Saturday, March 26, 2016

“PhOEnix” Of The Renaissance

©by E. Le Roy Miller, Easter, 2016

                                       Φ ο ί ν ι ξ
                       From one immortal horizon to another,
                        The tips of your glorious-spread wings,
                        Spell your nameless, magical, wonder,
                        Something beyond mer-mortal beings,
                        It certainly doeth seem—incredible!

                                                                        E. Le Roy Miller

Lord Oxford Described  As A Phoenix  Of A Man
At The Age Of 25:

Clermont d’Ambois:

“I overtook, coming from Italy,
In Germany, a great and famous Earl
Of England, the most goodly fashioned man
I ever saw, from head to foot in form
Rare and most absolute, he had a face
Like one of the most honor’d  Romans,
From whence his noblest family was deriv’d,
He was besides of spirit passing great,
Valiant and learn’d, and liberal as the sun,
Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects,
Or of the discipline, of public weal;
And ‘twas the Earl of Oxford.”

             (W.P.Fowler, Shakespeare Revealed, p. 18;
                 Ward p., 112)

A Myth In His OwnE Time

W.P. Fowler in his comments on the above passage notes that the above dialogue, was copied out of “the mouth of Clermont d’Ambois” by George Chapman, in his history-play, the Revenge of d’ Boise. Consulting B.M. Ward (i.e., Fowler’s source), we find it further revealed that the above words were written in a kind of narrative dialogic verse. The play The Revenge of d’Bois (at least the section we deal with, recounted then current history (1575) which is related in his play by George Chapman. Among the events of the times described by Chapman, in the section we deal with, is a conversation of Clermont d’Ambois and his friend, Ren., concerning Lord Oxford.

From Chapman’s remarks, and many other sources as well, already in 1575, Lord Oxford was showing his feathers as a great “Phoenix of His Times”—not only in Italy but elsewhere throughout Europe. Though d’Ambois is not reported to have used the word “Phoenix” to describe Lord Oxford, he calls him every name in the Phoenix-book, excepting the name itself.

As we shall see Edward de’ Vere is quoted at length at this time, in 1575, by an Italian contemporary, Clermont d’Ambois—who met, we are told, Lord Oxford as he was coming out of Germany—as reported by Chapman in his historical-narrative-verse-play. 

This is important as Chapman was one of the featured writers with Ignoto, Shakespeare, Jonson, and Marston, in the famous section on the Phoenix which contained Shakespeare’s highly praised, “The Phoenix and the Turtle.” The point being, one can be sure that when Chapman wrote the words above (1575?), and certainly, when he published them (1613), he well knew he was describing Lord Oxford as a “PhOEnix”!

Lord Oxford As Phoenix of the Times

The description, in the above verse of d’Ambois, is that of a “Phoenix,” the unique descriptors, in fact, of that Rare Bird. The terms that are applied to Lord Oxford, then, at twenty five, d’Ambois, apply uniquely to the Phoenix—at a time when the world-view of Europe was seeing itself in a new “cosmic” light, so to speak (a matter only briefly touched on at the end).

Words (below) in the passage of Chapman’s play (above) featuring descriptions of Lord Oxford, from a European nobleman, d’Ambois, in 1575, indicating Lord Oxford was a PhOEnix:

            “Noblest of the Noble”
            “Liberal as the Sun”
            “Spoke & Writ Sweetly”

But, what is being talked about—what is the bigger story, not just the above snatch of verse dialog above; what’s the content of the dialog? Let’s look to it

From Chapman’s Revenge of d’Boise.

Clermont d’Ambois is speaking, we are picking up the dialog somewhat into his speech—just enough to make our point. The discussion is really about “world-views”—the essence of man’s relation to the world (notice: the first line below, refers to “place” in life, culture, etc.).  A philosophical conversation is going on between two people, Clermont, himself a nobleman, but of more lowly status, and his friend about the times, their struggles, and troubles:

Cler. Hee that, unpleas'd to hold his place, will range,
Can in no other be contain'd that's fit,
And so resisting th'All is crusht with it:                                     
But he that knowing how divine a frame
The whole world is, and of it all can name
(Without selfe-flatterie) no part so divine
As hee himselfe; and therefore will confine
Freely his whole powers in his proper part
Goes on most God-like. Hee that strives t'invert
The Universals course with his poore way,
Not onely dust-like shivers with the sway,
But crossing God in his great worke, all earth
Beares not so cursed and so damn'd a birth.

[His friend, Ren., scoffs at his pessimism. Only in passing, I must note the theme of “self-love” is so dominant here, I wonder over it—perhaps the subject itself was part of the Renaissance World-View, not only in England but abroad? Could it be that Shakespeare, in his Sonnets, also deals with his owne self-love, and that he, too, was speaking to a common “cultural consciousness”—also shared, as we see, in this example, with an Italian nobleman?] 

            Ren. Goe on; Ile take no care what comes of you;
Heaven will not see it ill, how ere it show.
But the pretext to see these battailes rang'd
Is much your honour.

[Apparently a military review is prepared for Clermont, as an honor to him. The “pretext” is meant, I think, to mean the “reason” why he was being so honored. We can assume, I believe, the same logic applies to “the famous Earle of England.”]

Cler. As the world esteemes it.
But to decide that, you make me remember                      
An accident of high and noble note,
And fits the subject of my late discourse
Of holding on our free and proper way.

[Here, note, it is said he remembers an “accident of high and noble note” touching on their thoughts concerning a proper free man’s way, and such; and, please reader note, he remembers Lord Oxford, in this regard! In the regard, it would appear, from what is said below, about both being given a great honor of a military review and also the fact of having a common weltanschauung, as he described his own feelings about life, and Lord Oxford expressing to him, his own intimate thoughts on the subject of one’s “place” in life, society, and the world. It is in the original text, as spelled]

I over-tooke, comming from Italie,
In Germanie a great and famous Earle                            
Of England, the most goodly fashion'd man
I ever saw; from head to foote in forme
Rare and most absolute; hee had a face
Like one of the most ancient honour'd Romanes
From whence his noblest familie was deriv'd;                 
He was beside of spirit passing great,
Valiant, and learn'd, and liberall as the sunne,
Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects,
Or of the discipline of publike weales;
And t'was the Earle of Oxford: and being offer'd            
At that time, by Duke Cassimere, the view
Of his right royall armie then in field,
Refus'd it, and no foote was mov'd to stirre
Out of his owne free fore-determin'd course.
I, wondring at it, askt for it his reason,                            
It being an offer so much for his honour.
Hee, all acknowledging, said t'was not fit
To take those honours that one cannot quit.

[Neither Ward nor Fowler provide the additional text given at the above dialog beginning: “At that time. . .” which continues and tells a truly amazing story! Of course with a comma, the phrase could be “. . .goodly fashion’d man,/I E. Ver saw.” But, since the man gives Oxford’s name, what need for it? In any case, the story tells us that a review to the Duke’s “right royall armie” was offered to honor Lord Oxford, which he refused, with, appropriately, a Shakespearean couplet that “t’was not fit/to take those hounours that one cannot quit.” As we see the response from d’Ambois companion sees in the the words themselves, apparently, the presence of the man d’Ambois describes, “a man who spoke and wrote sweetly”]

Ren. Twas answer'd like the man you have describ'd.

[The response, “not fit/To take those honours that one cannot quit!” also contains the word “one” which is again Oxford’s OnE code—whether it was meant to be so here, or not can’t be certain. We shall, however, show again below, that Lord Oxford is also called “the one” again, as the dialog continues. It is a due diligence material fact, and so both instances of the use of “one” to name Lord Oxford here noted. Most to the point here, is that Chapman almost certainly knew, in 1613, when his play Revenge of d’Ambois was published that Lord Oxford was “Shakespere.”

Cler. And yet he [L. Oxford] cast it onely in the way,
To stay and serve the world. Nor did it fit
His owne true estimate how much it waigh'd;
For hee despis'd it, and esteem'd it freer
To keepe his owne way straight, and swore that hee
Had rather make away his whole estate
In things that crost the vulgar then he would
Be frozen up stiffe (like a Sir John Smith,
His countrey-man) in common Nobles fashions;
Affecting, as't the end of noblesse were,
Those servile observations.

[Continuing. . . the entire section is amazing. Lord Oxford is being described as one who behaves as he does, showing deference to all, and all to the purpose “to stay and serve the world.” How many people, heroes or not, does the reader know who’s announced high purpose was—complete service to the world?

Moreover, in the above comments, we are informed that Lord Oxford told our informant that he "despis'd" the life of a servile “frozen up stiff” nobleman (the prototypical “Sir John Smith”) who’d “perform all kinds of vulgar acts for vulgar preferment—in the “common Nobles fashions”—as was common among Nobles in England, he suggests! Lord Oxford told d’Ambois, that he would rather “make away his whole estate” than for “noblesse,” (i.e., “nobility”) to end in him!

Lord Oxford’s swipe against the very “nobility” of the common English noble, in this one statement, was enough cause not to publish it until Lord Oxford was long dead! And perhaps “risky” for Chapman even then, i.e., 1613.]

Ren. It was strange.
Cler. O tis a vexing sight to see a man,
Out of his way, stalke proud as hee were in;
Out of his way, to be officious,
Observant, wary, serious, and grave,
Fearefull, and passionate, insulting, raging,   
Labour with iron flailes to thresh downe feathers
Flitting in ayre.

[Imagine it. It is a “vexing sight to see” a man who is “out of his way”, stalke proud. . .” What is meant here? I found myself puzzled, and not quite sure of the meaning of “out of the way” at first I thought it meant how, by going out-of-his-way, accommodating in all things, he was, at the same time, “stalking” etc., as “proud” as if he were in the inner camp!

Consulting Onions Shakespeare Glossary I find, however, for:

 “out of” 3. Beyond VEN 567 Things out of hope, LLL 4.1.30, IH4.1. 135: outside the limits of H8 3.2.13 When did he regard The stamp of nobleness in any person Out of himself? (i.e., except himself).

I take it now to mean that Clermont is expressing Lord Oxford’s sentiments and the phrase “out of his way” refers to one of those, who, while in noble positions, is really “beyond his limits.” So, what follows, then, are descriptions of the pretenses of the English nobility! And it is this that makes Lord Oxford sick.

Proof of the pudding of this interpretation appears, in the final clause, which really should begin with two extra words, i.e., “And who.” These two words, or much like it, should precede the word “labours: As in the phrase in the verse,

            “Labours with iron flailes to thresh downe  feathers
            Flitting in ayre.”

The phrase “Out of his way” or its equivalent, “Beyond his limits” applies to each line except the last two, above—these two lines obviously are saying that anyone who is “beyond his limits of being”—that is to say—of being truly “proud,” “officious,” “observant,” wary,” “serious,” “grave,” “fearful,” “passionate,” “insulting,” even “raging,”—all apparently characteristics of a true nobleman—is “beyond the limits” of the present nobility is the point!

Indeed, they, the “noble ones” in England now, are but Don Quixote-like type characters, who absurdly, “Labour with iron flailes to thresh downe feathers/Flitting in ayre.”]  

Ren. What one considers this,
Of all that are thus out? or once endevours,
Erring, to enter on mans right-hand path?

[If we consider “one” to refer to Lord Oxford, as I think it does, and, if so, the question then is (in general language),:

            Ren. What does Oxford think of this
            Of all those so limited, or who once endeavored
            (i.e.,to be Honorable) But erred to do so,
            or get on the right path?
 “What does Lord Oxford, think of that situation? Clermont replies, as if he were Lord Oxford. One can see below, i.e. “(says one)” definitely refers to Lord Oxford, which is his code name, “OnE.”]

Cler. These are too grave for brave wits; give them toyes; 
Labour bestow'd on these is harsh and thriftlesse.
If you would Consull be (sayes one) of Rome,
You must be watching, starting out of sleepes;
Every way whisking; gloryfying Plebeians;
Kissing Patricians hands, rot at their dores;         
Speake and doe basely; every day bestow
Gifts and observance upon one or other:
And what's th'event of all? Twelve rods before thee;
Three or foure times sit for the whole tribunall;
Exhibite Circean games; make publike feasts:
And for these idle outward things (sayes he)
Would'st thou lay on such cost, toile, spend thy spirits?
And to be voide of perturbation,
For constancie, sleepe when thou would'st have sleepe,
Wake when thou would'st wake, feare 
nought, vexe for nought,
No. . .[and it goes on]

So much from Chapman. Again, it needs underlining that Chapman knew already, when the dialog was published in 1613, that Lord Oxford was the PhOEnix, as he himself was one of the five who participated in that publication featuring the famous “Shakespeare’s”poem, “The Phoenix and the Turtle” in 1601.

World-Wide Fame From All Quarters

During Lord Oxford’s European tour, which is referred to and discussed above, what is provided above is particularly important. It is from Chapman, it was told directly to Chapman by an Italian nobleman/soldier who was on the field with Lord Oxford at the time. A contemporaneous “recordation”, if you please—if it is so! Perhaps, of course, Chapman made it all up and it never happened—none of it. Nonetheless, stories, legends even, about Lord Oxford’s 1575 tour of Europe are well documented in the historical record. Even, as we see below, from a highly respected military officer.

Ward (p.112), for example, records the words of a Sr. Officer in Sicilian Army, who soberly reported that the:

“Right Honorable the Earl of Oxford, a famous man of Chivalry, at the time he traveled into foreign countries. . . made a challenge against all manner of person, whatsoever, and at all manner of weapons as Tournaments, Barriers with horse and armour, to fight a combat whatsoever in the defense of his Prince and Country. . . and that all Italy over he is acknowledged the only Chevalier and Nobleman of England. This title they give unto him as worthily deserved.”

A sober report, so it seems to me, written at the time and published in 1590! 

And there are claims that Lord Oxford himself claimed that some 80,000 troops were turned over to him to settle conflicts between different states. These remarks too are backed by historical records, i.e., the interrogatories of Lord Oxford’s accusers in a criminal charges case. Again, there is enough abundant historical evidence for Lord Oxford’s travel. At to the 80,000 solider put under his generalship, I do not know, but, so far as I know, Oxford may very well have been telling the truth. One way or the other, the point here is to focus on his “Phoenix “ Nature,” and his Final Mythic Identification.

Another Example, 10 years later

Ward remarks: “While on the subject of astrology, it may be worth mentioning that Lord Oxford certainly practiced this ancient science. “ And he cites a poem written in 1584, by Joohn Sootheern, and dedicated to Lord Oxford:

For who marketeth better than he
The seven turning flames of the sky?
Or hath read more of the antique;
Hath greater knowledge of the tongues?
Or understandeth sooner the sounds
Of the learner to love’ music.

(Ward, p. 50; Ward remarks that the “seven turning flames” are, of course, the planets).

But we have far more than a knowledge of astrology being mentioned—for who knows more, the poet asks, about antiquity, ancient languages or music? “Who knows more?”—invites comparison with the highest status of “knowing,” as its author obviously intends. The poet of the above verse, by the way, was living at Lord Oxford’s estate in the very year his book was published, 1584.

Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane:
The nature of Religion

“Valiant, and learn'd, and liberall as the sunne,”
--said to be true of Lord Oxford, 1575

“In some cultures the luminous epiphanies of solar gods become the sign of intelligence. In the end sun and Intelligence will be assimilated to such a degree that the solar and syncretistic theologies of the end of antiquity become rationalistic philosophies’ the sun is proclaimed to be the intelligence of the world, and Microbus sees in the sun all the gods of the Graeco-oriental world, from Apollo and Jupiter to Osiris, Horus, and Adonis. . .

That the whole of cosmic life can still be felt as a cipher of divinity is shown. . .  (Saturnalia, ch. 17-23) , P. 158

I am delighted here to find, Eliade, recognizing the poet’s importance in these matters. Indeed, in our particular case, herein described, our PhOEnix is of course OnE and part of the whole “mythic play” of Lord Oxford’s life, which involved his being the myth, with all his spirit and might of art born of phenomenal faith. He is Adonis, which, of course, spelled in the language of its origin, as Lord Oxford well knew, and the entire literate class of England knew, was AdOnE.

AdOnE and the PhOEnix are OnE. That we must lOOk to see.

It seems to me, Eliade, however perceptive and insightful, did not see as precisely as could be—for want of Thomas Mann’s revelation of “Mythic Identification.” Here, for our purposes, Eliade speaks of the “consciousness of an age”—and of the transmogrification, we may say, from the ancient view of religious ego-identification with a Deity (as he says Apollo, or Adonis (Adone) to the modern consciousness—for which he says we need the poets views and culture. {see end notes by Eliade]

I am here making the point, that Eliade is right in what he says, and if we take Mann’s step into “mythic consciousness” we are then on the ground of a new cultural revolution, a new “ground of being” in a new world of the “sun and intelligence”—as Eliade described it above. Going OnE step further, we are at a new era, a revolution of the PhOEnix, the Genius of World-Consciousness! Via the pOEtry d’EO=IO=OE!

Concluding Thoughts For Reflection:

Thoughts to reflect on: Eliade’s remarks from The Sacred and Profane, 1959, Harvest Book , N.Y. below:

If we should attempt to summarize the result of the description that have been presented in this chapter, we could say that the experience of sacred space makes possible the “founding of the world”: where the sacred manifests itself in space, the real unveils itself, the world comes into existence. But the irruption of the sacred does not only project a fixed point into the formless fluidity of profane space, a center into chaos; it also effects a break in plane, that is, it opens communication between the cosmic planes (between earth and heaven) and makes possible ontological passage from one mode of being to another.” (pg. 63)

But the important thing for our purpose is to bring out the specific characteristics of the religious experience, rather to show it numerous variation and the differences caused by history. It is somewhat as if, in order to obtain a better grasp of the poetic phenomenon, we should have recourse to a mass of heterogeneous examples, and, side by side with Homer, and Dante, quote Hindu, Chinese, and Mexican poems: that is, should take into consideration not only poetics processing a historical common denominator (Homer, Vergil, Dante) but also creations that are dependent upon other esthetics. From the point of view of literary history, such juxtapositions are to be viewed with suspicion; but they are valid if our object is to describe the poetic phenomenon as such, if we propose to show the essential difference between poetic language and the utilitarian language of everyday life.” P. 16

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

The Final PhOEnix Confession

The Final PhOEnix Confession of
“E  OxOnforde

And the “Burning” Of All Previous Existences
In His Last Letter To King James (1604)

    © Elwood Le Roy Miller, March, 22, 2016

Introduction: “What’s In A Name. . A rOsE by any OthEr”

There is hardly anything more personal than one’s personal name and signature. It is amazing, really—one’s birth name in the written word: a thing “of” oneself, having an existence “outside” of oneself.  Something that can be seen, apart from oneself and yet it is a designation of one’s self—so far as possible, in the very letters and the appearance of them in the “objective” world.

In some quarters, law for example, there are forensic specialists in identifying how the manner in which a person writes can tell us a great deal about their expression of themselves, their personality, moods, etc. We here have no theories on the matter, for this subject, save what one can see with their own eyes, immediately. The actual signature of Lord Oxford (with attempted simulation above) is posted for the reader to see.

We deal here only with documenting the matter of Lord Oxford’s last known signature. It is in a letter to the new King of England, James the First, and Lord Oxford was only a few months before death. The lettr is dated Jan. 30, 1604. But, let us begin by correcting the record.
What Signatures Did Lord Oxford Really Use?
Setting the Record Straight

Hank Whittemore, I read at his website, referred to William Plumber Fowler’s collection of Lord Oxford’s personal letters as:  “. . . one of the great Oxfordian works, with 872 pages showing how Edward de Vere’s letters are filled with Shakespearean language and unique to Shakespearean forms of expression.”

Regardless of opinions of Fowler’s work, used by this writer many times over the years, Whittemore made a faux pas, however, when he stated that the signature which Lord Oxford used (posted above as his example) at his FB site was the:

“same crown-shaped signature on letters to William and Robert Cecil for more than three decades until the death of Elizabeth l in 1603, after which he reverted to a different form of signature.”

These simple words are inaccurate and misrepresent and confuse many matters, in only a few words.


Actually, the signature above “O x e” (as three separate letters, followed by “Ford” in script) gives a much truer prototypical image of the signature used by Lord Oxeford in the very letters mentioned by Whittemore above.

With use of my own copy of Fowler, I was able to determine some of the facts of record in the matter. Twenty-seven of the 35 letters available to examine, i.e., Fowler/Ward, etc. show most of the letters to appear as is posted here, immediately above—not as shown by Hank’s example of an uncharacteristic script signature. The matter is very important.

The Last Two Known Letter’s by Lord Oxford Contain His OE Cipher Code

Whittemore, as above, stated that Lord Oxford in his last two letters “reverted” to “a different form of signature.” That “different form” was a form never seen before! Fowler states:

“the signature, “E. Oxenforde,” is underscored with the same looped trefoil design as in his immediately preceding letter of May 7, 1603. These last two underscorings differ radically from the spear-like line with the seven cross marks which underscore his signatures in all earlier letters subsequent to his 1563 French one. These last two signatures lack also the wavy line topped by four dots occurring above his prior signatures. This abrupt signature chance, following his letter of April, 1603 may have some significance connected with his turning attention to the new monarch King James. . .” (p. 803, Fowler)

The last two known letters being, May 7, 1603 and June 19, 1603) and it was uniquely sent as a message for the eyes of Robert Cecil and King James—to remind them without saying a word about it, that to his credit, as they know, he is also—OE, i.e., “Shakespeare,” “Ignoto,” and known as Edward de Vere, cited from Ward, orig. source of Fowler:

“E. OXENFORDE.”        (May, 1601,Ward-Hatfield, MSS, 99, 161) 
“E. OXENFORDE.”    (June, 1603, Ward- Hatfield, MSS, 100, 108)

The above is how Fowler gives it. Fowler’s authority for his letters is credited to Ward, whom I also have. In Ward, the quoted source of Fowler, shows that both signatures look the same, i.e., capitalized. I’ve provided as given in Ward, p. 343,4.
Caveat:  This writer has not seen the original letters described above, and relies solely upon the representations of cited sources. Only 12 of the 37 signatures uses the style of Whittemore’s example, and (of those seen by me on the internet and my library), a number are not all in script—as Whittemore’s example also indicates.  It is fair to say, the opposite of Whittemore’s description is far closer to the truth—i.e., it is an “unusual” autograph he has depicted.

A Third Letter

“E OXONforde”   [=44] Essex Record Office MS d/DMhCI: 
Oxford to King James January 30, 1604]  

I have located another letter, from Jan 30, 1604, in a letter directly to King James. Indeed, the signature there is radically different, indeed (even more so then the other two which I’ve not seen?). It, too is without all the paraphernalia described above, just, as with the other two, with a trefoil (more of a scribble beneath, beginning the the last letter, also an “e” at the end of “E OXONforde” – as best I can do—with no period (apparently) after the “E” and a little larger than the “O”, as are the other letters, too, with only the top of the “f” and “d” being of the same height as the solo “E”. (see Shakesperare-Oxford Society website).

It is, as suspected, having just got the image this minute, extraordinary. More so by far than anyone has reported. There is no “O” in “OXEFORD” “OXENFORD” OR “OXFORD” – never has been and there is no example of it that this writer knows of.

We have the unique incidence of LO’s signature at the age of 13 where he spells, in a letter written in French, “Oxinford.” But, difference between an “in” and an “en” is slight at best. Heere we deal with an “O” instead of an “E”.

What in the world is an “O” doing in place of an “E” or an “e”? Or an “x” (as he almost habitually used in the decades preceding, i.e., “Oxeford”). What is “Oxon”?—for one thing “Oxon” is an abbreviation, a reference to the country of “Oxfordshire” in England. This is derived from the Latin for “Oxford” which is “oxonia”  

Be it noted that “Oxford” in Greek is  Οξφόρδη and is sounded with a “dee” sounding very much as in English, “Oxfordee.” So the “image” of the word is OE and the pronunciation then begins with “O” sound and ends with “E” sound.  Moreover, in the letter, LO uses the “e” at the end of the signature, in such a way orthographically as to give it prominence, so the word begins in a long “O” sound and ends in an “E” sound!


The word “Oxford” in Greek, sounds much as it does in English, except it has an “e” sounding, “Oxforde” that word, sounded as said, is spelled, in Greek:

Οξφόρδη = Oxforde – with final “e” sounded /first letter “OE” virtually, but, in script, E , with a descending, rather than ascending bottom tail. Nonetheless, the word itself has a “dee” ending sound vis a vis LO’s last 2 letters to Robert Cecil, his brother in law, as to the signatures!

Note: 4 times Only LO uses, in any of the 37 signatures (from 1563 to death) the initial “E.” before his last name, to indicate his name, “Edward.” The first was in 1563 when he was 13 years old, an “official” letter, his first and only preserved letter in French; and the last three in the last three letters of his life (1573 and 1602-1603).

From the first preserved letter, in French, we see that LO, whenever he spelled out his name, Edward, always uses a “stick” E, prominently enlarged, for the E and a simple circle, as is the O on “Oxeford”—that is to say, LO’s FIRST and most usual by far way he wrote his name is with large E large O—beyond ordinary proportions. He spelled his name for our “first” example as “Oxeford.” And—it would seem—as did his grandfather before him with the Oxe   (but he also used an “n”, for a fourth separate letter, with the second part of the name “ford” all in joined italic.

The first time Lord Oxford used his first name initial in a known signature, is in a signature he used for a publication he sponsored, and he used, for his publication of “Cardanus “ his signature “E. Oxenford.” . When Dainte Devises was published he was more “secretly identified” as “E.O.”  


“But his secret has been well kept. Indeed, so completely have the last fifteen years of his life been obscured that one is tempted to wonder whether this is due to chance, or whether it may not have been deliberately designed. . .
In ringing down the curtain on the Earl of Oxford’s life, perhaps it may be fitting to close with an epitaph, written by an anonymous contemporary, which is now preserved among the Harleian Manuscripts:

“Edward de Vere, only son of John, born the 12th day of April, 1550, Earl of Oxenford, High Chamberlain, Lord Bolbee, Sandford, and Badlesmere, Steward of the forest in Essex, and of the Privy Council to the King’s Majesty that now is. Of whom I will only speak what all men’s voices confirm: he was a man in mind and body absolutely accomplished with honourable endowments.”  
                                              Ward, p. 348, “Conclusion”

[Of course, we need to see these documents, for not infrequently the transcription of the spelling of words is changed without informing the reader. Is the above an exact spelling reproduction of the original? I do not know.]


Indeed, Ward makes reference to Lord Oxford’s “secret” and that for the last 15 year of his life, his very life, is so obscured as to cause one to wonder. Was it by accident that it was so, or by “deliberate design.” This is true. And yet, of course, we owe it to Ward himself that so many letters were produced and researched—and all owe him a great debt of gratitude, to my mind. And all those letters, those letters from the last 15 (or even 20) years always had a Oxe ford signature, never with a beginning initial (except as noted above) “E”—and yet now, in last two letters, suddenly, we have, for the first time ever—in all 37 letters I checked—just the last two “E. Oxenforde” Let us pause a moment:

                                    LORD OXENFORDE

It has been virtually 15 years since I last looked into Ward and I note in my copy, heavily underlined and with marginalia, as I studied it very closely, I see I have sectioned off comment beginning “King, I hear. . .I do well perceive how your Lordship doth travail for me in this cause of an especial grace and favour, notwithstanding. . .how much the expedition of this matter concerns me I leave to your wisdom that in your apprehension can read more than I have written. To conclude. . .”

And I note in red ink in the margin, after the pro forma close, “not heart—business.” But certainly I could feel it was heartfelt as to LO’s desire for the property—I well knew that, the formality of the closing, right before the unique signature, E. Oxenforde. The two letters with such unique signatures were in May and the last of all in June. Both related to business with King James and his petition for “getting his due.” And, I see it that Lord Oxford, by signing his letter such, reminded them that is E.O. or O.E., the PhOEnix!  Shakespeare, Ignoto, etc. They knew it, he is now reminding King James of it.

Update: Now that we have, in fact, another letter, this one to King James, and with a signature of E Oxonforde—unlike even the two other unique letters just submitted to the reader, from May 7, 1603 and June 9, 1603. The new one was in January 30, 1604! Lord Oxford would die before six months were out. King James, not only granted all he asked for, but also made him a member of his Privy Council, certainly a unique honor.

Are We Just Mind Reading/”Over-Relating”?

Obviously we have either another highly interesting coincidence or Lord Oxford is clearly saying that “I leave to your wisdom that in your apprehension you can read more than I have written. It is, in fact, an appeal for him to understand something more than he has written—no doubt, I suggest, in what he has written—Uniquely, signed, as never before to the eyes of Robert Cecil who had many letters from his brother-in-law—save in his last two letters, both of which were dedicated to making appeals to his “right” petition to King James—for what was due his family! And, I suggest, with the kicker that if that is not enough, remember, please who I am—the PhOEnix!


Phi (uppercase Φ, lowercase Description: Greek Phi normal.svg or Description: Greek phi Didot.svgAncient Greek: ϕεῖ, pheî[pʰé͜e]; modern Greekφιfi[fi]; English: /faɪ/[1]) is the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet. In Ancient Greek, it represented an aspirated voiceless bilabial plosive ([pʰ]), which was the origin of its usual romanization as "ph". In modern Greek, it represents avoiceless labiodental fricative ([f]) and is correspondingly romanized as "f". Its origin is uncertain but it may be that phi originated as the letter qoppa and initially represented the sound /kʷʰ/ before shifting to Classical Greek [pʰ].[2] In traditional Greek numerals, phi has a value of 500 (φʹ) or 500 000 (͵φ). The Cyrillic letter Ef (Ф, ф) descends from phi.
Phi is also used as a symbol for the golden ratio and on other occasions in math and science. This use is separately encoded as the Unicode glyph ϕ. The modern Greek pronunciation of the letter is sometimes encountered in English (as /fiː/) when the letter is being used in this sense.[3]

Monday, March 21, 2016

De Vere's Fellow Poet "Outs" him as "One Letter Bounds"


© 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.


  ** 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.


  Other Contemporary Proofs that the OE cipher was known probably to many, certainly within the elite poet circle, that would have been the case.