A PREVIOUSLY UNNOTICED CIPHER
REPORTED BY WARD
BY ONE OF LO’S CONTEMPORARIES:
REFINED, CONFIRMED &
DECIPHERED
© Elwood Le Roy Miller, Mar
21, 2016
Waking UP:
“Dong! A Diphthong in a Cipher!
Which Hides In just OnE Word”
Having just posted for the reader, a reprise of the OE letter combinations, I decided to immediately
post this very important example (among many that I have, not yet published).
By doing so, I hope to cut to the simple heart of ONE, and end the misery of all
those Oxfordians, going about half-blind and ignorant of basic facts—who would
like to defend their and my “hErO” a bit more elegantly and persuasively.
Once the reader has understood my master thesis lies in the simple fact
that Lord Oxford used the most incredibly simple technique for construction of his
cipher, so that it would survive in history—regardless of who tries to cover it
up (Oxfordians or Stratfordians, in my book). And that was by using a diphthong
Œ, as his secret identity. By referring now, to the note I just published on
the “French “OE”, I rather suspect in a mentally alert person, a ray of light
should shine. I would only ask the
reader to recall one thing as they read the below very short dialog, a “single
letter bonds the name together.”
Simply “EO” is EO and Œ! (The Wikipedia article on “The French OE,”
immediately at my FB site will aid the reader greatly, if they feel confused).
I posted it for purpose of an educated person understanding the precise
grammar/logic/cipher coordination is crucial to a technical understanding. But,
one with eyes to see needs no “technical understanding.”
And here, it might be worthwhile to note that in Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew (iii, 2, 62), we do know
that “two” letters apparently are needed for a “name.”: speaking of such, it is
said of a pillow, I believe:
“which hath two letters for her name,
Fairly set down in studs.”
Makes sense, takes two letters, an initial for a first name and an
initial for a second, we can presume. Says nothing about “periods” only
“letters.” The point being here that (forgetting periods) for a “name” to exist
in Elizabethan times, it needs at least two letters to make one. So, if “one
letter bounds” a name there must be at least three letters—and in Lord Oxford’s
“secret name”, his Cipher there is one: voilà , OnE!
Lord Oxford Is “Outted” By
Marston A Fellow Poet
And Co-Poet With “Shakespeare”
and “Ignoto,” “Jonson” and “Chapman” for —“The Phoenix & The Turtle”!
(1601)
Below Quote Is Before “The
Phoenix” Publication
First it should be noted that the below passage, cited from one of Lord
Oxford’s Contemporaries. As presented by Ward, the passage is:
“Far fly thy fame
Most, most of me belov’d, whose silent name
One letter bounds. Thy true judicial style
I ever honour, and if my love beguile
Not much my hopes, then thy
unvalued worth
Shall mount fair place, when Apes are turnéd forth”
John Marston, in The Scourge of
Villanie (9th Satire), 1599. The above quotation is cited by
Ward. Ward also offers the following footnote to the passage:
“Marson is here
speaking of a concealed poet whom he calls “Mutius.” The “silent name one letter bounds” may well
be a reference to the name Edward de Vere, which begins and ends with the
letter E. “Mutius” is evidentially one of the anonymous aristocratic poets
described in the Arte of English Poesy,
and would fit no one better than Lord Oxford.” (Ward, p. 329)
Of course, unless fancy flies too far, the brief passage cited above,
by Marston, from his poem, is “loaded” with hints, obvious, declared,
intentional hints, as to whom the person is—that is to say, the “one” of
“silent name” in the cipher. Questions arise.
A Cipher of “One”: Is “Name”
Singular or Plural?
(The Reader is Referred to my
essay “A Cipher of One”, recently posted)
The cipher, uses “one letter” which “bounds” the name—of “one” (“One
letter bonds”) who has a “true” or “veritable” “judicial style” and is one who
is “ever” lov’d and honoured. And, if it is the “one” whom he (the poet,
Marston, who wrote it) doth “love” he hopes his love shall help his “belov’d”
gain his “faire” [Vere] and valued place!
Objections To Ward’s “Solution”:
Doesn’t Satisfy The Cipher
Requirement
But, though Ward’s suggestion seems to have merit, we must carefully
consider if it really satisfies the necessary condition—does “one” letter
“bound” his “name” and how does one “bound” or “bind” a name, but by “coupling”
with it? From this line of thought, Ward’s idea of “two” names, separate, but
the first “name” beginning with an “E” and the “second name” ending with an
“e”—does that satisfy being “bound”? I think not. To be bound is to be ‘One.”
Hence my decipherment is to be preferred to Ward’s attempt.
(Again, see “French OE” for “glue” or “bond”). His suggerstion does not satisfy the cipher
requirement, mine does.
What is meant by “name” as in “whose silent name”?—is that name in the
singular or plural? Or “one” name—for the entire “silent name”? If a “bonding”
takes place, one should be permitted to think there are at least two “things”
or names, which when bounded become ‘One”—a thing does not bond with itself,
does it?
Marston Knows The Name of the
Ever Lov’d One = OE
We could go on elaborating all logical possibilities; here we’ll cut to
the chase.
Let us consider the words mean what they say. One “letter” bounds his
name. The “letter is an “n” or, upside down, a “u”
Such that we have in, as specified “one” which itself is the solution
to the cipher—as Lord Oxford long ago detailed. OnE, or upside down OuE, in
either case it is one letter which bounds his silent name—for Lord Oxford’s
“silent name” was his “cipher name,” as I have repeatedly pointed out, OE. This
is the name specified by Lord Oxford himself and reported on, in depth, in many
previous postings (see, “Cipher Is One” for example)
I must emphasize, OE is the heart of the PhOEnix, and the PhOEnix are
all the One for the Phoenix is The One, The Universal One, there is Only One
Phoenix for One World. One is the Alpha
and Omega of All.
Recall, “one” letter “bounds” his “name”—As said “n” is a letter that
bound’s the identity of “Oxford” his last name’s initial “O,” with “Edward” his
first name’s initial, “E” so that “OnE” contains both “names” and is “bound”
with an “n”. But the point is, we are not being given his real name—but his
“secret name”—his Cipher Name, and that, again, is OE as in PhOEnix.
Of course, this “binding” of the two letters is completely covered in
my explication of the details of Lord Oxford’s cipher, as he gave them and as I
have been reporting on for months now.
ELM
** Ward fails to mention the
fact that “Mutius,” is the son of Titus of Shakespearean fame, i.e., Titus and Andonicus [circa 1594]. It is
interesting, in view of the cipher, whose “solution” is a name that is bound by one letter (“whOsE
silent name/OnE letter bounds.”).
** For the record, we note here
that “Mutius” in Greek, sounds very much as mu
as in “music” with thEOs, so that the “Mu” in “Mutius” is “unaccented” and
the long Eos! In Latin, too, mutEOs
It is easy to type in Mutius in English and access the Greek
pronunciation and spelling, which is “Muzio.” The name is even mentioned by
Shakespeare in Titus and Andronicus as the son of Titus who murdered his son
“Mutius” for “disobeying” and order. The poem by Marston, of course, speaks of
his “ever” belo’vd “Mutius”—it is Marston who gives OE as the name of “Mutius”—who
for unknown reasons is not being properly valued.
ELM
Other Contemporary Proofs that
the OE cipher was known probably to many, certainly within the elite poet
circle, that would have been the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment