A Taste of Bacon Sir? - The Secret of Shakespeare

[Magda Hassan]

Where does Christopher Marlowe fit into all this?

[David Guyatt]

Marlowe was one of Bacon's "seven good pens".

Published anonymously (but known to be the work of "Immerito") in 1579, the "Shepheards Kalender" has the following:

quote

As I have often said, and as you will well know by this time, you have poems and prose works on divers themes in all such various styles as are put before the world as Greene's, as Shakespeare's, Burton's, as Peele's, Spenser's, as Marlowe's as Johnson's drama or my own long devised and but well begun own labour, - than which non hath a better object, - for I varied my style to suit different men, since no two show the same taste and like imagination, and all doth contain the great Cipher I constantly teach...

unquote

The "great Cipher" referenced was Bacon's Bilateral cipher:

http://www.prs.org/gallery-bacon.htm

[Paul Rigby]

I can fathom no reason for an author of such acclaimed works to disavow them. Jack

Re-visit the sonnets, Jack, and you'll soon see why: the author was very obviously an aristocratic homosexual. Two very good reasons for anonymity in late Elizabethan England. The best biographical fit between oeuvre and author that I've come across is to be found in the case of Oxford.

I suspect that under the complex of reasons for the Elizabethan state and its successors perpetuating the deception lies the question of religion. Oxford, the man who single-handedly funded the English Renaissance, was far from a conventional Protestant Puritan.

Worse, perhaps, he was not above satirising the chief of Elizabethan England's brutal secret police. (The latter was Oxford's father-in-law.)

Paul

[David Guyatt]

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.

Jack

[my bolding]

"Hiding one's talent under a bush" aka writing under a pseudonym/anonymously is an old and well established activity when it comes to esoteric adepts. And Bacon was certainly that. Besides this his work is liberally peppered with cloaked clues about is real identity.

We also have to consider that he was a royal prince of the blood and so was restrained by his position and by his mother in public matters.

For doubts about the authorship of Shakespeare's Sonnets see:

http://www.sirbacon.org/Sonnet/intro.html


note the curious punctuation of the dedication page of the Sonnets which some consider to be a code.


Note also the hyphenated name "Shake-Speares" hinting at the cloaked name of Pallas Athena/Minerva, the "spear shaker".

I also would wish to dismiss any question that this is a conspiracy theory. Many, many scholars and others have openly spoken on this question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare...p_question

Quote

Authorship doubters

For authorship doubters, evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was merely a front man for another undisclosed playwright arises from several circumstantial sources including perceived ambiguities and missing information in the historical evidence supporting Shakespeare's traditional candidacy for authorship. In this regard, doubters cite the fact that there are large gaps in the historical record of Shakespeare's life and no surviving letter, written to or by him, is known to exist. His three-page will lists no books, diaries, plays or unpublished manuscripts, and makes no mention of the shares in the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres that he supposedly owned.

In addition doubters assert that the plays require a level of education (including knowledge of foreign languages) greater than that which Shakespeare is known to have possessed. They also cite the following: circumstantial evidence suggesting the author was deceased while Shakespeare of Stratford was still living; doubts of his authorship expressed by his contemporaries; plays that he appeared to be unavailable or unable to write; ciphers and codes asserted to be hidden in the works that identify another author; and perceived parallels between the characters and events in Shakespeare's works and the life of the favoured candidate, with a particular emphasis on the author's familiarity with life in the Elizabethan court.

On September 8, 2007, acclaimed British actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance unveiled a "declaration of reasonable doubt" on the authorship of Shakespeare's work, after the final matinee of I Am Shakespeare, a play investigating the bard's identity, performed in Chichester, England. The "declaration" named 20 prominent doubters of the past, including Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud and Charlie Chaplin. The document was sponsored by the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition and has been signed online by over 1,000 people, including 200 academics, to encourage new research into the question. Jacobi, who endorsed a group theory led by the Earl of Oxford, and Rylance, who was featured in the authorship play, presented a copy of the document to William Leahy, head of English at Brunel University, London.[5]

Unquote

[Jack White]

David, I appreciate your passion on this subject, but I spent about two hours reading Shakespeare biographies on the internet, and I find little reason for suspicion. He was part owner and "front man" for the best known theatrical troupe in London. It is my belief that his plays were a group effort of the actors, and as producer, the credit went to Will. He was as much a business man as an actor. My opinion regards ONLY his plays; I have no literary opinion of his sonnets or poems.

Something I did find suspicious was his leaving Stratford for London for 20 years, in effect abandoning his wife, who remained behind. Now that is something to ponder.

Jack

[David Guyatt]

Jack, to the same extent that you are not convinced that Bacon was Shakespeare, I am.

The internal (albeit cloaked) truths of this are too many to ignore. It is something of a passion, but not too much of a passion. Never-the-less, I do not allow wish to cloud objective judgement.

Having said that I appreciate that we must simply agree to disagree.

"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed,
and some few to be chewed and digested.
That is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention."--Francis Bacon

**

"How shall we stretch our eye
When capitol crimes, chew'd, swallowed and digested
Appear before us?"
--Henry V (II,ii)

http://www.sirbacon.org

[Paul Rigby]

I can fathom no reason for an author of such acclaimed works to disavow them. Jack

Re-visit the sonnets, Jack, and you'll soon see why: the author was very obviously an aristocratic homosexual. Two very good reasons for anonymity in late Elizabethan England. The best biographical fit between oeuvre and author that I've come across is to be found in the case of Oxford.

I suspect that under the complex of reasons for the Elizabethan state and its successors perpetuating the deception lies the question of religion. Oxford, the man who single-handedly funded the English Renaissance, was far from a conventional Protestant Puritan.

Worse, perhaps, he was not above satirising the chief of Elizabethan England's brutal secret police. (The latter was Oxford's father-in-law.)

Paul

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/9862...his-plays-

BARD ACTOR: ‘SHAKESPEARE MAY NOT HAVE WRITTEN ALL HIS PLAYS'

DOUBTS: Shakespearean devotee Branagh
Sunday, May 3,2009

By Sandro Monetti

SHAKESPEAREAN actor Kenneth Branagh has questioned the true identity of the author of the plays to which the star has devoted his career.

He admits he is beginning to be swayed by the theory that the true author was not William Shakespeare but the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.

Branagh said: “There is room for reasonable doubt. De Vere is the latest and the hottest candidate.

“There is a convincing argument that only a nobleman like him could write of exotic settings and that William Shakespeare was a simple country boy.”

Branagh, who has been Oscar nominated three times for his work on Shakespearian films, added: “I’m fascinated by all the speculation.

“If someone could find conclusive proof that Shakespeare wasn’t the author of the plays then it would cause a seismic shock – not least to the economy of Stratford-upon-Avon.”

He was speaking at the US premiere of his BAFTA-winning Swedish detective series, Wallander.

[David Guyatt]

Also a contender - and a rosicrucian and freemason.

http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/issues/2...gordon.pdf

[Jack White]

I always try to examine things logically.

In those days all composition was HANDWRITTEN. How much
time would it take to write by hand the complete works of the Bard?

And it surely would take twenty times as long to COMPOSE AND CREATE
the works. And another amount of time for editing and rewriting.

Did the suspected "Shakespeares" have that much time to do SECRET
WRITINGS? Wouldn't their contemporaries become suspicious of the
clandestine time?

And there is the matter of getting the plays produced at The Globe.
Is there any record of Bacon/whoever interacting with Shakespeare?
Were the manuscripts delivered by UPS? Did Bacon attend rehearsals?
Too many practical details do not make sense.

Jack

[David Guyatt]

The people around Bacon were aware of what he was doing but as they were all close friends, and indeed, mostly (if not all?) fellow Rosicrucians, secrecy was not an issue.

As Polymaths go, such output is not exceptional. Leonardo Da Vinci being just one example out of many.

One young boy in the UK, now aged around 13, speaks 8 languages fluently and is presently learning Anglo-Saxon from a Don at Oxford. He is extraordinarily well read in the classics and his IQ is at least 180, the highest measurable IQ.