{"id":1045,"date":"2016-03-13T20:45:40","date_gmt":"2016-03-13T19:45:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/?page_id=1045"},"modified":"2016-11-18T11:06:56","modified_gmt":"2016-11-18T10:06:56","slug":"sinful-art","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/shakespeare-1616-2016\/playwright-or-figurehead\/sinful-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Sinful Art"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sonnet 146 reconstructed \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/a><\/em>back to From Longlist to Shortlist<\/a><\/p>\n

—<\/span><\/p>\n

contesting without contest<\/b><\/p>\n

The two surviving theories on The Bard\u2019s identity allow for just one co-author. And this candidate\u2019s devious nature invites to attempt\u00a0falsification by checking Shakespeare\u2019s career on facts that do not agree\u00a0with his reputation as a honest man. If, for instance, Bacon had even the\u00a0slightest involvement in the composition of the Sonnets, it would show in\u00a0some devious detail. And, as it happens, they have come to us through\u00a0pirate editions only. The first appeared on the market in 1598\/99.\u00a0Publisher William Jaggard, however,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cwas in general a reputable printer and it was only when he was dealing\u00a0with Shakespeare’s work that he became at all unethical….”
\n<\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/span>(M. G. Chute ;\u00a0Shakespeare of London. p. 329).\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Which suggests to consider Shakespeare as the cause of Jaggard\u2019s\u00a0unethical dealings. Unethical, by the way, is The Passionate Pilgrim<\/i> mainly\u00a0in attributing poetry by contemporary authors to William Shakespeare.\u00a0Who indeed was \u2018much offended\u2019 by Jaggard\u2019s abuse of his name, when his\u00a0fellow actor\/playwright Thomas Heywood confronted him in 1612 about\u00a0the appearance of his writings in the new third edition.<\/p>\n

Jaggard had no choice but to remove Shakespeare\u2019s name from this\u00a0edition\u2019s unsold copies, and never offended Shakespeare again ; he only\u00a0made a second faux pas<\/i> in 1619, when he published a collection of ten\u00a0pirate editions of Shakespeare plays (the False Folio). An action that\u00a0automatically shifts the blame for foul play to somebody else than\u00a0Shakespeare.<\/p>\n

His still hypothetical co-author died in 1626. Taking with him to the\u00a0grave his key to \u2018Kay\u2019 (or \u2018Key\u2019)-cypher, which Bacon mentions in the 1605\u00a0Advancement of Learning<\/i>. This code was eventually broken somewhere in\u00a0the nineteenth or twentieth century. And ever since the (fundamentally\u00a0flawed) evidence has been staring the countless Baconian cryptologists in\u00a0the face :<\/p>\n

\u00a0F \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0R \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 N \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0C \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 I \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 S
\n32 \u00a0 + \u00a0 17 \u00a0 + \u00a0 27 \u00a0 + \u00a0 13 \u00a0 + \u00a0 29 \u00a0 + \u00a0 35 \u00a0 + \u00a0 18 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0= \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0171
\nB \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0C \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0O \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 N \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0+
\n28 \u00a0 + \u00a0 27 \u00a0 + \u00a0 29 \u00a0 + \u00a0 14 \u00a0 + \u00a0 13 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 = \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0111
\n–\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0=
\n<\/span>The Passionate Pilgrim<\/em> contains Sonnets 138 \u00a0+ \u00a0144 \u00a0= \u00a0 \u00a0 282<\/p>\n

Which sonnets sign ‘F’ in the difference of index numbers, and\u00a0 ‘Bacon’ in the difference of these index numbers with Bacon’s ‘Kay’-signature.<\/p>\n

Bacon’s signature also connects the higher index numbers to the ‘simple’-signature of William Shakespeare. And the lower one to ‘William Shakspere,’ as a variant spelling of the name has it. Which seems rather convincing. But in fact produces a surfeit of evidence that is too good to be swallowed without a care.<\/p>\n

– –<\/span><\/p>\n

of sinful art<\/b><\/p>\n

The fundamental flaw in encrypted signatures is its incapability to sift the\u00a0chance hits out. Which leaves us without real evidence again. But also with\u00a0a nagging suspicion that already in 1598 each single sonnet had the index number\u00a0that pirate editor Thomas Thorpe attached to them in 1609. If a chance\u00a0hit could be ruled out, this would be solid proof that the 1609 edition of\u00a0Shakespeare\u2019s Sonnets presents the sonnets as intended by its author(s).\u00a0The addition of A Lovers Complaint <\/i>included.<\/p>\n

On the other hand; proving this encryption a chance hit equals\u00a0disproving devious intent in the author of these two sonnets. Which in turn\u00a0equals falsification of the entire Bacon theory. And what Shakespearean\u00a0text is better suited for the purpose than a riddle sonnet?<\/p>\n

If Bacon had even the slightest involvement in the composition of\u00a0Sonnet 146, it would show in some tricky detail. And, as it happens,\u00a0Thomas Thorpe published it with an obvious misprint : the second line\u00a0opens with a repetition of the final three words of line one.<\/p>\n

Ever since, people have been wondering what exactly Shakespeare had written\u00a0there. Two syllables obviously, because \u2018powers\u2019 has by spelling been reduced to the one syllable that the word’s pronunciation seems to allow . And Literature Studies has by trial and error come up with\u00a0a number of options. Of which \u2018Feeding\u2019 has the expert\u2019s recommendation<\/a>\u00a0of G. R. Ledger as a fore echo of line thirteen (the\u00a0signature number of Death). But let us for argument\u2019s sake, assume that\u00a0the sonnet has been tampered with by design. We are now facing a riddle\u00a0that has to be tackled like a crossword. One of the kind that in some\u00a0tricky way provides the solution with the problem :<\/p>\n

\n

POore soule the center of my sinfull earth,<\/em>
\nQues<\/span>?tion <\/span><\/span>these rebbell powres that thee array,<\/em>
\nWhy dost thou pine within and suffer dearth\u00a0<\/i><\/em>
\nPainting thy outward walls so costlie gay?\u00a0<\/i><\/em>
\nWhy so large cost hauing so short a lease,\u00a0<\/i>
\nDost thou vpon thy fading mansion spend?<\/i>
\nShall wormes inheritors of this excesse\u00a0<\/i>
\nEate vp thy charge? is this thy bodies end?\u00a0<\/i>
\nThen soule liue thou vpon thy seruants losse,\u00a0<\/i>
\nAnd let that pine to aggrauat thy store;\u00a0<\/i>
\nBuy tearmes diuine in selling houres of drosse:\u00a0<\/i>
\nWithin be fed, without be rich no more,\u00a0<\/i> <\/em>
\n– – <\/span>\u00a0So shalt thou feed on death,that feeds on men,\u00a0<\/i> <\/em>
\n– – <\/span>\u00a0And death once dead, ther’s no more dying then.\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In case you don\u2019t see the answer straight away, don\u2019t worry ; in a well\u00a0designed crossword the correct solution triggers a \u2018how could I ever be\u00a0that blind\u2019 the moment one\u2019s eyes are opened. Not a second earlier. In my\u00a0case this took a couple of days. But that was because of the detour. Lacking a crossword fan’s antenna for wordplay, I found the answer the other\u00a0way round ; calculating my way through a series of tedious Baconian ciphers. And in search for the lost line initial, I actually departed from the obviously wrong M = 12,\u00a0because the Mistake seemed to be intentional. But I solved the riddle all the\u00a0same. Eventually. And once the missing line initial appears in the\u00a0invisible ink of Bacon\u2019s controversial signing method, the one problem left\u00a0to tackle is to invent a plausible reason for Francis Bacon to write Sonnet\u00a0146 invisibly on another name than his own. But that\u00a0problem is only of concern for Baconians.<\/p>\n

line \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a01 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 2 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 3 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 5 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 8 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 10 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 13 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 14
\n–<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0?<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0A
\ncypher \u00a0 \u00a015 \u00a0+ 16\u00a0<\/span>+ \u00a021 \u00a0+ 15 \u00a0+ 21 \u00a0+ 4 \u00a0+ \u00a018 \u00a0+ \u00a05 \u00a0+ \u00a019 \u00a0+ \u00a01 \u00a0 + \u00a0 2 \u00a0 + \u00a0 21 \u00a0+ \u00a0 18 \u00a0+ \u00a01 \u00a0 = 177<\/span><\/p>\n

—<\/span><\/p>\n

of trial and error<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This solution signs the sonnet by the total corresponding with \u2018William Shakespeare\u2019 in simple cypher. Something Shakespeare could\u00a0have figured out all by himself. And from the missing link onward it signs\u00a0\u2018Sonnet 146\u2019. Conclusive as this seems, it is not enough to convince. Blind\u00a0chance can only be ruled out by proof of intelligent design :<\/p>\n

If tempted to start counting on \u2018one\u2019, one places the signature for\u00a0Sonnet 146 on line three, which is marked \u2018W\u2019. Arriving from the opposite\u00a0direction, this \u2018W\u2019 comes up with the subtotal for \u2018Will\u2019 in simple cypher.\u00a0And restarting on that \u2018W\u2019, the sequel of that signature appears in the\u00a0subtotal of line nine : \u2018Shakespeare to a T\u2019, so to speak. This line\u2019s regular\u00a0subtotal is 134 ; which is \u2019W\u2019 short of \u2018Will Shakespeare\u2019. The \u2018T\u2019 from this\u00a0line is in the classic alphabet just two short of \u2018W\u2019. And, in a sense, it\u00a0shows. The two line numbers in between add up to that same \u2018W\u2019, while\u00a0the total value of their capitals make the difference between \u2018W\u2019 and \u2018S\u2019. This is a\u00a0serendipity, because line ten\u2019s real purpose is to initiate the alphabet,\u00a0while line twelve is in mathematical respect a sonnet\u2019s best location for\u00a0\u2018W\u2019.<\/p>\n

Initiating the alphabet on line ten, Sonnet 146 is, whatever happened to\u00a0the entry on line two, definitely designed as an encryption. Even if it took a\u00a0couple of centuries before this could be recognized : Bacon\u2019s Kay-cypher is\u00a0an alphabet that starts on position ten.\u00a0The initials that follow add symmetry to the design. A symmetry in\u00a0which \u2018S\u2019 on line thirteen mirrors a misprinted \u2018M\u2019. Logic, however,\u00a0offers three different methods to interprete \u2018M\u2019 as \u2018W\u2019 : mirroring from\u00a0the right angle, and reversing index number are obvious. While initiating the\u00a0alphabet with \u2018K\u2019, places \u2018W\u2019 where \u2018M\u2019 had been.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
Just to demonstrate the omnipotence of Dame Fortune, \u2018W\u2019 itself is on position 21 replaced\u00a0<\/span><\/em>by \u2018F\u2019. And from \u2018F(rancis)\u2019 to \u2018Q\u2019 is a matter of options :\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
1 The basic Kay-substitution cypher has \u2018P\u2019 for \u2018F\u2019 on position 6, and p reverses to \u2018q\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
1 \u00a0 \u00a02 \u00a0 \u00a03 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 5 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a07 \u00a0 \u00a08 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a013 \u00a0 \u00a014 \u00a0 \u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a016 \u00a0 \u00a017 \u00a0 \u00a018 \u00a0 \u00a019 \u00a0 20 \u00a0 \u00a021 \u00a0 \u00a022 \u00a0 \u00a023 \u00a0 \u00a024<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>A \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0C \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0F \u00a0 \u00a0G \u00a0 \u00a0H \u00a0 \u00a0I \u00a0 \u00a0 K \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0M \u00a0 \u00a0 N \u00a0 \u00a0 O \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0 Q \u00a0 \u00a0 R \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0U\u00a0 \u00a0 W<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 X \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Y \u00a0 \u00a0 Z<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>K \u00a0 \u00a0L \u00a0 \u00a0M \u00a0 N \u00a0 \u00a0O \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0Q \u00a0 \u00a0R \u00a0 \u00a0 S \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 U \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0X \u00a0 \u00a0 Y \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Z \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 C \u00a0 \u00a0 D \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0F<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 G \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0H \u00a0 \u00a0 I\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n
2 Restart the alphabet on \u2018W\u2019 and on position six \u2018F\u2019 turns into \u2018B\u2019.<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
1 \u00a0 \u00a02 \u00a0 \u00a03 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 5 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a07 \u00a0 \u00a08 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a013 \u00a0 \u00a014 \u00a0 \u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a016 \u00a0 \u00a017 \u00a0 \u00a018 \u00a0 \u00a019 \u00a0 \u00a020 \u00a0 \u00a021 \u00a0 \u00a022 \u00a0 \u00a023 \u00a0 \u00a024<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>A \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0C \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0F<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0G \u00a0 \u00a0H \u00a0 \u00a0I \u00a0 \u00a0 K \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0M \u00a0 \u00a0 N \u00a0 \u00a0 O \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0 Q \u00a0 \u00a0 R \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0U\u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 X \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Y \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Z<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>W \u00a0 X \u00a0 Y \u00a0 \u00a0Z \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0B<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0C \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0 F \u00a0 \u00a0 G \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0H \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0I \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>K \u00a0 \u00a0 L \u00a0 \u00a0 M \u00a0 \u00a0 N \u00a0 \u00a0 O \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0 Q\u00a0 \u00a0 R \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0U \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n
As mentioned before; F. B. was devious by nature, and because \u2018W\u2019 is in his K-cypher a\u00a0<\/span><\/em>mirrored \u2018M\u2019, his logic has no objection against rotating the key of \u2018Way\u2019-cypher anti\u00a0<\/span><\/em>clockwise for a change, and\u00a0 \u2018P\u2019 turns into \u2018Q\u2019 From which follows that encrypting directly to\u00a0<\/span><\/em>\u2018Wrong Way\u2019-cypher reveals that\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
– \u00a0<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0F = Q \u00a0 in the mathematical sense that<\/span><\/em>
\n<\/span><\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>Q = F\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
1 \u00a0 \u00a02 \u00a0 \u00a03 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 5 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a07 \u00a0 \u00a08 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a013 \u00a0 \u00a014 \u00a0 \u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a016 \u00a0 \u00a017 \u00a0 \u00a018 \u00a0 \u00a019 \u00a0 \u00a020\u00a0\u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a022 \u00a0 \u00a023 \u00a0 \u00a024<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>A \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0C \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0F<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0G \u00a0 \u00a0H \u00a0 \u00a0I \u00a0 \u00a0 K \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0M \u00a0 \u00a0 N \u00a0 \u00a0 O \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0 Q<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 R \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0U\u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 X \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Y \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Z<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>W \u00a0 \u00a0V \u00a0 \u00a0T \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0R \u00a0 \u00a0Q<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0O \u00a0 \u00a0N \u00a0 \u00a0M \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0K \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0I \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0H<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0G \u00a0 \u00a0F<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0 D \u00a0 \u00a0 C \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Z \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Y \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0X \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n

Symmetry is the key to mark yet another W. S. :\u00a0 lines five and seven are\u00a0both marked by a subtotal that equals the difference between two\u00a0signatures. The Bacon signature is on both lines in close touch with that\u00a0marker. And in order to rule chance out as its source, one of them is\u00a0placed on line eight (\u2018F + B\u2019), of which the \u2018E\u2019 is in \u2018Kay\u2019-cypher equal to \u2018P\u00a0+ Q\u2019. The signature on line four is marked by that P. One that flanks the\u00a0signatures on line three together with a Q. Far fetched, but not to be\u00a0dismissed as irrelevant, because in the blueprint above, Kay-cypher\u2019s \u2018P\u2019\u00a0shares is sixth position in its sequence with \u2018F\u2019 in the regular alphabet and\u00a0\u2018B\u2019 in Way-cipher. It also shares its position with \u2018Q\u2019 in Wrong Way-cypher.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

—<\/span><\/p>\n

of logic<\/b><\/p>\n

When it comes to logic, last chapter\u2019s final paragraph is not really\u00a0impressive. But logic it applies, and in consequence not a single hit on a\u00a0signature in Sonnet 146 can be explained away as mere chance. But to\u00a0accept the one generated by line four as intentional, is another cup of tea.<\/p>\n

The simplest method to repair this flaw is to check whether Q in this\u00a0sonnet really equals F.\u00a0Any tampering with the sonnet\u2019s mathematical sequence, however, is\u00a0bound to produce chance hits by the dozen. Logic therefore demands to\u00a0restrict the test to line numbers that fit in a logic sequence. In such a\u00a0test the links in the chain of logic rule out chance. And the logic sequence\u00a0of choice must be Fibonacci\u2019s. The sequence in which Art and Mathematics\u00a0unite, because it is generated by a formula that translates the Golden\u00a0Ratio to numbers : \u0192o = 0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u01921 = 1\u00a0<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0
\n<\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u0192n = \u0192n-1 + \u0192n-2 , for n > 1\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

line \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 1 + 1 \u00a0 \u00a0 2 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a03<\/span><\/strong> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 5<\/span><\/strong> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 8<\/span><\/strong> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a013<\/span><\/strong> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 14
\ninitial \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0O \u00a0 \u00a0M\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A
\nvalue \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ad lib. \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a021 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 5 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 18\u00a0<\/em>
\nscore\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>27 \u00a0 \u00a0 48 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 69 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a074<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>92\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/span><\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 William \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 William S.\u00a0
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0or
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Bacon<\/span>
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(reverse cypher)\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Thanks to logic, the hits \u2018M\u2019 produces cannot be defined as chance hits. But\u00a0M is definitely the wrong capital, and can only produce hits on wrong\u00a0signatures. In consequence the second initial capital on line one can enter the\u00a0formula without generating a single hit. And it makes sense to allow this O in,\u00a0because the Fibonacci sequence starts 0 – 1 – 1 – 2. This at the cost of the signatures that the M-formula generates, but that was the\u00a0wrong signature anyway. And the first step to make amends is turning M into\u00a0W. Which is a reversion :<\/p>\n

line \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a01 + 1 \u00a0 \u00a0 2 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a03<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a05<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a08<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a013<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 14
\ninitial \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0P \u00a0 O \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A
\nvalue \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ad lib. \u00a0\u00a021 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a05 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 18\u00a0<\/em>
\nscore \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>\u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a036\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a057 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 78 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a083 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 101\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/span>s<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>core \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a029<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a050 \u00a0 \u00a0 71 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a092<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a097<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0115\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0William Shakespeare \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 William S. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 William
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 or \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(reverse cypher)
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Bacon
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(reverse cypher)\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The number of line initials decide whether there is an ubobtrusive\u00a0Shakespeare hit on a W (line 5) or on a S (line 13). Which isn\u2019t much, but does at least\u00a0confirm that this sonnet is not really inclined to hit on its signatures\u00a0without a sign of logic. And by making no difference, the additional O once\u00a0again proves itself a zero in the equasion : only the \u201897\u2019 that W generates\u00a0on Bacon\u2019s line eight may be interpreted as \u2018Shakspere\u2019. But that is not\u00a0really a hit,\u00a0 because that spelling of the name was never used in print. The\u00a0next step is W\u2019s substitution by its counterpart\u00a0from the Kay-alphabet :<\/p>\n

\n

line \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a01 + 1 \u00a0 \u00a0 2 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a03<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a05<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a08<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a013<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 14
\ninitial \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0P \u00a0 O \u00a0 \u00a0 F \u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A
\nvalue \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ad lib. \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 5 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 18\u00a0<\/em>
\nscore \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a0 W<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 42 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 63 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a068 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a086<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Apart from the comfirmation that W = F, no hits on the Fibonacci sequence of 14 line initials. But\u00a0this time the zero in the equasion makes a difference. Yet, a difference of\u00a0\u2018O\u2019 is in mathematical respect no difference at all :<\/p>\n

If \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0F \u00a0+ \u00a0B \u00a0 = \u00a0 \u00a0P
\nand \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0+ \u00a0O \u00a0 = \u00a0 29
\nthan \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 F \u00a0+ \u00a0B \u00a0 = \u00a0 29\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

line \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a01 + 1 \u00a0 \u00a0 2 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a03<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a05<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a08<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a013<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 14
\ninitial \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0P \u00a0 O \u00a0 \u00a0 F \u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A
\nvalue \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ad lib. \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 5 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 18\u00a0<\/em>
\ns<\/span>core \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a029<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 35 \u00a0 \u00a056 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 77 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a082 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 100\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/span><\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0William Shakespeare \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 W. Shakespeare \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Francis Bacon
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0in the difference \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0in the difference \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The difference in signatures, on the other hand, is never to be dismissed\u00a0as irrelevant ; it suggests different authors as convincingly as it suggests\u00a0a single author\u2019s different identities.<\/p>\n

Way-alphabet now\u00a0 converts the F from Kay-alphabet into \u2018B\u2019. Which is a\u00a0signature in itself, but as an encryption method this is evidently not in\u00a0favour. And when it comes to improving matters, \u2018O\u2019 does not really make\u00a0the difference :<\/p>\n

\n

line \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a01 + 1 \u00a0 \u00a0 2 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a03<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a05<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a08<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a013<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 14<\/span>
\ninitial \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0O \u00a0 \u00a0 B \u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 S<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A
\nvalue \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ad lib. \u00a0\u00a021 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a05 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 18\u00a0<\/em>
\ns<\/span>core \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a017 \u00a0 \u00a0 38 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 59 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a064 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>\u00a082\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/span>sc<\/span><\/span><\/span>ore<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a029<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a031 \u00a0 \u00a0 52<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a073\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a078\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a096\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/span>– \u00a0<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 William \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 W. Shakespeare<\/span>
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 in the difference<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Which leaves it to Wrong Way-alphabet to test the sonnet on its ability to make\u00a0F mathematically equal to Q :<\/p>\n

line \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a01 + 1 \u00a0 \u00a0 2 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a03<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a05<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a08<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a010 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 11 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 12 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a013<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 14
\ninitial \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0O \u00a0 \u00a0Q \u00a0 \u00a0 W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0P \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0B \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0W \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 S<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 A
\nvalue \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ad lib. \u00a0 16 \u00a0 \u00a0 21 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a021 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a05 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 18\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/span><\/em>score \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a015 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a031 \u00a0 \u00a0 52<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 73 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a078 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a096\u00a0<\/em>
\ns<\/span>core \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a029<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a045 \u00a0 \u00a0 66 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 87 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 92<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0110\u00a0<\/em>
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0William S.\u00a0<\/span>
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 (reversal of F-signature)<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0&<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span>–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Bacon<\/span>
\n–<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(reverse cypher)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

And it delivers by reversal of properties. Combined with Q instead of B, the\u00a0O influences a signature for the better, and despite its modest effect it is\u00a0no zero in the equasion : on line thirteen, 110 makes the difference\u00a0between William Shakespeare and \u2018Francis\u2019. And the reversed F-signature\u00a0on line eight, quite interestingly, reverses the difference between \u2018William\u2019\u00a0and \u2018Shakespeare\u2019 in line one.<\/p>\n

If this logic does not convince, no logic ever will. And because the logic\u00a0includes a link to Bacon\u2019s Kay-cypher, the signature in the index numbers\u00a0for the sonnets in The Passionate Pilgrim<\/i> has to be accepted as possibly\u00a0intentional.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t tell the Baconians. They are better served by a payback in their own\u00a0coinage : the modest presence of Bacon signature amongst a host of\u00a0Shakespeares, strongly suggests a co-operation in which Bacon restricted\u00a0himself to sketching outlines only. Leaving the actual words to the expert.\u00a0And if Bacon seems to declare himself unable to write a proper play or\u00a0sonnet, one is fully entitled to question his authorship of the Essays.<\/i><\/p>\n

In consequence the revised Bacon theory predicts the existence of\u00a0intentional Shakespeare signatures in any randomly picked essay. And if\u00a0this prediction proves correct, the theory proves correct. Just my luck\u00a0then, to have a gift for picking the one sample that is nobody\u2019s random\u00a0choice.<\/p>\n

—<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

to next chapter<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Due to a barrage of spam, the comment option had to be disabled.<\/p>\n

Serious reply\u2019s will be copied to this page from the link below<\/p>\n

enter a comment<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sonnet 146 reconstructed \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0back to From Longlist to Shortlist — contesting without contest The two … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":1043,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1045"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1045"}],"version-history":[{"count":24,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1045\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1643,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1045\/revisions\/1643"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1043"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}