Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.puzzles > #27627 > unrolled thread

Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle

Back to article view | Back to rec.puzzles

Contents

  Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-02 06:20 +0000
    Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-03 07:52 +0000
      Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-03 12:28 +0000
        Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-03 18:45 +0000
        Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-05 04:02 +0000
          Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-05 06:03 +0000
    Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> - 2026-03-03 15:16 -0500
      Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-04 05:15 +0000
        Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> - 2026-03-04 17:48 -0500
          Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-05 03:54 +0000
    Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-12 19:22 +0000
      Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-13 05:35 +0000
      Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-25 11:19 +0000
        Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2026-05-19 18:23 +0300
          Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-19 17:56 +0000
          "Instigate to poison"  (Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle) James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-30 08:35 +0000

#27627 — Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle

My previous thread was about compaction codes, but a completely
different kind of "codes" is secret messages.  Nowadays high-tech
methods are used to conceal messages, but in older days messages
were concealed by hand.

In military and political codes, sender and receiver each knew the
decoding method.  But more interesting may be codes a sender devised,
where the only "receivers" were those with the talent to guess the method.

Such codes had a range of difficulties.  Sometimes the sender was almost
certain that nobody could decode his message.  At the other extreme, poets
might include a "hidden message" they hoped every reader would see.
What is the trivial "hidden message" in this poem by Edgar Allan Poe?

Edgar Allan Poe wrote:
> Elizabeth it is in vain you say
> "Love not" — thou sayest it in so sweet a way:
> In vain those words from thee or L. E. L.
> Zantippe's talents had enforced so well:
> Ah! if that language from thy heart arise,
> Breathe it less gently forth — and veil thine eyes.
> Endymion, recollect, when Luna tried
> To cure his love — was cured of all beside —
> His folly — pride — and passion — for he died.

Anagrams are one popular way to encrypt messages.  Shortish anagrams may be
deciphered with difficulty, but it is almost impossible to decipher
long anagrams.  Here's a famous example of such a too-long anagram:

Galileo Galilei wrote:
> Haec immatura a me iam frustra leguntur o.y.
Which has the anagram
> Cynthiae figuras aemulatur mater amorum

These two Latin sentences translate respectively to
> I am now bringing these unripe things together in vain, Oy!
>
> The mother of love [Venus] copies the forms of Cynthia [the Moon]."

Historical background:
Copernicus published *De revolutionibus orbium coelestium* posthumously
but his model wasn't widely accepted and had important flaws.
Galileo and Kepler were effectively in a race to publish proofs of
heliocentrism.  Galileo realized the Venus had phases similar to the
phases of the Moon, and that these phases were incompatible with the
ancient Ptolemaic model.

But Galileo needed more observations to confirm his idea.
Today an inventor who wanted to prove priority might mail a sealed letter to
his lawyer with the postmark eventually proving priority.
Instead Galileo sent the anagram to Kepler!  When he was ready to publish,
he also provided the decryption of that anagram.

Anagrams and other simple encryptions may have been popular off and on
in the past (though not anymore I think).  Before presenting a few
encryptions which are the subject of this thread, let me mention one
common approach.

Some months ago I posted spoilers in this newsgroup using a Skip Cipher:
The message comprised the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th (etc.) letters of the
plain-text.  For example
> noW is The TimE foR alL goOd mEn tO coMe tO thE aiD of TheIr pArtY.
The "secret message" is WTTERLOEOMOEDTIAY -- gibberish, because there
was no secret message.  It takes time and effort to devise an encryption
where the plaintext actually looks like an "innocent letter."

I was disappointed that nobody here recognized the skip ciphers: further
proof that these fun encryption methods are no longer in use.

The 3,3,3,3,3,3,...skip cipher is easy to solve, for someone expecting
such a cipher.  More challenging is a skip cipher using intervals like
3,4,7,3,4,7,3,4,7,3,4,7,3,4,7,...  When such a cipher is used, the
plaintext may contain a cryptic clue to the "3-4-7" key.

Here's an example I constructed just now.  Anyone want to try it?
James devised:
> Isn't our beauty most plain to see?
> Ah, we can rejoice much in a nest. -- Aprl 3rd.
Hints:
(1) Delete all spaces and punctuation before solving
(2) This is a 2-period skip cipher (not 3-period like "3-4-7").

Unlike an Acrostic (poet hopes EVERYONE sees the message) or Galileo's
anagram (he assumed NOBODY would solve it until he produced the solution
himself), skip ciphers may be used playfully.  The writer HOPES that a
select few will get the secret message, but will keep it secret.
In some cases (including MY composition above!) the message is concealed
for plausible deniability!  When the storm troopers come pounding on
my door accusing me of treason, I'll say "Gee whiz, officers.  It's
just a coincidence that my paragraph unscrambles like that.  I'm sure it
could unscramble in other ways as well."

I've spent over an hour on this and haven't even attended to my
morning ablutions.  I'll introduce the "Authorship Puzzle" later this week.

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#27628

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:

My previous post was so long-winded perhaps nobody noticed the puzzle
presented for solution!

Recall that in a "3-4-7" skip cipher, the secret message is extracted
by taking the letters at positions
     3, 3+4, 3+4+7, 3+4+7+3, 3+4+7+3+4, 3+4+7+3+4+7, ...
in the plain text.

> Here's an example I constructed just now.  Can anyone find the secret
> message embedded with a skip cipher?

> > Isn't our beauty most plain to see?
> > Ah, we can rejoice much in a nest. -- Aprl 3rd.

> Hints:
> (1) Delete all spaces and punctuation before solving.
> (2) This is a 2-period skip cipher (not 3-period like "3-4-7").
You'll want to guess the skip parameters.  They're hinted in the plaintext.

This puzzle was intended as a prelude to an interesting and "important"
historical puzzle, for which one clue is a document which allegedly
contains embedded messages in skip cipher.  But I won't bother further
if there's no interest in this "warm-up" exercise.


Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27629

On 03/03/2026 07:52, James Dow Allen wrote:
> 
> James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
> 
> My previous post was so long-winded perhaps nobody noticed the puzzle
> presented for solution!
> 
> Recall that in a "3-4-7" skip cipher, the secret message is extracted
> by taking the letters at positions
>       3, 3+4, 3+4+7, 3+4+7+3, 3+4+7+3+4, 3+4+7+3+4+7, ...
> in the plain text.
> 
>> Here's an example I constructed just now.  Can anyone find the secret
>> message embedded with a skip cipher?
> 
>>> Isn't our beauty most plain to see?
>>> Ah, we can rejoice much in a nest. -- Aprl 3rd.
> 
>> Hints:
>> (1) Delete all spaces and punctuation before solving.
>> (2) This is a 2-period skip cipher (not 3-period like "3-4-7").
> You'll want to guess the skip parameters.  They're hinted in the plaintext.
> 
> This puzzle was intended as a prelude to an interesting and "important"
> historical puzzle, for which one clue is a document which allegedly
> contains embedded messages in skip cipher.  But I won't bother further
> if there's no interest in this "warm-up" exercise.
> 


Yes, he is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27630

Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> posted:

> On 03/03/2026 07:52, James Dow Allen wrote:
> > 
> > James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
> >> Here's an example I constructed just now.  Can anyone find the secret
> >> message embedded with a skip cipher?
> > 
> >>> Isn't our beauty most plain to see?
> >>> Ah, we can rejoice much in a nest. -- Aprl 3rd.
> > 
> >> Hints:
> >> (1) Delete all spaces and punctuation before solving.
> >> (2) This is a 2-period skip cipher (not 3-period like "3-4-7").
> > You'll want to guess the skip parameters.  They're hinted in the plaintext.
> > 
> > This puzzle was intended as a prelude to an interesting and "important"
> > historical puzzle, for which one clue is a document which allegedly
> > contains embedded messages in skip cipher.  But I won't bother further
> > if there's no interest in this "warm-up" exercise.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is.

Thank you, Mr. Harnden !

I'm easy to please: Two more successful decipherers and I'll post
a follow-up on how skip ciphers might help resolve an authorship puzzle.

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27635

Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> posted:

> On 03/03/2026 07:52, James Dow Allen wrote:
> > 
> > James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
> >> Here's an example I constructed just now.  Can anyone find the secret
> >> message embedded with a skip cipher?
> > 
> >>> Isn't our beauty most plain to see?
> >>> Ah, we can rejoice much in a nest. -- Aprl 3rd.
> > 
> >> Hints:
> >> (1) Delete all spaces and punctuation before solving.
> >> (2) This is a 2-period skip cipher (not 3-period like "3-4-7").
> > You'll want to guess the skip parameters.  They're hinted in the plaintext.
> > 
> > This puzzle was intended as a prelude to an interesting and "important"
> > historical puzzle, for which one clue is a document which allegedly
> > contains embedded messages in skip cipher.  But I won't bother further
> > if there's no interest in this "warm-up" exercise.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is.


Thanks again, Richard!  I am disappointed that only you took the time to
solve this simple 2-period skip cipher. I think it's pointless for me to
pursue my intended project: Presenting the alleged skip ciphers in a
famous document and asking if there are real hidden messages, or just
coincidences.

sci.crypt is still an active group; perhaps it would be a better venue.
But I am a stranger there and shy:  I've felt more welcome in R.p where
I first posted about 40 years ago.

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27636

On 05/03/2026 04:02, James Dow Allen wrote:
> 
> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> posted:
> 
>> On 03/03/2026 07:52, James Dow Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
>>>> Here's an example I constructed just now.  Can anyone find the secret
>>>> message embedded with a skip cipher?
>>>
>>>>> Isn't our beauty most plain to see?
>>>>> Ah, we can rejoice much in a nest. -- Aprl 3rd.
>>>
>>>> Hints:
>>>> (1) Delete all spaces and punctuation before solving.
>>>> (2) This is a 2-period skip cipher (not 3-period like "3-4-7").
>>> You'll want to guess the skip parameters.  They're hinted in the plaintext.
>>>
>>> This puzzle was intended as a prelude to an interesting and "important"
>>> historical puzzle, for which one clue is a document which allegedly
>>> contains embedded messages in skip cipher.  But I won't bother further
>>> if there's no interest in this "warm-up" exercise.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, he is.
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Richard!  I am disappointed that only you took the time to
> solve this simple 2-period skip cipher. 

I doubt it was just me.

> I think it's pointless for me to
> pursue my intended project: Presenting the alleged skip ciphers in a
> famous document and asking if there are real hidden messages, or just
> coincidences.

Post it anyway, please ... maybe a harder puzzle will get more traction.
It's not like rec.puzzles is overwhelmed.

And, if you've done the work already, it'd be a shame to waste it.

> 
> sci.crypt is still an active group; perhaps it would be a better venue.
> But I am a stranger there and shy:  I've felt more welcome in R.p where
> I first posted about 40 years ago.

I think sci.crypt and rec.puzzles have a fair amount of overlap, but 
this probably belongs in r.p

Cheers,
Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27631

On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 06:20:28 GMT, James Dow Allen
<user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

>

>But G
>Some months ago I posted spoilers in this newsgroup using a Skip Cipher:
>The message comprised the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th (etc.) letters of the
>plain-text.  For example
>> noW is The TimE foR alL goOd mEn tO coMe tO thE aiD of TheIr pArtY.
>The "secret message" is WTTERLOEOMOEDTIAY -- gibberish, because there
>was no secret message.  It takes time and effort to devise an encryption
>where the plaintext actually looks like an "innocent letter."

I am sure you have come across something similar, but with skipped
lines. The one I saw circulated quite a bit about 30 years back. It is
a recommendation letter written by a prof for one of his students
and read as it is, is full of praise, lauding the student for many 
things. But if you skip the even numbered lines the message is 
just the opposite! 

Perhaps someone here has something along these lines that they
can share.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27632

Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> posted:
> I am sure you have come across something similar, but with skipped
> lines. The one I saw circulated quite a bit about 30 years back. It is
> a recommendation letter written by a prof for one of his students
> and read as it is, is full of praise, lauding the student for many 
> things. But if you skip the even numbered lines the message is 
> just the opposite! 


I often let ChatGPT do the work for me.  Sometimes it succeeds;
often it fails miserably.  In this task it failed miserably.  Each 2nd
line must be ambiguous, flipping meaning depending on the preceding line.
It seems ChatGPT was totally unable to do that.  It closed its initial
mediocre response with

> That version is pure linguistic origami, folding praise into poison. 📝🗡️
> There are many variations floating around, often treated as office folklore
> or a party trick for English majors. It’s less a historical document than
> a genre of mischievous composition.
>
> If you’d like, I can construct an especially baroque one on a topic
> of your choosing, complete with verbal trapdoors.

I replied
> Yes, please do so. Make it a "recommendation" for President of the u.S.A.

Here is ChatGPT's "original" composition:
> To the Members of the Electoral College:
>
> I write in enthusiastic support of this candidate for President of the United States.
> It would be difficult to overstate my reservations about his fitness for executive office.
> He possesses a tireless energy and an unmistakable talent for commanding attention.
> His understanding of constitutional limits is, at best, interpretive performance art.
> He speaks with conviction about national renewal and shared prosperity.
> Precision and accuracy do not detain him for long.
> He inspires fierce loyalty among supporters across the country.
> He has shown a remarkable ability to divide a room in under thirty seconds.
> He approaches complex problems with boldness and creativity.
> Details, however, often approach him alone and unescorted.
> He assures us that he values transparency and accountability.
> Experience suggests those values are most visible in others.
> He promises to surround himself with the finest people available.
> Turnover may ensure we meet them all, briefly.
> He maintains that he listens carefully to expert counsel.
> Whether counsel survives the listening is another matter.
> He insists that history will remember his leadership fondly.
> History has a longer memory than campaign season.
>
> For these reasons, I offer my strongest recommendation.
>
> Respectfully submitted.

The even-numbered lines remained derogatory with or without the
odd-line antecedent.

The bot closed its remark with this:
> Politics is a hall of mirrors. Sometimes the reflection depends
> on which pane you look through.

 - - - - - - - - - 

Let me relate my most interesting encounter with ChatGPT.  I asked it for
data on Treasury debt issuance.  It gave me laborious instructions on
downloading data and running it through Excel.
I complained:
> You repeat "You can download this and aggregate by year and maturity bucket."
> I thought this was the sort of task that YOU were good at!

And the Bot responded by actually doing that work for me, first writing
> Fair rebuke taken. You are right. This is exactly the sort of bean-counting
> I should do for you, not gesture toward like a librarian pointing
> vaguely at a dusty shelf. Let’s put numbers on the table. 🧮📜

(Whether the numbers Chat then provided were correct or not, I don't know.
I've seen the bots fail at arithmetic problems embedded in confusable words.)

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

Slightly similar to the recommendation letters Charlie Roberts writes
about are *palindromic poems*.  IIRC I was first introduced to these
several decades ago in this very newsgroup.

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27633

On Wed, 04 Mar 2026 05:15:09 GMT, James Dow Allen
<user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

>
>Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> posted:
>> I am sure you have come across something similar, but with skipped
>> lines. The one I saw circulated quite a bit about 30 years back. It is
>> a recommendation letter written by a prof for one of his students
>> and read as it is, is full of praise, lauding the student for many 
>> things. But if you skip the even numbered lines the message is 
>> just the opposite! 
>
>
>I often let ChatGPT do the work for me.  Sometimes it succeeds;
>often it fails miserably.  In this task it failed miserably.  Each 2nd
>line must be ambiguous, flipping meaning depending on the preceding line.
>It seems ChatGPT was totally unable to do that.  It closed its initial
>mediocre response with
>
>> That version is pure linguistic origami, folding praise into poison. ???
>> There are many variations floating around, often treated as office folklore
>> or a party trick for English majors. It’s less a historical document than
>> a genre of mischievous composition.
>>
>> If you’d like, I can construct an especially baroque one on a topic
>> of your choosing, complete with verbal trapdoors.
>
>I replied
>> Yes, please do so. Make it a "recommendation" for President of the u.S.A.
>
>Here is ChatGPT's "original" composition:
>> To the Members of the Electoral College:
>>
>> I write in enthusiastic support of this candidate for President of the United States.
>> It would be difficult to overstate my reservations about his fitness for executive office.
>> He possesses a tireless energy and an unmistakable talent for commanding attention.
>>  ...[snipped for brevity]
>>
>> For these reasons, I offer my strongest recommendation.
>>
>> Respectfully submitted.
>
>The even-numbered lines remained derogatory with or without the
>odd-line antecedent.
> ....
>Slightly similar to the recommendation letters Charlie Roberts writes
>about are *palindromic poems*.  IIRC I was first introduced to these
>several decades ago in this very newsgroup.

"Slightly" is the operative word. The joke that was circulated about
30 years back was beautifully composed in that sentences were 
on more than one line and so the wording and the line breaks
had to be very carefully thought out. It was a masterpiece and I
regret not keeping it.

Googling does not dig it up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27634

Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> posted:

> On Wed, 04 Mar 2026 05:15:09 GMT, James Dow Allen
> <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> >Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> posted:
> >> I am sure you have come across something similar, but with skipped
> >> lines. The one I saw circulated quite a bit about 30 years back. It is
> >> a recommendation letter written by a prof for one of his students
> >> and read as it is, is full of praise, lauding the student for many 
> >> things. But if you skip the even numbered lines the message is 
> >> just the opposite! 
> >
> >
> >I often let ChatGPT do the work for me.  Sometimes it succeeds;
> >often it fails miserably.  In this task it failed miserably.

So I tried DeepSeek.  Its response resembled a hyperactive but untalented
seven-year-old who thinks it should be promoted to study with the 12-year-olds.

ChatGPT once asked me what personality it should present and I selected
"quirky and whimsical" or such.  So I have only myself to blame when it gets
fresh!  :-)  But DeepSeek never asked -- it gives me "pretentious moronic
blowhard" for free.

> >
> >Slightly similar to the recommendation letters Charlie Roberts writes
> >about are *palindromic poems*.  IIRC I was first introduced to these
> >several decades ago in this very newsgroup.

Here's a good "Line Palindrome":
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27650

I may as well show where this thread was headed.

I've been interested in the mysteries of ancient history for a
while.  The craft of the historian is to determine what is LIKELY;
in other words it is an exercise in PROBABILITY, though the
probability is usually close to 1% or close to 99%.  Rather than arithmetic,
estimating probabilities is more a matter of clear thought and common-sense.

For the Authorship Puzzle,  if we ignore ALL alleged skip ciphers and
ignore ALL alleged anagrams  and ignore ALL cryptic hints from contemporaneous
documents, the evidence would STILL point very strongly to Edward de Vere being
the author of Shakespeare's works.

But it is still interesting to guess whether the alleged skip ciphers
and anagrams are deliberate, or just arise by chance.  Littlewood's Law
is good to keep in mind:
* A person will encounter a million-to-one coincidence about once a year.
* A person will encounter a billion-to-one coincidence about once a lifetime.
* A person will encounter a thousand-to-one coincidence about once an hour.

A relevant 5-letter clue in a skip cipher might arise 10^-3 by chance,
but 10^-6 for TWO such encodings in the same document.  And often the
plain-text will have oddities if it's used as a cipher -- this affects
the assessment of probability.

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
> Here's an example of a skip cipher I constructed just now.
> Anyone want to try it?
> James devised:
> > Isn't our beauty most plain to see?
> > Ah, we can rejoice much in a nest. -- Aprl 3rd.
> Hints:
> (1) Delete all spaces and punctuation before solving
> (2) This is a 2-period skip cipher (not 3-period like "3-4-7").

The two periods are 4,3 as hinted by "Aprl 3rd".  April is the 4th month and
has 4 letters. 3rd contains "3" and 3 letters.  Misspelling of April
should be a hint that cipher is intended.
> 
> ... skip ciphers may be used playfully.  The writer HOPES that a
> select few will get the secret message, but will keep it secret.

I'm posting now because a recent post in r.p "spilled a punchline",
that the author of *Shake-speare's Sonnets* was referred to as
"Our ever-living poet."  The dedication page of that book is shown as
an image at https://james.fabpedigree.com/pics/tto1.jpg
and here it is as text:


TO.THE.ONLiE.BEGETTER.OF.
 THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
 Mr.W.H.ALL.HAPPINESSE.
  AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
       PROMISED.
          BY.
 OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
       WISHETH.
  THE.WELL-WISHING.
    ADVENTVRER.IN.
       SETTING.
        FORTH.
                 T.T.

(As I view this in the newsgrouper  editor, the 12 lines of the dedication
appear center-aligned.  Let me know how it renders in your environments.)

There are several oddities about this text, which allegedly contains
THREE (3) separate skip-ciphers!  In the (unlikely?) event that there really
are three distinct skip ciphers operating in this text, we should offer kudos
to the composer!

The spelling of "only" and"onlie"
is one oddity.  That word occurs 5 times in the Sonnets, twice spelled "only",
thrice "onely" and NEVER as "onlie."  ("Onelie" was also a common spelling
supposedly 400+ years ago when this dedication was written.

The dots after every word, perhaps to remove ambiguity if we're skipping
words instead of letters in the cipher, are also an oddity.  In the image URL
above you can change the '1' to '2' or '3' to see other dedications by
T.T. to see that these oddities are atypical for him.

* How many individuals are mentioned on the dedication page?

* What are the 3 periods (implied by the vertical spacing) of the word-skip cipher?
  (Hint: The periods are clearly implied by the actual poet's name!!)

* Can you find the 5-letter name hidden in a skip-letter cipher with period 13?

I may say more if there's interest.

BUT please please PLEASE do NOT tell us what we already know: that
ChatBot, GrokBot and WikiBot will all insist that the "Authorship Mystery"
is all crackpottery!  Briefly
      Vg vf ABG penpxcbggrel
The LESS people know about the controversy and the relevant evidence,
the MORE eager they are to jump up and down whinging that it's all crackpottery.
Spare us, please.

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27652

This IS r.PUZZLES and the dedication just presented is full of puzzles.

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
> The dedication page of that book is shown as
> an image at https://james.fabpedigree.com/pics/tto1.jpg
> and here it is as text:
> 
> 
> TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
>  THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
>  Mr.W.H.ALL.HAPPINESSE.
>   AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
>        PROMISED.
>           BY.
>  OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
>        WISHETH.
>   THE.WELL-WISHING.
>     ADVENTVRER.IN.
>        SETTING.
>         FORTH.
>                  T.T.
> 
> (As I view this in the newsgrouper  editor, the 12 lines of the dedication
> appear center-aligned.  Let me know how it renders in your environments.)

Googling "Dedication of the Sonnets" or such might give you the text without
the spacing, and perhaps with the spelling of Onlie/Only "corrected."
But look at the actual spacing.  The vertical spacing is NOT done to
separate clauses -- (why does the 'BY' in 'BY ... POET' stand alone?).

PUZZLE:
WHAT explanation can you offer for the weird formatting?

(It is not sufficient to say T.T. (Thomas Thorpe) wrote weird dedications.
Yes, his dedications were flowery and sometimes cryptic:
            https://james.fabpedigree.com/pics/tto2.jpg
            https://james.fabpedigree.com/pics/tto3.jpg
but they were NOT like this one.)

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27679

Do NOT read this post.  It contains NO puzzles for the r.puzzlers.

Well; maybe one puzzle -- to wit, WHY is James composing a post of
no interest and indeed enjoining puzzlers not to waste their time?
I address that at the conclusion of this post.

A wide variety of puzzles intrigue me.  The Authorship puzzle has been
solved but it is still interesting to review the evidence.  And to ask WHY? --
Why do 99.3% of intelligent people reject the idea that there was an
authorship hoax, despite the amount and variety of evidence for that conclusion?

I think it's because the Hoax seems wildly unlikely:
* WHY would this great poet not advertise his true name?
* WHY did nobody reveal the hoax?

Ask Google Gemini such questions and you get four logical and common answers
(though Gemini phrases them poorly and in misleading fashion).  These are
indeed major reasons why noblemen writing plays -- and there were several --
always kept their identity secret.  BUT THERE WAS A SPECIAL REASON WHY
THE "SHAKESPEARE" HOAX HAD TO BE KEPT SECRET -- a reason that does not
appear in Gemini's summary.

Briefly, revealing the secret authorship would have been treason against
the person of Elizabetha Dei Gracia Angliae Regina etc. herself.
To understand this we must review the politics of Her Majesty's reign.

The Pope in Rome had not only excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, but had issued
a "fatwa" calling for her to be murderd.  At least one Jesuit assassin had
landed in England, with Catholics happy to offer him shelter,
with the intention of carrying out the Pope's order for her execution.

There was controversy about who would succeed the Virgin Queen: she was
the final Heir of Henry VIII. Would the throne pass to the heir of Henry's
younger sister Mary, as Henry and Parliament had ordered?  Or would the
Crown follow tradition and pass to the heir of Henry's older sister Margaret?
Elizabeth herself had made it illegal to speculate on the succession!
Whichever faction was declared legitimate would have an incentive to
cooperate with any rebellion or assassination attempt against the Queen.

And of course there were still hard feelings against Henry VII, who had
usurped the throne from the legitimate Yorkist dynasty and imposed a tyranny,
making the country's treasury his personal possession.

Elizabeth had two renowned Machiavellian advisors -- William Cecil and Francis
Walsingham -- but she herself was cunning enough to understand the need for
propaganda.  Backing by the English people was absolutely essential to her reign.
She wanted her people to take pride in their Country, to have respect for the
institution of Monarchy and, in particular, respect for the Tudor dynasty.
Media in those days was far different from today's.  Books were very
expensive and most of the English were illiterate.  The theater was the
obvious and essential way to spread propaganda; under Elizabeth the theaters
gained huge appeal and power.

The first four plays written by "Shakespeare', according to most traditional
scholars, were the Henry VI trilogy and Richard III.
These plays extol the Lancaster Kings, whose claim Henry VII represented.
Richard III in particular treats the last Yorkist King as a villain,
from whom Henry VII saves the country.  This view still resonates although
modern historians have a different view.

Shakespeare was most loved for his comedies and tragedies; does it seem odd
that his first four plays were histories?  It would not be odd if he
were commissioned by the Queen to produce propaganda.  This idea -- that such
plays were commissioned b the Queen for propaganda purposes -- has been
around for centuries.

If it became general knowledge that the propaganda plays were written
by a court insider, by the long-time protégé of Her Majesty, their
value as propaganda would have been reversed.  It was essential to maintain
a pretense that the plays were written by a random commoner.

And Edward de Vere (who was effectively bankrupt) was paid a salary of
1000 pounds per year for an "office." There are clear inferences that this
was a salary for services rendered rather than a gift to help him restore
his noble status. (A thousand pounds was a very high salary;
the only other person with an annual royal stipend of that size
was James VI King of Scots, whose mother Elizabeth had beheaded.)

Dozens of contemporaries must have been aware of the authorship secret.
But they would have had no incentive to reveal it; it would have been
extreme discourtesy to de Vere and his family, and many would have understood
it to be treason against Her Majesty.

There were, however, cryptic allusions to the true authorship: various
people enjoying the "imp of the perverse."

It is worth recalling the following:

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
> if we ignore ALL alleged skip ciphers and
> ignore ALL alleged anagrams  and ignore ALL cryptic hints from contemporaneous
> documents, the evidence would STILL point very strongly to Edward de Vere being
> the author of Shakespeare's works.

I was disappointed that nobody was paying enough attention to catch the "typo"
in the following:
 
> But it is still interesting to guess whether the alleged skip ciphers
> and anagrams are deliberate, or just arise by chance.  Littlewood's Law
> is good to keep in mind:
> * A person will encounter a million-to-one coincidence about once a year.
> * A person will encounter a billion-to-one coincidence about once a lifetime.
> * A person will encounter a thousand-to-one coincidence about once an hour.

Obviously the three durations should be in approximate 1000:1000000:1 ratio.
But due to a "typo" they aren't.  Littlewood's Law states
> * A person will encounter a million-to-one coincidence about once a MONTH.

There are several interesting writings that point to de Vere's authorship.
So far I've only mentioned this one:
> 
> TO.THE.ONLiE.BEGETTER.OF.
>  THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
>  Mr.W.H.ALL.HAPPINESSE.
>   AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
>        PROMISED.
>           BY.
>  OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
>        WISHETH.
>   THE.WELL-WISHING.
>     ADVENTVRER.IN.
>        SETTING.
>         FORTH.
>                  T.T.
> 
> There are several oddities about this text, which allegedly contains
> THREE (3) separate skip-ciphers!  In the (unlikely?) event that there really
> are three distinct skip ciphers operating in this text, we should offer kudos
> to the composer!

Contained, via skip ciphers, in this text is a sentence which points
directly to the Sonnet's actual author, as well as the complete 16-letter name
of the key person implied in the dedication.

> 
> The spelling of "only" and"onlie"
> is one oddity.  That word occurs 5 times in the Sonnets, twice spelled "only",
> thrice "onely" and NEVER as "onlie."  ("Onelie" was also a common spelling
> supposedly 400+ years ago when this dedication was written.
> 
> The dots after every word, perhaps to remove ambiguity if we're skipping
> words instead of letters in the cipher, are also an oddity.  In the image URL
> above you can change the '1' to '2' or '3' to see other dedications by
> T.T. to see that these oddities are atypical for him.

* How many individuals are mentioned on the dedication page?
> 
* What are the 3 periods (implied by the vertical spacing) of the word-skip cipher?
>   (Hint: The periods are clearly implied by the actual poet's name!!)
> 
* Can you find the 5-letter name hidden in a skip-letter cipher with period 13?


Finally:  an explanation of why I post this here with nobody to enjoy the information:

In the 1971 film Harold and Maude, Maude throws the small gift Harold has just
given her into a lake so she'll "always know where it is!"
I enjoy writing, but rather than hiding this short essay in a
soon-forgotten subfolder or printing it and adding the page to a heap of
unsortable scrap, I place it here, in the Usenet archive, so that
I'll "always know where it is."


With friendly valedictions, I remain your humble informant,
J.D. Allen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27821

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes:
> Do NOT read this post.  It contains NO puzzles for the r.puzzlers.

However, it leaves me puzzled.

> Briefly, revealing the secret authorship would have been treason against
> the person of Elizabetha Dei Gracia Angliae Regina etc. herself.
> To understand this we must review the politics of Her Majesty's reign.
>
> The Pope in Rome had not only excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, but had issued
> a "fatwa" calling for her to be murderd.

[Citation needed]

"Section 3: [...] we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power
declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favorer of heretics,
and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence
of anathema and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ."

Not regicide, just excommunication.

"Section 4. And moreover, we declare her to be deprived of her pretended
title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity and
privilege whatsoever;"

Again, not regicide.

"Section 6: [...] We charge and command all and singular the nobles,
subjects, peoples and others aforesaid that they do not dare obey her
orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we
include in the like sentence of excommunication."

Reinforcement that the above isn't regicide, mere excommunication.

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/PapalBull1570_M/index.html

Phil
-- 
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27824

I'm delighted that someone resurrected this thread, despite
that the new post did not address the intriguing puzzles.

Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> posted:

> James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes:
> > Briefly, revealing the secret authorship would have been treason against
> > the person of Elizabetha Dei Gracia Angliae Regina etc. herself.
> > To understand this we must review the politics of Her Majesty's reign.
> >
> > The Pope in Rome had not only excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, but had issued
> > a "fatwa" calling for her to be murdered.
> 
> [Citation needed]
> 
> "Section 3: [...] we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power
> declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favorer of heretics,
> and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence
> of anathema and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ."
> 
> Not regicide, just excommunication.
> 
> "Section 4. And moreover, we declare her to be deprived of her pretended
> title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity and
> privilege whatsoever;"
> 
> Again, not regicide.
> 
> "Section 6: [...] We charge and command all and singular the nobles,
> subjects, peoples and others aforesaid that they do not dare obey her
> orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we
> include in the like sentence of excommunication."
> 
> Reinforcement that the above isn't regicide, mere excommunication.
> 
> https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/PapalBull1570_M/index.html
> 
> Phil

I am not a professional historian nor do I play one on TV.
If "fatwa" implies an official assassination order written on Vatican
stationery, then my comment may be an exaggeration.

However there appears to be a consensus that Popes at least condoned
and encouraged attempts on Her Majesty's life.

The remainder of this post was copy-pasted from Google's top hits.

In 1570, Pope Pius V issued the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis,
which excommunicated Elizabeth I and effectively gave Catholics
permission to assassinate her. For the Papacy and zealous Catholics,
removing an illegitimate, excommunicated "heretic" queen was viewed
as a holy imperative.

  The Ridolfi Plot (1571): Pope Pius V actively supported a conspiracy
to assassinate Elizabeth, intending to replace her with the Catholic Mary,
Queen of Scots.

The Babington Plot (1586): Pope Sixtus V provided financial and moral backing
for this infamous conspiracy, which also aimed to assassinate Elizabeth and
place Mary on the English throne.

--------
James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28054 — "Instigate to poison" (Re: Cryptic Clues to the Authorship Puzzle)

Some months ago I attempted a thread on the very PUZZLING
Authorship Mystery.  Assessing probabilities to determine whether
decodings are intentional or chance coincidence seemed like a good task
for r.puzzlers.

I was disappointed to get almost only a single response. And that was on
a tangential topic.

There were more than a million Catholics in England during the reign of
Elizabeth.  Some of these were eager to replace the Protestant Queen with
a Catholic. Ending the life of Elizabeth was an essential feature of such
plots. The Vatican certainly understood this and was implicitly calling
for HM's assassination.  I erred by suggesting this was EXPLICIT.

But just now I came across an interesting letter from an English spy in Italy.

(It is wonderful how much documentation survives from 16th-century England.
In some ways information may exceed what we know of America in more
recent centuries.  Original text of the interesting letter, excerpted in
Hutchinson's bio of Francis Walsingham, appears to be  behind paywall(s).)
  
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> posted:
> James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes:
> > Do NOT read this post.  It contains NO puzzles for the r.puzzlers.
> 
> However, it leaves me puzzled.
> 
> > Briefly, revealing the secret authorship would have been treason against
> > the person of Elizabetha Dei Gracia Angliae Regina etc. herself.
> > To understand this we must review the politics of Her Majesty's reign.
> >
> > The Pope in Rome had not only excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, but had issued
> > a "fatwa" calling for her to be murderd.
> 
> [Citation needed]

See below.

> 
> "Section 3: [...] we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power
> declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favorer of heretics,
> and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence
> of anathema and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ."
> 
> Not regicide, just excommunication.
> 
> "Section 4. And moreover, we declare her to be deprived of her pretended
> title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity and
> privilege whatsoever;"
> 
> Again, not regicide.
> 
> "Section 6: [...] We charge and command all and singular the nobles,
> subjects, peoples and others aforesaid that they do not dare obey her
> orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we
> include in the like sentence of excommunication."
> 
> Reinforcement that the above isn't regicide, mere excommunication.
> 
> https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/PapalBull1570_M/index.html
> 
> Phil

In a letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, Stephen Paule wrote
>> [Michael Giraldi, a Begomase,] has set sail for England,  pretending to be a merchant.
>> It is thought that for several reasons, [he is] to poison her majesty at the instigation
>> of the Pope [Sixtus V].  The Pope, under pretence of supporting the war against
>> the heretics and for performing some great enterprise, has enriched himself exceedingly.

Not proof beyond reasonable doubt that Sixtus V encouraged murder, but clear evidence that
papal auspices for such murder were assumed by contemporary Italian gossip.

Cheers,
James

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | rec.puzzles

csiph-web