William Shakespeare’s – sonnet 67 is his only sonnet describing a painting – the ‘sitters’ in the “Tower of London Portrait” by John de Critz (Sergeant painter to King James 1st of England) are ‘Henry Wriothesley’ 3rd Earl of Southampton and his cat ‘TRIXIE’. The paintings ‘black & white’ ethos along with the elaborate symbolism of the inscription and the book on the shelf are all explained herein.
Sadly, the painting depicts a prince incestuously begotten, in fact the very reason (S.67) was chosen to describe it, is because our great author was the proud father (most probably against his better instincts) who incestuously sired the sitter, he was also the architect (staging manager) setting scene and composition (cunningly contriving its elaborate symbolism) which we shall come to look at, while it must be mentioned – there is no sonnet more VVriothesley-centric than sonnet 67 by William Shakespeare where within 14 lines the pronoun he/his appears 11 times.
Interestingly, (proving my point) in terms of simple Hebrew gematria in conjunction with the Elizabethan alphabet we find the word – INCEST – converts to number ‘67’, precisely why our author selected sonnet 67 to describe it.
Gematria is a code where individual letters are ascribed a numerical value, a system which rather obviously also gives all words a numerical summation. Naturally, all Shakespearean gematrical equations must be considered in conjunction with the Elizabethan alphabet.
The first English-language writing manual by Jehan de Beau-Chesne and John Baildon wasn’t published until 1570, officially it had only 23 letters, excluding the three modern day letters ‘J’, ‘U’ & ‘W’.
The following transcription represents a simple encoding.
A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, E = 5, F = 6, G = 7, H = 8, I = 9, K = 10, L = 11, M = 12, N = 13, O = 14, P = 15, Q = 16, R = 17, S = 18, T = 19, V = 20, X = 21, Y = 22, Z = 23.
Therefore employing gematria the word – INCEST – converts the following way:
I = 9, N = 13, C = 3, E = 5, S = 18, T = 19 …. Numbers totalling ‘67’.
The portrait of Henry VVriothesley and his cat TRIXIE in the Tower of London is subversive in the sense it commemorates the life of ‘Robert Devereux 2nd Earl of Essex’, who with VVriothesley were together convicted of High treason on the 19th February 1601, while it was only Essex executed a week later. Importantly, due to the ‘coincidence’ these brothers-in-arms were convicted on day ‘XIX’ our great author cunningly conceived “The Essex/Christ allusion” – cleverly perceiving certain characteristics common to them both – thereby drawing our attention to the knowledge:
Both Christ & Essex were born of virgins
And both put to death for their beliefs.
While I shall come to relate, how across the Shakespeare cannon, representing ‘Sacred 3’ this allusion can be found three times (1) in line ‘XIX’ of his poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle” (2) in sonnet ‘XIX’ and (3) in Edmund/Edwards first soliloquy in “King Lear”.
(01) Ah, wherefore with infection should he live,
(02) And with his presence grace impiety,
(03) That sin by him advantage should achieve,
(04) And lace itself with his society?
(05) Why should false painting imitate his cheek,
(06) And steal dead seeing of his living hew,
(07) Why should poor beauty indirectly seek,
(08) Roses of shadow, since his Rose is true?
(09) Why should he live, now nature bankrupt is,
(10) Beggared of blood to blush through lively veins?
(11) For she hath no exchequer now but his,
(12) And proud of many, lives upon his gains.
(13) O, him she stores, to show what wealth she had,
(14) In days long since, before these last so bad.
(S.67) begins emphatically with the gematrical Godly invocation “Ah” = ‘IX’. VVriothesley by his own “sin” found himself banged up in the tower, where he lived with “infection” his divine presence forced to “grace impiety” (this an appropriate use of the word “grace” as the sitter was an illegitimate prince). Inmates took “advantage” lacing themselves to his heavenly “society”, while it is no coincidence the word “lace” appears in the fourth line – as we see the collar and cuffs of the sitter’s mourning-gown thus adorned.
Trying to gain support for the catastrophe that followed, Shakespeare’s play ‘Richard II’ was played at the ‘Globe Theatre’ deposition scene ‘n’ all – on the eve of the ‘Essex rebellion’, consequently – our great author felt partially responsible for the misdemeanours perpetrated by these two popular young princes ‘Essex & VVriothesley’, a grief lamented (using licit-language) in (S.35) where we find our author offering legal representation to the accused.
All men make faults and even I in this,
Authorizing thy trespass with compare ……
Thy adverse party is thy advocate –
And against myself a lawful plea commence.
Such civil war is in my love and hate
That I an accessory needs must be
To that sweet thief which sourly robs from me.
In terms of emotion – the painting is “false” (Line 5) because VVriothesley’s “cheek” is bereft of tears – as his heart is bereft of joy, what he feels is desolation, he has had to endured the execution of his own half-brother (and possible lover) ‘Essex’, not knowing whether or not his own life would end the same way – ravaged body & soul by the fear of execution – trauma causing serious illness and the possible cause we find his arm in a sling.
Henry VVriothesley sees, but what he sees is lifeless – everything is dead – this is the “dead seeing” of the living “hew”, his portrait lies, the artists vermilion merely imitates a sallow cheek, as cat and man stare out from the canvas in disbelief at the diabolical injustices meted out by the authorities.
One of the greatest imponderables of English history is why when both princes were convicted of high-treason it was only Essex executed – Well now! A greater part of the reason VVriothesley managed to escaped his death sentence was because our great author (emotionally distraught) prostrated himself before Queen Elizabeth and pleaded for his son’s life.
“But when she saw my woeful state,
Straight in her heart did mercy come” (S.145)
In almost all modern transcriptions the last word in line 6 is written as ‘hue’ a corruption of what is found in William Shakespeare’s – sonnet 67 ‘quarto’ where it appears as “hew” (as correctly presented above) a marsupial of the name Henry VVriothesley, an important fact adding substance to the truth (S.67) describes our naughty prince confined in the Tower of London. Irrespective of how the word ‘VVriothesley’ is pronounced, our author saw the word “Rose” and ‘VVriothesley’ synonymously, because “Rose” is a marsupial of the surname ‘VVriothesley’, while it should be stressed the word “Rose” is the very first word elevated this way in Shakespeare’s sonnet sequence, where found (italicised and starting with a capital letter) in line 2 of (S.1).
In terms of gematria the letter ‘R’ equates to number ‘17’, which we shall come to see as highly significant in respect of the authority of the painting and the reason the cat is illustriously named “TRIXIE”.
Hitherto, these sketches of mine – which loosely draw upon the subjects of ‘gematria’, ‘roses’ and ‘Sacred 3’, I will now neatly pull together to form a more defined tableau.
“Rose” converts gematrically to ‘54’ as: R = 17, O = 14, S = 18 & E = 5.
Not surprisingly then, we find sonnet ‘54’ by William Shakespeare about a “Rose”, but not any old “Rose”, it is of course – about his favourite “Rose” (H.W.) his son – his most important Tudor-Rose, ‘One’ he considers heir apparent to the throne, a point confirmed because representing ‘Sacred 3’ in (S.54) we find the word “Rose” embedded (three times) in lines 3, 6 & 11.
William Shakespeare uses various ‘Oxfordian-numerology’ when alluding to other members of his Royal family but for his mother Elizabeth he primarily uses the number ‘7’, simply because it is her date-of-creation (her day of birth 7th Sept. 1533). Her initial ‘E’ converts gematrically to number ‘5’ and it is significant that these two numbers together amount to ’12’ the date representing Oxford’s official birthday.
No surprise then, in line ‘7’ of (S.67) Elizabeth crops up as “poor beauty” our author using the word “beauty” (his very favourite allusion for her) an honorific frequently used by her subjects during her lifetime to describe her:
“Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
Roses of shadow, since his Rose is true”
These lines 7 & 8 are exceedingly informative – suddenly a Queen who seemingly has everything becomes “poor beauty” as she “indirectly” seeks “Roses of shadow”. The fact that she seeks “indirectly” – leading me to the implausible suggestion – it was her Majesty who commissioned the painting in the first place – a directorship subsequently commandeered by our great author who began to spin his elaborate web of symbolism & numerology over the canvas, something we shall eventually come to evaluate very closely.
This proposition of mine (that Elizabeth commissioned the painting) makes more sense when considering VVriothesley’s incapacity, for during his confinement in the tower – at one stage he was believed very close to death’s door. We should also recall that due to the high mortality rate of both mother and infant during childbirth that ‘pregnancy-portraiture’ was very much in vogue during Elizabethan times – such a picture exists (previously in the Royal collection at Hampton Court) sometimes known as the ‘Persian-Portrait’ – of Elizabeth carrying Francis Bacon. The obvious purpose of such portraiture – a keepsake of the sitters in the event of death, while we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact Wriothesley wrote to the Privy Council pleading his pardon and asking for mercy in respect of his crimes:
“My soul is heavy and troubled for my offences and I shall soon grow to detest myself if her Majesty refuse to have compassion of me”.
Therefore, if Elizabeth was responsible for commissioning the painting of Henry Wriothesley and his cat Trixie in the Tower of London – as a gesture – this easily could be seen as compassionate.
Now, part of the reason “beauty” became “poor” was because in a deathly power-struggle with her secretary-of-state (Robert Cecil) she had effectively seeded control to him, the very point on which the ridiculous ‘Essex rebellion’ was fought – and why during all its hurly-burly-turmoil ‘Essex & VVriothesley’ rode the streets of London crying at the top of their voices:
“For the Queen – for the Queen”.
Having said that, (remembering our great author ‘The Earl of Oxford’ wrote using hundreds of different pseudonyms – including Robert Chester) it is important to know his favourite allusions for Essex (appearing ‘XIX’ times in “Love’s Martyr”) are the words “Envy” or “Envious”, with the following a flavour of how he (very much a part of Elizabeth’s inner circle) saw the polka-dotted Virgin Queen – alluded to in the following stanza with the words: “Beauty” & “Faire-eyes”.
What is my Beauty but a fading flower?
Wherein men read their deep-conceived thrall,
Alluring twenty gallants in an hour,
To be as servile vassals to my call?
My sun-bred looks their senses do exhall:
But (Ô my grief) where my Faire-eyes would love,
Foul bleare-eyed Envie doth my thoughts reprove.
These words supposedly written by “Robert Chester” whose name is a play on the name of a city in ‘Kent’ on the river Medway called ‘Rochester’ (where nearby at “Gads Hill” our TRUE author’s very favourite true story took place) describes himself in “Love’s Martyr” the following disparaging way:
“The least and meanest in degree”.
Although, it is plain to see from translations undertaken in composition of the book, he is a polyglot who knows what a circumflex accent is – but:
“(Ô my grief)” what could this “Ô” possibly stand for?
The verse featured, also proves to my mind it was written by someone with intimate knowledge of the Queen’s inner sanctum, as the author is aware precisely where Elizabeth’s faire-eyes would love – she would love – and did love Essex. Robert Chester, with the words “sun-bred looks” also intrudes upon her spotless “Virgin” reputation, by alluding to the fact she had five illegitimate sons – Christened the following way: Edward, Francis, Robert, Arthur and Henry, a fact confirmed in line ‘14’ of his tell-tale extravaganza entitled “A NARRATION” found on page 173 ‘Q’ of “Love’s Martyr”, the poem that immediately follows “The Phoenix and the Turtle”.
‘14’ is significant because it is our author’s TRUE date-of-creation (the day he was born on) and one of seven numbers that predominate in this particular tale, this ‘Godox-cluster’ are: 3, 9, 19 + 12, 14, 17, & 26 numbers interestingly totalling ‘100’, while the heart of (S.100) speaks of “gentle numbers” (noble verses) while muses sing “lays” ethereal songs that waft on the breeze.
Return, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem,
In gentle numbers, time so idly spent;
Sing to the ear that doth thy lays esteem,
And gives thy pen both skill and argument.
Envy – was an expression of the disenfranchisement our author recognised in his half-brother Essex, empathising the understandable discontent he felt being an illegitimate prince, while naturally, Essex didn’t particularly wish the death of his own mother ‘the Queen’ he only wished to succeed her?
In this sense, history has failed to correctly translate – the “Essex Rebellion” was fought for the Queen – not against her! It was in fact Sir Robert Cecil and his cronies our popular young rebels wanted ousted – not their mother!
Elizabeth also became “poor” because following her son’s conviction – at the behest of her secretary – against her will – she was forced to sign a death warrant condemning him to death, an eventuality leaving her emotionally humiliated, and psychologically frail – at the point her life commenced its sad final last chapter, a period encompassed by the familial term found in line ‘7’ of (P&T): “feVer’s end”. Now, to further explain our author’s meaning in respect of the word “Rose”, recalled here is how (S.1) begins:
From fairest creatures we desire increase
That thereby beauties Rose might never die.
The first ‘17’ sonnets are commonly referred to as the procreation-sonnets in which our author (as Royal father) persistently encourages the ‘faire youth’ to make division of himself so he can provide a future heir to the throne, a point easily proved because in Shakespeare’s first known published poem “Venus & Adonis” which is dedicated to his son Henry VVriothesley we find the line:
“But if the ‘first Heire’ of my invention prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a God father … “
In the ‘Quarto’ – above the ‘S’ in the word “first” there appears a small crescent moon – an icon representing a ‘New-Moon’ because Henry VVriothesley’s TRUE date-of-creation was 20th May 1574 and if you search the astrological-charts for this particular day, they confirm he was born under a ‘New-Moon’. Therefore, the “first heire” of our author’s invention ‘Henry VVriothesley’ in terms of DNA was Tudor, and if Elizabeth had named him as her successor he could have become ‘King Henry IX’, which partly explains our author’s obsession with the Christian number ‘IX’.
Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
In sleep a King, but waking no such matter. (S.87)
Naturally, Edward de Vere – who wasn’t biologically related to the ‘de Vere’ family (his father ‘Lord Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour’ – his mother ‘Elizabeth’) dreaded the very thought – the Tudor dynasty might (as he saw it) prematurely end. The words “Beauty’s Rose” are an abbreviation for the Queen’s ‘Tudor Rose dynasty’, with the word “Rose” (as above) found capitalised and italicised in the quarto of (S.1). Due to decline, VVriothesley in the shadowy tower of London became a “shadow” of his former self (L.8). Elizabeth, having just lost a son (then exhibiting a new found care) in a gesture of compassion commissioned the painting hoping to show him in a rosy light (a living light). Meanwhile, our dissenting author (his biological father) stresses the point that in terms of Royal heritage VVriothesley’s (DNA) couldn’t possibly be any rosier (Royal) than it already was (as both his parents were Royal). If there was ‘One’ single fact, he was absolutely resolute about – it was his son’s Royalty! A fact we find expressed in line eight of the sonnet:
“His Rose is true”.
As earlier said, the androgynous Henry VVriothesley’s TRUE date-of-creation was 20th May 1574 – (S.20) commemorates this fact, while Elizabeth (nature) quite understandably having previously given birth to four males – wanted her final child to be a girl, so when eventually she clapped eyes on her “little love-God” all former expectations evaporated, for in that moment she became completely besotted, and couldn’t bear to be parted from him, which is why when she arrived in ‘Bath’ on 21st August 1574 precisely three months after his birth – the infant VVriothesley was in tow – facts dutifully recorded in (S.153 & 154) the pair of epigrams attached to Shakespeare’s sonnet cycle.
VVriothesley’s ‘creation’ is mentioned in line ‘IX’ of (S.20).
And for a woman wert thou first created
Till nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting.
Edward de Vere (Elizabeth’s first child) incestuously sired the angelic infant prince ‘Henry VVriothesley’ (his image above) with Oxford himself, born to the ‘14’ year-old princess Elizabeth on the 14th July 1548 a fact proven by his poem “The first” found in “Love’s Martyr” on Pg. 169 a work that immediately precedes his poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle”. His initials “E” & “V” found in the beginning line are supported by the triangulated anagrammatic signature: “E de Vere”, while the horns of an ‘OX’ (for Oxford) are expressed by the elaborate and sinuous “T” with which the title begins.
Essex’s death (on 25th February) left Elizabeth’s “exchequer” depleted – the more demonstrative of two princes forever silenced, (S.25) elaborates:
The painful warrior famoused for might
After a thousand victories once foiled,
Is from the book of honour raised quite,
And all the rest forgot for which he toiled.
With VVriothesley’s conviction, all vestiges of royalty were stripped away, with all his titles and lands – reduced to plain ‘Mr’ – sanctions considered an aberration of justice by his father, curtly described in (L.10)
“Beggared of blood” (that’s Royal-blood).
Through consanguineous apoplexy – the prisoner’s blood began to neutralise, turning from purple to red. Elizabeth’s ‘treasury’ (the Tudor blood of princes) that once “blushed through lively veins” – was increasingly found in short supply as ‘sweet-creation’ (Essex) joined Orpheus in the afterlife (a latter-day disciple of Apollo) and while Ironically his usurping abilities on Earth had proved deficient, death saw him in Elysium – cygnificantly usurped by grace & purity.
Red & White Tudor Princes
Nor did I wonder at the Lily’s white,
Nor praise the deep vermilion of the Rose. (S.98)
Please, let me explain: Sonnet 99 is the only sonnet composed of 15 lines, the simple reasoning – it relates to the year 1599 thereby alluding to the death of Sir William Cecil (Oxford’s father-in-law) in the previous year, with ‘leaden’ Cecil referenced in the previous sonnet by the words “Heavy Saturn”, our author correctly identifying him a commoner:
“Nor red, nor white”.
Meaning – he wasn’t Tudor-Royal. Meanwhile, our author’s passion (in slightly earlier times) for our troublesome pair of popular young princes (even when confronted with danger) had continued unabated:
The Roses fearfully on thorns did stand,
‘One’ blushing shame, another white despair.
Using colour – our author cleverly segregated these ‘Tudor’ brothers-in-arms ‘Wriothesley & Essex’, ‘One’ – “blushing shame” (red), the other deathly “white despair” a division also found in his complex metaphysical poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle”, published only months after the execution of Essex.
As the allegory goes, (amongst a parliament of birds) our young Tudor princes are individually identifiable by colour, while remembering VVriothesley 3rd Earl of Southampton features in ‘stanza 3’ allegorised by an ‘Eagle’ the magnificent bird that suffers little birds to sing. With the following line precisely duplicating the original – letter by letter (L.11- P&T) ‘Q’:
“Save the Eagle feath’red King”.
In the very next stanza (P&T) Essex appears a – ‘white’ swan – easily identifiable because as Shakespeare spells it the “de” of “Devereux” is conspicuous in the words: “defunctive & death devining” – words representing ‘Sacred 3’, while it must be said, the “Requiem” interdict mentioned in the stanza was performed to honour him – not as popularly conceived – “The Phoenix and the Turtle”.
To the open-minded there is nothing ‘puzzling’ about the phrase “proud of many” (L.12) found in Sonnet 67 by William Shakespeare, it simply refers to Elizabeth’s issue of five illegitimate princes, her “exchequer” (her stud of spares) considered “wealth” by our (spin-happy) author, as a Sultan might consider his hareem.
Then looking at (L.6 – S.76) we can familiarise ourselves with our author’s “invention” (his hybrid language of allusion) where ‘eVery word doth almost tell his name’, language where “store” generally means ‘to have children’, a word often used across the “Sonnets” and “Love’s Martyr”, while in this particular instance it has a more contemporary meaning (as represented by the word incarceration). In this respect (with Essex’s death) our author considers Elizabeth’s Royal “exchequer” (her blood-bank) depleted to such a degree it is “bankrupt”, while in the wake of his confinement she lives upon his “gains”. Fascinatingly, I must mention, this word converts gematrically to “48” the TRUE year of Oxford’s creation – immediately followed with an ‘O’ for Oxford, which converts to ‘14’ his TRUE day-of-creation. More realistically though, bearing in mind Oxford was fluent in French he maybe referencing the loss of VVriothesley’s lands to the crown, so agriculturally – she profits from his loss:
“Lives upon his gains”.
A footnote at this juncture would confirm: Our author believed; all princes (legitimate or not) ‘divinely ordained in Heaven’, vaulted creatures not born (as ordinary mortals) but created. Oxford himself – not created by anything as mortal as ‘sexual-intercourse’ but by “divine thrusting” – or as more elaborately defined in Lear: “Devine thrusting on” (words composed of ‘17’ letters).
The commissioning of the painting could therefore be seen as Elizabeth holding out an olive branch to VVriothesley, because although all hitherto history implies VVriothesley was held in the tower at the Queen’s pleasure, in reality it was Robert Cecil who held him. VVriothesley’s conspicuous seclusion revealing “what wealth she had” previously – when these two popular young princes held the stage – flourishing at court, before more recent times when convicted of high treason, the more senior of them sadly losing his head.
“O, him she stores, to show what wealth she had,
In days long since, before these last so bad”.
The first of these lines represents positive-spin by Oxford, making the best of a bad situation, for even in defeat he remains ridiculously proud of his son and heir. From Elizabeth’s perspective, even when VVriothesley is transferred to home-arrest she has the advantage of knowing his whereabouts, a place where he is less likely to be exploited or corrupted by further political opportunists. Signposting – the pure pride our author felt for his band of five brothers – most poignantly presented – is a manicule pointing to line ‘14’ of his poem “A Narration”, a work that immediately follows “The Phoenix and the Turtle” in “Love’s Martyr”. This crucial line – in my considered opinion, is the most important line across the entire Shakespeare cannon – where we find our proud author:
“The soule of Heaven’s labour’d Quintessence”.
While for a completely comprehensive analysis of this lines meaning, you will need to access my online article:
Admittedly, it is supposition by me that – between 25th Feb 1601 & 24th March 1603 (the deaths of Essex and Elizabeth) that during this dark period of her life – termed “fever’s end” by our author, at a time she was not fully in control of her faculties, ‘she’ commissioned the portrait of Henry Wriothesley and his cat TRIXIE in the Tower of London.
What though – is absolutely certain – is the architect of the painting and its symbolism was Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford, his impasto fingerprints laden on the canvas – a painting (as we shall see) endorsed by ‘Oxfordian-numerology’ illuminating the dates of his highly unusual nativity.
‘The Essex/Christ Allusion’.
Shakespeare has a system for confirming important biographical or Sacred facts, in which he uses multiples of three to endorse or confirm his personnel sentiments, I call this system ‘Sacred 3’ and where found absolutely validates his meaning, consequently, in delivering ‘The Essex/Christ allusion’ – we find it enumerated three times across the Shakespeare cannon.
The ‘3’ in ‘Sacred 3’ relate to the ‘The Holy Trinity’, one of the most important Christian numbers, which in Roman numerals are: ‘III’, ‘IX’ & ‘XIX’, while Shakespeare (as we shall see) also cleverly employs the three-sided triangle to disclose important biographical information.
In Greek ‘IX’ (iota & chi) are the Lords initials – his name: Ιησούς Χριστός.
‘T’ which stands for both ‘Turtle-dove’ & ‘Truth’, more importantly is “Tau” letter ‘XIX’ of the Greek alphabet, a symbol of the Holy cross and the crucified Christ, and why ‘The Essex/Christ allusion’ is identifiable by the number ‘XIX’. Yet, while it is possible to find other references to ‘The Essex/Christ allusion’, it exists principally (representing ‘Sacred 3’) in the following loci.
Firstly, it is represented by line ‘XIX’ of the poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle” by the following words:
“With the breath thou giv’st and tak’st”.
Elizabeth gave breath to Essex when she gave birth to him, and when she signed his death warrant and he was executed – she took his breath away.
Secondly, by the first stanza of William Shakespeare’s sonnet ‘XIX’ which glorifies the passing of ‘Robert Devereux 2nd Earl of Essex’ – Oxford identifying him twice, honouring his title (2nd Earl) in the first and second lines:
Devouring time, blunt thou the lion’s paws,
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger’s jaws,
And burn the long lived Phoenix in her blood.
Thirdly, by Edmund/Edmund’s (Sol.1) found in the premier act of “King Lear” by the words:
“For that I am some twelve or 14 moonshines lag of a brother”.
Our author craftily attracts us to this particular line because ‘unusually’ the number ‘twelve’ is written conventionally in letters as “twelve”, but “14” appears in digits (both numbers relating to Oxford’s unusual nativity as he was born at gestation week 26). And although “twelve” & “14” together make ‘26’, the most significant detail about this revelatory line is the word “lag”.
Via gematria the word “lag” translates to ‘XIX’ because:
L = 11 A = 1 & G = 7.
Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford – became incandescent with rage when deprived of his princely brother ‘Essex’ – while more obviously – Elizabeth is alluded to by the word “Moonshines”, then we further see – Oxford’s sense of Godliness identified at the beginning of the line – by the words:
“That I am”.
An abridgement of the Biblical phrase: “I AM THAT I AM”.
These are the words of Moses, seeking guidance from God, about how he should identify himself when going amongst the Israelite’s in Egypt.
Verse ‘14’ chapter ‘3’ Exodus in the Old Testament reveals the following:
And God said unto Moses,
I AM THAT I AM:
And he said,
“Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”.
All illegitimate princes had two dates of nativity – an official birthday and their TRUE date-of-creation. Oxford’s official birthday was the 12th April 1550 and his TRUE date-of-creation 14th July 1548 – precisely why (S.14) begins with an astrological allusion.
Not from the stars do I my judgement pluck
And yet me-thinks I have Astronomy.
Oxford completely enamoured by the following Biblical idiom:
“I AM THAT I AM”.
Believed all princes divinely ordained in Heaven – consequently, we see a further representation of ‘Sacred 3’ (relating to this phrase) found across the lifetime of his work.
Firstly, in Line ‘IX’ of (S.121)
No. ‘I AM THAT I AM’ and they that level at my abuses reckon up their own.
Gematrically significant – these five-words equate to ‘91’, Oxford seeing the numbers individually as: ‘IX’ & ‘One’ – enumeration of the Godliness he perceived enveloping himself and his son.
‘IX’ as I have said – are Christs initials in Greek.
‘One’ the Hebrew word for God.
While I believe it worth recalling at this point – line ‘IX’ of (S.33)
“Even so my son ‘One’ early morn did shine”.
The second expression of this Godly idiom: I AM THAT I AM is found in the Burghley-archives in a letter written by Oxford to William Cecil dated 30th October 1584 and confirms how enraptured he was of the said phrase – in postscript it says:
My Lord, leave that course, for I mean not to be your ward nor your child.
I serve her Majesty, and I AM THAT I AM ……………
Somewhat fractured, though still extremely significant, the third rendition of this treasured idiom is found in Edmund/Edward’s 2nd Soliloquy in Lear:
An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star. My Father compounded with my mother under the dragon’s tale and my nativity was under Ursa Major, so that it follows I am rough and lecherous. Fut! I should have been that I am had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardising.
Here our author alludes to his TRUE father ‘Lord admiral Sir Thomas Seymour’, easily identifiable because “admiral” is a marsupial of the second word in this section of the soliloquy “admirable”.
Oxford continues, alluding to his “nativity under Ursa Major” (his bear-like condition) proving him rough & lecherous (he mentions this because it was one of the original ‘48’ constellations identified by Ptolemy – referencing his D.O.B.) Although somewhat sadly – but predictably, the maidenliest star (Virgo the Virgin) failed to twinkle on his bastardising – he was born a bastard and he died a bastard! Having said that, I feel obliged to point out, regarding his humanity, learning, and truth-searching intellect (not to mention his plays and poetry) he remains for me the greatest Englishman that eVer lived!
And if there exists modern suppressive conspiracy against him? It is because he was coerced into an incestuous relationship with his mother – a stain needing more than “Potions of Eisel” to be erased (S.111). While we are mindful of the consequences regarding an act of – INCEST – that took place between these two Royals creating ‘The Faire-Youth’ ‘Henry VVriothesley’, on anyone’s contemporary CV – not a good-look! While personally, I believe it necessary – regarding this convolution of history – TRUTH – be considered more important than judgement.
The Letter ‘S’ in (S.67)
It is impossible to be seen smiling in late renaissance portraiture as it was considered licentious, nor does one smile when grieving, what of course a ‘prince’ could do, to underline his Royalty – was wear the Queen’s colours ‘black & white’ (black for constancy – white for virginity). Then in flaunting his ‘black & white’ gauntlets adorned with the Maltese cross, he also reveals his allegiance to the Royal Arch Freemasons & Knights Templar, while this ‘black & white’ theme even extends to his cat – TRIXIE – which of course is a Royal cat!
You will also have noticed (highlighted in purple) ‘XIX’ words in the sonnet beginning with the letter ‘S’, which stands for ‘Southampton’ (referring to VVriothesley’s former title – 3rd Earl). We also see he wears a mourning-gown with a cape over his left shoulder, his arm in a sling, on his wrist five beads of coral indicate he is one of five princes. On his little finger, in honour of his half-brother Essex he wears a black and gold mourning ring – while these obvious adornments are only the beginnings of the painting’s more cloistered and more revealing historic symbolism.
As I have said, the architect of this symbolism is our great author Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford – a point I intend to prove – immediately!
Emblazoned with VVriothesley’s coat-of-arms, the book we see on the window ledge shows its reverse side – which should be an azure ground crossed with four hawks’ close argent, although in the rendition presented the hawks to my mind definitely look more like swans (poetic followers of Apollo).
More importantly – where one imagines an Earl’s coronet should be – we possibly have surmounting the cross which quarters the hawks – a crown of thorns? This would of course – if proven? Be a reference to the passion – alluding to ‘Essex’. Then looking at the book in greater detail (apart from its depth) nothing appears to define it specifically as a bible, while the circle found enclosing VVriothesley’s coat-of-arms is an ‘O’ for Oxford. You will also notice, a rather sombre looking silk page-marker attached to the book ‘drooping’ over the window-ledge, the top of it appearing in crumpled format. Importantly, here we find our great author announcing his binary self – with two individual letters, the 18th letter of the Greek alphabet ‘Sigma’ which stands for ‘Shakespeare’ surmounted with a ’V’ for Vere, facts confirmed because the sitter has ‘14’ buttons showing on his mourning-gown representing July ‘14’ 1548 his father’s TRUE date-of-creation. Generally speaking, as our author conceives it, the English letter ‘S’ stands for ‘Southampton’ whereas the nascent origins of the word ‘Shakespeare’ are of course Greek, because at the moment of creation from the forehead of ‘Zeus’ Pallas Athene in warlike mode was shaking a spear and precisely why ‘Oxford’ uses a Greek ‘Sigma’ to identify himself. Talking of buttons! This same number ’14’ are the amount of buttons “eVer writ in brasse” by Martin Droeshout (the engraver) who was responsible for the hideous ‘mask’ of Shakespeare that the media persistently like to plague us with. The maquette (as it were) for this abomination was a painting of the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere held by the De L’Isle family at Penshurst-Place possibly from the 16th century. This picture shows Oxford more sensibly dressed – wearing a white miniver-cape (representing a Lord) around his neck and doublet (the correct way round!) which is extraordinarily similar to the Droeshout example.
To shows these signs of ‘Shakespeare/Vere’ – celebrated by “Sigma/V” are not a phantom of our imagination, a larger reflection of them (in inverted form) is seen in VVriothesley’s cape (painted light grey) slightly above and below his injured left elbow. Then, looking slightly above where his elbow would be, presented to us – we find a larger mirrored image of the “Sigma”, then below, in a fold of the cape an even-larger inverted ‘V’ is equally apparent. While I must say (once accepted by the viewer for what they are) in context of what is a rather fine painting, these enlarged reflections do seem somewhat ridiculous – and certainly superfluous to the integrity of the portrait. Also, I can’t help but wonder – if the book on the window-sill is not a representational copy of William Shakespeare’s works including his sonnets?
A Gematrical Cat called ‘TRIXIE’.
Being mindful, of the portrait of Henry Wriothesley and his cat TRIXIE in the Tower of London – while having already been cleverly attracted to the Greek language – we have a foundation helping us understand the reasoning behind the naming of this ‘black & white’ royal cat TRIXIE!
T = Tau letter ‘19’ of the Greek alphabet, R = Rho letter ‘17’ of the Greek alphabet, which is followed by Christ’s initials ‘IX’ Iota & Chi, with the fifth letter again I = Iota ‘9’ concluding with the final letter E = Epsilon letter ‘5’ of the alphabet. The cat’s name is therefore a metaphor for VVriothesley’s Royal heritage and Godliness, as he shares his DNA with ‘19’ Essex, ‘17’ de Vere & ‘5’ Elizabeth, his Godliness emphatically expressed by his close proximity to Jesus Christ ‘IX’.
Echoes of ‘The Mouse Trap’
Rendered in miniature, in the top right-hand corner of the painting is an image of the Tower-of-London – before it, four swans are seen swimming on the river Thames. Perhaps through overzealous cleaning the swan furthest left appears rather ill-defined, having said that, our princely villains-of-the-peace had yet another brother – ‘Arthur Dudley’, who following capture from a shipwreck off the coast of Spain in the early summer of 1587 managed to wrangle a pension from the Spanish crown (who were quite-taken by the narrative of his life-story). Then subsequently, from somewhere on the Iberian-peninsula, after persistently bragging about the nobility of his parentage; aka: The Earl of Leicester ‘Robert Dudley’ and the ‘Virgin Queen’, our intrepidly named prince mysteriously disappeared ‘vaporised’ (some say ‘slain’ following the arrival of English secret agents).
“The Darling Buds of May” & ‘Oxford’s Nativity’
Apologies to those of you who find me continually repeating myself – but I must reiterate; all illegitimate princes had two birthdays (which didn’t necessarily have to be in the same year). Henry VVriothesley 3rd Earl of Southampton’s official birthday was the 6th October 1573, with the ‘20th May’ 1574 his TRUE date-of-creation. The 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere’s official birthday was 12th June 1550 – while his TRUE date-of-creation was the 14th July 1548. He was born 14 weeks prematurely at gestation week ‘26’ to the 14-year-old princess Elizabeth at the manor of ‘Cheshunt’ in the county of Hertfordshire, which is precisely why his nativity is represented by the simple sum 12 + 14 = 26.
IN VINCVLIS – INVICTVS
During my research, I have found numerous examples of Oxford’s passion for hiding ‘Godly truths’ within the centre of triangles, a trait beautifully illustrated by the three triangles that enclose his dedication to ‘W.H.’ announcing his sonnet sequence, a phenomenon eloquently described by ‘Alexander Waugh’ in his groundbreaking article of 2017 entitled: ‘Hidden Truths’.
Shown below, is detail of the inscription appearing in the panel immediately below the miniature landscape of the Tower-of-London. Here I have detected, yet again – another triangle featuring a further allusion to Oxford’s nativity.
Looking at the pointy lower-end of the triangle we see three numbers:
8 * 1 * 3 which added together = 12
While above this – the accompanying inscription should correctly read:
IN VINCVLIS SED INVICTVS – (In chains but unconquered)
Although as you can see, it omits the Latin word “Sed”, the good reason for this (in this amended form) is we find the unusual dates of Oxford’s-nativity reintroduced for our enlightenment.
Gematrically speaking “IN VINCVLIS” amounts to ‘125’ while “INVICTVS” amounts to ‘111’ then in subtracting one from the other – we arrive at ‘14’ Oxford’s TRUE date-of-creation. These numbers 12 & 14 are familiar – as they are the same two numbers found in Edmund/Edward’s first soliloquy in Lear representing Oxford’s-nativity, a prince, incandescent with rage at the point he & his son (‘IX’ & ‘One’) found themselves “deprived” of an executed brother:
Thou, nature, art my Goddess, to thy laws my services are bound. Wherefore should I stand in the plague of custom and permit the curiosity of nations to deprive me? “For THAT I AM some twelve of 14 moonshines lag of a brother”.
The brother they are lag of ‘XIX’ is the brother they grieve for ‘Essex’.
Oxford, VVriothesley and Elizabeth mourned a Royal tragedy – their Royal tragedy! The TRUE year of Oxford’s creation is also discernible from the numbers found in the inscription. Ignoring the five zeros – by simply adding the remaining figures together 8, 16, 6 & 1 (for anno 1601 abbreviated to 601 – the final ‘1’ is missing in my image!) then including the remaining numbers 6, 2, 6 & 3 all these numbers together = ‘48’ – Oxford’s TRUE year-of-creation ‘1548’.
The inscription, has thus revealed the complete shebang in respect of Oxford’s nativity: 12 & 14 = 26 plus the year of his creation ‘48’ – his Godliness authenticated because the gematrical consequence of “FEBRVA” & “APRI” are ‘51’ & ‘42’ and in subtracting one from the other we find our Tudor sinners with a saviour looking over them in the guise of Jesus Christ ‘IX’.
Analysing the TRUE motives behind this painting attributed to John de Critz of Henry Wriothesley and his cat TRIXIE in the Tower of London, described in fine detail by William Shakespeare’s sonnet 67, I would say (particularly in view of the ‘XIX’ words beginning with the letter ‘S’) that the picture’s nuclear allegiance (its commemoration) is undoubtedly to Robert Devereux 2nd Earl of Essex.
Not surprisingly, enmity rose in VVriothesley when provoked by what he considered the cruel injustices of the state – at which point he began to loath his mother, a point confirmed at the beginning of (S.145) where his father unveils him – a victim of Cupid’s arrow:
Those lips that Love’s own hand did make,
Breathed forth the sound that said ‘I hate’.
Alas, lament is eternal – pathos prevails, I say this because people are swayed more easily – not by truth – but by fairy-tales, for the accompanying facts of this article show beyond all reasonable doubt – my belief, that Edward de Vere & Shakespeare were a single person – such reasoning though, inconsequential to the great multitude of humanity – as muses rain tears – from Heaven above – to Earth beneath.
Now, for my thought-provoking summary!!!
Did you not know?……… Or had you forgotten
Juliet met her Romeo – On Edward de Vere’s TRUE day-of-creation (his date of birth) July ‘14’ – which is why in Act 1 (scene iii) of William Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” at a time she was actually thirteen years of age – the only number mentioned is ‘14’, not once – but five times!
Almost as if …. our author was trying to illuminate the most salient moment in the history of literature – his birth! Imparting to us – a wealth of wonder – that he was born prematurely to the ‘14’ year old princess Elizabeth – On July ‘14’.
“Full ‘14’ weeks before the course of time”. (K.J)
Elementary mathematics inform us 12 + 14 = 26, a number representing our great author’s gestation week birth, while remembering his creation was in the mid-16th century, a miraculous event informing us he was no ordinary mortal! We also understand how incredibly important the birth of the grandson of “King Henry VIII” was to all those dwelling in the household of Sir Anthony Denny and his wife Joan Champernowne at Cheshunt in Hertfordshire where Edward de Vere was born, his extraordinary nativity having extraordinary consequences for humanity – while underlining what has so often been said:
“That there is nothing closer to God than Shakespeare!”.
– INCEST –
The collective English memory is deficient when it comes to Elizabeth’s literary publications – because by intellect and godliness her life-style was modelled on Holy-incest. As an eleven-year-old, princess Elizabeth translated and eventually published (in the same year ‘1548’ she delivered to the world her son Oxford) a work on ‘Holy-incest’ from French verse into English prose, entitling it:
“The Glass of the Sinful Soul”.
The original ‘Le Miroir de L’âme Pécheresse’ by ‘Marguerite Angoulême’ Queen of Navarre – the sister of Francis I – King of France was a publication that arrived in England via her mother ‘Anne Boleyn’ a gift of invaluable proportions to Elizabeth – of whom it should be remembered, wore a locket enclosing an image of her mother around her neck throughout her life. We therefore know she had a keen interest in the subject of – incest – a matter that also considerably dominated the life of her father ‘King Henry VIII’, a persistent problem of gargantuan proportions – initiating the reformation in England.
These philosophies of incest “on Heaven and Earth” intellectualised by Elizabeth where keenly employed by her when she prevailed over her first son Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford – who duly recorded in “Love’s Martyr” their very first sexual encounter. The narrative – recording this incestuous act, is found in the first of ‘14’ poems covering ‘17’ pages that conclude the book. Then in honouring poetic convention he duly entitled it:
GOod fate, faire Thespian Deities,
And thou bright good, whose golden Eies,
Serve as a Mirrour to the silver Morne,
When (in the height of Grace) she doth adorne
Her Chrystall presence, and invites
The ever-youthfull Bromius to delights,
Sprinkling his sute of Vərt with Pearle,
And (like a loose enamour’d Girle)
Ingles his cheek ; which (waxing red with shame)
Instincts the senslesse Grapes to do the same,
Till by his sweete reflection fed,
They gather spirit, and grow discolouréd.
Firstly, let me say this stanza is also interesting in terms of English literature, as the Earl of Oxford who studied Hebrew as a child under Sir Thomas Smith during the years 1553 – 1562 provides us with (by almost 300 years) the first use of the schwa /e/ in the English language. In counting all capitals from the beginning of the stanza when we arrive at the 17th – it begins the word “Vərt”, so when it comes to matters of carnal-contagion in a practical sense Oxford is ‘green’. Consequently, before continuing I need to stress the age difference between him and his mother – something more than apparent in the allegorical poem “Venvs & Adonis”, the very first work published using the “brand” William Shakespeare in the year 1593. The way I shall do this is with an extract from (S.152).
In act thy ‘bed-vow’ broke and new faith torn,
In vowing new hate after ‘new love bearing’
But why of two oaths’ breach do I accuse thee,
When I break twenty? I am perjured most.
“New love bearing” naturally refers to the creation of the Godly ‘Henry VVriothesley’, then looking (for instance) at September 1568 when Oxford turned “20”, in this month Elizabeth became ‘35’, so, in terms of ‘amorous pursuits’ this disparity represents a substantial age-gap, for by this time she had become extremely well acquainted with both Francis Walsingham and Robert Dudley and was certainly no novice in terms of love.
In fact, five years previously (at the age of 30) in another publication revealing her prayers written in Latin – her promiscuity found her out – a consequence based on the indisputable fact – love is a virtue – not a sin!
From my secret-sins cleans me, from the sins of others spare your handmaid, many sins have been forgiven her, because – she has loved too much.
Returning to the “Invocatio” from “Love’s Martyr” the big clue to the allegory of “Bromius” – is easily revealed – because “our eVer-living poet” in this particular instance becomes “eVer-youthful” and with her “Chrystal presence” we find Elizabeth “in the height of Grace” inviting her son to hand held delights, before “Sprinkling his suit of Vərt with Pearl”. Interestingly the crucial word “Vərt” equates gematrically to 20-5-17-19 and I am sure by now you know the meaning of these numbers – nevertheless: ’20’ represents VVriothesley’s date-of-creation, ‘5’ is ‘E’ for Elizabeth, ’17’ is Oxford’s Earldom and ’19’ Essex.
The incestuous Queen (like a loose enamoured girl) unsurprisingly “ingles his cheeks which waxing red with shame Instincts his senseless ‘grapes’ to do the same”. While I must say at this point, how brilliantly witty this is – because as all women know, the true location of a man’s brains are someway south of his head! While our author is aware these ‘grapes’ are “senseless”. Having said that, how lovely must it be – in terms of metaphor to always be way-ahead of the field as ‘Oxford’ shows himself again here, especially in such a sticky-situation, responding to ‘acts’ by today’s standards that would inevitably be described as ‘abuses’, a term interestingly used in (S.121) a sonnet that’s subject actually is incest:
Tis better to be ‘vile’ than vile esteemed,
When not to be receives reproach of being.
This opening gambit – is succeeded by Oxford invoking the Gods, using his very favourite idiom – which not surprisingly – arrives in line ‘IX’.
No, I AM THAT I AM and they that level
At my ‘abuses’ reckon up their own.
By their rank thoughts my ‘deeds’ must not be shown.
These unnatural deeds he speaks of, are of course – INCESTUOUS!
The Big Favour – INCEST – does “King Lear”. (By making sense of it).
The very first word in Lear is “Kent” (referencing the character) immediately followed by a second character called “Gloucester”, while no earlier sources exist for either of these ‘names’ – And I can tell you why! ‘Rochester’ is in Kent! (The place where our author’s very favourite story takes place). While his TRUE father ‘Lord Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour’s’ family seat “Sudeley Castle” just happens to be in the county of ‘Gloucestershire’ and why the character is so named “Gloucester”. Therefore, the play starts in this curiously biographical way with ‘Gloucester’ representing Oxford’s TRUE father! Then alluding to Edmund/Edward on the very first page of Lear – Oxford’s miraculous survival from premature-birth – is most brazenly alluded to:
Gloucester: But I have a son … this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother faire.
Kent: I must love you and sue to know you better.
Edmund: Sir, I shall study deserving.
Gloucester: He hath been out nine years and away he shall again.
As Oxford sees off-the-top-of-his-head words gematrically – “faire” – (as many of you will previously have noticed) has Royal connotations, this is because ‘f’ + ‘a’ = ‘7’, ‘i’ = ‘IX’, ‘r’ = ’17’ & ‘e’ = ‘5’. We therefore find in the word “faire” both ‘Christ’ & ‘Oxford’ book-ended by Queen Elizabeth.
“Even as when first I hallowed thy faire name”.
“In the old age black was not counted faire, Or if it were it bore not ‘beauties’ name”.
The “nine years” referred to by “Gloucester” in Lear are the years Oxford was home-schooled under the tutelage of Sir Thomas Smith, between 5 & 14 years of age, from 1553 – 1562, before “away again” a student at ‘Cecil House’ the London home of Sir William Cecil – that great seat of learning situated on the Strand. Then, looking further at the first act of Lear (at the point Cordelia is about to receive a dowry of untold wealth) “more opulent than her sisters”, she absolutely astounds us – when asked by her father the King – what she can say to draw a third more opulent than her sisters – amazingly – she answers curtly:
“Nothing my Lord”.
The simple reasoning for this, is she does not wish to pander to his incestuous desires, ambitions to which her fawning sisters, have already verbally conceded.
Goneril: speaking first – describes an inappropriate love for a father:
“A love that makes breath poor and speech unable,
Beyond all manner of so much I love you”.
Cordelia: then speaks [aside].
“What should Cordelia do? Love and be silent!”
(This is my understanding of her meaning) ‘She should submit to fornication and say absolutely nothing’ (possibly the expected response of a dutiful renaissance daughter).
Regan: then speaks referencing her sister Goneril:
I find she names my very deed of love
Only she comes too short, that I profess
Myself an enemy to all other joys.
Why have my sister husbands if they say
They love you all? Haply when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight
Shall carry half my love with him,
Half my care and duty. Sure, I shall never marry
Like my sisters – ‘To love my father all’.
Ultimately, biography seeps to the surface – as a dishevelled Lear seeks refuge in a hovel from the storm, where the sight of straw-bedding invokes his muddled mind to conjure a “couch” for the incestuous.
“The art of our necessities is strange, that can make vile things precious”.
As the terrible conclusion to the play looms, before he and Cordelia are carted off to prison – Edmund controls the situation:
“Some officers take them away – good guard, until their greater pleasures first be known, that are to censure them”.
We are not the first, who with best meaning have incurred the worst. For thee, oppressed King, I am cast down, myself could else outfrown false fortune’s frown. Shall we not see these daughters and these sisters?
While Lear only senses pleasure in confinement with Cordelia:
No, no. Come, let’s away to prison. We two alone will sing like birds ‘I’ the cage. When thou dost ask me blessing I’ll kneel down and ask of thee forgiveness.
So, we’ll live and pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh at gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too – who loses and who wins, who’s in, who’s out – And take upon the mystery of things as if we were God’s spies. And we’ll wear out in a walled prison packs and sects of great ones that ebb and flow by the moon.
Edmund: “Take them away”.
Lear: Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia. The God’s themselves throw incense. Have I caught thee now?
– Denouement –
Oxford’s half-brother the sacrificial Essex, bleats before death – but is mute thereafter, commemorated by this chariot of grief (S.67) in which we find ‘XIX’ words beginning with the letter ‘S’. Therefore by – painting and poem – we bear witness to these historical truths and the important distinction that VVriothesley mourns his half-brother Essex – not his mother Elizabeth.
While it would appear, the Tudor princes ‘Oxford & Essex’ had more in common than mere consanguinity, their heavenly ordination no match for the power and desire of virginal-moonshine.
Tomorrow night, when Phoebe doth behold Her sil-ver visage in the wat’ry glass, Decking with ‘liquid pearl’ the bladed grass (A time that lover’s flights doth still conceal).
If we then consider – our author’s works the pinnacle of literature – ironically the ‘phenomenon’ of him surviving delivery (in the mid-16th century) at gestation week ‘26’ gave birth in Lear to Edmund/Edward’s liberal use of the word “base”, found in the concluding ’14’ lined first soliloquy – a rant legitimately finishing:
“Gods, stand up for Bastards!”
“Why brand they us with base? With baseness, bastardy? Base, base?”
B = 2, A = 1, S = 18, E = 5 ……. numbers totalling 26.
Philip Cooper fecit © 12th October 2023.