DE’VERE’S POLIMANTEIA (1595)
CONFIRMS “THE FINDINGS OF THE PhŒnix”
“A Secret Revealed”
Of 2013, Confirmed!
March 29, 2016
© E. Le Roy Miller, 2016
lexander Waugh, Somerset, a life-long member of the De Vere Society, of England, in the De Vere Newsletter of October 2013 published, a special presentation of his claimed decipherment of a passage from Polimantaie, 1595. The author of the book, allegedly written by a “William Covell,” revealed in code, we are informed by Waugh, that Lord Oxford was, indeed (as the text states), “Sweet Shakespeare” who was “our de Vere – a secret.” Is this credible, and if it is, why have I not heard of it before—nor apparently have many others?
Probably, I reasoned, after appreciatively reading the piece, for the same reason that hardly anyone knows about my work. And those that do, are virtually silent about it. The censoring and suppressing of important scholarship on Lord Oxford is, to me, a virtual criminal activity of some “Oxfordian” groups here in the United States. Hopefully a “connection” with England on this matter will begin a new day, sans the incompetence and corruption of the past. How e’re it be.
For this important development, I think it best to turn first to the subject of Alexander Waugh’s “A Secret Message Revealed” before I explain why I credit the entire work of Polimanteraie, 1595, exclusively to Lord Oxford, Edward de Vere.
I cannot but be mindful of the fact, that this new discovery (if it is a new discovery, I’ve not searched the literature) will be even more troubling to Oxfordians/De Verians/Stratfordians and the “cultural establishment,” not only here in the United States, but perhaps even more particularly in the United Kingdom.
I speak of this because the book, Polimanteraie, has in-depth discussion of religion, philosophy, politics and the public weal, and, yes, discussions about cipher codes in antiquity and the breaking of them or not. But, now, we’ll pass on that and go to the simple facts of the simple decryption of Alexander Waugh. [I deal in my next post at some length on the Greek etymological description of addition ciphers of Lord Oxford—and related matters].
Lord Oxford Wrote Entire Book Polimantereia.
I hasten to note, at the beginning, Mr. Waugh’s decryption had nothing to do with my discovery of Lord Oxford as the author of Polimantereia, nor do I believe it is needed for full authentication of my claim of Lord Oxford’s authorship of Polimantereia. Nonetheless, it is certainly a dramatic, independent, letter by letter tracking of a cryptographic message.
But cryptographic messages can also be conveyed in foreign languages, and this case, that is the case—and , in a sense, if you don’t know Greek, a simple, clear, cipher message is not going to be seen by you. Therefore, Lord Oxford, specifically wrote a section of “sutleizing on etymologies”, which etymologies in this case are Greek letters, not English letters, and he so indicates the fact clearly. These and other amazing facts which I shall soon retail to the public, for free.
As a forensic due diligence professional (Miller Reports Due Diligence, Inc.), I am making a DD Analytical Finding, that:
As to “Confirm” or “Unable to Confirm,” MRI CONFIRMS that:
1) the indicated passages constitute a valid cipher and Alexander Waugh and;
2) that he properly deciphered it.
** A MRI DD Report dealing with Shakespeare cipher claim may be seen at (“Reviews” at ericmillerworks.com].
Waugh’s Description of The
Decipherment Language :
“The following note ‘Lucrecia Sweet Shak-speare’ is aligned to the phrase ‘Oxford thou maist extoll thy courte-deare-verse,’ with the words ‘Sweet Shakspeare’ specifically set to the line containing at its centre the unique contrivance, ‘courte-deare-verse’. Now I suspect that many readers are ahead of me and have already noticed, glaring out from this hyphenated epithet, a message (in correct letter and word order) spelling out 'our de Vere'.) (fn 2)
I have provided a link to the reader to view the entire book, on-line, and see exactly what is being talking about in the original 1595 publication, to which Waugh refers. Waugh continues:
“Less easily spotted is the fact that the remaining letter of 'courte-dere-verse' (c-t-a-r-e-s-e) form an anagram of the words 'a secret,' so that the whole message on the line referenced by the note 'Sweet Shakespeare' is 'our de Vere - a secret,' with the word ' Oxford' carefully placed above 'deare-verse' and within the compass of the whole side-note, "Lucrecia Sweet Shakspeare' to allow a neat triangle of the words 'Oxford de Vere.'”
[Bold added to text. And Waugh, the reader will see, at this point in the original text of the book, very adequately and fully explains the missing “e” in “Shakspeare.” The link to Waugh’s entire article is below. But for convenience I’ll quote it again:]
“To the Oxfordian eye it is perfectly obvious what all this means, but how will the dyed-in-the-wool Stratfordian respond? ‘An unfortunate coincidence of names, letters, puns and marginal notes’? Hardly possible! Perhaps he will try to argue that Covell only thought he knew the secret of Shakespeare’s identity, but he was wrong. How then will he explain Covell’s brazen temerity in publishing with the Cambridge University, under the noses of Burghley (Chancellor of the University) and Essex, both of whom are intimately associated with de Vere and with Wriothesley, Shakespeare’s dedicatee?”
It so happens, as I was proof-reading this article, I thought to check something in William Plumer Fowler Shakespeare Revealed In Oxford’s Letters and turned right to p. 818, where I fortuitously found this beautiful little “capstone” perhaps to Mr. Waugh’s decipherment. Fowler is making the point of “Shakespeare’s frequent suggestions of reading “more than is written” in letters and he cites the following, from the Rape of Lucrece. Fowler is not following any chronology references at all, but for these purposes we must note the date of publication of Rape of Lucrece was 1594, just immediately before Polimantaie!
But, she, that never coped with stranger eyes,
Could pick no meaning from their parling looks,
Nor read the subtle-shining secrecies
Writ in the glassy margents of such books.
Here in Lucrece we have some “subtle-shining secrecies” and “parling looks” are “speaking” looks (Onions, p. 193) and these “speaking secrets” it would seem can be “writ in the margents of books”! And, we know this can happen and does happen because, Mr. Waugh provides exactly that. He correlated things written in the margin, with the word secrets in the text.
Indeed, it is not unimaginable to this poet, that many were “in the know” they read Lucrece, knew Polimantaie was by Oxford, too, and delighted in keeping their eyes peoled for the latest “cipher.” I’m of that opinion, as my work will certify.
And, perhaps, we should note, too, that Mr. Waugh’s characterization of “Covell’s brazen temerity in publishing with the Cambridge University, under the noses of Burghley. . . “ would seem to presume that “Cambridge University” would publish anything “brazen,” without at least tacit approval of the government. Of course, Waugh means to debunk the idea that “Covell” could probably not get away with such brazen remarks (on a wide range of public subjects), without the collusion of high placed people—like Lord Oxford’s father-in-law, the Prime Minister Burghley, of England! [In passing, note the spelling of COvEll; the O and E, I capitalize for these two letters are Oxford code letters]
OnEly ANoTHeR Step Is NeedED:
LORD OXFORD IS THE AUTHOR
I caption the above title as I do, as I need to express a caveat to Mr. Waugh’s important decipherment of 2013. So far as I know, no one has before extrapolated such a convincing cipher message regarding the identity of Lord Oxford (Edward De Vere) as Shakespeare. What Waugh apparently did not know or perceive, at the time of his writing, is that the book itself is written by Lord Oxford—not, as he thought, by someone just “in the know”—as he would seem to imply.
Best Proof Is Authorship
Indeed, in this case, the caveat provides, I believe, best proof of Waugh’s decipherment!
Actually, the presumption, that there is any other writer than Lord Oxford is superfluous to the thesis—and even has no bearing on the message itself as revealed by Waugh. Indeed, thinking there is someone else, other than Lord Oxford involved, introduces another element of obscurity and complication: i.e, who? What? Why? When?, etc.—without a hope of solving questions that mean nothing.
If Lord Oxford is the author, and if solid evidence can be shown to that effect—who would “own” better the fact that Oxford himself author of the cipher?
An Amazing History: A Note for the Record
Here I must note for the record, a matter of obvious relevance, at least for this writer. The last few day of March, 2016, I had been working on preparing my last remarks, for the time being, on matters regarding Lord Oxford. Also in summing up my most recent work, involved in discovering Lord Oxford’s “Master Mythic Identification,” of which Shakespeare himself was put OnE of his “incarnations.” Also, I have tried to communicate something of my poet’s “world-view” concerning these matters of Art, History, Poetry & Politics which revolve about Lord Oxford.
In any case, I am pleased that a De Vereian, Mr. Waugh, is the deserving party for due recognition of his important decipherment. Moreover, I believe, there is also additional intrinsic evidence of his claim, completely independent of his claim, by which the identity of the author of the entire book can be deduced. Using said evidence, I have deduced it. The author is Lord Oxford, as demonstrated in the below article—written almost in its entirety just days before I found Waugh’s work—checking on a detail in the books itself, Polimantaie
That being said, if true, then obviously, the cipher message which Waugh decrypted, is its own intrinsic evidence— due to the fact of authorship. Simply, if it’s true the book was written by Lord Oxford, if it is a cipher, he certainly wrote it!
And there can be little doubt that here Waugh has a genuine cipher. It would stagger credulity to assume, an accidental cipher accidentally happened in a book secretly written by Lord Oxford in 1594-5, the very years I claimed he was disseminating by ciphers his identity with the “Phoenix”—here, there, and everywhere, so it seems.
The “intrinsic evidence” of which I speak, in the book itself, are those unique identifiers of Lord Oxford, which I have amassed over decades of research, culled from the historical records—all the personal descriptive adjectives, the myths, rumors, Lord Oxfords own interrogatories in legal proceedings, and those of his accusers, virtually all the works of the Oxfordian “pioneers,” and, in fact, I spent over a decade in research and consumed over 700 volumes of biographies and related material needed for a full investigation, such as I was conducting. For, in my case, I began my interest, only as a due diligence task. I didn’t want the task; I had no interest in the subject.
Nonetheless, my invaluable late friend and associate, Robert Treash, who spent years working with me on this and another biographical matter (Sigmund Freud), very much wanted my Due Diligence Report on Lord Oxford. In any case, I could not refuse one, to whom I owed so much. And the rest is history.
Indeed, in these last few days of winding up my “investigation” I’ve been getting together my final “case” for Lord Oxford’s, we may say, “ontological” mythical identification as the “PhOEnix”—with OE as code letters (or diphthong) . To that end, I just posted on Easter last, three days ago, summations and intimations of my work on the matter. Of course, here, I am only going to provide the least amount of evidence to credit my Due Diligence Finding, again, that:
Alexander Waugh found and properly deciphered another cipher name of Lord Oxford— and in a book he did not know was written by Lord Oxford.
DISCIPHERMENT OF POIMANTEIA
© E. Le Roy Miller, April, 2016
n the following passage from Polimanteia we shall now disclose another cipher, adding to the one already successfully “read” by Mr. Waugh. I will deal here with only one page, and a few additional remarks. The “message” passage is on page 126 of the book.
It shall be demonstrated that Lord Oxford is referring to himself in said work as the “Phoenix” in the passage dealt with below.
Poetry is the Subject:
The State of Poetry at the time:
What Poets to read for the future:
At the top of page 126 of Polimanteia, as marginalia, the author indicates the subject matter being discussed. In italic the note reads:
And mure [mure = wall]
The author, speaks in the voice of his “truest” [veriest] discernment, that of one speaking as with a “mothers love.”
Immediately, to the right of the marginal note, the main text is given and the words, aligned with the word “themselues” are the words, flush right margin:
“and a mother’s loue makes me tearme
them natures works. . . to
shew their excellencie: Yet follow not
to farre the conceited imitation of for-
mer time, to take trifles for subjects to
work vpon, as there in meaning to make
art wondered at that worke of nothing”
The Author Is A Poet:
He is the Phoenix Poet
It seems to me there can be little to no doubt that the writer is a poet; he is a Matriarchal poet, for he speaks of his “mOthEr-lOvE”
Indeed, our Poet adopts the role of the Poet Muse-Mother himself/herself and delivers pronouncements on what to pay attention to what they are doing, that they need to confine (“mure”- wall) themselves to “smaller matters” so that they are not trying to pass off as things of wonder which are, in fact, “nothing”! He speaks for the poets, all poets. Indeed, as we see below, he is, as stated, their “high spirited muse” and that “muse” is “oe” or, if you will “Phoe-nix-like.” It is a pure and simple confession, plainly read. The entire page is below:
The page begins with these words, just below the title, as the reader can see with the link, the line breaks as retained below from the original.
England to her
repine at euery choice, conceit, tear-
ming it, either tinie or wit, or both idle-
lie impoyed, yet my true discernment
and a mothers loue, makes mee tearme
them natures works, made with a com-
paring pride, in these latter times to
shew their excellencie: Yet follow not
so farre the conceited imitation of for-
mer time, to take trifles for subjects to
work upon, as therein meaning to make
art wondered at the worke of nothing.
I have provided the above, preliminarily to focus on the cipher message. We must think about this very carefully, as we already have the evidence of Mr. Waugh that there is a cipher a la de Vere in Polimanteia. I propose what follows is another code. The text continues. Before this, however, I would only note an important fact. There is another marginal note in italic on the left of the page, at the bottom, prominently seen. It states:
A fit taske
For the finest
This remark underscores the fact noted above that the author is stating that the writing of fine poetry is the rightful task for the very finest “Scholler.” The text continues, without deletions:
Thousands of obiects might bee found
Out, wherein you high spirited muse
Might flie an vnmatched pitch, & PhŒ—
Nix-like fire her self into immortall a-
Shes by the Sunne. So onely without
Compare, eternallie should you liue: for
In your children shall the loue-writing
muse of diuine Sydnay, and the pure
flowing streame of Chrystallin Spensir
suruiue onely: write then of Elizas
raigne, a task onely meet for so rare [Phoenix is the “Rare One”]
a pen: it is easie to give immortality to
an euer-liuing Empresse: or if this bee [underline added]
matter, which the baseness of these. . .
An Easy Case: Alignment
I have demonstrated, by mere alignment, the section dealing with the Phoenix is, itself, pure poetry.
“Thousands of objects might be found out, [objects = secrets]
Wherein your high spirited muse might fly,
An unmatched pitch, and PhŒnix-like, fire
Herself into immortal ashes by the Sunne.”
I only added a comma. The lines are almost perfectly aligned with the break. This is one of the characteristics of Lord Oxford’s poetry, when he isn’t even writing it, but onely prose. [I use the “e” in “onely” as it’s a favorite of the “OnE”—another of LO’s code names].
As to this particular section, we see that the “fit taske for the finest scholar” obviously applies to our “loving-mother” for she is their Muse, and none other—she is “fit for the task”, indeed, to an “unmatched pitch”—because she is “like” a Phoenix (Phoenik-like”), capable of “firing herself into immortal ashes”—and these ashes are made immortal by the Sunne! Light!
After the Phoenix, What?
Read Sidney and Spenser
For the OnEly “pure flowing stream”
So, our Poet-Loving-Mother, made immortal by the Sunne—ex cathedra (who is declaredly capable of OnEly the finest, then pronounces that, in so many words:
So, OnEly, without compare, incomparably, the poet shall then live, eternally, and to the children of the future, for them, the “love-writing muse” of diuine Sydnay and Spensir alone shall survive.
And, I need, note, as seen above, “the pure flowing steame of Chrystallin Spensir survive onely.” This is commented on directly below. Here, I’ll only remark that it is a fact, to me, as my research indicates, Sidney and Spenser were both deeply influenced by Lord Oxford, he was their mentor—to the extent they were capable of assimilating his “message.”
The Phoenix Nest is a Best Seller, 1593-4
Venus & Adonis, 1593, is a Best Seller,
Rape of Lucrece, 1594, is a Best Seller ,
Now the plot thickens. Readers must know very important facts here. This is in 1595, In 1593 “The Phoenix Nest” was written, a huge successes! Everyone was talking about it, if it was a huge success and it was! The poems in the “Phoenix Nest” are praises of Sidney and Spenser. And, the leading poems for that book are an unknown “Gentleman”—whom I have identified, with no cavil, as Edward de Vere—in a series of research papers. For it is from those poems that I decrypted Lord Oxford’s code name of the “Phoenix.” First, I learned it was OE, and then I saw OE in the Heart of the Phoenix.
Our Poet “your poet”), is speaking to the future, and for the poets to use Sidney and Spenser as their models and to write of Elizas [Queen Elizabeth] for posterity:
: write then of Elizas
raigne, a task onely meet for so rare
a pen: it is easie to give immortality to, [comma added]
and euer-liuing Empresse
The task that is OnEly meet, is a “rare pen” and one for whom it is “easy” to “give immortality to” (apparently unlike everybody else). This is because the Queen is an “ever-living” Empresse; she is “ever” ling, because, E.Ver gave her immortal life through his poetry, that’s why she is ever-living. And that’s why he tells unborn generations to go to the praises of Eliza (of which he wrote many) and you will find your Phoenix.
Here, I’ll note but one thing more, intimated above, Venus and Adonis features a epigraph quote from Ovid, which was just published shortly before Polimanteria. The quote is:
Villa miretur vulgus: Mihi flaus Apollo
Pocula Castalia plena minifiret aqua
It is a famous quote, wide used and commented on. Translations vary greatly. Mine would be:
Marvel at the stir of commoners! Give me
Apollo’s running full-cups of Castillian water.
I well know I have no competence in Latin, but I’ve read many versions and looked carefully at what I could. Certainly, the above is more technically correct than Marlowe’s famous translations, met with everywhere—but, I suspect, for a cipher purpose itself, with Marlowe “capping” on many things in his translation dealing with “Shakespeare” in particular, Venus & Adonis but also perhaps, Polimantaeia. Research continues on that.
The point is, it appears to this writer, that the comments by the author of Sidney’s “pure flowing stream of Chrystallin” is very suggestive of “Castillian Spensir, a misspelling of Spenser—and more reminiscent of his own quotation use from Ovid as epigraph to Venus and Adonis.
All this may be incarnate in the “Sweet Shakspeare” remark, suggesting even more that the above is a “play-off” the Ovid quote for Venus and Adonis [Adone, in Latin, adOnE].