read Shakespeare's poems and assemble your segments while doing
so. You have to strip the work of all significance and beauty in order to
cram one letter from each line into your array. That's fine, if you like
to play word-find games, but it has nothing to do with *Shakespeare's
Sonnets* or with any long-dead poet who had nothing whatsoever to do with
their creation. There would be exactly as much significance if you were
to take the fourth letter of each line, or the fifth letter from the end
of each line. There is no doubt in the world that you would find a great
many accidental and entirely meaningless "segments" in any possible array.

Here is an exercise you might wish to try. Take all the first letters of
the sonnets and assign them to random positions in your array. Guess what
-- you will find multiple KITs (if you are able to search diligently) in
that random array as well. If you don't believe me, then create your own
random shuffle, and I will find the KITs for you.

What will this tell us about Marlowe, or about *Shakespeare's Sonnets*, or
about gematria, or about ciphers? Nothing; not one thing. It may,
however, teach us a little something about accidents -- about how when we
have a very large number of possible places in which to find a "KIT", and
when we have a very large number of possible ways in which to find a KIT,
and when we have a handful of K's and a considerable number of I's and
T's, then we expect to find that KIT segments will appear entirely by
accident.

However, IF you insist on imposing your word-find games on us, is it too
much to ask that you play your own game with greater skill? You have
missed MOST of the KITs in the array (we needn't even begin to speak about
the other things you've missed). I have asked Art, who is similarly
fascinated with meaningless arrays, how many KITs HE can find there. it
is not a hard question -- really, it is not. There is a correct answer,
and the answer is significantly greater than "seven." If either of you
can give me the answer, then we can proceed to talk about your word find
game.

At no point, of course, will we be talking about a genuine cryptogram --
your methods (even if you could apply them with more skill) are incapable
of producing a uniquely meaningful solution, and that is a crucial test
for any proposed cryptogram -- but at least let us talk about word-find
games at a somewhat higher level than we have thus far.

And now I must search today's paper for something similarly challenging.
I do hope "Jumble" isn't a toughie today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Peter Bull
Peter
Peter Bull
2004-12-05 21:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Your count is woefully short.
It is short, you are right. There are 25 others, as I have found
today. However I am far from convinced that these others are
significant as you say they are.

If you look at the four KITs clustered round the start of the message
you will see that there is a maximum of 4 moves needed between letters
(i.e. 1 across and three up, or two across and two up). The other
three KITs that derive from that point (132/2) require 28, 53 and 67
moves respectively (2ac/26up, 6ac/47up and 6ac/61up). There is a very
big disparity here: tight clusters are very much more improbable than
loose and dispersed ones. The latter are what one would expect as a
product of random forces, the former will be rare in nature and their
presence inevitably draws the observer's attention.

On examining the grid for the first time, my eye was drawn to the two
examples of KIT written in adjacent-square straight lines. Those two
were immediately noticable. Having been attracted to those points, I
became particularly aware of the clustering around 132/2. I next
realised that there were actually two KITMs coming from that point and
that one of them was superimposed on another KIT line. I then found
that this KITM formed the start of an almost identical MARL section.
Finally I was able to trace the message.

The discovery of the message resulted from the fact that I was led on
by a series of visual cues - an unusual series of anomalies. If there
had been no adjacent-square, straight-line KITs I would have looked no
further. The visual context is of critical importance.
Post by Terry Ross
Ha! You make my horse to laugh, Peter. The whole point of your array is
to create an artificial "visible significance" for something that is not
and could not be visible to any reader of *Shakespeare's Sonnets*.
I'll grant you that the grid would not be visible to the casual
reader. It is the nature of Steganography that the presence of the
encrypted message is kept hidden from such people and only becomes
apparent when the method that was employed to conceal it is reversed
to reveal it. The cryptographic method of letter tabulation was well
established before Shakespeare was born.
Post by Terry Ross
NOBODY can read Shakespeare's poems and assemble your segments while doing
so. You have to strip the work of all significance and beauty in order to
cram one letter from each line into your array. That's fine, if you like
to play word-find games, but it has nothing to do with *Shakespeare's
Sonnets* or with any long-dead poet who had nothing whatsoever to do with
their creation.
One of the great virtues of Shakespeare's Sonnets is that they can be
read at many levels of meaning. Therefore I don't think that you, or
anyone else, can claim the final word on the interpretation of their
significance or beauty. My own view is that Shakespeare was doing
almost nothing else but playing 'word find games' when he wrote the
Sonnets - he was playing with words in a way that had never been done
before and has never really been equalled.

There are grounds for suspecting the Sonnets to contain a cryptogram.
The two most prominent of these are that the autobiographic material
in the Sonnets is highly enigmatic and that the dedication makes very
little sense except as a cryptogram. The astute reader enters the
Sonnets without preconceptions and with his eyes very much open.
Post by Terry Ross
There would be exactly as much significance if you were
to take the fourth letter of each line, or the fifth letter from the end
of each line. There is no doubt in the world that you would find a great
many accidental and entirely meaningless "segments" in any possible array.
Here is an exercise you might wish to try. Take all the first letters of
the sonnets and assign them to random positions in your array. Guess what
-- you will find multiple KITs (if you are able to search diligently) in
that random array as well. If you don't believe me, then create your own
random shuffle, and I will find the KITs for you.
What will this tell us about Marlowe, or about *Shakespeare's Sonnets*, or
about gematria, or about ciphers? Nothing; not one thing.
I could hardly agree more. It would be a complete waste of time.
Post by Terry Ross
It may,
however, teach us a little something about accidents -- about how when we
have a very large number of possible places in which to find a "KIT", and
when we have a very large number of possible ways in which to find a KIT,
and when we have a handful of K's and a considerable number of I's and
T's, then we expect to find that KIT segments will appear entirely by
accident.
Accidents are all very well. They are perfectly natural. They occur
all the time in nature. What doesn't occur in nature, though, is the
coincidence of consecutive accidents. When this happens the perceptive
investigator opens his eyes and starts examining the possibility that
there is an underlying cause that is not accidental. This is the basis
of cryptanalysis (and code breaking).
Post by Terry Ross
However, IF you insist on imposing your word-find games on us, is it too
much to ask that you play your own game with greater skill? You have
missed MOST of the KITs in the array (we needn't even begin to speak about
the other things you've missed).
It is true, I have missed a number of KITs. That is remiss of me: like
Shakespeare, I lack the computer know-how that made all those
'strings' so obvious to you. However I don't believe that your purely
quantitative criteria should be given undue weight. Reading
Shakespeare's Sonnets has always been an exercise in subjective
analysis. It requires an ability to discriminate between what is
meaningful and meaningless. I have no doubt that most (and possibly
all) of the additional 'strings' that you found fall into the latter
category.

The Sonnets were not written as a computer programme and neither was
their meaning designed to be winkled out by such means. They are a
product of genius and have interlocking levels of meaning. There
meaning is locked up by a number of different keys (some of which are
numerical themselves).
Post by Terry Ross
At no point, of course, will we be talking about a genuine cryptogram --
your methods (even if you could apply them with more skill) are incapable
of producing a uniquely meaningful solution, and that is a crucial test
for any proposed cryptogram
You are jumping the gun here, Terry. Why not take the time to have a
careful look at the material I sent you. I am not impatient for a
reply. Wait till after Christmas if you want.

As a matter of fact my methods are not incapable of providing a
uniquely meaninful solution. They do exactly that. The zigzag message
KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS is certainly meaningful. No letter could be in
any other place than where it is. The key to its exact form lies in
Marlowe's Masonic mark and the 'squaring of his name' by means of
Euclid's 47th Proposition. The zigzag shape of the message builds up
that mark in a relentlessly consistent fashion. This could never have
come about as the product of chance.

Peter
richard kennedy
2004-12-05 18:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Ross would like to obscure the acrostic in the
Scudamore poem, no doubt supposing that the
reader will cease to follow the discussion now
that he's loaded it up with his ignorance of how an
acrostic cipher is constructed.

He has found hundreds of names in that short
paragraph of two days ago. No doubt many more
could be found if one wanted to skip about the
letters like a flea on a hot ouija board, which is what
Ross does.

Seeking to find the name of Lewis Carroll in those
few lines, he pieced it out like this. Read the capital
letters downward to find LEWIS CARROLL.

wil L
lin E
W hich
n I ce
thi S

kna C k
kn A ck
discove R
ca R efully
y O u
wi L l
wil L

In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz asks the young Lt if
he thinks his, Kurtz's methods, are unsound. The Lt.
answers, "I don't see any method at all."

Ross has given us several hundreds of names that
he has found, randomly selected from the letters in
that paragraph. There is no method at all, it's quite a
meaningless exercise, the heart of darkness, or chopped
liver sleuthing, I call it, and if you want some onions you
can order them up with the same scooting about in
the Ross kitchen. (y O u, li N e, w I ll, y O u, li N e, thi S)

Ross evidently thinks that acrostics are generated by taking
your acrostic letters from anywhere in a given text, no
rules or pattern wanted. Ross would like the Bible Code
book, it works the same way. Here's his second
example. Read the capital letters downward to find
HENRY WRIOTHESLEY.


rat H er
rath E r
tha N
p R each
Y ou

W ith
fo R
m I ght
enj O y
T his
t H is
numb E r
enter S
L abor
lin E s
Y ou

As you see, Ross has no method. The Friedmans give
several examples of such folly, like a chicken pecking up
corn. The Scudamore acrostic displays a consistant method,
as you can see from this.

E scu
D ‘amour
W ill
A t
R est
D ebate

D ido
E nthrall
V ntied (understanding Elizabethan practice with U and V)
E ase
R edress
E lles.

Nicely set out and consistent, as you see, not like the
hop-about gobbling of Ross. The Friedmans advice
for Ross would be:

"We urge that (such as Ross) should acquaint
themselves at least with the basic principles of the
subject, and that they conduct their arguments with
some standards."

As for the Scudamore, my chief objection to the
Lewis Carroll solution might be summed up like this,
again quoting the Friedmans.

"…there's only one VALID solution to a cryptogram
of more than a very few letters…to find two quite
different but EQUALLY VALID solutions would be
an absurdity." (my caps)

If a solution to the Scudamore is to be VALID, I think
we'll all agree that it must spell out a name of a man
alive in 1575. The name of Carroll is not EQUALLY
VALID with Edward de Vere. Given the date and context
of the poem, it isn't valid at all.
-------------------------------------------------

A notice of three mistakes that Ross is determined about.

1. He says Shakespeare never fooled with ciphering
business. But he did. Amleth = Hamlet.

2. The Scudamore poet says he is ciphering a name.
"Lord Admiral" is not a name, it's an office.

3, Scudamore is not a perfect anagram forEscu d'amour.
A "U" is left out. That's fine with me, and it would be
fine with the Elizabethans, but Ross has never before
allowed such a liberty, never needing such a liberty.

Kennedy
richard kennedy
2004-12-05 18:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Regarding method, as applied to the Scudamore poem when the
maker is lifting letters from the text to spell the acrostic
name. It must make sense why the letters are lifted. It
can't be like the peck-a-day examples recently given.

Here's the method of the Scudamore, simply explained, it
spells my name, and God bless America.

"Kiss Jodie goodbye and let your boots
March down the first line to the end.
The next step in the drill is to about-face
And now march the second line backwards,
And so forth, zig-zag. Each word is trod
Upon in this turnabout close-order drill,
And my name yclept."

The first letter of every word stepped on in the drill is set apart,
on detail as it were. These letters are lined up and called to attention,
let * indicate the turning about at the end of a line.


K j g a l y b * E t t l f t d m *
t N s i t d i t a f * b l s t m N a *
a s f z z E w i t * D o c t t i u *
a m n Y

The capital letters spell out K E N N E D Y. This same drill,
marched upon the Scudamore, will spell out EDWARD DE
VERE, not only from the top downwards, but also from
the bottom up.

At ease, smoke if you got ‘em.
richard kennedy
2004-12-05 19:09:02 UTC
Permalink
(repeat: I left out an array in the last post)

Regarding method, as applied to the Scudamore poem when the
maker is lifting letters from the text to spell the acrostic
name. It must make sense why the letters are lifted. It
can't be like the peck-a-day examples recently given.

Here's the method of the Scudamore, simply explained,
it spells my name, and God bless America.

"Kiss Jodie goodbye and let your boots
March down the first line to the end.
The next step in the drill is to about-face
And now march the second line backwards,
And so forth, zig-zag. Each word is trod
Upon in this turnabout close-order drill,
And my name yclept."

The first letter of every word stepped on in the drill is
set apart, on detail as it were. These letters are lined
up and called to attention, let * indicate the turning
about at the end of a line.


K j g a l y b * E t t l f t d m *

t N s i t d i t a f * b l s t m N a *

a s f z z E w i t * D o c t t i u *

a m n Y

That is to say:

K iss
E nd
N ext
N ow
E ach
D rill
Y clept

The capital letters spell out K E N N E D Y. This same drill,
marched upon the Scudamore, will spell out EDWARD DE
VERE, not only from the top downwards, but also from
the bottom up.

At ease, smoke if you got ‘em.
k***@charter.net
2004-12-07 17:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Speaking before the Shakespeare Fellowship gathering in
Baltimore, Terry Ross committed himself to several errors
in discussing the Scudamore. He sought to prove, to a
befuddled audience no doubt, that the Edward de Vere
solution was one of many solutions that could be got out
of the poem, applying himself to the method that finds Edward
De Vere in the poem.

He mentioned the Friedmans solution, Lewis Carroll, which
we notice is not valid, turning up 300 years too late to get in
the game. Ross had several other contenders, all of them too
early, too late, or too desperate.

The poem was published in 1573.
Here are the solutions Ross offered.

Edward Stafford -- but he was executed in 1521.
Edward Sibthorpe -- (fl. -- 1608)
Lewis Theobald -- 18th century
Lydia Maria Child -- 19th century
Sir Thomas More -- d. 1535
Thomas Watson -- 16 yrs old in 1573
Lord Admiral -- not a name
Edith Sitwell -- the listeners, perhaps beginning to
catch on, laughed at this one.
Roberta Ross -- doesn't follow the method.
Marty Hyatt -- Alive and well.
Edward Dyer -- (1543 - 1607) The date is good for Dyer,
but the solution doesn't follow the method.

So much for the list that Ross presented to his innocent
audience, a study of no significance. Ross had no solution
to present that was any more VALID than the Friedmans
finding of Lewis Carroll, a foggy day in Baltimore town.

Thomas Watson should be given some attention, nevertheless
that he was sixteen years old when the Scudamore was written.
Nine years later he wrote "HEKATOMPATHIA, 100 Love
Sonnets," 1582, and dedicated it to Edward de Vere.

SCUDAMORE: "My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame,/
That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same."
THOMAS WATSON: "Whilst I both frie and freeze twixt flame
and frost."

The "Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter," Fall, 2004 prints an
excellent piece by Eric Lewin Altschuler and William Jansen:
"Was Thomas Watson Shakespeare's Precursor?"

The best hold Ross has it to claim that ESCUDAMOUR
is an anagram for SCUDAMORE. Behold ! One wonders
if the discovery was worth the mention that the poet
was setting out a puzzle for us. It's somehow
disappointing.

Another trouble with this is that the poet says he is
"deciphering his name," which I take to mean that he is
ciphering his 'own' name. Sir John Scudamore did not
write the poem.

As it stands with the Scudamore, I think we'll have to
settle for the Edward de Vere solution unless something
better turns up.

If the reader of this would like to follow along the rules
of the Scudamore that spells out EDWARD DE VERE,
here's the layout of the poem with the arrow showing
the direction in which each line should be read
downwards.



The absent lover (in ciphers) diciphering
his name, doth crave some spedie
relief as followeth.

L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love, > E D
The shield of loue, the force of stedfast faith <
The force of fayth which neuer will remoue, > W
But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death: <
That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes, >
And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throwes. < A

In doleful dayes I lead an absent life, >
And wound my will with many a weary thought: <
I plead for peace, yet sterue in storms of strife, >
I find debate, where quiet rest was sought. < R D
These pangs with mo, vnto my paine I proue, >
Yet beare I all vppon my shield of loue. <

In colder cares are my conceipts consumd, >
Than Dido felt when false Eneas fled: < D
In farre more heat, than trusty Troylus fumd, >
When craftie Cressyde dwelt with Diomed. <
My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame, >
That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same. <

So that I liue, and dye in one degree, >
Healed by hope and hurt againe with dread: <
Fast bound by fayth when fansie would be free, >
Vntied by trust, though thoughts enthrall my head, < E V
Reuiued by joyes, when hope doth most abound, >
And yet with grief, in depths of dollors drownd. <

In these assaultes I feele my feebled force, >
Begins to faint, thus weried still in woes: <
And scarcely can my thus consumed corse, >
Hold vp this Buckler to beare of these blowes <
So that I craue, or presence for relief, >
Or some supplie, to ease mine absent grief. < E

Lenuoie

To you (deare Dame) this doleful plaint I make, >
Whose onely sight may some redresse my smart: < R
Then show your selfe, and for your seruantes sake, >
Make hast post hast, to helpe a faythfull harte. <
Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long, >
Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong. < E

Meritum petere, graue.*

* To seek reward is a serious matter.
The poem was published in "A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowres," 1573
Buffalo
2004-12-07 21:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@charter.net
Speaking before the Shakespeare Fellowship gathering in
Baltimore, Terry Ross committed himself to several errors
in discussing the Scudamore. He sought to prove, to a
befuddled audience no doubt, that the Edward de Vere
solution was one of many solutions that could be got out
of the poem, applying himself to the method that finds Edward
De Vere in the poem.
He mentioned the Friedmans solution, Lewis Carroll, which
we notice is not valid, turning up 300 years too late to get in
the game. Ross had several other contenders, all of them too
early, too late, or too desperate.
The poem was published in 1573.
Here are the solutions Ross offered.
Edward Stafford -- but he was executed in 1521.
Edward Sibthorpe -- (fl. -- 1608)
Lewis Theobald -- 18th century
Lydia Maria Child -- 19th century
Sir Thomas More -- d. 1535
Thomas Watson -- 16 yrs old in 1573
Lord Admiral -- not a name
Edith Sitwell -- the listeners, perhaps beginning to
catch on, laughed at this one.
Roberta Ross -- doesn't follow the method.
Marty Hyatt -- Alive and well.
Edward Dyer -- (1543 - 1607) The date is good for Dyer,
but the solution doesn't follow the method.
You fail to grasp the point. It doesn't matter what period those names come
from, because none of them is being offered as a cipher that Gascoigne might
have intended. Since "Lewis Carroll", like most of the others, couldn't
possibly be a deliberate cipher, it shows how easily *accidental* ciphers
can be found while following Ward's methods. The method is so sloppy that
the number of names you could find is virtually limitless, and all have to
be considered accidental - including "Edward de Vere".

Of course, Ward was desperate to get a more exact rule, and ended up trying
to have it both ways. The rule he actually came up with (whatever he might
have said) was that the name must start and end with the same letter, and
must start on the first letter of the poem and end on the last. But "Edward
de Vere" flouts the second part of that rule. Not only does it not end on
the last letter, it doesn't even start on the first. But noticing that it
*nearly* starts on the first, Ward can't resist trying for a nearly-rule. He
stipulates that the cipher must start on the "first or other prominent
letter", the kind of nebulous formulation that serves only to reveal the
more exact rule that he was unable to claim. "Lewis Carroll" is what
conforms to the rule he really wanted. It starts on the true first letter.
But in the process of cheating, Ward only draws our attention to the fact
that this is a bogus rule, because if Gascoigne had really wanted to
encipher that name, and was thinking of a rule like "start as close as
possible to the first letter", he could have started *exactly* on the first
letter, simply by starting his poem with "Escu D'Amour", not "L'Escu
D'amour". He didn't have to to start with the definite article. The fact
that he didn't do that most obvious thing makes it plain that the "first or
other prominent letter" rule is nothing more than Ward's invention.

All the names listed by Terry are as bogus as "Edward de Vere", of course.
It doesn't matter whether they're Gascoigne's contemporaries or not. They're
all accidental ciphers. The true and only cipher in this poem conforms to
the only kind of rule that any self-respecting poet would ever descend to -
namely, word-play. Shield of Love = Escu D'Amour = Scudamore - that's a poet
messing around with words, with the meaning of words and the sound of words.
That's what poets do. They're verbal acrobats, not cryptologists.

Buffalo
k***@charter.net
2004-12-08 18:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Buffalo is right, the rules that B. M. Ward (who first discovered
the acrostic) laid down are too many and too tight, poorly written
out I think. The method can be more easily explained. Use this
for the KEY, or rule to be laid to the Scudamore.

"Take the first letter of ANY word in the first line, and take the
first letter of ANY word in the last line."

Following the zig-zag path through the poem, as explained, the
cipher-text will spell out the name of EDWARD DE VERE.

Ward also insisted that the name must read upwards the same. It
does, but let's leave that out. The task of Ross or anyone else who
wishes to sleuth the Scudamore, is to find a VALID name that
reads downwards, that trek only, using the simple rule stated above.
Buffalo
2004-12-08 22:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@charter.net
Buffalo is right, the rules that B. M. Ward (who first discovered
the acrostic) laid down are too many and too tight, poorly written
out I think. The method can be more easily explained. Use this
for the KEY, or rule to be laid to the Scudamore.
In your reply to Peter Groves you wrote this, about the John Trevanion
cipher:-

"The cipher was constructed that every third letter after a
punctuation mark should be read, which rendered this text:
"Panel at east end of chapel slides."

You've told me more than I need to know. I only need to know the rule, which
you gave in the first part of that sentence. Using that, *I* can tell *you*
that the hidden message is "Panel at east end of chapel slides". That's what
makes it a valid cipher - the decipherer does not need to know the hidden
message in advance. A ciphering system that breaks that rule is not only
invalid, it's an absurdity - because a cipher that can be broken only by
those who already know the answer is useless for all practical purposes.

Now let's look at your Gascoigne cipher, with your new rules:-
Post by k***@charter.net
"Take the first letter of ANY word in the first line, and take the
first letter of ANY word in the last line."
Okay, I take "love" from the first line, and "lend" from the last. They both
start with the same letter - though you didn't state that they had to. Now
for the next letter:-
Post by k***@charter.net
Following the zig-zag path through the poem, as explained,
Never mind the zig-zag path. Tell me the rule by which I find my second
letter. So far I have "L---". If it involves a zig-zag path, show the path
without mentioning the name of any Elizabethan person.
Post by k***@charter.net
the
cipher-text will spell out the name of EDWARD DE VERE.
Don't tell me. *I 'll* tell *you* - or I will when you've told me the rule.
There is no such thing as a ciphering rule which requires the decipherer to
know the answer in advance. Tell me the rule without telling me the answer.
If you cannot do that, you have no valid cipher.

Buffalo
Peter Groves
2004-12-07 22:54:42 UTC
Permalink
He's such an unteachable idiot -- he still doesn't get it. I am reminded of
that "TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere" rubbish he kept posting.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
Post by k***@charter.net
Speaking before the Shakespeare Fellowship gathering in
Baltimore, Terry Ross committed himself to several errors
in discussing the Scudamore. He sought to prove, to a
befuddled audience no doubt, that the Edward de Vere
solution was one of many solutions that could be got out
of the poem, applying himself to the method that finds Edward
De Vere in the poem.
He mentioned the Friedmans solution, Lewis Carroll, which
we notice is not valid, turning up 300 years too late to get in
the game. Ross had several other contenders, all of them too
early, too late, or too desperate.
The poem was published in 1573.
Here are the solutions Ross offered.
Edward Stafford -- but he was executed in 1521.
Edward Sibthorpe -- (fl. -- 1608)
Lewis Theobald -- 18th century
Lydia Maria Child -- 19th century
Sir Thomas More -- d. 1535
Thomas Watson -- 16 yrs old in 1573
Lord Admiral -- not a name
Edith Sitwell -- the listeners, perhaps beginning to
catch on, laughed at this one.
Roberta Ross -- doesn't follow the method.
Marty Hyatt -- Alive and well.
Edward Dyer -- (1543 - 1607) The date is good for Dyer,
but the solution doesn't follow the method.
So much for the list that Ross presented to his innocent
audience, a study of no significance. Ross had no solution
to present that was any more VALID than the Friedmans
finding of Lewis Carroll, a foggy day in Baltimore town.
Thomas Watson should be given some attention, nevertheless
that he was sixteen years old when the Scudamore was written.
Nine years later he wrote "HEKATOMPATHIA, 100 Love
Sonnets," 1582, and dedicated it to Edward de Vere.
SCUDAMORE: "My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame,/
That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same."
THOMAS WATSON: "Whilst I both frie and freeze twixt flame
and frost."
The "Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter," Fall, 2004 prints an
"Was Thomas Watson Shakespeare's Precursor?"
The best hold Ross has it to claim that ESCUDAMOUR
is an anagram for SCUDAMORE. Behold ! One wonders
if the discovery was worth the mention that the poet
was setting out a puzzle for us. It's somehow
disappointing.
Another trouble with this is that the poet says he is
"deciphering his name," which I take to mean that he is
ciphering his 'own' name. Sir John Scudamore did not
write the poem.
As it stands with the Scudamore, I think we'll have to
settle for the Edward de Vere solution unless something
better turns up.
If the reader of this would like to follow along the rules
of the Scudamore that spells out EDWARD DE VERE,
here's the layout of the poem with the arrow showing
the direction in which each line should be read
downwards.
The absent lover (in ciphers) diciphering
his name, doth crave some spedie
relief as followeth.
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love, > E D
The shield of loue, the force of stedfast faith <
The force of fayth which neuer will remoue, > W
But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death: <
That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes, >
And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throwes. < A
In doleful dayes I lead an absent life, >
And wound my will with many a weary thought: <
I plead for peace, yet sterue in storms of strife, >
I find debate, where quiet rest was sought. < R D
These pangs with mo, vnto my paine I proue, >
Yet beare I all vppon my shield of loue. <
In colder cares are my conceipts consumd, >
Than Dido felt when false Eneas fled: < D
In farre more heat, than trusty Troylus fumd, >
When craftie Cressyde dwelt with Diomed. <
My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame, >
That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same. <
So that I liue, and dye in one degree, >
Healed by hope and hurt againe with dread: <
Fast bound by fayth when fansie would be free, >
Vntied by trust, though thoughts enthrall my head, < E V
Reuiued by joyes, when hope doth most abound, >
And yet with grief, in depths of dollors drownd. <
In these assaultes I feele my feebled force, >
Begins to faint, thus weried still in woes: <
And scarcely can my thus consumed corse, >
Hold vp this Buckler to beare of these blowes <
So that I craue, or presence for relief, >
Or some supplie, to ease mine absent grief. < E
Lenuoie
To you (deare Dame) this doleful plaint I make, >
Whose onely sight may some redresse my smart: < R
Then show your selfe, and for your seruantes sake, >
Make hast post hast, to helpe a faythfull harte. <
Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long, >
Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong. < E
Meritum petere, graue.*
* To seek reward is a serious matter.
The poem was published in "A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowres," 1573
k***@charter.net
2004-12-08 18:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Here's a cipher story from the bloody days of Cromwell and
the Civil War. Sir John Trevanion was a Cavalier. He was
taken prisoner by the Roundheads, and was in line to be
executed. His keepers allowed this letter to pass to Sir John:

"Worthie Sir John: -- Hope, that is the beste comfort of the
afflicted, cannot much, I fear me, help you now. That I
would saye to you, is this only: if ever I may be able to
requite that I do owe you, stand not upon asking me. 'Tis
not much I can do: but what I can do, bee you verie sure I
wille. I knowe that, if dethe comes, if ordinary men fear it,
it frights not you, accounting it for a high honour, to have
such a rewarde of your loyalty. Pray yet that you may be
spared this soe bitter, cup. I fear not that you will grudge
any sufferings; onlie if bie submission you can turn them
away, 'tis the part of a wise man. Tell me, as if you can, to
do for you any thinge that you wolde have done. The
general goes back on Wednesday. Restinge your servant
to command."

After receiving this, Sir John got religion and asked to be
left alone in the chapel to pray. There was one door only,
high narrow windows, and no danger of escape. Sir John
knelt to pray, and the guards stood outside. When they
looked in again, Sir John was gone.

The cipher was constructed that every third letter after a
punctuation mark should be read, which rendered this text:
"Panel at east end of chapel slides."

ho P e
th A t
ca N not
if E ar
he L p ....., and so forth to the end.

Although the cipher-text is irregular in its spacing out, the
method, or KEY to the cipher, is deliberate and sound, and
Sir John supped amongst friends.

The method of the Scudamore is of this nature. When the
correct rule is applied to that text, swinging between the
lines, the acrostic of EDWARD DE VERE comes up.

Of course Sir John knew of this KEY beforehand, the
method of getting the cipher-text. The lads at Bletchley
Park, working from scratch, might have taken a day to
solve the cipher. I suppose the same with the Scudamore,
that it was gaming with insiders who knew the method.
The cipher was an amusement, a toy, and no more than
that.

Walsingham and his boys, his cipher-sleuthers and the
Secret Service, might also have puzzled out the name of
EDWARD DE VERE, being told by the poet that a name
was being ciphered. But that of that? There was no
offense to the state, no treason, no insult to the queen, nor
anything but the name of the Earl of Oxford, that for some
private reason was entered into the poem. It may even
have been that De Vere wrote the poem himself, but what
of that, it was a harmless text not open to the public.
Terry Ross
2004-12-08 20:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Speaking before the Shakespeare Fellowship gathering in Baltimore, Terry
Ross committed himself to several errors in discussing the Scudamore.
Richard, if you had been there you would have been able to speak about it
as if -- well, as if you knew what you were talking about, which might
have been novelty enough to justify the expense of attending.
He sought to prove, to a befuddled audience no doubt, that the Edward de
Vere solution was one of many solutions that could be got out of the
poem, applying himself to the method that finds Edward De Vere in the
poem.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The audience was not particularly
befuddled, and in fact I spent a good deal of time discussing the
difference between demonstrably genuine ciphers and the sorts of random
accidents that can happen any time one plays with the letters of the
alphabet. There are, for example, a great many accidental acrostics that
one can find by scanning the first letters of the *Aeneid* or *Paradise
Lost* (or just about any other non-acrostic text). With a demonstrably
genuine cipher, on the other hand, there will be exactly one valid
solution.

What Ward found in Gascoigne's poem was one of a great many accidental
names that could be found there. He does not appear to have looked very
thoroughly for other names.
He mentioned the Friedmans solution, Lewis Carroll, which we notice is
not valid, turning up 300 years too late to get in the game.
I showed the poem itself, and explained that the name actually ciphered
and deciphered (in a manner of speaking) was that of Sir John Scudamore.
Richard confesses the accuracy of the Scudamore solution by referring to
the poem as the "Scudamore cipher." The Friedmans' "Lewis Carroll"
solution is a delightful one, and far from "turning up 300 years too
late," Lewis Carroll was famous well before Ward's system was devised.
That the author of *Alice in Wonderland* was not a contemporary of
Gascoigne is no counter to the Friedmans' demonstration; if Ward's method
had been valid it wold have allowed NO such alternative solutions.
Anthony Munday's acrostic poem for "Edward de Vere Earl of Oxenford"
(which IS contain a genuine cipher) does not have any other solution -- if
it did, it would not be a genuine cipher. If you take the first letters
of Munday's poem in order, you will necessarily get the same solution as
anybody else who follows the same procedure. Ward's methods, although
clearly designed to force the outcome he desires, nonetheless allow many
other alternative solutions, including "Lewis Carroll," and is therefore
not valid. Q.E.D.
Ross had several other contenders, all of them too early, too late, or
too desperate.
The fact that Ward's method -- which has nothing to do with the name that
is actually concealed (mildly) in the poem -- can generate a great many
solutions demonstrates its invalidity. Richard cannot wish away the
"Lewis Carroll" solution; he cannot rule it out of court on the basis of
anachronism. If he doesn't like that name he can choose to settle for
"Lord Admiral" or "Edward Sibthorpe" or any of the other non-unique
solutions I display at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
-- but his shading his eyes from the "Lewis Carroll" solution will not
make it disappear.
The poem was published in 1573. Here are the solutions Ross offered.
Edward Stafford -- but he was executed in 1521.
If Richard's problem with Edward Stafford was was his execution in 1521
(and I think it is rather shoddy of Richard to hold that against anybody),
then he need only look to a later "Edward Stafford" than the one he chose.
Here is an entry from David Kathman's "Biographical Index of English Drama
Before 1660":

Stafford, Edward (II), 2nd (12th) Baron Stafford (1536-1603). Patron (Lord
Stafford's 1574-1602). (Father of Edward Stafford (III); brother-in-law of
Henry Stanley; uncle of Ferdinando Stanley and William Stanley (II))
[Murray, English Dramatic Companies ii, 70 (1910); Peerage xii.1, 185
(1953); Dawson, 'Kent', 178 (1965); Kahrl, 'Lincolnshire', 105 (1974);
Pafford, 'Blandford Forum' (1977); REED Norwich, 369 (1984); Alexander,
'Bath', 5 (1985); REED Cumb./West./Glouc., 454 (1986); REED Devon, 516
(1986); Coman, 'Congleton Accounts', 5 (1989); REED Heref./Worc., 624
(1990); Tiner, 'York', 31 (1992)].

THIS Edward Stafford was around at the time, and was certainly somebody
Gascoigne would have known of (as was Oxford).
Edward Sibthorpe -- (fl. -- 1608)
Why is his name in Gascoigne's poem? If Ward's cipher were genuine, it
would not produce any alternative solutions.
Lewis Theobald -- 18th century
O Gascoigne's prophetic soul!
Lydia Maria Child -- 19th century
Not as well known as Lewis Carroll, but she was famous in her day both for
her fiction and for her devotion to antislavery.
Sir Thomas More -- d. 1535
Still famous and still in print in Gascoigne's day.
Thomas Watson -- 16 yrs old in 1573
Obviously a precocious lad.
Lord Admiral -- not a name
Does anybody imagine that Richard would have rejected "Earl of Oxenford"
if Ward's method had generated that among its many, many solutions?
Oxford's own poems were typically signed by initials not of his name but
of his title: "L.O." or "L.Ox." for Lord Oxenford; characters in play of
the period are frequently named by their titles.
Edith Sitwell -- the listeners, perhaps beginning to catch on, laughed
at this one.
They laughed at the absurdity of Ward's methods, which allowed so many
answers. This was one of my favorites, and I was pleased to see that the
name was familiar to the audience.
Roberta Ross -- doesn't follow the method.
Her name may be found in the poem, but does not start or end on the first
or last lines. We could improve Ward's method by considering the poem's
title, in which this name COULD begin and end, but that would rule out
Lewis Carroll and Edward de Vere.
Marty Hyatt -- Alive and well.
And surprised to see that his name could be found in the poem.
Edward Dyer -- (1543 - 1607) The date is good for Dyer, but the solution
doesn't follow the method.
The name may be found within the poem, as may Marty Hyatt's, but does not
begin and end on the first and last lines.

Here are some more solutions that DO start and end on the first and last
lines: Earl of Bedford, Ellis Bedowe, Edward Ford, Edward Hall, Earl of
Hertford, Lord Steward, Lord Lyle, Lewis Sharpe, Edward Tobye, Earl of
Strafford, Dollie Radford, Edward Moore, Dan Ford.
So much for the list that Ross presented to his innocent audience, a
study of no significance. Ross had no solution to present that was any
more VALID than the Friedmans finding of Lewis Carroll, a foggy day in
Baltimore town.
It was not a foggy day at all, but Richard is correct that none of the
proposed solutions, neither Edward de Vere nor Edith Sitwell nor Dan Ford
(alas, "Disco Dan Ford" does NOT fit) are any more valid than "Lewis
Carroll." The fact that Ward's method generates multiple solutions is
proof enough that it is not a demonstrably valid cipher.

The good news to come out of all of this is that the means to persuade
Richard may be at hand. His referring to the poem as the "Scudamore
cipher" suggests that he understands that the name Gascoigne concealed
while revealing was that of Sir John Scudamore, and since his only
objection to "Edward Stafford" as a solution was that one Edward Stafford
was killed in 1521, I'm sure Richard will be tickled to learn about the
Edward Stafford who was Gascoigne's and Edward de Vere's contemporary.
Thomas Watson should be given some attention, nevertheless that he was
sixteen years old when the Scudamore was written. Nine years later he
wrote "HEKATOMPATHIA, 100 Love Sonnets," 1582, and dedicated it to
Edward de Vere.
Watson's sonnets were in an 18-line format; three stanzas of 6 lines each
rhyming ababcc; Oxford also wrote in this 18-line form, as did many other
poets, including George Gascoigne. It was not a form Shakespeare used.
SCUDAMORE: "My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame,/
That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same."
THOMAS WATSON: "Whilst I both frie and freeze twixt flame
and frost."
This is a very common Petrarchan convention.
The "Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter," Fall, 2004 prints an excellent
piece by Eric Lewin Altschuler and William Jansen: "Was Thomas Watson
Shakespeare's Precursor?"
The other side of the question is "Was Shakespeare 'Watson's heir'?" I
don't think he was.
The best hold Ross has it to claim that ESCUDAMOUR is an anagram for
SCUDAMORE. Behold ! One wonders if the discovery was worth the mention
that the poet was setting out a puzzle for us. It's somehow
disappointing.
This is not what I have ever claimed, and it is not what Gascoigne claimed
to be doing. If Richard were a careful reader -- well, he wouldn't be
Richard, and who could wish him any different from the Richard Kennedy we
have gown to, um, er -- well the Richard Kennedy we have become inured to?
Gascoigne did not explicitly name Sir John Scudamore, but he conveyed the
name in French and English by means of an association of meaning that the
Scudamores themselves took pride in.

Let me explain this once again for Richard's benefit. Within the poem,
Scudamore == l'escu d'amour == the shield of love (the family motto was
"Scuto Amoris Divini").

The title of Gascoigne's poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers)
deciphering his name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth." Here is
the first stanza:

L' Escu d' amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The force of fayth which never will remove,
But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death:
That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes,
And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throws.

The "shield of love" imagery continues throughout the entire poem. The
"lover," whom Gascoigne scholars have identified as Sir John Scudamore, is
away from his beloved, and his love for her has been a shield for him
until now; but he has grown weary in battle, even as he has warded off
every blow with his shield. At the conclusion of the poem he asks for her
love (her own shield) in return:

Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long.
Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong.

Thus Ward's entire project -- the search for a string-cipher version of
"Edward de Vere" in Gascoigne's poem is entirely pointless. The ciphering
and deciphering in the poem concerns that of the name "Scudamore" and its
translation as a "shield of love." The poem has no more to do with Edward
Stafford or Edward de Vere (or the Lord Admiral, or Edward Dyer, or Thomas
Watson) then it does with Lewis Carroll, or Edith Sitwell, or my uncle,
Edward Rice, whose name also may be found.
Another trouble with this is that the poet says he is "deciphering his
name," which I take to mean that he is ciphering his 'own' name. Sir
John Scudamore did not write the poem.
No, the poem's title, again, is this: "The absent lover (in ciphers)
deciphering his name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth." We are
told in *Hundreth Sundrie Flowres* that Gascoigne sometimes wrote poems on
behalf of other people, and this one is written for Sir John Scudamore.
As it stands with the Scudamore, I think we'll have to settle for the
Edward de Vere solution unless something better turns up.
The solution to Gascoigne's poem is Sir John Scudamore; there are many
alternative solutions to Ward's word-find game, and it appears that Edward
Stafford satisfies even Richard's requirements.
If the reader of this would like to follow along the rules of the
Scudamore that spells out EDWARD DE VERE, here's the layout of the poem
with the arrow showing the direction in which each line should be read
downwards.
[snip]

Richard,what you need is a display that shown names reading both downwards
AND upwards. See http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Your favorite, Edward Stafford, is displayed reading both upwards and
downwards in the sixth version of the poem on that page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-08 21:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Hey Terry,

Peter Farey claims that Peter Bull counted 32 "KIT"s

But my estimates based upon a 1 in 80 chance of
given pair being "I T" is more like 40 random "KIT"s
(and that doesn't include all the intentional "KIT"s)

So am I using numbers that inflate
the actual number of random "KIT"s?

Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
2004-12-09 00:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Hey Terry,
Peter Farey claims that Peter Bull counted 32 "KIT"s
But my estimates based upon a 1 in 80 chance of
given pair being "I T" is more like 40 random "KIT"s
(and that doesn't include all the intentional "KIT"s)
So am I using numbers that inflate
the actual number of random "KIT"s?
Hey, Art: how many KITs have you found? Have you found any KITs for which
the locations of all the letters were not given to you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-09 01:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Art Neuendorffer
Hey Terry,
Peter Farey claims that Peter Bull counted 32 "KIT"s
But my estimates based upon a 1 in 80 chance of
given pair being "I T" is more like 40 random "KIT"s
(and that doesn't include all the intentional "KIT"s)
So am I using numbers that inflate
the actual number of random "KIT"s?
Hey, Art: how many KITs have you found? Have you found any KITs for which
the locations of all the letters were not given to you?
At first I guessed hundreds of random "KIT"s.

Then I calculated 40 random "KIT"s.

Peter Farey claims that Peter Bull counted 32 "KIT"s.

The number of total "KIT"s doesn't really matter just the density
number of expected "KIT"s from the total number of Ks Is & Ts so I aint
bothering to count myself.

Do you have an answer or are you just avoiding the issue, Terry?

At least Peter Farey had the guts to take me on.

Are you still scared?

Art Neuendorffer
k***@charter.net
2004-12-09 04:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Ross has now rejected some of the names he presented at the
Baltimore Fellowship gathering, and the rest don't work, as I
have shown. The new names he has given us don't follow the
method of the Scudamore as explained by Ward and the
Friedmans. These days past I ciphered some brief texts to
show the method off.

The letters of the ciphered name must begin on the first line
of the poem and end on the last line. More importantly, the
names to be tried must be VALID to the context and date of
the poem, or else the cipher clerk is practicing whimsy,
nothing more. The names that Ross offered at Baltimore
had no VALID reason to be worked on the Scudamore. Now
he has given us some other names for study.

Ellis Bedowe -- b. 1611
Lewis Sharpe -- b. 1851
Edward Tobye -- evidently a boy player in 1615
Dollie Radford -- b. 1864
Edward Moore -- this works, but no Elizabethan I find

The name spelled out must be a man alive in 1575, and that's
the failure of LEWIS CARROLL, a touch of nonsense by
the Friedmans.

Because we allow neither the unborn nor the dead to haunt
the Scudamore, I noted that Edward Stafford was beheaded in
1521. Ross corrected me about this; that was Edward Stafford
the Elder. Edward the Younger clocks in from 1536 to 1603,
and Ross favors him for a well-ciphered name, according to the
KEY, or method, or rule, that is well-established by now.

But EDWARD STAFFORD doesn't work either, as this display
will show.

-------------------------------------------------------
The absent lover (in ciphers) diciphering
his name, doth crave some spedie
relief as followeth.

L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love, > E D
The shield of loue, the force of stedfast faith <
The force of fayth which neuer will remoue, > W
But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death: <
That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes, >
And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throwes. < A
In doleful dayes I lead an absent life, >
And wound my will with many a weary thought: <
I plead for peace, yet sterue in storms of strife, >
I find debate, where quiet rest was sought. < R D

(Up to this place, the EDWARD falls in place, just as with
EDWARD de Vere, and now for STAFFORD)

These pangs with mo, vnto my paine I proue, >
Yet beare I all vppon my shield of loue. < S
In colder cares are my conceipts consumd, >
Than Dido felt when false Eneas fled: < T
In farre more heat, than trusty Troylus fumd, >
When craftie Cressyde dwelt with Diomed. <
My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame, >
That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same. < A F
So that I liue, and dye in one degree, >
Healed by hope and hurt againe with dread: <
Fast bound by fayth when fansie would be free, > F
Vntied by trust, though thoughts enthrall my head, <
Reuiued by joyes, when hope doth most abound, >
And yet with grief, in depths of dollors drownd. < O
In these assaultes I feele my feebled force, >
Begins to faint, thus weried still in woes: <
And scarcely can my thus consumed corse, >
Hold vp this Buckler to beare of these blowes <
So that I craue, or presence for relief, > R
Or some supplie, to ease mine absent grief. <
Lenuoie
To you (deare Dame) this doleful plaint I make, > D
Whose onely sight may some redresse my smart: <
Then show your selfe, and for your seruantes sake, >
Make hast post hast, to helpe a faythfull harte. <
Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long, >
Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong. <

----------------------------------------------------------------

The final "D" in Stafford, as you see, falls into place five
lines before the last line of the poem, another busted
solution. Yet the population of London around the time
of the Scudamore is estimated at 200,000. Maybe Ross
can find a telephone book of the time and copy it out
for us.
k***@charter.net
2004-12-09 06:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Buffalo writes:

"You've told me more than I need to know. I only need to
know the rule, which you gave in the first part of that
sentence. Using that, *I* can tell *you*that the hidden
message is "Panel at east end of chapel slides". That's what
makes it a valid cipher - the decipherer does not need to
know the hidden message in advance."

Kennedy: Obviously. The receiver of a secret message must
only know the KEY that unlocks it. He won't know the message,
only the key to get at it. For others, not insiders of this
dark business, they must first of all suspect a hidden message,
or be informed that there is a cipher within the plain text
(that's the case with the Scudamore), and then the breakers
must sweat to find it out before chopping anyone's head off,
see Mary Stuart etc.

Buffalo: "There is no such thing as a ciphering rule which
requires the decipherer to know the answer in advance. Tell me
the rule without telling me the answer. If you cannot do that,
you have no valid cipher."

Kennedy: Sure. This little ditty spells out a name by the
same rule, method, or KEY that unlocked the Scudamore, and
will unlock this.

"The life of a Bojum is the life for me,
Swimming under the bell-ringing sea,
Feeding on snarks, feasting with hatters,
Belching acrostics, mind you the spatters,
Listing about the pea-soup deep,
Outraging Strats, and watching them weep."

Remember the marching drill I posted if you ever
want to get out of basic training.

S/Sgt. Kennedy
Buffalo
2004-12-09 22:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@charter.net
"You've told me more than I need to know. I only need to
know the rule, which you gave in the first part of that
sentence. Using that, *I* can tell *you*that the hidden
message is "Panel at east end of chapel slides". That's what
makes it a valid cipher - the decipherer does not need to
know the hidden message in advance."
Kennedy: Obviously. The receiver of a secret message must
only know the KEY that unlocks it. He won't know the message,
only the key to get at it. For others, not insiders of this
dark business, they must first of all suspect a hidden message,
or be informed that there is a cipher within the plain text
(that's the case with the Scudamore), and then the breakers
must sweat to find it out before chopping anyone's head off,
see Mary Stuart etc.
Buffalo: "There is no such thing as a ciphering rule which
requires the decipherer to know the answer in advance. Tell me
the rule without telling me the answer. If you cannot do that,
you have no valid cipher."
Kennedy: Sure. This little ditty spells out a name by the
same rule, method, or KEY that unlocked the Scudamore, and
will unlock this.
"The life of a Bojum is the life for me,
Swimming under the bell-ringing sea,
Feeding on snarks, feasting with hatters,
Belching acrostics, mind you the spatters,
Listing about the pea-soup deep,
Outraging Strats, and watching them weep."
Nice short bit of text - only 38 initial letters, as opposed to the 300 or
so in the Gascoigne poem. But you are lacking in imagination if you think
you've presented me with an easy task. Even if I guess, and try "Buffalo",
it doesn't shorten the task at all to find that I score a bullseye. I cannot
assume that "Buffalo" is not an accidental cipher. With no particular effort
I can see "Biffo Watt", "Tombola", "Titus Waldo", "Tim Stoat", "Buffy
Malta". I am not excused from going through the entire range of
permutations. Have you any idea how many of those there are? If I did
things systematically I would write a computer program to compile a text
file containing all possible combinations. But it couldn't be the kind of
DOS program I usually write, because my text file would soon expand beyond
the limits of the 640Kb of conventional memory. It would have to be a 32-bit
program using the theoretical 4 Gigabytes of extended memory. But even that
would be a waste of time for me. I only have 128 Megabytes.

You see, deciphering a message is something that someone ought to be able to
do in half an hour and know that the result is the right one - because it's
the only result possible (as is the case with the John Trevanion cipher).
It's not playing the game to present someone with a task lasting three years
or so, which is what I would need to visually scan a complete list of
possible names, and from which I would in any case be unable to determine
the intended one. Even amongst the pitiful handful of names I've already
found, there is no certain winner. It could be "Buffalo", but equally it
could be "Bossy Laws" (a friend of yours perhaps).

All the above relates to your laughably short poem. Don't get me started on
the 300 initial letters of the Gascoigne poem, and the task that would have
faced any Elizabethan foolish enough to think there was a cipher buried in
it which your method could extract.
Post by k***@charter.net
Remember the marching drill I posted if you ever
want to get out of basic training.
I'd need more than a marching drill, squire. I'd need an extra life.

Buffalo
k***@charter.net
2004-12-09 18:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Yesterday I posted the EDWARD STAFFORD acrostic
favored by Ross, but it came out unevenly on the
hlas page. Perhaps it's best explained like this,
numbering the lines in the 36 line poem and
indicating the word and letter taken to spell out
the acrostic. The Scudamore rule is followed
throughout, the arrow showing the direction in
which the line was read. The full text of the
poem can be found at

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Lines:

1 ED (Escu, 'D) >
3 W (Which) >
6 A (At) <
10 RD (Rest, Debate) <

(To this place, EDWARD is spelled out
the same as in the Scudamore, then
comes STAFFORD.)

12 S (Shield) <
14 T (Than) <
18 AF (And, Fryse) <
21 F (Fast) >
24 O (Of) <
29 R (Relief) >
31 D (Deare) >

Five lines remain, none used to make up
the acrostic, a failed attempt to mirror
the Scudamore method, which asks that
the acrostic ends on the last line of the
poem.
k***@charter.net
2004-12-09 21:50:49 UTC
Permalink
The solution of a cipher must be VALID regarding
the time, place, and character of the message, the
reasonable 'context' of the message you know. It
must make sense.

Here's an historical example, WW II, Battle of
Britain. The Germans intercepted an RAF message
suspected of hiding a cipher-text. Their solution
read that the RAF had deployed 200 new
"SPITOONS." Goering wasn't interested, he
smoked cigarettes and didn't spit. The next day
his bomber fleet got clobbered by more SPITFIRES
than they knew existed.

The German solution of SPITOON was securely
found, but it was not VALID. Ross rehearses the
same mistake with the Scudamore in defending
the Lewis Carroll solution. Even if he 'could' find
another name to solve the acrostic, it would likely
not be valid, he's tried hundreds.

Here's another example by way of the Scudamore
method, rule, or KEY, however it may be called,
and which has been explained to the reader several
times already. It's a playful bit of catnip from my
digs on Olive St.

My cat's name

"An old Thomas cat shares my fortune and house,
He's laid back on catnip, won't catch a mouse.
Idle, retired, but alert for chances
On velvet nights to go sporting, and dances
Outdoors, eager upon the Tom cat chore --
Yeoman romancing for pussy galore."
Buffalo
2004-12-09 23:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@charter.net
Yesterday I posted the EDWARD STAFFORD acrostic
favored by Ross, but it came out unevenly on the
hlas page. Perhaps it's best explained like this,
numbering the lines in the 36 line poem and
indicating the word and letter taken to spell out
the acrostic. The Scudamore rule is followed
throughout, the arrow showing the direction in
which the line was read. The full text of the
poem can be found at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
1 ED (Escu, 'D) >
3 W (Which) >
6 A (At) <
10 RD (Rest, Debate) <
(To this place, EDWARD is spelled out
the same as in the Scudamore, then
comes STAFFORD.)
12 S (Shield) <
14 T (Than) <
18 AF (And, Fryse) <
21 F (Fast) >
24 O (Of) <
29 R (Relief) >
31 D (Deare) >
Five lines remain, none used to make up
the acrostic, a failed attempt to mirror
the Scudamore method, which asks that
the acrostic ends on the last line of the
poem.
Well, his last "d" can end on the last line if he skips over a couple of
intervening ones. You're allowed to do that, are you not?

Buffalo

Buffalo
2004-12-04 06:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown
as a Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward
de Vere solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed,
and the acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to
believe that its presence could be due to chance."
I've only just got interested in this, and I don't yet know the system that
Ward used, though I've posted a question to Terry Ross about it. At the
moment, I have no idea what the relationship is, mathematical or otherwise,
between one letter and the next. But reading through some of these posts, I
have an idea about what Ward might have done that's so fantastic that it
cannot be true. Still, let me test it out. Take Munday's The Mirror of
Mutability, for example:-


E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
D enying duty, where to I am bound:
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
R ight well I might refrayne to handle pen:
D enouncing aye the company of men.

D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his fame whom Honnor dooth imbrace.
....And so on.

I explain to you the rule, which is that you build the hidden name out of
the initial letter of every line, from the first to the last, inclusive.
That's all. There's no other rule. Obviously, I don't tell you in advance
what the name is. You, the decipherer, must apply the rule and return the
name. And if you tell me it's "Edward de Vere", I'll tell you that you were
correct.

Now let's swap roles. You explain to me the rule for finding the hidden name
in Gascoigne's poem. Then I will apply your rule and tell you what it is.

Buffalo
Art Neuendorffer
2004-11-28 09:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.
For this touch of grace,
Ross then puts Bull in the company of "twits."
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull (assuming that he is a real Marlovian) deserves to be
called a "twit" if he was convinced by Ross's pathetic argument.
------------------------------------------------------------
[W]hy of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
[I]n things of great receipt with ease we prove
[S]hall will in others seem right gracious,
[H]e learn'd but surety-like to write for me
------------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

137 T T T Y I B[W]W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I[I]A[T]T F T
135 W A M[T]W N[S]A[T]A S O
134 S A M[T]B F[H]V[T]T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T[I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
------------------------------------
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK, [short sonnet!]
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
--------------------------------
Sonnet 126 [short sonnet!]

O thou my lovely Boy who in thy power,
Dost hold Time's fickle glass, his sickle hour:
Who hast by waning grown, and therein show'st,

[T]hy lovers withering, as thy sweet self grow'st.
[I]f Nature sOVEREign mistress OVER WRACK
[A]s thou goest onwards still will pluck thee back,
[S]he keeps thee to this purpose, that her skill

[M]ay time disgrace, and wretched minutes kill.
[Y]et fear her O thou minion of her pleasure,

She may detain, but not still keep her treasure!
Her Audit (though delayed) answered must be,
And her Quietus is to render thee.
-------------------------------------------------------------
(1594) Foure Epytaphes, made by the Countes of Oxenford,
after the death of her young Sonne, the Lord Bulbecke, &c.

Idall, for Adon, nev'r shed so many teares:
Nor Thet', for Pelid: nor Phoebus, for Hyacinthus
Nor for *ATIS*, the mother of Prophetesses
At the brute of it, the Aphroditan Queene,
---------------------------------------------
T O T H E.O.N L I E B E G E T[T]E R O F T H
E S E I N S V I N G S O N N E[T]S M R W H A
L L H A P P I N E S[S]E A N D[T]H A T E T E
R N I T I E P R O M[I]S E D B Y O V R E V E
R L I V I N G P O.E[T]W I S H E T H T H E W
E L L W I S H I N G[A]D V E N T V R E R I N
---------------------------------------------
<<Signatures of all things I am here to read, seaspawn and seaWRACK,
the nearing tide, that rusty boot. . . Shut your eyes and see. Stephen
closed his eyes to hear his boots crush cRACKling WRACK and shells.
You are walking through it howsomEVER. I am, a stride at a time.
A VERy short space of time through VERy short times of space.
Five, six: the nacheinander.

Exactly: and that is the ineluctable modality of the audible.

Open your eyes. No. Jesus!
If I fell OVER a cliff that beetles o'er his base
. . .Am I walking into eternity along SANDYmount Strand?>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Volker's article at: http://users.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm.

makes a strong case for William Strachey's (Jul 15, 1610) letter

_TRUE Reportory of the WRACK, and Redemption
of Sir Thomas Gates Knight_

being: "a sham. . .
The letter wasn't written 1610, it was written in 1625,
specifically for publication in Hakylut's Navigations, Voyages,
and Discoveries. The author shamelessly cribbed
the letter straight out of the First Folio (1623),"
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/west.htm

"The CLOUD CUpt Tow'rs,
The Gorgeous Palaces
The Solemn Temples,
The Great Globe itself
Yea all which it Inherit,
Shall Dissolue;
And like the baseless FnBRICK of a Vision
Leave not a WRECK behind."
----------------------------------------------
And like the baselesse fabricke of this vision
The CLOWD-capt Towres, the gorgeous Pallaces,
The solemne Temples, the great Globe it selfe
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolue
And like this insubstantiall Pagent faded
Leave not a RACKE behinde.
-----------------------------------------
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041013.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020922.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20041117a.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040306.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040305.html
----------------------------------------------------
RACK, n. [Prob. fr. Icel. rek drift, motion, akin to reka to drive, & E. WRACK, WRECK.]
Thin, flying, broken CLOUDs, or any portion of floating vapor in the sky.

The winds in the upper region, which move the CLOUDs above,
which we call the RACK, . . . pass without noise. -- Bacon.

RACK, v. i. To amble fast, causing a rocking or swaying motion of the body;
to pace; -- said of a horse. -- Fuller.

WRACK, n. [OE. wrak WRECK. See {WRECK}.] 1. WRECK; ruin;
destruction.--Chaucer. ``A world devote to universal WRACK.'' --Milton.

WRACK/WRECK, n. [OE. wrak, AS. wr[ae]c exile, persecution, misery,
from wrecan to drive out, punish; akin to D. wrak, adj., damaged, brittle,
n., a WRECK, wraken to reject, throw off, Icel. rek a thing drifted
ashore, Sw. vrak refuse, a WRECK, Dan. vrag. See {WREAK}, v. t., &
cf. {WRACK} a marine plant.] 1. The destruction or injury of a vessel
by being cast on shore, or on rocks, or by being disabled
or sunk by the force of winds or waves; shipWRECK.
Hard and obstinate As is a rock amidst the raging floods,
'Gainst which a ship, of succor desolate, Doth suffer WRECK,
both of herself and goods. --Spenser.

RECK, v. t. [AS. reccan, r[=e]can, to care for; akin to OS. r[=o]kian,
OHG. ruochan, G. geruhen, Icel. r[ae]kja, also to E. RECKON, rake
an implement.] 1. To make account of; to care for; to heed; to regard.

This son of mine not RECKing danger. --Sir P. Sidney.


RECK, v. i. To make account; to take heed; to care; to mind.

Then RECK I not, when I have lost my life. --Chaucer.

I RECK not though I end my life to-day. --Shak.

Of me she RECKs not, nor my vain desire. --M. Arnold.


WREAK, v. t. [OE. wrek?? to revenge, punish, drive out, AS. wrecan;
akin to OFries. wreka, OS. wrekan to punish, D. wreken to avenge, G.
r["a]chen, OHG. rehhan, Icel. reka to drive, to take vengeance, Goth.
wrikan to persecute, Lith. vargas distress, vargti to suffer distress,
L. urgere to drive, urge, Gr. ? to shut, Skr. ? to turn away.
Cf. {WRECK}, {Wretch}.] 1. To revenge; to avenge. [Archaic]

He should WREAKE him on his foes. --Chaucer.

Another's wrongs to WREAK upon thyself. --Spenser.

Come WREAK his loss, whom bootless ye complain. --Fairfax.

RACK, v. t. [Cf. OF. vin raqu['e] squeezed from the dregs of the
grapes.] To draw off from the lees or sediment, as wine.
It is in common practice to draw wine or beer from the lees (which
we call RACKing), whereby it will clarify much the sooner. --Bacon.

RACK, n. [Probably fr. D. rek, rekbank, a RACK, rekken to stretch;
akin to G. RECK, RECKbank, a RACK, RECKen to stretch,
Dan. r[ae]kke, Sw. r["a]cka, Icel. rekja to spread out, Goth. refrakjan
to stretch out; cf. L. porrigere] 1. An instrument or frame used for
stretching, extending, retaining, or displaying, something. Specifically:
(a) An engine of torture, consisting of a large frame,
upon which the body was gradually stretched until, sometimes,
the joints were dislocated; -- formerly used judicially for
extorting confessions from criminals or suspected persons.
"During the troubles of the 15th century, a RACK was
introduced into the Tower, and was occasionally used
under the plea of political necessity." --Macaulay.

(b) An instrument for bending a bow.
(c) A grate on which Bacon is laid.
(d) A frame or device of various construction for holding,
and preventing the waste of, hay, grain, etc., supplied to beasts.
(e) A frame on which articles are deposited for keeping or
arranged for display; as, a clothes RACK; a bottle RACK, etc.
(f) (Mining) A frame or table on which ores are separated or washed.

RACK, v. i. To amble fast, causing a rocking
or swaying motion of the body;
to pace; -- said of a horse. -- Fuller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
` In the mind "I" will be seen

"MENTE VIDEBOR"
"DE VERE NIMBO IT"

DE VERE (walks/marches/advances/RACKS) on a CLOUD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMLET: Do you see yonder CLOUD that's almost in shape of a camel?

LORD POLONIUS: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.

HAMLET: Methinks it is like a weasel.

LORD POLONIUS: It is backed like a weasel.

HAMLET: Or like a WHALE?

LORD POLONIUS: VERy like a WHALE.
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARD: (Swedish) WHALEbone, baleen.
---------------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Sixth, Part Two (Folio) 1.3]

Suff.: Since thou wert King; as who is King, but thou?
The Common-wealth hath dayly run to WRACK,
The Dolphin hath preuayl'd beyond the Seas,
And all the Peeres and Nobles of the Realme
Haue beene as Bond-men to thy Soueraigntie.

Card. The Commons hast thou RACKt, the Clergies Bags
Are lanke and leane with thy Extortions.

Som. Thy sumptuous Buildings, and thy Wiues Attyre
Haue cost a masse of publique Treasurie.

----------------------------------------------------------
Greek political satires were written that ridiculed
Pericles' non-aristocratic successor:
the war-mongering demagogue CLEON.

thE WaSPS [SPHEKES] (422 BC) by Philonides
thE KnigHts (424 BC) by Aristophanes
thE AchARnians (425 BC) by Callistratus

But to be honest,
Philonides & Callistratus were pseudonym/front men
used by Aristophanes. Aristophanes wasn't able to hide behind
a pseudonym in _The Knights_ because Aristophanes, himself,
was forced to play the CLEON character (a scheming Paphlagonian
LEATHER-MONGER) after everyone else refused.
(We know that this character was intended to be CLEON
because CLEON's father Cleaenetus was, in fact, a TANNER.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Pericles (Act 5, Scene 3)

GOWER: At Tarsus, and by CLEON train'd
In music, letters; who hath gain'd
Of education all the grace,
Which makes her both the heart and place
Of general wonder. But, alack,
That MONSTER ENVY, oft the WRACK
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
2004-11-28 11:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down amongst such
roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.
An image obviously drawn from the author's life -- I don't think we need
to ask who forgets to clean up after he eats. Richard, if you keep a
cleaner kitchen, you may have fewer roaches.
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see, published it, but
when called to notice the error of his method, admitted that he knew it
himself, and had unpublished his cipher as much as that's possible on
the net. That's big. The man was wrong, he admitted it.
How did he come to know he was wrong?
For this touch of grace, Ross then puts Bull in the company of "twits."
No, the word "TWITS" may be found by applying Peter's methods to his array
of the first letters of each line of Shakespeare's *Sonnets*. It was my
showing him that the full message read "TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS"
(a message that was longer than Peter's and had a higher average section
length) that persuaded him that his message was not the result of a
demonstrably valid cipher. It was Peter, and not I, who first told HLAS
about the "TWITS WISH" preface to the message he had found -- see this
post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@posting.google.com

Peter has sent me some more of has material, and it seems that Peter
Farey, who saw the Peter Bull system before I did, had already performed a
similar demonstration by showing how words could be added to the end of
Peter Bull's message. Peter Farey and I had independently applied the
same debunking technique to Peter Bull's system; having seen Farey's
criticisms of his methods, Bull should not have needed mine to nudge him.

Peter Bull still thinks he has found some sort of "cryptogram," but he has
made no attempt to establish different standards for validity than one
would glean from the Friedmans. He is not giving up his notions, he is
merely trying to avoid taking responsibility for his methods. All Peter
Farey and I have done is to persuade him not to refer to his word-find
game as a demonstrably genuine cipher.
Ross fancies himself an expert in cryptography,
I have never said any such thing. In fact I always defer to the
Friedmans' work -- they WERE experts in cryptography, and their book is
the classic text in the field. All I am doing is applying and extending
some of their methods.
and I suppose he knows no more than I do. Therefore, a challenge. If
Ross would like to discuss the Scudamore poem, as printed and discussed
by the Friedmans, I'll defend the acrostic spelled out, and he may take
Friedman's argument or invent one of his own. Let him begin, he seems to
have time for such foolery.
If you wish to start a thread defending Ward's string cipher, go right
ahead. The Friedmans conclusively demonstrated its invalidity by showing
that the very same "rules" that Ward claimed to have discovered also
generated the name "Lewis Carroll" (that's not the only additional name
one can find, by the way), and that demonstration was sufficient to debunk
Ward's "cipher," since a genuine cipher method will produce one and only
one meaningful message from a particular ciphertext.

One thing the Friedmans did not point out is that the name Edward de Vere
can also be made to appear by using a different string cipher method than
the one Ward used (this other method also works for Lewis Carroll).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
2004-11-28 14:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
No, the word "TWITS" may be found by applying Peter's methods to his array
of the first letters of each line of Shakespeare's *Sonnets*. It was my
showing him that the full message read "TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS"
(a message that was longer than Peter's and had a higher average section
length) that persuaded him that his message was not the result of a
It was Peter, and not I, who first told HLAS about the
"TWITS WISH" preface to the message he had found
Peter has sent me some more of has material, and it seems that Peter
Farey, who saw the Peter Bull system before I did, had already performed a
similar demonstration by showing how words could be added to the end of
Peter Bull's message. Peter Farey and I had independently applied the
same debunking technique to Peter Bull's system; having seen Farey's
criticisms of his methods, Bull should not have needed mine to nudge him.
Peter Bull still thinks he has found some sort of "cryptogram," but he has
made no attempt to establish different standards for validity than one
would glean from the Friedmans.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Peter <***@tnn.net>,

You wrote HLAS:

<<A few weeks ago I wrote a thread related to a cipher message
I believed I'd found written into an acrostic letter grid derived from
the Sonnets, attributing authorship to Marlowe. Since then I have been
corresponding with Terry and trying to prove to him the validity of my
cipher. Unfortunately for me, Terry has been able to turn the tables
and convince me instead that the message has no validity as a cipher.
Following the same rules that I used to discover the message, Terry
was able to prefix it with the two words "TWITS WISH . . ." He thereby
demonstrated that my methodology was far too loose to constitute
legitimate ciphering ( and made me look rather foolish at the same
time). However I do have reasons for believing that the message
may yet be justified, albeit by different criteria
(as a special form of cryptogram).>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Indeed! The name is the important & unambiguous part.

Besides: "TWIT" wasn't a noun in Shakespeare's day
(WIT was however).

Your 14 letter "TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW" is somewhat
less impressive but quite similar to John Rollett's 15 letter
discovery of HENRY-WR-IOTH-ESLEY in the
Sonnets dedication (: i.e., a name closely associated
with William Shakespeare which is broken into 4 pieces).

Rollett's solution is clearly statistically significant
in its own right. Your "TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW"
is probably statistically significant as well given
the apriori existence & legitimacy of Rollett's find.
----------------------------------
TIK: (Dutch) count, knock, tick.
----------------------------------
[T]ou wilt restore, to be my comfort still:
[I]s't not enough to torture me alone,
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK, [short sonnet!]
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
------------------------------------------------------------
[W]hy of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
[I]n things of great receipt with ease we prove
[S]hall Will in others seem right gracious,
[H]e learn'd but surety-like to write for me
------------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

137 T T T Y I B[W]W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I[I]A[T]T F T
135 W A M[T]W N[S]A[T]A S O
134 S A M[T]B F[H]V[T]T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T[I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
--------------------------

Sincerely Yours,

Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
2004-11-28 15:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard kennedy
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.
Well, God-a-mercy.
Post by richard kennedy
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
No, it's honest. (I concede that to some, honesty may seem "big,"
but Peter evidently is not among them; Peter evidently is a person of
integrity to whom honesty in such matters comes naturally.)
Post by richard kennedy
The man was wrong, he admitted it.
For this touch of grace, Ross then puts Bull in the company of
"twits."
No, once again Richard Kennedy fails to follow the thread. The word
"twits" can be discoVERed using Peter Bull's own methods, on the text
that he suggested himself. Peter himself announced Terry's finding of
the extension of Peter's "solution" in this newsgroup:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=785012bd.0410291319.22b70c67%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>.
Post by richard kennedy
Ross fancies himself an expert in cryptography,
I have *never* seen Terry make any such claim. Can Richard Kennedy
produce a quotation from Terry to that effect from the Google archives?
(The question, of course, is purely rhetorical -- one must possess a
functioning memory in order to utlize the Google archive effectively.)
Post by richard kennedy
and I suppose
he knows no more than I do.
Terry can manage many things, but I doubt that he can manage the
impossible. Knowing less than Richard Kennedy about cryptography
clearly falls into that category:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.44.0208041312090.24044-1
00000%40mail&output=gplain>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1331570851d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=
1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.44.0208050426310.8665-100000%40mail&rnum=31>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=david.l.webb-482C0E.15381523052003%
40merrimack.dartmouth.edu&output=gplain>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1067352139d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=
1&selm=310720020936306447%25David.L.Webb%40Dartmouth.edu>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1331570851d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=
1&selm=040820022042385852%25David.L.Webb%40Dartmouth.edu&rnum=36>

[...]
Peter Farey
2004-12-07 12:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure other
than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.
The good news is that if you restrict yourself to
those sequences within four places across (left
or right) and six places up or down, then the
probability of it happening by chance goes up to
about 1 in 125 which, whilst hardly impressive,
is at least statistically significant.


Peter F.
***@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Farey
2004-12-07 15:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Peter Farey
I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure other
than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.
The good news is that if you restrict yourself to
those sequences within four places across (left
or right) and six places up or down, then the
probability of it happening by chance goes up to
about 1 in 125 which, whilst hardly impressive,
is at least statistically significant.
The bad news is that if you restrict yourself to
those sequences within four places across just
to the right (as the 132/2 cluster does) and six
places up or down, then the probability of it
happening by chance goes down to a measly
1 in 17.4 which is neither impressive nor
statistically significant!


Peter F.
***@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-07 16:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Peter Farey
I appreciate that you and Peter believe that the tight
clustering of the 'KITs' around 132/2 is significant,
but I fear that you will have to use some measure other
than Fisher's Exact Test to show it.
The good news is that if you restrict yourself to
those sequences within four places across (left
or right) and six places up or down, then the
probability of it happening by chance goes up to
about 1 in 125 which, whilst hardly impressive,
is at least statistically significant.
The bad news is that if you restrict yourself to
those sequences within four places across just
to the right (as the 132/2 cluster does) and six
places up or down, then the probability of it
happening by chance goes down to a measly
1 in 17.4 which is neither impressive nor
statistically significant!
------------------------------------------
Let me begin at the beginning:

What Peter Bull found was THE COMBINATION of:
--------------------------------------------------------
1) The name "KITM-MARL-LOW" in a visually
esthetically pleasing "compact nearly symmetric zigzag."

Compact NEARLY symmetric patterns form the basis of western
art (from crucifixes to the frontispiece of the Shakespeare Folio).

Unfortunately, since I ONLY know how to calculate for random
(or possibly totally symmetric) patterns I UNDERESTIMATED
the improbability for "KITM-MARL-LOW" at 1 chance in 760.
--------------------------------------------------------
2) The start of "KITM-MARL-LOW" was clearly marked
by four compact "KITs" involving skips of no more than
4 letters (4 across or down/up, 2 across plus 2 down/up, etc.)

This was also visually esthetically pleasing and
requires a probability of at least 1 chance in 1,000
for it to be so visually esthetically pleasing.
-----------------------------------------------------
Hence the probability for the
visually esthetically pleasing: "KITM-MARL-LOW"
and the associated (but statistically independent)
visually esthetically pleasing: 4 close "KITs"

is at least 1 in 1,000,000 and probably
more like 1 in 10,000,000.

In any event, it should satisfy any sort of Friedman criteria
for a PROPER NAME CIPHER in the works
of someone who, at the very least, was a person
who admired & emulated that PROPER NAME
-----------------------------------------------------
Have I made myself CRYSTAL CLEAR!!!

Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
2004-12-08 07:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Ross
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Peter Farey
The good news is that if you restrict yourself to
those sequences within four places across (left
or right) and six places up or down, then the
probability of it happening by chance goes up to
about 1 in 125 which, whilst hardly impressive,
is at least statistically significant.
The bad news is that if you restrict yourself to
those sequences within four places across just
to the right (as the 132/2 cluster does) and six
places up or down, then the probability of it
happening by chance goes down to a measly
1 in 17.4 which is neither impressive nor
statistically significant!
------------------------------------------
Art-speak for "Let me change the subject". I am not
discussing the "KITM-MARL-LOW" bit - only
Art's use of the Fisher Exact Test as related to the
'KITs' starting from the 'K' at 132/2.
Post by Terry Ross
--------------------------------------------------
1) The name "KITM-MARL-LOW" in a visually
esthetically pleasing "compact nearly symmetric
zigzag."
Compact NEARLY symmetric patterns form the basis of
western art (from crucifixes to the frontispiece of
the Shakespeare Folio).
Unfortunately, since I ONLY know how to calculate
for random (or possibly totally symmetric) patterns
I UNDERESTIMATED the improbability for
"KITM-MARL-LOW" at 1 chance in 760.
---------------------------------------------------
2) The start of "KITM-MARL-LOW" was clearly marked
by four compact "KITs" involving skips of no more
than 4 letters (4 across or down/up, 2 across plus
2 down/up, etc.)
This was also visually esthetically pleasing and
requires a probability of at least 1 chance in 1,000
for it to be so visually esthetically pleasing.
----------------------------------------------------
No Art, it does not. This was the point of my post.

Taking the limits which you here describe as "skips
of no more than 4 letters (4 across or down/up, 2
across plus 2 down/up, etc.)" the 132/2 cluster lies
within a field where there are 20 possible paths for
the word KIT to follow. 4 of them do contain the word.
As far as the other 5 'K's are concerned, there are
121 possible paths, 3 of them occupied by KITs.

------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 4 , 3 , 16 , 118 ]

2-Tail : p-value = 0.008004189705489007
------------------------------------------

This is the 1 in 125 chance that I mentioned.

If, however, we insist (for aesthetic reasons) that
all KITs should run left to right, as they do from
132/2, then we get the following:

------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 4 , 3 , 10 , 39 ]

2-Tail : p-value = 0.057541003822913564
------------------------------------------

The 1 in 17.4 chance that I mentioned.

Both of these give a result which is very far removed
from the 1 chance in 1,000 that you conjured up.
Post by Terry Ross
Hence the probability for the visually esthetically
pleasing: "KITM-MARL-LOW" and the associated (but
statistically independent) visually esthetically
pleasing: 4 close "KITs"
is at least 1 in 1,000,000 and probably
more like 1 in 10,000,000.
In any event, it should satisfy any sort of Friedman
criteria for a PROPER NAME CIPHER in the works of
someone who, at the very least, was a person who
admired & emulated that PROPER NAME
I know of no Friedman critrion for a "proper name
cipher". Indeed the Friedmans are most emphatic that
a cipher should make sense, be grammatical, and mean
something - which rather suggests that they did not
have just names in mind.
Post by Terry Ross
-----------------------------------------------------
Have I made myself CRYSTAL CLEAR!!!
Indeed you have, Art. And a very nice change it is too.


Peter F.
***@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-08 10:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Terry Ross
------------------------------------------
Art-speak for "Let me change the subject". I am not
discussing the "KITM-MARL-LOW" bit - only
Art's use of the Fisher Exact Test as related to
the 'KITs' starting from the 'K' at 132/2.
The challenge was to come up with a total probability for artistic
rendition of "KITM-MARL-LOW" plus 4 close "KITs" on the first K. The second
part has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with either the "KIT" in "KITM" or any
other "K" in the array; it solely involves the average density of "ITs" that
would allow such a close clustering of "KITs"
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Terry Ross
--------------------------------------------------
1) The name "KITM-MARL-LOW" in a visually
esthetically pleasing "compact nearly symmetric
zigzag."
Compact NEARLY symmetric patterns form the basis of
western art (from crucifixes to the frontispiece of
the Shakespeare Folio).
Unfortunately, since I ONLY know how to calculate
for random (or possibly totally symmetric) patterns
I UNDERESTIMATED the improbability for
"KITM-MARL-LOW" at 1 chance in 760.
---------------------------------------------------
2) The start of "KITM-MARL-LOW" was clearly marked
by four compact "KITs" involving skips of no more
than 4 letters (4 across or down/up, 2 across plus
2 down/up, etc.)
This was also visually esthetically pleasing and
requires a probability of at least 1 chance in 1,000
for it to be so visually esthetically pleasing.
----------------------------------------------------
No Art, it does not. This was the point of my post.
Yes, Peter, it does. This was the point of my post.
Post by Peter Farey
Taking the limits which you here describe as "skips
of no more than 4 letters (4 across or down/up, 2
across plus 2 down/up, etc.)" the 132/2 cluster lies
within a field where there are 20 possible paths for
the word KIT to follow. 4 of them do contain the word.
There are:

3 paths for 1 letter skips
5 paths for 2 letter skips
7 paths for 3 letter skips
9 paths for 4 letter skips
--------------------------
24 paths:

5 paths generate 4 KITS (1 filling up 2 paths)
19 paths generate 19 non KITS
Post by Peter Farey
As far as the other 5 'K's are concerned, there are
121 possible paths, 3 of them occupied by KITs.
The other 5 'K's have NOTHING to do
with the problem at this stage!

A single 'K' has already been isolated as the
starting of the "KITM-MARL-LOW" line.

The ISSUE IS: given the low probability
of ~1/80 for any pair of letters being "IT"

(if it is not then show that it is not)

what is the a priori chance that I will
randomly pick as many as 4 "IT"s out
of a total of 23 independent selections:

It is ~ 23*22*21*20*(1/80)^4/(4!)
~ 4600

The other "K"s are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

The other "K"s were ONLY relevant to the problem
of determining that "KITM-MARL-LOW"
was improbable and, therefore, presumeably
a unique string in the given situation.

If Peter Bull's 'Kit Marlowe' cipher had involved:

1) The "KITM-MARL-LOW" string plus

2) a close clustering of 4 "KIT"s
around one of the OTHER "K"s

then your analysis might be valid

But that IN NOT Peter Bull's 'Kit Marlowe' cipher!!
------------------------------------------------------
Have I made myself CRYSTAL CLEAR this time!!!

Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
2004-12-08 11:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Terry Ross
------------------------------------------
Art-speak for "Let me change the subject". I am not
discussing the "KITM-MARL-LOW" bit - only
Art's use of the Fisher Exact Test as related to
the 'KITs' starting from the 'K' at 132/2.
The challenge was to come up with a total probability for artistic
rendition of "KITM-MARL-LOW" plus 4 close "KITs"
on the first K of "KITM-MARL-LOW" .

The second part has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO
with either the "KIT" in "KITM" or any other "K" in the array;
it SOLELY involves the average density of "ITs"
that would allow such a close clustering of "KITs"
Post by Peter Farey
Post by Terry Ross
--------------------------------------------------
1) The name "KITM-MARL-LOW" in a visually
esthetically pleasing "compact nearly symmetric
zigzag."
Compact NEARLY symmetric patterns form the basis of
western art (from crucifixes to the frontispiece of
the Shakespeare Folio).
Unfortunately, since I ONLY know how to calculate
for random (or possibly totally symmetric) patterns
I UNDERESTIMATED the improbability for
"KITM-MARL-LOW" at 1 chance in 760.
---------------------------------------------------
2) The start of "KITM-MARL-LOW" was clearly marked
by four compact "KITs" involving skips of no more
than 4 letters (4 across or down/up, 2 across plus
2 down/up, etc.)
This was also visually esthetically pleasing and
requires a probability of at least 1 chance in 1,000
for it to be so visually esthetically pleasing.
----------------------------------------------------
No Art, it does not. This was the point of my post.
Yes, Peter, it does. That was the point of my post.
Post by Peter Farey
Taking the limits which you here describe as "skips
of no more than 4 letters (4 across or down/up, 2
across plus 2 down/up, etc.)" the 132/2 cluster lies
within a field where there are 20 possible paths for
the word KIT to follow. 4 of them do contain the word.
There are:

3 paths for 1 letter skips
5 paths for 2 letter skips
7 paths for 3 letter skips
9 paths for 4 letter skips
--------------------------
24 paths:

5 paths generate 4 KITS (1 KIT fills up 2 paths)
19 paths generate 19 non KITS
Post by Peter Farey
As far as the other 5 'K's are concerned, there are
121 possible paths, 3 of them occupied by KITs.
The other 5 'K's have NOTHING WHATEVER
to do with the problem at this stage!

A single 'K' has already been isolated as the
starting of the "KITM-MARL-LOW" line.

The ISSUE IS: given the low probability
of ~1/80 for any pair of letters being "IT"

(and if it is not ~1/80 then show that it is not)

what is the a priori chance that I will
randomly pick as many as 4 "IT"s out
of a total of 23 independent pair selections:

It is ~ 23*22*21*20*(1/80)^4/(4!)
~ 1 / 4600

The other "K"s are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

The other "K"s were ONLY relevant to the problem
of determining that "KITM-MARL-LOW"
was improbable and, therefore, presumeably
a unique string in the given situation.
------------------------------------------------------
IF Peter Bull's 'Kit Marlowe' cipher had involved:

1) The "KITM-MARL-LOW" string plus

2) a close clustering of 4 "KIT"s
around ONE OF THE OTHER "K"s

then your analysis might be valid.

But THAT IS NOT Peter Bull's 'Kit Marlowe' cipher!!
------------------------------------------------------
As isolated entities
the "KITM-MARL-LOW" string is the more
important entity primarily because it clearly
identifies a SPECIFIC person (not just any KIT).

The clustering of "KIT"s around the start of the
"KITM-MARL-LOW" string confirms the validity
of the initial string and probability calculation ONLY
involves the low a priori probability of "IT" strings.

If you wish to discuss the probability of "IT" strings, fine.
But the existence of 3, 5 or 1,000 other "K"s
at this stage is TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue.
------------------------------------------------------
Have I made myself CRYSTAL CLEAR this time!!!

Art Neuendorffer
Loading...