Proving Shakespeare

Is There A Cipher
In Shakespeare’s Epitaph
As Claimed By
David Roper In His Book,
Proving Shakespeare (2009)?
_______________________________________________________
MRI Cultural Due Diligence Report
Copyright ©2010 by Eric Miller
______________________________
Abstract
David Roper claims in his book Proving Shakespeare
that Ben Jonson created and secreted into the text of
Shakespeare’s famous Epitaph a secret message that
Edward De Vere was “Shakespeare” and that Jonson
created the cipher. Mr. Roper’s claims are submitted
to a “fundamentalist” cultural due diligence analysis.
MRI concludes there is no evidence that the “original”
epitaph which Mr. Roper deals with ever existed at the
time of its creation—thought to be in 1616 right after
Shakespeare’s death, or circa 1623 upon publication of
the First Folio (of Shakespeare’s collected works).
MILLER REPORTS, INK
PRELIMINARY CULTURAL DUE DILIGENCE REPORT:
DAVID ROPER’S CLAIMS IN HIS BOOK “PROVING
SHAKESPEARE”
©Copyright by Eric Miller, 2010
Due Diligence Report: Preliminary Remarks,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions
2
* Note: MR has discovered the first above Shakespeare Stratford Memorial Epitaph
plaque is NOT the one that is now extant and was palmed off as the original plaque itself.
It was published in 1853 by J.O. Halliwell-Phillips (p. 289).
The second from the top is from Annals of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare, by J.
Cundall, 1886, with this brief intro: “On the black marble slab beneath the portrait-bust
are the following verses, photoyped from a rubbing from the marble.” (p. 80). Spacing
and punctuation vary between the two. To begin to see the text difference between the
two plaques one need only compare the last two lines of text. The words are exactly the
same and spelled the same.
Summary & Preliminary Conclusions
This Preliminary Due Diligence Report was undertaken as MR’s response
to a query regarding the work of Mr. David Roper, who claims in his
writings and newly published book, Proving Shakespeare (2009) to have
discovered and solved a hidden cipher implanted into the text of the
original epitaph plaque on Shakespeare’s Stratford Monument—believed
to have been erected shortly after Shakespeare’s death in 1616 or shortly
before publication of Shakespeare’s collected works (i.e., The First Folio)
in 1623.
It is Mr. Roper’s claim, in his first chapter, “The Monumental Truth,” that
he discovered indisputable evidence that a cipher message was created
by and implanted in the text of Shakespeare’s epitaph by the famous
Elizabethan poet, scholar, and dramatist, Ben Jonson.
The message allegedly secreted into the text is given below in his
Cardano grille. Note that the epitaph text is given with one letter for each
space, extending across 34 spaces.
Mr. Roper’s 34 Column Cardano Grille
S
E
P
I
T
L
G
T
A
L
T
H
Y
E
A
D
A
H
D
T
T
Y
I
S
W
E
H
O
P
F
T
H
C
E
S
A
T
W
O
K
H
E
S
H
I
M
Y
A
R
S
O
T
E
S
T
V
E
V
H
Q
T
H
E
N
C
I
V
O
W
H
G
A
N
I
M
R
I
E
N
T
C
B
I
S
R
S
H
K
E
T
W
W
T
I
N
F
T
I
H
W
S
A
A
L
T
Y
H
M
T
R
E
T
G
O
O
V
M
A
O
M
N
R
O
V
3
E
E
V
E
R
E
S
N
M
D
E
S
T T H O
V I O V
E N T S
I D E W
T H E N
L I V I
V B Y S O F A S T R
S D E A T H H A T H
H A K S P E A R E W
H O S E N A M E D O
C O S T S I E H A L
N G A R T B V T P A
In addition to the vertical indicated message, there is presumed to be
other messages, indicated by a horizontal connection with the words
SHAKSPEARE and QVICKNATVREDIDE (i.e., QVICK NATVRE DIDE)
Below is the alleged cipher message or plain text, as Mr. Roper formats it
in his book—using his own added punctuation and columnar placement
of words for his first message “solution.”
SO TEST HIM, I VOW HE IS DE VERE AS HE,
SHAKSPEARE: ME I.B.
MR will only deal with the first alleged message as it is the foundation for
the second.
Mr. Roper’s Rationale For Believing His Alleged Cipher Message
The sine qua non of the alleged indicated decipherment in bold supra,
Mr. Roper informs us, is found in the following characteristics of the
epitaph text, which is given, in bold, exactly as he has it in his book:
* WHOM in line 2 is spelt differently to WHOME in line 3
* THIS in line 3 is written in full, but in line 4 is abbreviated to Ys.
* THAT is abbreviated to Yt in line 5
* The words, SHAKSPEARE MONVMENT, have been inverted in line 3
to read, MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE.
* The name SHAKESPEARE has been spelt SHAKSPEARE
* The German word, SIEH, has been used in line 5 instead of SEE
* WRITT has been completed with an additional ‘T’.
[As can be seen from the plaque the superscripts for Ys and Yt above are
just shown as contiguous letters on the same line, Ed.]
The obvious counterpoint to Mr. Roper’s assertions above are:
*WHOM in line 2 is spelled without an ending “e” and with an ending “e”
in line 3 solely for aesthetic purposes of variety and textual
alignment only—as was the custom, then and now.
4
*THIS in line 3 written in full and in line 4 abbreviated to Ys is done for
the same reason given supra.
*THAT is abbreviated to Yt in line 5 for the same reason given supra
* The name SHAKSPEARE in line 3 is not an “inversion” but a devise of the
author to emphasize Shakspeare’s place is within the monument. Many
earlier copies use a comma or semicolon or colon after the word
MONUMENT for the same purpose of emphasis. “. . .Death hath plast
within this monument Shakspeare. . .” makes perfect sense. See early
copies of the text infra.
*The word “SIEH” though also a German word (sharing, of course, the
same Teutonic roots) word may well be just a unsuccessful attempt to
give an archaic flavor to the inscription as with the word “DIDE” and use
of antique Latin. Sieh is actually an English word, obsolete verb form of
Sees. The OED gives it under See, Verb forms and Inflections, and lists it
as the first (a) in that category and as the 3rd pers. sing. of see (siz) a
variant of “seeth” which is very close to “sith”—the form all early
copyists of the epitaph used. But probably just a misspelling of the
English word SITH. There is no evidence SIEH was even on the monument
until sometime in the 1800s. (see, OED, p.2707, Compact Edition, 23rd
printing, 1984);
*WRITT has been completed with an additional “T” so that it aligns with
the word under it , “WITT” (see second plaque above).
Mr. Roper, just below his starred points, continues his “argument” with
the remarks below:
The misspelling of words, the use of variants or archaic forms,
and an occasional abbreviation: each one of these constitutes a
positive sign that a piece of text may have been deliberately
interfered with in order to conceal an encrypted message. But,
with so many occurring together, as they do above, suspicions
beg indulgence. (p. 11)
As to Mr. Roper’s comment above:
5
1) “The misspelling of words. . .” There is only one misspelled word in
the epitaph text and that is SIEH—however if, as claimed, it is the
German word for “see” then it is not misspelled either—it is simply the
use of a German word;
2) “The use of variants or archaic forms. ..” of DIDE is given in the OED
under “dide” for the 4-6 definitions and it notes under B Form:
1635 A. STRAFFORD Fem. Glory (1869) 147 Her armes express
the Crosse where on he dide.”
Moreover, definitions for “dide” are noted at “4-6.” (see, OED, p. 721,
Compact Edition, 23rd printing, 1984);
3) It is uncertain which use of variants or “archaic forms” Mr. Roper is
referring to in the text. Obviously, the use of an archaic Latin style itself
(whenever it was first employed vis a vis the text) was widely in use for
formulaic epigraphic tombstone inscriptions;
4) “occasional abbreviations. . .”Variations of spellings of the same
words even on the same page are so common in the Elizabethan era as to
not warrant further comment. Moreover, again, the contractions
contribute to the ability to give a more pleasing visual appearance
through alignment, etc. If the reader will look at the text on the plaques
given supra it is clear that if “this” and “that” were spelled out the text
would have a ragged alignment!
5) The claim that “each one of these [elements indicated by Roper supra]
constitutes a positive sign” that the text “may have been deliberately
interfered with” requires, of course, a belief that “interference” had
anything to do with the characteristics of the text in the first place.
Mr. Roper’s seeing “interference” with the text presupposes there was a
previous text to be interfered with. Again, there is no evidence of this and
the claim is really nothing more than an ipse dixit (“because I say so”)
pronouncement. Certainly, he has been made no case that any, let alone
“so many” alleged cryptologically purposeful “interferences” are present
in the text. If, however, “sieh” is a misspelling, rather than a purposeful
6
use of a German word (as Mr. Roper himself apparently believes), then,
and only then, might there be justification in speaking of a textual
“interference.” And, even then, it is only because of a misspelling (or, as
MR believes, to appear fashionably “archaic”).
*******
6. A cryptogram exists for the purpose of secrecy. If one is to believe Mr.
Roper’s take, it is obvious at a glance that there is a cipher message in the
inscription. And, if the Cardano grille was in wide usage as he suggests for
secret messages, and since the mathematical extrapolation method is so
simple to find a “test word” (in this case the word VERE for Edward De
“Vere”) then the fact that the epitaph contained a “secret message”
ought to have been noticed by everyone with any grounding in
cryptography at all--and even suspected by those who had no such
grounding. If this were the case, and in those times such a secret
message might be considered a great crime with severe sanctions, Ben
Jonson, or anyone else, would have been stupid to have used it! So
obvious, it was, according to Mr. Roper.
7. The visual characteristics of the epitaph plaque (as we see it today)
that gives the inscription a unique character is obviously the word “SIEH,”
“DIDE” and the punctuation. Punctuation plays no role in the “plain-text”
(the cipher message) and SIEH can easily be seen as a simple
misspelling—as we shall see, infra, it exists in no copy of the epitaph
previous to a continuous reconstruction and repair process into the
1800’s, as said.
Obviously, at the outset, the issue of the “original” text is paramount—as
all of Mr. Roper’s suspicions that there is a cipher in the text are
predicated on a presumption that he knows what the original text was. If
it cannot be demonstrated what the “original” text was (i.e., the text Mr.
Roper finds his complete cipher in) then all his averments as to having
been the first in history to have found evidence that the epitaph contains
a secret message that Shakespeare was Edward De Vere (Lord Oxford the
17th) and that Ben Jonson is the authority for the message then his
claimed discovery of “A TRUTH SET IN STONE” by Ben Jonson (Roper,
7
Proving Shakespeare, pg. 493) vanishes into thin air—perhaps from
whence it came.
ANALYTICAL FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Based on a review of the facts and evidence at its disposal, MR makes the
following analytical findings of facts and conclusions:
1. More likely than not that the use of the letters SIEH did not exist on
the original epitaph plaque (i.e., “FAR MORE, THEN COST: SIEH ALL, YT HE
HATH WRITT”). Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that the original had
the form it now has (and which Mr. Roper requires for his alleged cipher)
in other necessary particulars as well, such the as Yt and Ys, for example.
Nor does it appear from any of the copies that the body of the text of the
epitaph was originally written in Latin style capitals. Records analysis, of
those available, indicate “SIEH” did not come into existence at all, in any
of the early copies, prior to the early to mid 1800s—after reported and
documented repeated major renovations of the Monument. The only
Latin capitalizations of the title (but not the body) are first found in
Vertue (circa 1725). That of course would be approximately 100 years
plus after the putative creation of the Monument.
a. There is no evidence of any “copy” of the “original” text (i.e.,
presumably dated approximately coincident with Shakespeare’s
burial or just before or just after publication of Shakespeare’s
First Folio in 1623 or any time before the said 1800’s) where SIEH
or Sieh, or sieh, is transcribed. This is also true for the word
“DIDE” and others (see comparative copies at the end of this
discussion).
b. In all known copies (cited below), the transcribed word is
always given as “sith” or “SITH.” Mr. Roper always uses (as
indeed he should, considering his theory) “sieh” for the German
word “see” and never “sith,” (i.e., “since,” as all existent “copies”
to date found have it)—because it is necessary to do so to link his
claim to IB (Ben Jonson” authorship of the epitaph). Of course, it
goes without saying; Mr. Roper naturally does so because the
8
extant monument plaque uses “SIEH.” On that he hangs his hat
as to the identification of Ben Jonson as the author of the poem
and the plain-text.
2. Mr. Roper cites well known information, long in the record, to the
effect that the original Shakespeare Stratford Memorial has gone through
many periodic “repairs” and “beautifying” projects. MR has confirmed no
informed modern commentator really believes that the Monument didn’t
go through many changes.
What is not known, and what Mr. Roper does not address in his book,
Proving Shakespeare, is the specific subject of the changes made to the
epitaph itself. It is hardly to be believed that the “very decayed” state of
the Memorial statue, of which the epitaph is a part, would not have also
undergone decay and alterations. Indeed, it is entirely possible, that a
whole new statue and epitaph plaque was newly constructed after mid
1700’s if not before, at least by 1815—all in sync with Mr. Roper’s own
stated views. However, Mr. Roper never addresses the implications of a
new (or greatly repaired) epitaph plaque in his book and the exact
language of the “original” inscription—facts crucial to the foundations
and validity of his claims.
Mr. Roper’s Own Awareness of the Problem of the Original Epitaph
In Mr. Roper’s own article, “The Shakespeare Monument: A Brief
History,”(publishing date unknown) however, the following remarks
clearly suggest the fact that he also believed the epitaph itself was surely
badly degraded with decay as was the rest of the Monument was known
to be. Indeed, that the Monument, including the epitaph, was not
corroded Mr. Roper finds, as he himself said, a “ridiculous” proposition.
Mr. Roper’s text below underscores the importance of this issue and the
somewhat shocking fact that he concealed in his book facts he knew to
be true and which greatly complicate his thesis:
This [i.e., earlier stated historical facts recounting repairs to the
Monument] confirms that the original bust was still in place,
that it had only been repaired and beautified by Hall, and that
9
after two centuries of decay, it had reached such a dangerous
state that its total collapse was feared to be imminent. This
decay is not remarkable. The ledger stone covering Shakspere’s
grave had also been ravaged by the centuries, and a
replacement put in place. To suppose that the monument had
alone remained immune to corrosion over the centuries is not
merely ridiculous; it contradicts the several reports made
concerning its condition, and which clearly speak of its decay.
Local man, Abraham Wivell, was one who noticed the
dilapidated state of the monument because he published a
small volume in 1827 reporting on his examination of the bust.
A committee of Stratford members subsequently met on 23rd
April 1835 to discuss this matter.
The Shakespeare Club of Stratford-upon-Avon have long
beheld with regret, the disfigurement of the Bust and
Monument of Shakespeare, and the neglected condition of the
interior of the Chancel, which contains that monument and his
grave... [Thereafter was] a new Society formed, for the
Renovation and Restoration of Shakespeare’s Monument and
15
Bust, and of the Chancel.
[Note: Mr. Roper’s assertion. in the first paragraph above, that “a
replacement [was] put in place” for the gravestone, is an undocumented
assertion. A current photo of the gravestone was provided to MR by a
correspondent in England and it clearly appears the gravestone is in such
crumbling decay that it is most likely the original gravestone. (see Photo
in Exhibits, attached). Moreover an apparent rubbing (phototype) of the
gravestone in the mid to late 1800’s shows the gravestone itself badly
decayed but in much better shape than its current state. (Photo available
on request). Mr. Roper cites no authority for his claim that the
gravestone was replaced [It appears not to have been].
As said, there is no evidence (that MR knows of) that any recordation of a
“copy” of the epitaph that uses the exact language and punctuation of
the “original” ever existed until the early or mid 1800’s. Search was made
of any “copy” of the epitaph that could be found prior to the so called
c.1840 monument’s renovation (being, it is widely believed, the one
10
extant and featured at the Stratford Memorial site), and, as Mr. Roper
himself acknowledges, showing very little wear!).
It is therefore dispositive that the state of repair of the tombstone
engraving is so crumbled and hoary that it appears more of a bad
example of an early Greco-Roman inscription —very worn and, if it were
“free standing”, no doubt threatening to “crumble.”
It is to be noted, that, in addition to Mr. Roper’s remarks quoted above
from his article on the brief history of the Monument, in his book Proving
Shakespeare he does mention in some detail the fact of the ill repair of
the Bust itself (in contradistinction to the epitaph). He also opines, as
many have before him, that the Bust was certainly “repaired” and
“beautified”—as the historical records themselves clearly indicate. He
gives, so far as known, no comments on the issue of the epitaph plaque’s
fate over the intervening years in Proving Shakespeare—an apparent
baffling oversight considering the nature of his thesis and his
comprehensive claims. The state of the tombstone, which Mr. Roper
himself cites for the implied proposition that the entire Monument must
have suffered severe disrepair is obviously a material fact.
3. MR has located the existence of five handwritten “copies” of the
epitaph poem, all dated to before the 1800’s. The first known dated copy
is that by an unknown hand and contained in the First Folio #26.
Attached to this Report is a copy of that transcription and a facsimile
photo reproduction of said copy. It is presumed to have been written in
the 1620’s (further comments on the matter infra).
The second known copy was made by John Weever in 1631. Weever was
an early champion of Shakespeare’s and he has the honor of being the
first to write a full length poem in praise of Shakespeare’s work. Besides
various literary compositions, he was also the first known person to make
a copy of the epitaph poem. MR has a typescript copy of that poem, but,
to date, has not been able to inspect a facsimile of it. Mr. Roper appears
unaware of the fact that Weever made a copy of the epitaph and it is the
earliest dated specimen of the text.
11
TEXTUAL “ERRORS”
John Weever’s copy has a few “errors” as compared with the extant
epitaph plaque (shown supra). The first one, in the second line, destroys
Mr. Roper’s alleged cipher. There, John Weever added an end “e” to the
first “whom” in the text, giving “whome” instead of what the plaque
shows as “WHOM”—and which Mr. Roper says is essential for his
cryptographic solution. Weever repeats adding another “e” to the word
“he” thus giving “hee” (in the fifth line) which completely demolishes all
possibility of a preserved cipher text.
In other regards (except for “dy’d”, and plac’d” his transcription
compared with the “original” now-existing plaque is quite good—EXCEPT
that each of the errors individually and collectively destroy the alleged
cipher text. Weever also does not employ use of SIEH, but uses, as does
all other pre-1800’s transcriptions, the word SITH (in the lower case).
Again, all known surviving handwritten copies or typescripts of same, of
the epitaph do not use SIEH or Sieh, but, only “sith”—as none of the MSS
copies use capital letters for the body of the poem. Only one specimen
(Vertue’s) uses capitals for the title which is in Latin.
4. The number of copies available for inspection are few. The first known
copy, as said, is that claimed to be from the 1620’s and was found in the
First Folio #26, Since it is the earliest copy it deserves some special
attention—as in law (and scholarship of antiquities) the most nearly
contemporaneous is generally considered, rightly or wrongly, “best
evidence.” An article (cited infra) by Mr. David Kathman alerted me to
the existence of Weever’s transcription—for use of it he cited, without
authorial attribution, Shakespeare Quarterly, 39 (1988):60.
Kathman’s piece (“Seventeenth-century References to Shakespeare’s
Stratford Monument”) can be found at
http://shakespeareauthroship.com/monrefs.html. There he writes:
One of the First Folios in the Folger Shakespeare
Library (no. 26 according to the Folger
numbering) contains three handwritten poems
on the last end page of the volume, written in a
12
secretary hand dating from approximately the
1620s. The first of these is the poem from
Shakespeare's monument in the Stratford church
("Stay passenger why go'st thou by so fast").
It is doubtful that Mr. Kathman ever consulted the original text, available
from the Folger Library, as he would surely have noticed, and presumably
commented on, the variation in text between the Folio transcription and
all others and the extant epitaph.
5. Of course, without the seemingly odd use of the German/English word
“sieh” in Shakespeare’s epitaph poem—a feature made much of by Mr.
Roper—we have no Ben Jonson (alleged by Mr. Roper to have been
transposed to IB—i.e., Jonson Ben—in the cipher text, the I = J in
Elizabethan orthography at the time) as the named author of the text, as
Roper claims. Since we cannot find “sieh” in any existing transcript copy
and it only appears for the first time on the now extant epitaph plaque
there is, it seems, a strong reasonable presumption that it was never
there until it found a home after the grand “renovations” of the early to
mid 1800’s (as stated above). The same may be said for DIDE (though
apparently that does not affect the plain text (cipher message) if any
version of it has four letters. As we shall see infra there are
complications, even then.
It seems an apparent improbability that all transcriptions of the “original”
text (however different they are from one another) were transcriber
errors—due to a psychological penchant to just automatically substitute
an error, “sieh,” for “sith.” But, that is what would have to be believed, in
the face of contrary evidence, to credence belief in Mr. Roper’s alleged
complete “solution” of a cipher text in Shakespeare’s epitaph.
It is a fact that various details about the Monument have long been
discussed by the scholars—for decades—including all the detailed
permutations of the statuary history. Nonetheless, virtually all of the
commentators, including Mr. Roper, say exceedingly little about the issue
of the text, per se, and pass over or repeat, as does Mr. Kathman, that
the copies of the epitaph over the early centuries were all “essentially
the same” or words to that effect. But that is not good enough for
13
purposes of analyzing the issues raised by Mr. Roper. We need to know,
as best we can, exactly the original text. The absence of the word “sieh”,
alone, for example, kills the message assumed by Mr. Roper to “prove”
that Ben Jonson is the author of it!
Notes On The Existing Epitaph “copies.”
Below are the known copies of the Stratford Memorial Epitaph:
copy #1: In the First Folio #26 at the end of the bound copy there is a
handwritten “copy” of the Strafford Memorial Epitaph, a copy of
“Another upon the Same” and a copy of Shakespeare’s epitaph on his
grave stone. It is surmised this is the earliest copy as the date given for
it, judged by the style of the Secretarial inscription, is dated, according
to David Kathman (on whose authority I do not know), as from the
“1620’s.”
[there is no Latin title given in the handwritten copy as can be seen)
Stay passenger why go’st thou by so fast
read if thou canst, whom envious death hath plact
within this monument: Shakespeare: with whom
quick nature dy’d; whose name doth deck this toombe
far more then cost; sith all that hee hath writ
leaves living art but page unto his witt.
14
Comment: To be noted, is that the spelling and punctuation and even
words vary from this presumably in situ transcription of the poems. In
brief “whom” is consistently spelled without an “e” at the end; “plact” is
used instead of on all transcript copies rather the plaque’s “PLAST”; the
word “Shakespeare” is not spelled “SHAKSPEARE” and has two colons,
one before and one after the name; dyed (for “DIDE”) is spelled “dy’d”;
“toombe” is unusually spelled, with two “o”s” and it has an extra “e” at
the end.
Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that instead of the dominant variant
for the last line “Leaves liveing art but page to serve his witt” we have
“leaves liveing art but page unto his witt.” [underline added]; “LIVING “
becomes “liveing;”TO SERVE” becomes “unto.” Obviously, if this really
was an on-site transcription, as Kathman opines (infra), there are ample
reasons to believe we are viewing two distinctly different inscriptions.
But, of course, it is entirely conjectural where the unknown writer of the
Secretary script for the Folio #26 got their “copies” of the poems.
Contrary to Kathman’s assertion, one could most easily imagine it is the
least likely case that the transcription was made “off the monument and
the tombstone.” If it was, how are we to explain the obvious glaring
variations, not only of punctuation but even words?
(Two other, non-epitaph plaque poems, follow in the same Folio #26):
For orthographical comparisons, presented below are the two other
handwritten poems contained on the back page of Folio #26:
Heere Shakespeare lyes whome none but Death could
Shake
and here shall ly till judgments all awake;
when the last trumpet doth unclose his eyes
the wittiest poet in the world shall rise.
* Note “whome” with an “e” on the end, for this poem having nothing to
do with any claimed cipher and showing it was quite a conventional
spelling—unlike what Mr. Roper, apparently, with little knowledge of
Elizabethan variegated spelling, has it. Also, the “ee” in the first word
15
“Heere” shows also that the writer uses variegated spellings for the word,
in one case with two “ee”s and, on the same page, in the same poem, one
“e” for the word “here.”The same point can be made for “lyes” and “ly.”
Kathman comments on the above cited second poems supra and then
states:
The third poem is the one on Shakespeare’s tombstone,
also in the Stafford church (“Good ffried for Jesus sake
forebeare”). Apparently, somebody went to Strafford
and transcribed the poems off the monument and the
tombstone, then transcribed them into a copy of the First
Folio along with another epitaph. This writer [of the
poem supra] seems not only to have believed that the
man buried in Stratford was the author of the First Folio,
but that he was “the wittiest poet in the world.”
As it is relevant, the text given for Shakespeare’s graveside tomb is given
in Folio #26 as:
Good ffiend for Jesus sake forbeare
To dig this dirt inclosed here
Blest bee the man that spares these stones
And cur’st bee hee that moves these bones.
(The orthography is an analytical issue—for all of the poems above and
below. As to the gravestone epitaph, we must report, that the apparent
“original” (the one that survives and of which we have an earlier copy
circa mid 1800s) varies significantly from the above, to wit (again the
superscript is as stated supra):
GOOD FREND FOR JESVS SAKE FORBEARE
16
TO DIGG THE DVST ENCLOASED HEARE;
BLESTE BE YT MAN YT SPARES THESE STONES.
AND CVRST BE HE YT MOVES MY BONES.
If we accept this text as the actual original text, we could easily conclude
that the person writing the “first” copy above did NOT take their
transcription “off” of the tombstone, as Mr. Kathman opined. The
juxtaposition of the two texts above obviates the need for commentary
on the differences.
copy #2 : JOHN WEEVER
As to the second copy, Kathman writes:
In 1631, a year before his death, John Weever published the
massive Ancient Funerall Monuments, which recorded many
inscriptions from monuments around England, particularly in
Canterbury, Rochester, London, and Norwich. Shakespeare's
monument does not appear in the published book, but two of
Weever's notebooks, containing his drafts for most of the book
as well as many unpublished notes, survive as Society of
Antiquaries MSS. 127 and 128. In one of these notebooks,
under the heading "Stratford upon Avon," Weever recorded
the poems from Shakespeare's monument and his gravestone,
as follows:
Iudcio Pilum, Genio Socratem, Arte Maronem
Terra tegit, populus maeret, Olympus habet.
Stay Passenger, why goest thou by so fast
Read if you canst whome envious death hath plac'd
Within this monument Shakespeare with whome
Quick Nature dy'd whose name doth deck his Tombe
Far more then cost, sith all yt hee hath writt
Leaves living Art but page to serve his witt.
17
ob Ano doi 1616 AEtat. 53. 24 die April
[It will be noted John Weever’s “errors” above: first whom is “whome”;
“plac’d”; dy’d;” “sith,” use of doube “ee”s, etc. Also to be noted like
errors for the gravestone below., Ed.]
Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
To digg the dust enclosed heare
Blest bee ye man that spares these stones
And curst bee hee that moves my bones.
In the margin opposite the heading "Stratford upon Avon",
Weever wrote "Willm Shakespeare the famous poet", and
opposite the last two lines of the epitaph he wrote "vpo[n] the
grave stone". Although Weever, like Dugdale (see below), was
not 100% accurate in the details of his transcription, it is obvious
that the inscriptions on both the monument and the gravestone
were substantially the same in 1631 as they are today.
Furthermore, Weever apparently knew Shakespeare personally -his 1598 Epigrammes includes the first full poem in honor of
Shakespeare ever printed, a sonnet entitled "Ad Gulielmum
Shakespear" in which he praises Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, and
Romeo and Juliet. This entry in his private notebook shows that
he knew that the poet he had praised in print more than 30 years
earlier was the same person buried in Stratford upon Avon.
************
It will be noted that Kathman’s remark (above) “that the inscriptions on
both the monument and the gravestone were ”substantially the same in
1631.” [italic added].
Of course, the “substantially the same” kills Mr. Roper’s precisely
identified message.
As to the gravestone, we see (compared to the original) Weever has a
penchant for adding “e”s or not adding “e”s. A possible explanation why
18
he adds an “e” to the first “whome” in the second line of the “original,
i.e., extant plaque text might because he had two “e”s in his name
“Weever”?
COPY #3: DUGDALE
Dugdale, a professional monuments engraver, is said to have visited the
site also, circa 1630, to make sketches of the Shakespeare Monument.
There may be some dispute about when and if he was really responsible
for the engravings, but the engraving’s appeared in his book, in 1654.
Dugdale’s text above, reads below:
Judicio Pylium, genio Socratem, arte Maronem,
Terra tegit populus maret, olympus habet.
Stay, passenger why goest thou by soe fast,
Read, if thou canst whom envious death hath plac’t
w[th] in this monument Shakspeare with whome,
Quick nature dyed, whose name doth deck the tombe
For more then cost, sith all that he hath writ
19
Leaves living art but page to serve his witt.
Comment: The “soe” in the first line destroys Mr. Roper’s proposed
“solution” to a cipher. Shakespeare is emphasized, there is only one “t”
on “writ,” etc.—as the reader can easily see. “WITH IN” is curiously
spelled “W th” or perhaps with a thorn sign (it is difficult to see). The
words, albeit differently spelled are the same words as the extant
epitaph—except SIEH, which is “sith.”
And to be complete, we post as well Dugdale’s tombstone inscription for
orthographical comparative purposes:
Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare
To dig the dust inclosed here
Blest be the man that spares these stones
And curst be he that moves my bones.
20
[as to the tombstone, we observe that “inclosed” is spelled in the
presumptive original as “encloased” and “Blest” is lacking the ending
“e”—also there is no contraction for “the” or “that”]
Mr. Roper’s claim in his book Proving Shakespeare that Dugdale’s work
was so accurate that it constituted in the court’s “a legal fact” is a gross
misstatement of the facts—substantial evidence can and has been
adduced to controvert the claim. And, it would seem, his marshalling
Dugdale as authority for his word, is rather strange—as Dugdale’s first
line destroys his alleged decipherment.
* Additonal Comment: A notable fact, however, on Dugdale’s
engraving, is that on the same page that contains Dugdale’s engraving of
Shakespeare’s Monument is another engraving of William and Anne
Clopten, who were variously deceased in 1592 and 1596. The inscription
reads that their elaborate monument was “repaired and beautified” by
their countess daughter in 1630. The text also mentions explicitly implies
that only about 40 years after the Clopten’s memorial monument was
created it was already in need of “repair” and “beautifying.” This is
entirely consonant with other reports that the quality of materials used
for monuments in those days, even for families of highly placed
personages, was poor indeed. This point is made here, as it gives
substance, to the historical reports of Shakespeare’s Monument falling
into great decay was typical of the times. Indeed, even, apparently, by
the time of our next reported text of the Shakespeare epitaph in 1693,
which is reported to be from a letter, the original manuscript copy of
which was in possession of O.J. Halliwell who published it. If it is reliable,
it is an extraordinary piece of evidence in this matter.
COPY #4: DOWDALL
Halliwell writes, on page 87, of his The Life of Shakespeare, that:
On April 10th, 1693, a person of the name of Dowdall
addressed a small treatise in the form of a letter to Mr.
Edward Southwell, endorsed by the latter “Description of
several places in Warwickshire,” in which he gives the
21
following account of Shakespeare, including information
nowhere else to be met with:-Just under his Effigies in the wall of the chancell is this
written.
Judico Plyum, genio Socratem, arte Maronem
Terra tagit, populous moerett, Olympus habet
Stay, passenger, who goest thou by soe fast?
Read, if thou canst, whome envious death hath plac’t
Within this monument: Shakespeare, with whome
Quick nature dyed; whose name doth deck the tombe
Far more then cost, sith all that he hath writ
Leaves living art but page to serve his witt.
Neare the wall where his monument is erected lyeth a plaine free stone,
underneath which his bodie is buried with this epitaph, made by himself
a little before his death.
Good friend, for Jesus sake forbeare
To dig the dust inclosed here!
Blest be the man that spares these stones,
And cur’st be he that moves my bones!
Comment: Note the “original” “FREND” is above “friend” and encloased”
is spelled “inclosed”; “here” lacks a final “e”, “blest” lacks a final “e”) and
there is a contraction of “cur’st” but “the” and “that” are not contracted.
Also, “whome” is so spelled in line 2and 3. There is only one “t” on “writ”,
etc. etc.
As to the provenance of this “manuscript” copy of the actual letter,
Halliwell states:
The original manuscript is in my possession, and an
account of it may be seen in Thorpe’s Catalog of MSS for
1836, p.395. It is of great curiosity as one of the earliest
independent authorities for the life of Shakespeare. It
22
was published in 8vo. 1838, under the title of
‘Traditionary Anecdotes of Shakespeare;’ but as the
orthography was modernized, and several lines omitted,
besides many inaccuracies, I am well pleased to have the
opportunity of giving a faithful copy of that portion of it
which relates to our poet.
First, as to the epitaph plaque: It is indeed remarkable, that a modern
scholar, of highest reputation, reporting on a letter from 1693, which he
has in his possession, declares how pleased he is to give a “faithful” copy
of it which was corrupted by other published sources of the day! The first
thing we note is the letter “J” in “Judico” from the title. Of course, in
1620, there was no “J” in use, but use of “J” was well in place by 1693,
the date of the MSS letter, it was the routinely used letter (instead of the
“I” which it replaced, usage of “J” was adoped in 1634).
Now the writer of the letter, Dowdall, introduced his transcription with
these words:
The first remarkable place in the County that I visited was
Stratford super Avon, where I saw the effigies of our
English tragedian, Mr. Shakspeare; parte of his epitaph I
sent Mr. Lowther, and desired he should impart it to you,
which I finde by his last letter he has done: but here I
send you the whole inscription.”
It is, perhaps, worth pointing out that Mr. Dowdall himself not only
spelled Shakespeare’s name as “Shakspeare” (which, of course, appears
now on the epitaph). He refers to “the tombe” instead of “this tombe”
and spells “liveing” art, instead of “living” art It will be recalled the Folio
#26 copy also spells “liveling.” Were we able to see the actual
transcription we might conceivably see that the punctuation given by Mr.
Dowdall aided the “visual” affect of the piece.
COPY #5: VERTUE
In 1723, as reported by Mr. Roper, George Vertue, visited Stratford-uponAvon “to sketch the monument for inclusion in Alexander Pope’s edition
23
of Shakespeare plays.” (Roper, p. 7). Two years later, in 1725, his sketch
was published in Pope’s collection of Shakespeare’s plays. Below is the
text that we “copied” from the monument and epitaph plaque:
Mr. Roper does not comment at all in his book Proving Shakespeare upon
the text of Vertue’s sketch—an interesting feature of which is that it has
many “errors” compared to other “copies”, but some significant features
also in common with the earliest MSS copies. Much of the punctuation is
the same, there are capital letter Latin-style title words, the word
“Shakespeare” is emphasized as it was in Dugdale, etc. The first line,
however, is different from all others in that, instead of “why goest thou
by so fast” (or a spelling variant), Vertue has different arrangement: “why
dost thou go so fast?” Vertue, it will be noted uses the word “since”
instead of “sith” as in all earlier MSS copies; he also uses the “modern”
“has” instead of all previous MSS copies which have “hath.”
COPY #6: UNKNOWN HAND
24
From The Life Of William Shakespeare, Sir Sidney Lee, p. 497, we take our
sixth example of a pre-1840 [?] presumed MSS transcription of the
epitaph—though Lee offers no provenance for it, except what may, or
may not be inferred from his remarks.
Iudicio Pylium, genio Socratem, arte Maronem,
Terra tegit, populus maeret, Olympus habet.
Stay passenger, why goest thou by so fast?
Read, if thou canst, whom envious death hath plast
Within this monument; Shakspeare with whome
Quick nature dide; whose name doth deck ys tombe
Far more then cost; sith all yt he hath writt
Leaves living art but page to serve his witt.
Obiit ano. doi 1616 AEtatis 53
Die 23 Ap.”
Sir Lee goes on to say, “the authorship of the epitaph is undetermined. It
was doubtless a London friend who belonged to the same circle as
William Basse or Leonard Diggs, whose elegies are on record elsewhere.
The writer was no superior to them in poetic capacity.” So says Sir Lee.
But, there is some merit, we believe in identifying William Basse as the
author of the epitaph—but this may just be a point of view.
Sir Sidney Lee implies by these above quoted words, does he not, that
the unnamed author of the copy of Shakespeare’s Stratford Memorial
epitaph was a London friend of Shakespeare’s? If so, one supposes, the
apparent copy of the poem he cites would have a provenance for it circa
1620 to 1670 or so. A rather uncertain time frame for a date, I agree. If
one does not accept the proposed inference we merely have another
errant typescript of Sir Sidney Lee’s invention where he modified SIEH to
accord with his own interpretation of the word.
Here one would have to imagine that Sir Sidney Lee is the one who it is
who is injecting “corrections” to the epitaph or he quotes from a copy
MSS. It is almost exact except for the fact that there are changes: after
the word “monument” there is a semicolon; after “dide” he has a
semicolon instead of a colon and, as well, after the word “cost”, etc. Yet
25
as things like punctuation don’t matter, the only thing that is not
preserved of the Roper cipher is, it seems, “sieh,” given by Sir Philip Lee
as all copies, “sith.” Was it due to spacing that “writt” and “witt” both
have double “t”s”?
The second line of the title is indented, as it is in Weever.
As Mr. Roper makes a big point of the oddity of “monument Shakspeare”
this issue is “in play” as well.
Conclusion:
Certainly, Mr. Roper, steps out of his boundaries when he states
categorically, that:
“Conclusion: it can be confidently asserted that Jonson’s avowal
encrypted into the Cardano grille is entirely unique.
Consequently, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IS EDWARD DE VERE.
Jonson as a contemporary of Shakespeare, on familiar terms with
him, and a man who admired his genius, knew this, and via the
inscription on the Stratford monument, he has conveyed it to
posterity as: A TRUTH SET IN STONE.”
An assertion, by any means, cipher or otherwise, does not constitute a
fact. Evidence does. Mr. Roper errs when he thinks a cipher proves a fact;
it only proves that someone created a cipher with that message (and if
we find no other instances of the use of SIEH, the “original” cipher may
have been manipulated in c. 1840 to express an opinion that the original
creator of the cipher was Jonson. For this matter see infra). All kinds of
speculations can come into play.
Proof of the proposition is to be found in the facts that confirm it. Here
there are no facts to confirm it.
Commentary and Analytical Observations
26
Analysis of Mr. Roper’s claims, generally and in particular, leaves us
apparently with two questions:
1. How likely is it that the surviving Shakespeare Stratford Monument
epitaph text was ever in the original?
2. If the original text was not the surviving text, how likely is it that with a
little “nip here and tuck there” the surviving text could be transformed in
such a way as to make is susceptible to planting a cipher message in it—
exactly as Mr. Roper has it?
a.) As to the first question, MR has concluded it is more likely than not
that the surviving epitaph text was NOT the original text (whatever it
was). Of the existing 5 (or 6) variants none have the various elements
which Mr. Roper claims are the necessary constituents for the formation
of his alleged valid cipher message. That is to say—the exact variations of
spelling, the exact number of letters, the exact needed words, etc.
A number of considerations come into play. Take for example the
obvious case of the use of the Yt and Ys (i.e., for “that” and “this”)—if, for
example, in the earlier examples of the text we have the “copies”
indicating such abbreviations we might reasonably suppose that they
were resident in the original. In the case of Folio #26, (Copy #1) for
example, no such superscript abbreviations are indicated, nor in the case
of Weever (Copy #2); however in Dugdale we have only one abbreviation,
but it is not for “these” or “that” but for “within”; Copy #3, etc.
Weever spells “plast” as plac’t, in conformance with the Folio, but using
an apostrophe, while the Folio does not (this,. of course does not affect
the cipher scheme, however, as punctuation is not a consideration,
except, potentially, of course, when it changes the number of letters in
any given word). One couold go on and on pointing out all the variations
which apparently provide sound grounds for the analytic judgment that,
more likely than not, the original epitaph text did not exist prior to the
1800’s and there is no basis in fact for assuming that the text used by Mr.
Roper was the original.
27
MR’s finding is that:
1) Without irrefutable evidence to the contrary the original epitaph was
not the same that is now extant.
2) As to the second question, supra, MR must defer making findings of
facts and conclusions—not being sufficiently knowledgeable, nor having
available to it, the aid of expert expository opinion (which would then be
susceptible to analytical probing). MR has obtained the opinion of a
highly qualified cryptologist, who has expressed an opinion that Mr.
Roper’s scheme is not a valid cryptographic conclusion based upon the
issue of “consistency.” MR would have no difficulty pointing out all the
ways in which Mr. Roper’s scheme might be said to lack consistency—but
must defer from doing so. Such an effort would be a mere exercise in
attempting to confirm an opinion without having a professional overview
by which to judge the results of the findings.
As to the issue contained in the first question, however, MR is confident
of its analysis and conclusions: the extant epitaph plaque did not come
into existence until, most probably, some two hundred years after it was
first erected and hence there is no basis in fact for the claim that, even if
there is a cipher message in the extant plaque, it cannot be established
that it was created (alleged cipher message and epitaph text) by Ben
Jonson—as claimed.
Caveat: Miller Reports has not seen a copy of Weever’s MSS of the
epitaph and relies on information reported by Mr. Kathman; for Dowdall’s
MSS copy, Miller Reports relies upon O.J. Halliwell-Phillips whose
reporting of details is sometimes questionable, sometimes doubtful.
Acknowledgements: MR wishes to thank Albert Burgstahler for providing
MR research materials, including Dugdale’s sketch of the Epitaph. Also,
thanks are due to Bruce Spittle who actively contributed to the gathering
of materials and information and providing his analysis and
interpretations. Also, Bruce created the grille, Mr. Roper’s 34 Column
Cardano Grille used to illustrate Mr. Roper’s cipher text. It needs be
noted, moreover, that MR does not mean to imply that either of the
named gentlemen endorse the views of MR.
28
Notice: Miller Reports, as a matter of policy, provides related parties an
opportunity to contest, or correct, any perceived errors or reputed facts of
record. Mr. Roper was accorded this courtesy and supplied with a copy of
the Report before its being “issued” or “published” to interested parties.
Mr. Roper took no issue with our presentation of the relevant facts and
only opined that he believed the issue of the spelling of “Sieh” for “Sith”
could best be explained as a psychological reaction to seeing a
“misspelled” word (which, of course, is crucial to his decipherment).
APPENDIX “A”
MR. ROPER’S CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY
Included below is Mr. Roper’s brief chronology of the Monument’s
history, included in his article, “The Stratford Monument: A Brief
History.” The table establishes the fact that Mr. Roper was aware of the
fact of changes made to the Monument and, in view of his other
comments, quoted supra it is difficult to believe he did not realize the
original text was also changed.
1623
1623 –
1635
1636 –
1651
1709
1714
1725
Monument erected on the north wall of the chancel, showing
Shakespeare clasping a sack (Dugdale).
Reverend Thomas Wilson allowed his farm animals into the chancel
area, and his children to play ball games there. The maids also hung
their washing there.
Sir William Dugdale visited the Avon area and made a copy of the
monument. It showed Shakespeare clasping a large sack. Dugdale's
notes show that he had invited family members associated with his
representative material to offer their comments. There were no
protests from Shakespeare's descendants.
A new engraving of the monument was made for Rowe's edition of
Shakespeare's works. It confirmed Dugdale's picture in detail with
Shakespeare still grasping the same sack as first depicted by
Dugdale.
Rowe's book was reprinted, but again the monument was shown as
it appeared in the first edition.
Pope's edition of Shakespeare published, showing a composite
29
1730
1744
1746
1748 –
1749
1786 –
1788
1793
1814
1816
1827
1835 –
1839
1861
2008
picture of the monument drawn by Vertue. Cloak, pen, paper and
desk have been added, and the figure has been given a face
transplant taken from the Chandos Portrait.
Dr. W. Thomas re-edited and re-issued Sir William Dugdale's book
but with no change to the rendering of Shakespeare holding on to
his large sack of merchandise.
Hanmer's edition of Shakespeare is published, with the monument
copied from Pope's edition except only that the figure has been
given another face transplant, this time seemingly from the
Birthplace Portrait.
John Ward and his players arrived in Stratford and gave a charity
performance of Othello so that the proceeds could be used to
repair the monument which was suffering serious decay.
John Hall received instructions to repair and beautify the
monument.
Reynold Grignion engraved a new plate of the monument for Bell's
Shakespeare. The book was published in 1788 and continued to
show the monument as both Dugdale and Rowe had previously
shown it, with Shakespeare's hands holding on to a large sack.
Malone arranged for the monument to be covered in a thick coat
of white paint.
George Bullock made a cast of the monument, and in the process
observed that it was now in such a precarious state that it would
risk destruction should it be removed again.
William Ward made an engraving of the monument based upon a
painting by Thomas Phillips from the cast made by Bullock. This
shows the figure with a cloak, pen and paper.
Abraham Wivell inspected the monument and wrote a report on its
current state.
The Shakespearean Club of Stratford -upon-Avon met to discuss
the regrettable disfigurement of the bust and monument, and to
invite subscriptions for its repair and for the renovation of the
chancel walls and roof. The money raised far exceeded that
required for the repair of the monument.
Simon Collins repainted the monument according to the original
colours shown on what is referred to as the Stratford Portrait.
The present monument shows no sign of the decay reported in
previous years, and no mark of ever having been repaired. The
materials used for its construction are both hard-wearing and longlasting, as distinct from the alabaster and soft greyish-white
30
sandstone which was commonly employed for memorials in the
17th century. If this is not a replacement of the monument which
was close to destruction 200 years ago, then one is entitled to ask
what happened to the £5,000 specifically subscribed for its
regeneration?
APPENDIX “B”
COMPARATIVE COPIES
First Folio #26 (“1620’s)
Stay passenger why go’st thou by so fast
read if thou canst, whom envious death hath plact
within this monument: Shakespeare: with whom
quick nature dy’d; whose name doth deck this toombe
far more then cost; sith all that hee hath writ
leaves living art but page unto his witt.
Weever (1630)
Stay Passenger, why goest thou by so fast
Read if you canst whome envious death hath plac'd
Within this monument Shakespeare with whome
Quick Nature dy'd whose name doth deck his Tombe
Far more then cost, sith all yt hee hath writt
Leaves living Art but page to serve his witt.
ob Ano doi 1616 AEtat. 53. 24 die April
Dugdale (1630-1654)
Judicio Pylium, genio Socratem, arte Maronem,
Terra tegit populus maret, olympus habet.
Stay, passenger why goest thou by soe fast,
Read, if thou canst whom envious death hath plact
w[th] in this monument Shakspeare with whome,
Quick nature dyed, whose name doth deck the tombe
For more then cost, sith all that he hath writ
31
Leaves living art but page to serve his witt.
Obitt A.D[?] 1616
zl[?] 53 die 23 Apris
[Emphasis On Shakspeare In Original]
Dowdall (1693, published 1838)
Judico Plyum, genio Socratem, arte Maronem
Terra tagit, populous moerett, Olympus habet
[no space between lineS in original, ed.]
Stay, passenger, why goest thou by soe fast?
Read, if thou canst, whome envious death hath plac’t
Within this monument: Shakspeare, with whome
Quick nature dyed; whose name doth deck the tombe
Far more then cost, sith all that he hath writ
Leaves liveing art but page to serve his witt.
** Besides Dowdall’s MSS text cited above, J.O. Halliwell-Phillips also has
a second alleged plaque version and even a third version of the epitaph
in his book The Life of William Shakespeare i(1853) in addition to
Dowdall’s above cited text (See Printed Copies infra ).
Vertue (1725)
INGENIO PYLIEM, GENIO SOCRATEM , ARTE MARONEM,
TERRA TEGIT, POPULUS MAERET, OLYMPUS HABET.
Stay Passenger, why dost thou go so fast?
Read, if thou canst, whom curious Death has plac’d
Within this Monument: Shakespeare, with whom
Quick Nature dy’d, whose Name doth deck the tomb
Far more than Cost, since all that he has writ
Leaves living Art, but Page to serve his Wit.
32
ob: ano D(oi) 1616. Aeat. 53 Die 23 Apr
(Note emphasis on the word Shakespeare as it is also found in Dugdale]
END OF MSS COPIES
***********
EPITAPH PLAQUE TRANSCRIPTIONS: VARIANTS
***********
(J. O. HALLIWELL-PHILLIPS, 1853)
STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST?
READ IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HATH PLAST,
WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE WITH WHOME
QVICK NATVURE DIDE: WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK Ys TOMBE
FAR MORE THEN COST: SIEH ALL, Yt HE HATH WRITT,
LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT
(J. O. HALLIWELL-PHILLIPS, 1881)
To complicate matters further in Halliwell’s book of 1881(Outline of The
Life of Shakespeare), an entirely NEW plaque is presented—the one now
extant. BUT, after presenting an obvious black and white photo of the
now extant text on page 284, Halliwell states the following:
Upon a rectangular tablet, placed below the bust, are engraven
the following lines, -IVDICO PYLIVM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM,
TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET
STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST,
READ, IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST
WITHIN THIS MONVMENT, SHAKESPEARE, WITH WHOME
QVICK NATVRE DIDE; WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK YS. TOMBE
33
FAR MORE THEN COST; SITH ALL YT. HE HATH WRITT
LEAVES LIVING ART BVT PAGE TO SERVE HIS WITT.
OBITT ANO. DOM1. 1616 AETATIS 53 DUE 23 AP.
Something here is “rotten in Denmark.” It will be noted there is not SIEH
but SITH and the punctuation differs significantly—and yet, with these
words, Halliwell would have us believe the reader is viewing the very
tablet, as he has exactly taken his transcription from the “original” tablet.
Go figure.
From Chambers (1901)
Iudicio Pylium, genio Socratem, arte Maronem,
Terra tegit, populus maeret, Olympus habet.
Stay passenger, why goest thou by so fast?
Read, if thou canst, whom envious death hath plast
Within this monument; Shakspeare with whome
Quick nature dide; whose name doth deck ys tombe
Far more then cost; sith all yt he hath writt
Leaves living art but page to serve his witt.
Obiit ano. doi 1616 AEtatis 53
Die 23 Ap.”
Comment: Note Chambers writes “sith”, uses a semicolon after
Shakspeare, etc.
34
Exhibit “C” Related Photocopies
“A note regarding death is often added in the form of "starb," which means "died," or it is
written "dide" or "did" - phonetic spellings of our English word. Usually, the month, day,
and year of death are listed, and sometimes the time of day, as well as the date of the
funeral and the Bible text read at the funeral. Sometimes there are no words, just the
simple arithmetic summing the person's age at death.”
Shakespeare’s Tombstone Inscription Per Dugdale
35
Folio #26 Copy Of Shakespeare’s Tombstone
Shakespeare’s Text On His Gravestone
36
Shakespeare’s tombstone as it appears today
SHAKESPEARE’S MONUMENT AS IT APPEARS TODAY
37
Note on Mr. Roper’s Methodology: For the alleged cryptographic
method utilized to obtain the secret message (a Cardano Grille) upper or
lower cases of letters are immaterial, as said, and so is punctuation. All
that matters, according to the cipher scheme, is the precise spelling and
correct location of the letters in sequence. (It is to be noted in the
present case the extant Monument epitaph inscription uses, in Latin-style
capitals, the “V” for “U” (as customary in Elizabethan England) and also
highly stylized numerous digraphs and even trigraphs—so Mr. Roper’s
“solution” also requires they be separated into their letter constituents,
so that the thorn (i.e., the fusion of a T and an H), for example, becomes
those two separate letters (the Y is also another style of thorn, so that Y
(which represents the “th” sound, as in “the”) with and “s” in superscript
between the V of the Y yield “this”—likewise with the Yt, giving “that”
sound.
38