Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: A Taste of Bacon Sir? - The Secret of Shakespeare
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A Taste of Bacon Sir? The Secret Shakespeare

It remains uncommon knowledge that the great British Bard, William Shakespeare didn’t actually exist.

The name William Shakespeare was actually one of the many “good pens” of Sir Francis Bacon.

It is even less common knowledge, that Bacon worked his literary magic under several other “good pens” to produce classics such as Edmund Spencer’s “The Faery Queen”, a novel about his mother Queen Elizabeth I, the so-called (but certainly inaccurate) “Virgin Queen”, and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra’s “Don Quixote”.

The internal proofs that Bacon was Shake-spear (the “spear-shaker” a.k.a., the Greek Goddess Pallas Athena - known as the “shaker of the spear” - and model for England’s Brittania) are numerous and convincing.

[Image: spearshaker.jpg]

Simply put, Bacon was a genius of the very greatest magnitude.

But those who are inclined to do so may enjoy digging deeper for themselves.

Bacon founded English Freemasonry and the Rosicrucian Order

I've been grappling with this issue for 35 years.

No kidding: It all became so frustrating that I once stood before the alleged Bard's alleged likeness in the South Transept of Westminster Abbey (Of course he's buried elsewhere; would the Trickster have it any other way?) and, according to the report by the alarmed and soon-to-be-former ladyfriend beside me, asked aloud, "Could you even spell your own God-damn name?"

If this pursuit does not represent the ultimate in revisionism, I don't know what does. It is in our nature, I think, to question all authority -- and all authoritative pronouncements on matters historical. I accept this fact as a blessing.

The trick is to know when the cigar, as Marx advised, is just a cigar.

I'll settle the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy right after I reveal the Holy Grail's current zip code.

A Friend (allegedly)
It's been a well kept secret inside various esoteric and freemasonic lodges for hundreds of years Charlie. But is slowly coming to the surface.

Quite apart from Bacon's remarkable poetic and philosophical skills, he was an accomplished expert in ciphers and steganography (the art of hiding secret messages) and even has a cipher named after him -- the Bacon Cipher:

The reason, I think - or at least am prepared to speculate upon - that there continues to be debate about Bacon is/is not Shakespeare in regard to alleged ciphers embedded into Shakespeare's works, is that Bacon used a great deal of Cabalistic symbolism to further cloak his work and meaning. In other words there are levels upon levels upon levels, some of which are not easily explicable to the the run of the mill code-breaker.

This is not that unusual as there are numerous unbroken ciphers dating back to antiquity. Amongst these the Voynich manuscript ( said to be at least 400 years old) stands heads and shoulders above most others.

But as I say there are many others:

Of this list I have always been interested in the Chinese gold bar ciphers because when some years ago when I was investigating what happened to WWII plunder, I was contacted by a Chinese gentleman seeking assistance in proving his inheritance of this treasure. Obviously he didn't and wouldn't ever get it as it was, so far as I could tell, stashed in Citibank and therefore "orphaned" and hence lost to all men. But as I recall there was associated paperwork that was typed in white on white paper to preclude any possibiity of copying...

Btw, "Immerito" mainly used seven names. Specifically seven names which he called The Seven Wise men of the West. He inserted his work in their work under their names and sometimes, he included their work in his work under his name. In addition to just using their names as "good pens".


PS, I would add that the various codes discussed in the best selling book Holy Blood - Holy Grail, along with the oft repeated mystery "Et in Arcadia Ergo" remain heatedly discussed but not entirely explicable for the very reason of their somewhat eclipsed esoteric meaning - all about the "Arcadian Academy" - for which read "A.A.". These two letters appear frequently in Baconian headpieces, often accompanies by mages of hyacinths. Bacon's first public use of this emblem was in the 1577 edition of Alciat's Emblematica The hyacinth was regarded as a weed or herb but in classical Greek was the returned hero.

All kidding aside, I see the direct relevance of this inquiry to efforts to penetrate deep political systems.

So much to learn ... so little time.

Thanks Charlie and I heartily agree - so much to learn in such a short space of time.

I'm sure you will also agree with me that not everything that glitters is necessarily gold and not all that seems sinister is necessarily evil.

As friend Jung once observed:

"Only the paradox comes anywhere near to comprehending the fullness of life. Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one-sided and thus unsuitable to express the incomprehensible". CW 12
David Guyatt Wrote:As friend Jung once observed:

"Only the paradox comes anywhere near to comprehending the fullness of life. Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one-sided and thus unsuitable to express the incomprehensible". CW 12

In an essay I referenced "Keats’ ... Negative Capability 'of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts without irritable reaching after fact or reason.'"

This is a most comfortable and enlightening place to visit -- sometimes for extended periods of healing, knowing, and overall growth.
What did Bacon do in his "spare time"? It is difficult to accept that one man working alone (the single poet theory) could produce all the works you attribute to him. I suggest at least a TWO BACON THEORY would be more logical, or even a secret agency producing all the scenarios. Not even all the renaissance painters painted every stroke of the paintings attributed to them, but employed apprentices to a lot of the grunt work like backgrounds while the masters worked mainly on important parts of the composition.

On the other hand, I have always been suspicious of such SCANT HISTORICAL RECORDS of a famed person like Shakespeare (much like Jesus Christ). A person who is famous in his own time is always well recorded by officials in public records and public and private writings by friends and historians, like his contemporaries. I know of no records regarding Shakespeare. The life and times of Jesus were not recorded until many years after his death. This is not to say that Shakespeare and Jesus were not real historical persons...but both should have left contemporaneous records other than what is extant.

Is it possible that Will was just a front man (patsy?). My theory is that he was like a theatrical producer or editor of a book. He had a theater where he presented plays. He had a group of writers turning out manuscripts which he produced and took credit for, perhaps editing the final script. Or like an editor of the writings of others, which he edited into a single "Shakespearian style."

Hi Jack. There was a whole band of writers and other craftsmen of the arts surrounding Bacon. He presented his work through some of their names and they through some of his.

But having said that I think he was solely responsible for an immense output of work and this was a reflection of his genius.

It strikes me that genius has an almost inhuman drive that results in a continuously flow of creativity from their very pores. I think such people are very probably polymaths.

For example, review the incredible volume of output of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who lived only 45 years and yet is credited with over 600 compositions ranging from symphonic, chamber, piano, choral and operatic. Meanwhile, the Italian polymath, Leonardo da Vinci was a scientist, mathematician, sculptor, engineer, painter, inventor, anatomist, architect, botanist, musician and writer. If you got me going I cold quote one or two more in the same mould.
Just a guess:

The brain -- or the electro-magnetic containment field for the spirit -- of the so-called polymath is, "intentionally" or not, under-limiting the spirit's powers while incarnate.

Or these guys are just really freakin' smart.

On an uncharacteristically serious note: The improvising jazz genius Charlie Parker very well may be said to have created as many "compositions" as did Mozart.

Bird died at 35.

This, of course, when one takes into consideration the peculiarities of jazz creation and expression -- and when one gets over cultural prejudices and ignorance.
I am NOT a student of the Bard, though I admire his works, especially when well presented, as in Olivier's HAMLET.

However, I have read a little about Shakespeare and the controversy, and I find many things suspicious...against human nature.

1. Shakespeare was a well known person in his own time, and as such would have gained some notoriety, so there should be many historical artifacts surviving in public records and archives. I know of nothing, do you?

2. It is said that he penned all his works in longhand, and from these pages were printed the words we have today. However, though the words survive, I know of not a single museum nor collector which has an original manuscript in Shakespeare's handwriting. Do you? Such an artifact would be priceless, worth millions. Does it strike you odd that not a single scrap of manuscript survives? Or were they written at all, but improvised by actors in rehearsals from a plot line? What if the written works were written down AFTER the play was all worked out in rehearsals? Nobody really knows.

3. If someone other than Will wrote it all, why did he choose to remain anonymous? Was Will a fictitious character? Surely not, since he seems to have been a public figure and producer of plays at the Globe. I can fathom no reason for an author of such acclaimed works to disavow them. How was Shakespeare chosen, and why did he accept the role? It is against human nature for anyone to hide such talent. Fast forward to the 20th century. Flo Ziegfield produced many Broadway shows...but he did not write them. Hired writers wrote them. Or take Bob Hope, our greatest comedian. His jokes were famous, but one of his running jokes about his humor was about his JOKEWRITERS.

To me the most logical "theory" is that Shakespeare was a real person who was a theatrical producer. He had a stable of writers cranking out "soap operas" much like today's TV. His plays were considered just a day's work in the entertainment business...not the monumental works they were later acclaimed to be, or not to be. The question is whether tis nobler in the minds of men to see them as soap operas of that period, or something mysterious and more grand.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8