PDA

View Full Version : A Taste of Bacon Sir? - The Secret of Shakespeare



David Guyatt
10-02-2008, 01:04 PM
A Taste of Bacon Sir? The Secret Shakespeare

It remains uncommon knowledge that the great British Bard, William Shakespeare didnt 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 Spencers The Faery Queen, a novel about his mother Queen Elizabeth I, the so-called (but certainly inaccurate) Virgin Queen, and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedras 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 Englands Brittania) are numerous and convincing.

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/05may/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.

http://www.SirBacon.org/

http://www.SirBacon.org/links/evidence.htm

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/parentage.htm

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/05may/spearshaker.html

http://HiWAAY.net/%7epaul/

Bacon founded English Freemasonry and the Rosicrucian Order

http://www.light-of-truth.com/

Charles Drago
10-02-2008, 01:40 PM
David,

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)

David Guyatt
10-02-2008, 02:38 PM
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:

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

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.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_13.htm

But as I say there are many others:

http://elonka.com/UnsolvedCodes.html

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".

David

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.

Charles Drago
10-02-2008, 03:19 PM
David,

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.

CD

David Guyatt
10-02-2008, 04:15 PM
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

Charles Drago
10-02-2008, 06:27 PM
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.

Jack White
10-02-2008, 06:39 PM
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."

Jack

David Guyatt
10-02-2008, 07:39 PM
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.

Charles Drago
10-02-2008, 10:38 PM
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.

Jack White
10-03-2008, 12:53 AM
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.

Jack

Magda Hassan
10-03-2008, 07:52 AM
Where does Christopher Marlowe fit into all this?

David Guyatt
10-03-2008, 09:50 AM
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
10-03-2008, 05:53 PM
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
10-04-2008, 10:11 AM
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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/SonnetsDedication.jpg/180px-SonnetsDedication.jpg
note the curious punctuation of the dedication page of the Sonnets which some consider to be a code.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Sonnets-Titelblatt_1609.png/180px-Sonnets-Titelblatt_1609.png
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_authorship_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
10-04-2008, 11:55 AM
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
10-04-2008, 01:27 PM
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)

www.sirbacon.org

Paul Rigby
05-03-2009, 11:29 AM
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/98626/Bard-actor-Shakespeare-may-not-have-written-all-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: Im fascinated by all the speculation.

If someone could find conclusive proof that Shakespeare wasnt 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
05-05-2009, 10:55 AM
Also a contender - and a rosicrucian and freemason.

http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/issues/2007/articles/vol4_01_20_gordon.pdf

Jack White
05-05-2009, 12:27 PM
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
05-05-2009, 01:18 PM
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.

David Guyatt
01-30-2011, 05:20 PM
http://lordverulam.org/video_baconian_hushush.html

Charles Drago
01-30-2011, 05:44 PM
Will view, though likely not until tomorrow ... and tomorrow and tomorrow ...

By the way, I've enjoyed this thread from the day it was launched.

Jack White
01-30-2011, 07:01 PM
Charles and I disagree on Shakespeare. He is the Shakespeare scholar and
I am not.

But I do know a little about history, especially art history, of that era.
Successful painters were big business back then. A popular painter
would have many commissions to fill, and would have a studio with many
apprentices. To turn out a high volume, the signature artist would supervise
the early stages of a landscape or portrait; apprentices would do a lot of
the grunt work, and the signature artist would add the refined finishing
touches and sign his name. Even in the 1900s as an art director, I often
worked the same way.

In my opinion Bill Shakespeare was like other successful art entrepreneurs
of the era. He was the Flo Zigfeld of his day. He was a successful producer
of theatricals. He employed many apprentices and actors. They had production
dates to meet. Plots and characters were discussed. Actors improvised dialog.
Scribes took down conversations. Scripts were written and rewritten. Finally,
rehearsals honed down the finished performances, the curtain rose and the
audience was captivated. Hamlet uttered TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE
QUESTION. Everyone said that Will Shakespeare can really write! But did he?
Or was it "just another season, another show...there's no business like show
business, no business I know."

Jack

Charles Drago
01-30-2011, 07:26 PM
Everything about your post is appealing Jack ... except you're too kind evaluation of my command of all things Shakespearean.

I'm just a bit player. But thanks anyway.

Jack White
01-30-2011, 07:37 PM
Everything about your post is appealing Jack ... except you're too kind evaluation of my command of all things Shakespearean.

I'm just a bit player. But thanks anyway.

"Let's go on with the show!"
---Irving Berlin, successor to Bill Shakespeare

David Guyatt
01-31-2011, 05:51 PM
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/notebook.html


"If Bacon wrote Shakespeare, the Promus is intelligible - if he did not, it is an insoluble riddle."
-Robert Theobald,
Shakespeare Studies In Baconian Light, 1901

From Edward D. Johnson: "The Shaksper Illusion," chapter:"Francis Bacon's Promus"

FRANCIS BACON 'S Promus is by itself sufficient evidence to show that the man who wrote the Promus also wrote the "Shakespeare" Plays.

Bacon kept a private memorandum book which he called The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies which from time to time he jotted down any words, similies, phrases, proverbs or colloquialisms which he thought might come in useful in connection with his literary work, gathering them together so as to be able to draw upon them as occasion should require. The word Promus means storehouse, and Bacon's Promus contains nearly 2,000 entries in various languages such as English, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and French.
The Promus which was in Bacon's own hand-writing, fortunately was preserved and is now in the British Museum. It was reproduced and published for the first time by Mrs. Henry Pott in 1883. No one, of course, knows the date when he commenced to make this collection, it may have been written during the years 1594 to 1596. Folio 85 being dated Dec. 5, 1594(This is a sample page), and Folio 4 being dated 27 Jan. 1595. The Promus was a private note book and was unknown to the public for a period of more than 200 years after it was written.
Now it is a significant fact that Bacon in the works published under his own name makes very little use of the notes he had jotted down in the Promus . What was the object of making this collection of phrases, etc.? The answer is that they were used in his dramatic works published by Bacon in the name of ''William Shakespeare.'' A great number of these entries are reproduced in the ''Shakespeare'' plays. An appendix to the book has a table illustrating the many entries which also appear in the works of Shakespeare.

The Stratfordians try to get over this fact by contending that these expressions were in common use at the time, but Bacon would not be such a fool as to waste his time by making a note of anything that was commonly current. The words and expressions in the Promus occur so frequently in the ''Shakespeare'' plays that it is quite clear that the author of the Plays had seen and made use of the "Promus "and Will Shakesper could not have seen Francis Bacon's private notebook.

The most important evidence in the Promus is the word ALBADA, Spanish for good dawning (Folio 112). This expression good dawning' only appears once in English print, namely, in the play of King Lear where we find "Good dawning to thee friend," Act 2, Scene 2. This word ALBADA is in the Promus 1594-96 and King Lear was not published until 1600's.If Will Shaksper had not seen the "Promus", and as he could not read Spanish, it would mean that some friend had found this word ALBADA, meaning good dawning and told Shaksper about it, and that Shaksper then put the word into King Lear, which sounds highly improbable. A part of one of the folios in the "Promus "is devoted by Bacon to the subject of salutations such as good morrow, good soir, good matin, bon jour, good day. From this it would appear that Bacon wished to introduce these salutations into English speech. These notes were made in the Promus in 1596 and it is a remarkable co-incidence that in the following year 1597 the play of Romeo and Juliet was published containing some of these salutations, and they afterwards appeared in other "Shakespeare" plays good morrow being used 115 times; good day, I5 times; and good soir (even), 12 times. These words are found in the ''Shakespeare'' Plays and nowhere else.


The following show some of the connections between the Promus and the "Shakespeare" Plays.

Promus (I594-96) "To drive out a nail with a nail.''
Coriolanus, Act 4 Sc. 7 (1623) ''One fire drives out one fire; one nail, one nail."
"One nail by strength drives out another."


* *
Promus (1594-96) "Fire shall try every man's work."
Merchant of Venice, "The fire seven times tried this''
Act 2, Sc. 9 (1600)

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Conscience is worth a thousand witnesses."
Richard III, Act 5, ''Every man's conscience is a thousand swords." Sc. 2 (1597)

* *
Promus (1594-96) "A Fool's bolt is soon shot."
Henry V, Act 3, Sc.7(1623) "A Fool's bolt is soon shot."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Good wine needs no bush."
As You Like It,Epilogue (1623) "Good wine needs no bush."


* *
Promus (1594-96) "I had not known sin but by the law.''
Measure for Measure Act 2, Sc. I (1623) "What do you think of the trade Pompey? Is it a lawful trade."


* *
Promus (1594-96) "Gratitude is justly due only for things unbought."
Timon of Athens, Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) "You mistake my love, I give it freely ever; and there's none can truly say he gives, if he receives.''


* *
Promus (1594-96) "To slay with a leaden sword."
Love's Labour's Lost, Act 5, Sc. 2 (1598) "Wounds like a leaden sword."


* *
Promus (1594-96) 'If our betters have sustained
the like events; we have the less cause to be grieved.''

Lucrece (1594) ''When we our betters see bearing our woes, we scarcely think our miseries our foes.''

* *
Promus 1594-96) "When he is dead, he will beloved."
Coriolanus, Act 4 Sc.6 (1600) "I shall be loved when I am lacked."

* *
Promus (1594-96)Suum cuique." (To every man his own).
Titus Andronicus,Act I, Sc. 2 (1600) "Suum cuique is our Roman Justice."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Galen's compositions and Paracelsus' separations.''
All's Well that Ends Well,"So I say both of Galen and Paracelsus." Act 2, Sc. 3 (1623)

* *
Promus (1594-96) "He had rather have his will than his wish."
Henry V, Act 5, Sc.2 (1623) "So the maid that stood in the way for my wish shall show me the way to my will."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "They have a better question in Cheapside, 'What lack you?
King John, Act 4,Sc. I (1623) "What lack you?"

* *

Promus (1594-96) "Poets invent much."
As You Like It, Act 3, Sc. 3 (1623) ''The truest poetry is the most feigning."


* *
Promus (1595-96) "He who loans to a friend loses double."
Hamlet, Act I,Sc. 3 (1604) ''Loan oft loses both itself and friend."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "We think that a rich man is always right."
Timon of Athens,Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) ''Faults that are rich are fair."

* *

Promus (1594-96) "Have recourse to a foreign war to appease parties at home."
2 Henry IV, Act 4,Sc,5 (1600) "Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Always let losers have their words."
Titus Andronicus, Act 1, Sc. I (1600) ''Losers will have leave to ease their stomachs with their bitter tongues."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "The prudent man conceals his knowledge."
3 Henry VI, Act 4 Sc.7 (1623) "'Tis wisdom to conceal our meaning."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Things done cannot be undone."
Macbeth, Act 5, Sc.i (1623) "What's done cannot be undone."

* *.
Promus (1594-96) "Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak."
Hamlet, Act, I,Sc. 3(1604) ''Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."


* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Leisure breeds evil thoughts.''
Anthony and Cleopatra Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) "We bring forth weeds when our quick minds be still."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "A boy's love doth not endure.''
King Lear, Act 3 Sc. 6 (1608) "He's mad that trusts in a boy's love."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "A cat may look on a King."
Romeo and Juliet, Act 3,Sc.3 (1597) "Every cat and dog may look on her."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "He had need be a wily mouse should breed in a cat's ear."
Henry V, Act 3 Sc. 7 (1623) "That's a valiant flea that dare eat his breakfast on the lip of a lion."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Our sorrows are our school-masters.''
King Lear, Act 2, Sc. 4 (1608) ''To wilful men, the injuries that they themselves procure, must be their schoolmasters.''


* *
Promus (1594-96) "To fight with a shadow."
Merchant of Venice, Act I, Sc. 2 (1600) ''He will fence with his own shadow.''


* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Diluculo surgere saluberrimum est.''
Twelfth Night (Act 2,Sc,2) (1623) "Diluculo surgere, thou knowest.''


* *
Promus (1594-96) "To stumble at the threshold."
3 Henry VI, Act 4, Sc. 7 (1623) "Many men that stumble at the threshold.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Thought is free.''
The Tempest, Act 3 Sc.2 (1623)''Thought is free.''
Twelfth Night, Act I,Sc. 3 (1623) ''Thought is free.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Out of God's blessing into the warm sun."
King Lear, Act 2, Sc. 2 (1608)"Thou out of heaven's benediction com'st to the warm sun."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Put no confidence in Princes"
Henry VII, Act 3' "0, how wretched is that poor man, that hangs on princes' favours.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Frost burns.''
Hamlet Act 3 Sc.4 (1604) ''Frost itself as actively doth born."


* *
Promus (1594-96) "Appetite comes by eating."
Hamlet, Act I, ''As if increase of appetite had grown by what he feeds on."
Sc. 2 (1604)

* *

Promus (1594-96) "Better coming to the ending of a feast than to the beginning of a fray."
I Henry IV , Act 4, "The latter end of a fray and the beginning of a feast." Sc. 2 (1598)

* *
Promus (1594-96) "He stumbles who makes too much haste."
Romeo and Juliet,Act 2, Sc. 3 (1599) "They stumble that run fast."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Anyone can manage a boat in calm weather."
Coriolanus, Act 4, Sc. I (1623) ''When the sea was calm, all boats alike show'd master-ship in floating."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Happy man, happy dole."
Merry Wives of Windsor Act 3, Sc. 4(1623) "Happy man be his dole."
Henry IV, Act 2,Sc. 2 (1598) "Happy man be his dole."
The Taming of the Shrew Act I, Sc. I (1623) "Happy man be his dole."
The Winter's Tale, Act 1, Sc. 2 (1623) "Happy man be his dole."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "An ill wind that bloweth no man to good."
2 Henry IV, Act 5, "The ill wind which blows no man to good."


* *
Promus (1594-96) "Seldom cometh the better."
Richard III, Act 2,Sc. 3(1597)''Seldom comes the better."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "A thorn is gentle when it is young."
Henry VI, Act 5,Sc. 5 (1623) "What can so young a thorn begin to prick."


* *
Promus (1594-96) "He who has not patience has nothing.

"Othello, Act 2, Sc. 3 (1622) "How poor are they that have not patience.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Know thyself."
As You Like It, Act 3, Sc. 5 (1623) "Know yourself."

David Guyatt
01-31-2011, 06:36 PM
Jack, the following may be of interest:

http://lordverulam.org/pott_emblem_research.html


http://lordverulam.org/imagepott.gifMrs. Pott's Investigation
Mrs. Constance Mary Fearon Pott (Francis Bacon and his Secret Society), began tracing the origins and their similarities of emblems and in particular to the emblem of the double AA on title pages in Bacon’s time, at various libraries. Though her research mentions nothing of the double AA, what she discovered is of interest:

Sotheby’s Principia Typographica, (Brit. Mus. Press-mark 2050 G) which, for no apparent cause, breaks off at the end of the fifteenth century, and to which there is no true sequel, happens with likewise other manuscripts at the British Museum which was found an eight folio volume of blank sheets of water-marked paper. But these papers are all of foreign manufacture, chiefly Dutch and German, and the latest date on any sheet is about the same as that at which the illustrations stop in Sotheby’s Principia.

After Mrs. Pott’s search at the British Library on further manuscript emblems and water-marks in connection to Francis Bacon, she stumbled upon “two loose sheets are slipped between the pages in two volumes. One is classified as Pitcher, the other as Vase. They are specimens of the one-handled and two-handled pots of which we have so much to say.

“These are English, and we believe of later date than any of the specimens bound up in the collection. Their presence is again suggestive. They hint at the existence of an English collection somewhere.”

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Curabitur massa. Nullam enim arcu, adipiscing id, porta eget, consequat ut, lacus. Aliquam nibh. Etiam tortor ligula, facilisis sed, mattis sit amet, faucibus ut, turpis. In risus ipsum, pharetra eu, placerat id, mollis quis, justo. Mauris sollicitudin tincidunt justo. Sed suscipit tristique nulla. Suspendisse sit amet massa.

Other Particulars
Another particular points to the same conclusion. In Paper and Paper-making by Richard Herring, of which the third edition was printed in 1863 (Longmans), there are, on page 105, five illustrations of paper-marks. They are all specimens of the patterns used circa 1588 and later, and they are numbered 1418, 1446, 1447, 1449, 1450. These numbers evidently refer to a collection such as we have anxiously sought, but which we have been repeatedly assured is not known to exist. “That it does exist,” says Mrs. Pott, “we have not the slightest doubt; but where is it, and why is it withheld? Recently we have been told that the Trustees of the Bodleian Library at Oxford have secured a private collection of the kind, concerning which, however, no information is forthcoming to the present writer.”


Some Background
Richard Herring tells us that “The curious, and in some cases absurd terms, which now puzzle us so much, in describing the different sorts and sizes of paper, may frequently be explained by reference to the paper marks which have been adopted at different periods. In ancient times, when comparatively few people could read, pictures of every kind were much in use where writing would now be employed.

Every shop, for instance, had its sign, as well as every public-house; and those signs were not then, as they often are now, only painted upon a board, but were invariably actual models of the thing which the sign expressed as we still occasionally see some such sign as a bee-hive, a tea-cannister, or a doll, and the like. For the same reason printers employed some device, which they put upon the title-pages and at the end of their books, and paper-makers also introduced marks by way of distinguishing the paper of their manufacture from that of others which marks, becoming common, naturally gave their names to different sorts of paper.” (Richard Herring: Paper and Paper-making, p. 103, 3rd edition, 1863. See also Dr. Ure’s Mines and Manufactures Paper-making).

Unsatisfactions
These conclusions are, really, in no way satisfactory. They are in direct opposition to facts, which present themselves in the process of collecting these water-marks facts such as these:

~That the same designs are often varied in the same book, some volumes containing as many as eight, twelve, or twenty-five variations of one pattern.
~That similar designs appear in books of widely different periods printed and published by various firms, whilst, so far as we have found, they appear in the MS., letters of only one limited period.
~That three kinds of water-marks (and so, according to Herring, paper from three different firms) are often found in one small book.
~That these water-marks, infinitely varied as they are, often contain certain initial letters which seem to connect them with private persons, authors, or members of a secret society.
~That, even in the present day, two or three firms use the same designs in their paper-mark.

These points assure that it is an error to suppose either the most ancient or the most modern paper-marks to be mere trade-signs. True, that there are now some such, which have been used, since the revival, as a fashion, of the hand-made or rough-edged paper. But these are quite easily distinguishable, and those who follow us in this investigation will have no hesitation in deciding to which class each paper belongs.

On the other hand, Mr. Sotheby arrived, from his own point of departure, at the conclusion: “I venture to assert that until, or after, the close of the fifteenth century, there were no marks on paper which may be said to apply individually to the maker of the paper.”

With reference to any particular time or place at which this inestimable invention was first adopted in England, all researches into existing records contribute little. The first paper-mill erected in England is commonly attributed to Sir John Spielman, a German, who established one in 1588, at Dartford, for which the honour of knighthood was afterwards conferred upon him by Queen Elizabeth, who was also pleased to grant him a license for the sole gathering, for ten years, of all rags, etc., necessary for the making of such paper. It is, however, quite certain that paper mills were in existence here long before Spielman’s time.

Shakespeare, in 2 Henry VI., (the plot of which is laid at least a century previously), refers to a paper-mill.

In fact, he introduces it as ann additional weight to the charge, which Jack Cade brings against Lord Saye. An earlier trace of the manufacture in England occurs in a book printed in 1493; (De Proprietalibus Rerum, Wynken de Wordes, edition 1493) and then by Caxton, about the year 1490, in which it is said of John Tate: "Which late hath in England do make thy paper thine. That now in our English this book is printed in."

In the dictum of the Freemason Cyclopaedia it says “A very minute difference may make the emblem or symbol differ widely in its meaning,” and of Bacon’s similar hint as to the necessity for noting small distinctions in order to comprehend great things: “Everything is subtle till it be conceived.” (Promus: p. 186-18).

It is reasonable to attempt this explanation of the “little variations” that the symbol, whatever it maybe a bull’s head, unicorn, fleur-de-lis, vine, or what not illustrates some single, fundamental doctrine or idea. But the “little variations” may, as Mr. Sotheby agrees, afford pretty accurate information as to the country where, and the period when, the book was written or produced. They may even indicate the papermaker or the printer, or that the persons connected with the writing of the book were members of a certain secret society.

Unknown Papermills
If the paper used for printing books was usually made in the country where the books were printed (and this seems to be the most natural and reasonable arrangement), then we must inquire at what English mill was the paper manufactured which was to be the means of transmitting to a world then plunged in darkness and ignorance the myriad-minded and many-sided literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Tate's Papermill
Tate’s mill was situate at or near Stevenage, in Hertfordshire; and that it was considered worthy of notice is evident from an entry made in Henry the Seventh’s Household Book, on the 25th of May, 1498: “For a reward given at the paper mill, 16s. 3d.” And again in 1499: “Given in reward to Tate of the mill, 6s. 3d.” The water-mark used by Tate was an eight-pointed star within a double circle. A print of it is given in Herbert’s Typis Antiquit., vol. i. p. 200. Tate died in 1514.

Still, it appears far less probable that Shakespeare alluded to Tate’s mill (although established at a period corresponding in many respects with that of occurrences referred to in connection) than to that of Sir John Spielman.

Standing, as it did, in the immediate neighbourhood of the scene of Jack Cade’s rebellion, and being so important as to call forth at the time the marked patronage of Queen Elizabeth, the extent of the operations carried on there was calculated to arouse, and no doubt did arouse, considerable national interest; and one can hardly help thinking, from the prominence which Shakespeare assigns to the existence of a paper-mill (coupled, as such allusion is, with an acknowledged liberty, inherent in him, of transposing events to add force to his style, and the very considerable doubt as to the exact year in which the play was written), that the reference made was to none other than Sir John Spielman’s establishment of 1588, concerning which we find it said: “Six hundred men are set to work by him. That else might starve or seek abroad their bread. Who now live well, and go full brave and trim, and who may boast they are with paper fed.” (Joel Munsell: A Chronology of Paper and Paper-making, fourth edition, 1870).

The following is a list of the water-marks which Mrs. Pott’s research brought forth, found in books previous to the Baconian period, or in MSS., or other documents. The paper seems to be all foreign, from mills chiefly in Holland or Germany. Some of these figures were retained in the end of the sixteenth century and developed into other forms. Each figure seems to have been varied almost indefinitely. In her limited research she had seldom found two precisely alike, and there seem to be about sixty figures, not reckoning “nondescripts” and doubtful forms or variations:

ANIMALS. Quadrupeds Ape or Monkey, Bull, Cat (or Panther?), Dog (Hound or Talbot), Goat, Horse, Lamb (sorue-times with flag), Lion (rampant or passant), Panther, Pig, Hog, Swine, Stag (head or passant), Wolf. Birds. Cock, Duck (or Goose?), Eagle (sometimes spread, or with 2 heads or 4 legs), Goose, Pelican, Swan. Fish. Carp, Dolphin, Tortoise or Dolphin. Reptiles. Lizard, Newt, Serpent. Mythical. Dragon or Griffin, Mermaid, Phoenix, Unicorn.

FLOWERS. Bell-flower, Fleur-de-lis or Trefoil, Lily, Rose (five-petaled, or nondescript, four-petaled). Fruits. Cherries, Fig, Grapes, Pear, Pomegranate.

MISCELLANEOUS. Anchor (sometimes in a circle), Angel or Acolyte, Anvil, Ark, Bars with names, letters, etc., Battle-axe, Bell, Bow and Arrows, Cross Bow, Bugle or Trumpet or Horn, Cap (see Fool’s Cap), Cardinal’s Hat, Cask or Water-butt, Castle or Tower, Chalice, Circle (sometimes with cabalistic figures), Compasses, Cords or Knot, Cornucopia (or Horns), Crescent, Cross (Greek or Maltese), Crown, Fool’s Cap, Globe, Golden Fleece, Hambuer, Hand, Heart, Horn, Bugle, Trumpet, Cornucopia, Key, Crossed Keys, etc., Ladder, Lamp, Lance or Spear, Letters (chiefly when alone, P and Y), Lotus (?), Mitre, Moon, Moose’s Head, Mounts (3 or 7), Orb, Pope Seated, Reliquary (for Pot?), Scales on Balance, Shears or Scissors, Shell (or Fan?), Shield, Ship, Spear, Spiral line or Mercury’s Rod, Star, Sun or flaming disk, Sword, Triangle with cross, etc., Trumpet (see Horn), Vine (see Grapes), Water-butt (see Cask), Waves or Water, Wheel (sometimes toothed).

>>For more see Bacon's Dictionary

There are three paper-marks, which seem to especially associate with Francis Bacon and his brother Anthony. They are to be seen throughout the printed books, which are ascribed to Francis, and one in particular is in the paper in which he and Anthony, and their most confidential friends, corresponded, whether in England or abroad. These marks are:

1. The bunch of grapes.
2. The pot, or jug.
3. The double candlesticks

The grapes and the pots appear, in somewhat rude forms, as early as the fourteenth century. The candlesticks seem in their earlier stages to have been towers or pillars. As candlesticks, even single, was failed to be found one earlier than 1580, and then in a MS., document.

The candlesticks were the latest and least frequent of the three, being used in the double form only in editions of Bacon’s works published after his death. Even this example is rather suggestive of a castle than of a candlestick, and as castles and towers of unmistakable forms (and sometimes showing an affinity to the mounts) appear in books published in Italy as early as the fourteenth century, it is possible that here we have some of the many scattered links in the chain of continuity in designs as well as ideas.

Sotheby had noted that grapes occur in books printed at Mentz, Strasburg, Nuremberg, Basle, and Cologne, and that they were produced by Caxton, but are not in any book printed in the Netherlands.

A watch-candle is the emblem of “care and observation.” In a letter to King James I., on May 31st in 1612, Bacon says: “My good old mistress [Queen Elizabeth] was pleased to call me her watch-candle, because it pleased her to say I did continually burn (and yet she suffered me to waste almost to nothing).”

In combination with the candlesticks are fleur-de-lis, trefoil, pearls, and other symbols of the Holy Spirit; sometimes an E C or C R; almost invariably grapes piled in a pyramid or diamond. The bunch of grapes, alone, or in combination with other figures, is the second great mark in Bacon’s books.

The pitcher or pot is impressed not only on the private letters of Francis and Anthony Bacon or perhaps it is safer to say, of the Bacon family and their confidential correspondents, but on the pages of nearly every English edition of works acknowledged as “Bacon’s” published before the eighteenth century.

There are certain accessories to the Baconian pitchers, one at least being always present: (1) a rising sun, formed by the cover or round top of the pot; (2) five rays; (3) pearls; (4) fleur-delis; (5) a four-petaled flower, or a Maltese cross; (6) a moon or crescent; (7) the bull’s horns in a crown; (8) grapes; (9) a diamond, triangle, ellipse, or heart.

Sometimes there are two handles distinctly formed, as SS; often on the body of the pot are letters they maybe initials, as A B, and F B, often found in the correspondence of the brothers; or S S, Sanctum Sanctorum, etc.; R C, Rosy Cross; F or F F, Frater or Fratres; G G, Grand Geometrician God, according to Freemason books in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries paper marks were used throughout the works which were the products of the Renaissance.

These paper-marks are not mere manufacturers’ signs, but that they have a mutual relation and connection, and that they were and are means of conveying secret information to the members of some widely-spread society.

The society was not a mere trade-guild, but that it was moved by motives of religion, and, in its highest branches at least, was a Christian philosophical society, or a society for promoting Christian knowledge.

The subject matter of the books does not necessarily affect the paper-marks. The three marks, the double candlesticks, the grapes, and the pitcher or pot, are notably “Baconian,” the pot especially being found in all Bacon’s acknowledged works, and throughout the correspondence of Anthony and Francis, especially when their correspondent was of the Reformed Church.

Where any one pattern is varied many times in the same book, there is usually no other mark except in the fly leaves. The extraordinary but not unaccountable habit of tearing out the fly-leaves at the beginning and end of valuable books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries often makes it impossible to declare that the book in hand possessed no other mark besides those which we see. Mrs. Pott states “the fly-leaves were wont, in many of our Baconian books, to be very numerous: five or eight are common numbers for the sheets. They were probably intended for the making of notes, a practice which Bacon enjoins and so highly commends.”

In old, untouched libraries there are usually some books where the fly-leaves have been thus utilised. Perhaps, when filled with notes, they were to be taken out, and forwarded to some central point of study, either to an individual or to a committee, who should by their means add to the value of any subsequent edition or collection, which might be published.

It is certain that fly-leaves have been stolen for the sake of the old paper, for etching or for forged reprints; but this does not account for the fact that certain books, when sent, without any special orders, to be repaired by a Freemason binder, have returned with this large number of fly-leaves restored; in many of our public libraries such extra leaves in books rebound have paper-marks.

In Bacon’s acknowledged works the changes are rung upon the three paper-marks, the pot, the grapes, and the candlesticks, the latter being apparently the rarest of the three. Usually one or two of these patterns are combined with one extra mark. With time enough and help to examine every edition of every book concerned in this inquiry, it is hardly to be doubted that a real scheme could be drawn up to demonstrate the precise method of the use of paper-marks.

The pots seem to be in one edition at least of every work produced by Francis or Anthony Bacon, or published under their auspices. Two handles to the pot seem to mean that two persons helped in the construction of the book. Next, in republications, compilations, or collections of any kind, grapes prevail, and that the candlesticks only appear when the volume which includes them is to be considered complete. The Baconian pots have been found first in a book 1579-80, and not later than 1680 a period of one hundred years. They, like the rest of the marks, increase in size from about one inch to seven inches. The use of the Baconian grapes seems to have begun about 1600, and to have continued only in France after 1680. The double candlesticks appeared later still, after the death of Francis Bacon, and remained in use for about fifty years. The three marks all disappeared in England about 1680.

Not only is the nature of the paper-mark thus varied in each book, but the forms of each figure are varied to a surprising extent. No two volumes, often no two parts of the same volume, treatise, poem, or play, contain marks, which are identical. For instance, in Ben Jonson, 1616, there are at least fifteen different forms of the pot, two of which are sometimes in one play. In Selderi’s History of Tithes, 1618, the variations are as frequent. In Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621, there are at least thirty half-pitchers, no two of which seem to be alike.

“Again”, continues Mrs. Pott’s, “we have not succeeded in finding any form of mark precisely repeated in books of different titles, editions, or dates.” In the writing-paper of the Bacon family and their friends, there is almost as striking a variety in the representation of the same figure or pattern. It is certain that these marks were not of the same kind as the ornaments, etc., on letter-paper of the present day, in which crests, monograms, etc., are adopted by certain individuals and retained by them for some time at least.

In letters in Baconian correspondence, written in rapid succession by the same person, the marks are found different, and on the other hand, different persons writing, the one from England and the other from abroad, occasionally used paper with precisely similar marks. It would seem that, in such cases, paper had been furnished to these correspondents from some private mill.

There are, in combination with some designs, or apart from them, bars on which appear some times of paper-makers, as “Ricard,” “Rapin,” “Conard,” “Nicolas,” etc. These seem to be chiefly in the foreign paper. But often these bars are as cabalistic as the rest of the designs, or they seem to contain the initials of the producer of the book, not, of its true author. The pots have no bars in connection with them; perhaps the letters upon them render further additions unnecessary.

In Conclusion
Mrs. Pott’s conclusion was that further investigation be made into the following:

which were the very earliest paper-mills in England
to whom did they belong
what were the water-marks on the paper produced there
which was the first printed book for which the paper was made in England
from what foreign mills did our English printers import paper
at what date did the papers with the hand and the pot receive the distinctive additions which, for want of a better name, we have termed Baconian
in what books may we see the very latest examples of the candlesticks, the grapes, and the pot in the paper
when and why was the use of paper-marks in printed books discontinued
was the discontinuance simultaneous and universal? Was there truly a discontinuance of the system of secret marks, or, rather, did a change or modification take place, in order to adapt these secret marks to the exigencies of modern requirements in printing and book-making?
when Sir Nicholas Bacon, in his youth, resided for three or four years in Holland, did he visit and study the manufactories of paper? Does any record show him mixed up in any business relations with paper manufacturers?
what part did the old printers and publishers play in the secret society? For instance, John Norton (Lady Anne Bacon’s cousin) and the Spottisworths (both families in which these trades have in an eminent degree flourished ever since).
did the Baconian water-marks remain in use until circa 1680, in fact, for just one hundred years from the time when the first document of the Rosicrucian society was published.
was it intended that, by the end of the period of one hundred years, all the posthumous works of Francis Bacon, “My cabinet and presses full of papers,” should have been published by his followers, and did the system of water-marks in printed books cease at that period.
are printers and paper-makers, as a rule, Freemasons and do they mutually co-operate and understand each other’s marks
if not, what reasons do they adduce for the mystery which is still cast over simple matters connected with their useful and beneficent crafts, and for the unusual difficulties which are met with in obtaining any good books or any trustworthy information upon the subjects which we have been considering
is there any period at which modern Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism propose to clear up and reveal these apparently useless and obstructive secrets or, what is supposed to be the advantage, either to the public or to individuals, in keeping up these or other mystifications, historical or mechanical.
Once, doubtless, helpful and protective, guides as well as guardians, they now seem to be mere stumbling-blocks in the way of knowledge. But who are they who have the right and the power so to manipulate the printed catalogues of our public libraries as to enable them to convey hints to the initiated of books specially to their purpose; and to repress open references to certain books or documents which would tell the uninitiated too much?

I must close this subject with my own experience in researching Bacon’s well-known pyramid letter at the British Library and at the British Museum Library. I add their answer to my investigations, without naming the person; this allows me to protect this source, which I deem necessary, in case this document springs forth in future ages and becomes a beacon of light to those Mrs. Pott states above:

17 March, 2008
Dear …

My apologies for the delay in this reply. Further to my last message, our Manuscripts curator has just contacted me to say that she has consulted colleagues here, and at the British Museum, who consider that it is one of those mythical sources which are alleged to be in the British Museum / British Library but are not here and probably don't exist.
Apparently we do get asked for it from time.
Best wishes.

R.K. Locke
09-27-2014, 09:29 PM
I've just started looking into this subject (god help me) and it is truly fascinating. There is some excellent information in this thread as well.

At the moment I am not completely convinced by the case for any one alternative candidate but the theory presented here is intriguing:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU4ExIB62Gw&index=134&list=WL


I also found this video to be a useful, even-handed introduction to the subject:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8oJy318BDo


Any critique of the Bassano theory is welcome as I haven't yet done enough research to substantiate or dismiss the key claims.

Magda Hassan
09-28-2014, 01:19 AM
I'm sure David will have some thing to say about Bassano when he returns from his adventure.

David Guyatt
09-29-2014, 08:08 AM
My own view is Bacon was a major contributor, but also editor in chief of Shakespeare's work. I say editor in chief, because it is thought that he used several "pens" - that is to say other contemporary writers in the composition of the collected work. In other words it is not the output of one person, but several, and as a consequence I can see no reason why Emilia Lanier couldn't have been one of these too.

The other thing is that there are some quite strong indications that there are occult meanings hidden in the work.

A good resource on the subject is www.sirbacon.org

Steve Franklin
10-01-2014, 12:29 AM
Where does Christopher Marlowe fit into all this?

I have only been looking at this for a few weeks now, and only because it intersects my theory of cometary avatars which, during this period, were appearing every 105 or 106 years (1277, 1382, 1487, 1593, 1698, etc.). The previous member of this distinguished group appears to have been Leonardo da Vinci, and no one would argue, I suspect, that whoever wrote "Shakespeare" was operating on a literary level equal to that of da Vinci in the fields of painting, scupture, and invention. Leonardo studied in the workshop of Verrocchio, so there is at least something resembling an explanation of how he came to have the knowledge and skills upon which to base his later development. There is no such evidence in regard to William Shakspere, the actor and co-owner of the Globe Theater.

Though I am not terribly far into my investigation, one thing struck me as quite significant, and that is the graph presented by Thomas Mendenhall in "A Mechanical Solution of a Literary Problem" in The Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 60, No. 2, published at New York City in December of 1901.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6348&stc=1
The graph is based on the number of words of a given length per 1000 words and includes all of the plays of Marlowe and all of the plays and sonnets of "Shakespeare." This graph appeared before anyone even suspected that Christopher Marlowe had faked his own death in 1593. What this graph tends to indicate, if it is to be taken seriously, is that both the plays of Marlowe and those of "Shakespeare" were not only written by the same person, but they were written alone, with no help from anyone else, unless one would surmise that both authors had help from exactly the same folks in exactly the same proportions.

David Guyatt
10-01-2014, 08:23 AM
You might find the following website of interest: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/2012_freemasons_revelations.html (http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/2012_freemasons_revelations.html)


The occult teaching of freemasonry is very heavy on astronomical/astrological matters. Scroll down the page until you come to the heading Jacob's Ladder for the astrological/qabalistic meaning. For good measure it is probably necessary to understand that the title "Jacobs Ladder" (accessible in the dream-world in other words) actually refers to the Qabalah - and the glyph of the Tree of Life, extended out into the four worlds: https://janeadamsart.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/7-jacobs-ladder-diagram1.jpg

I would additionally note that Freemasonic occult lore is very heavily based on the Qabalah (http://www.masoncode.com/Masonry%20and%20Cabala.htm).

I would add that I wouldn't take too seriously some other statements by the writer of the lined website - for example that Leonardo Da Vinci was a Freemason. In Leonardo's day there was not such thing as Freemasonry. The latter is understood to have been founded in 1717, whereas Leonardo died in 1519. This, however, is not to say that there were prior occult fraternities stretching back into history. There were.

Lastly, Sir Francis Bacon (http://www.thewayofthequest.com/francis-bacon.html) was, like Leonardo, a polymath and was schooled in the occult.

David Guyatt
10-01-2014, 08:28 AM
Marlowe, Bacon and Shakespeare (http://bacon-shakespeare-evidence.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/marlowe-and-bacon-and-shakespeare.html)

David Guyatt
10-01-2014, 10:34 AM
From Rosecroixjournal.org (http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/issues/2007/articles/vol4_01_20_gordon.pdf):




SHAKESPEARE’S ROSICRUCIAN REVELATIONSIN THE DEDICATION TO THE SONNETS
Helen Heightsman Gordon, Ed. D.
Professor Emeritus, Bakersfield College,Bakersfield, California, U.S.A.
Abstract
Rosicrucian and Masonic symbols provide clues to solving the riddle of the Dedication toShake-speare’s Sonnets, published in 1609. Assuming that “William Shakespeare” was apseudonym, the actual author may have been Sir Francis Bacon or Edward De Vere, the 17thEarl of Oxford, both of whom were Rosicrucians and cryptographers. The “initials” under thetriangular shapes of the dedication are not those widely presumed to be “T.T.” for ThomasThorpe, the publisher, but a pair of Greek gammas representing the Masonic symbol “G” andthe Pillars of Solomon’s Temple. Encrypted names and mottos in the twenty-eight-worddedication indicate that the sonnets are dedicated to Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl ofSouthampton. Evidence in the Dedication implies that Henry was the natural son of EdwardDe Vere, who kept their relationship secret to protect Henry’s privacy and possibly his life, ifhis enemies suspected he had a claim to the throne of England.__________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________




INTRODUCTION
Rosicrucians and Freemasons are fully aware that, when authorities control free expressionthrough censorship or intimidation, the need to preserve valued knowledge may engender an“underground” movement to keep it alive until it can safely be brought to light. Such amovement requires trust among the brotherhood* to protect each other and to guard the troveof scientific or spiritual wisdom. It may require secret ways of identifying fellow members,and secret codes to convey information undetected. Since such wisdom can be lost ordestroyed, there is always a question when we try to recover it: do we have all of it, or atleast enough to piece together a logical and enlightening whole?
That has been the challenge presented for the past 400 years by William Shakespeare, whoseplays were barred from official publication until after his death, leaving successivegenerations with many questions about his personality and personal affairs. The first book ofhis sonnets, published in 1609, contains an enigmatic dedication that has gone unsolved forcenturies because Shakespeare carefully encrypted it in order to get his message past thecensors and spymasters of his own time, yet make it available to future truth-seekers. Hestated his hope in Sonnet 81 that the “eyes not yet created” would some day read the sonnetsand award the immortality of literature to the Fair Youth:
Your monument shall be my gentle verse
Which eyes not yet created shall o’er read,
And tongues to be your being shall inhearse
When all the breathers of this world are dead. [lines 9-12]
I intend to show that Shakespeare used the secret code and symbols of the Rosicrucians in hisfamous enigmatic Dedication to Shake-speare’s Sonnets, published in 1609. In fact, the cluesShakespeare inserted may well have been a cryptographed plea to future generations—particularly to the members of a truth-seeking brotherhood such as Masons or Rosicrucians—
* Note: The term “brotherhood” may not seem entirely appropriate for Rosicrucians, because we cannot becertain that women were excluded from Rosicrucian membership as they clearly were from Freemasonry.However, since Shakespeare used the terms “brothers” and “brotherhood” warmly and reverently in his works,it is most probable that he would have used the term “brotherhood” for both societies, considering it inclusive ofboth genders whenever such interpretation was warranted. It is therefore retained in that sense in this paper,when referring to Shakespeare’s usage.


file:///page3image26032 The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 3 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page3image26960
to recover the “Lost Word” and resurrect the “wounded name” (in Hamlet’s words) of thetrue author who wrote under the pseudonym of “William Shakespeare.”
THE SHAKESPEARE CONNECTION
Freemasons and Rosicrucians have long claimed William Shakespeare as one of their own,because Masonic/Rosicrucian themes and imagery pervade the Bard’s plays and poetry. Forexample, in his book Shakespeare: Creator of Freemasonry, Alfred Dodd established thatFreemasonry was thriving in Elizabethan England by showing that Shakespeare employedMasonic themes in The Tempest and Love’s Labor’s Lost [Dodd 1933]. Another Freemason,Brother Robert Guffey, sees in Macbeth a retelling of the murder of Hiram Abiff, the corefigure of Masonic ritual, and other symbolic acts [Guffey 2006, 1]. Others have foundRosicrucian themes in As You Like It; Antony and Cleopatra; Twelfth Night; Winter’s Tale;Julius Caesar; Coriolanus; Henry V; Henry VI, Part 2; Shake-speare’s Sonnets; and the longpoem, Venus and Adonis. Many references to alchemy, astrology, and the occult areembedded in oft-quoted lines of the Bard—the Master Craftsman of English drama andpoetry.
What are the symbolic clues Shakespeare placed in the Dedication to the Sonnets? Theshape of the Dedication (three inverted pyramids) suggests the triangle, and the “V” shape ofthe largest one suggests the mason’s square. The all-capital-letters font, with dots after eachseparate word, is so unusual for a dedication that it suggests a Rosicrucian cipher. Tospeculative Freemasons the twenty-eight-word dedication (with 28 dots) might suggest the28th degree and its association with the Knight of the Sun (Shakespeare was probably at ahigh level in the brotherhood, associated with knighthood and chivalry). The use of gammaletters indicates the pillars of Solomon’s temple, though they are often misread as the initials“T.T.” (and presumed to be the initials of Thomas Thorpe, the publisher). Themes of deathand rebirth in Shakespeare’s sonnets parallel the rituals of the two secret societies popular inLondon and Scotland in his time. Also, the sonnets focus to a great degree on theimmortality of literature as opposed to the mutability of the physical world, promising theFair Youth (presumably Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl of Southampton) that he will beimmortalized through Shakespeare’s verses. Sonnet 55 expresses this thought in aptly chosenMasonic metaphors:
Not marble, nor the gilded monuments
Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme.
But you shall shine more bright in these contentsThan unswept stone, besmear’d with sluttish time;When wasteful wars shall statues overturn
And broils root out the work of masonry,
Not Mars his sword, nor war’s quick fires shall burnThe living record of your memory. [lines 1-12]
Let us assume that the author had a secret he wanted to reveal when the time was right forsafe disclosure. The forbidden message would have to be encrypted to escape the censors andspymasters in Queen Elizabeth’s court, who were determined to obliterate any trace of the


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 4 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page4image25752
poet’s connections to the queen or her courtiers. The Rosicrucian code would serve hispurpose better than the Masonic code, since the Rosicrucian code uses dots in every cubicleof the “pig pen” cipher, whereas some fields are blank in the Masonic code. Shakespearecould not write the entire dedication in a code so familiar to other Elizabethans, but the dotsplaced after each word, together with the oddly ungrammatical structure of the passage,strongly suggest a coded message.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6350&stc=1
The Sonnets dedication page.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6351&stc=1
The Pig-pen cypher


Let us assume also that Shakespeare wrote his own dedication, just as he had done with hisfirst published poems, “Venus and Adonis” in 1593, and “Rape of Lucrece” in 1594.Although it is widely believed that the publisher Thomas Thorpe wrote the dedication to thesonnets, that assumption is highly questionable. It arises from failure to recognize the Greekletter gamma, which somewhat resembles a “T” but more significantly resembles a mason’ssquare. The two adjacent gammas form an image of the pillars of the Temple of Solomon,symbolic of wisdom and the pursuit of truth.
It seems logical to assume that this sonnet collection, like the narrative poems, would bededicated to Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton. But the political climate hadradically changed between 1594 and 1600. In 1601 Southampton was sentenced to lifeimprisonment for participating in the Essex Rebellion with his friend, Robert Devereux, theSecond Earl of Essex [Ogburn, D. 1952, 918]. Mentioning his full name would have putSouthampton in further danger, but his initials, H.W., anagrammed as Mr. W. H., make itmost probable that Southampton is the dedicatee. Other reasons will shortly becomeapparent.
Let us further assume that Shakespeare was both a Rosicrucian and a speculative Freemason,from the themes and symbols evident in his writing. If so, we can rule out Will Shakspere ofStratford, the heretofore-presumed author in the received “Stratfordian” tradition, who hadno known connections with the movements of Freemasonry or Rosicrucianism. We know solittle about him that we have raised him to the status of an icon, making suppositions thathave evolved into fiercely defended tenets that his genius explains everything in his writing.However, doubts have persisted about the disjuncture between the known biographical factsof Shakespeare’s ordinary life and the sophisticated intellectual brilliance pervading theShakespearean canon.
The doubts have sparked a debate now generally known as the Authorship Question or theShakespeare Authorship Controversy. The skeptics believe that “William Shake-speare” or“Shakespeare” was a pen name used to hide the true author’s identity. Though manycandidates have been proposed, the only two which concern our present inquiry are (1)Francis Bacon, a lawyer and cryptologist in the court of Queen Elizabeth I; and (2) EdwardDe Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, Elizabeth’s favorite court playwright. Oxford, in theopinion of a growing number of devotees, is the more likely candidate, with more compellingreasons for seeking anonymity.
These two Renaissance men had much in common. Both used Rosicrucian and Masonicsymbols in their writing. For example, the “double A” symbol in the headpiece of FrancisBacon’s philosophical books, standing for Apollo and Athena, the two Spear-shakers, is an


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 5 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page5image27440
important signature in the Rosicrucian fraternity, used since the time of the AncientEgyptians [Dawkins 1999, 3]. This “AA” signature also appears in the First Folio ofShakespeare’s plays, although the sponsors of the First Folio were not Bacon’s kin, but therelatives of Edward De Vere (his daughter, Susan, her husband, and her brother-in-law).These nobles from the Herbert family would have known the various meanings of thedouble-A polarities, which also are associated with Alpha and Omega (the beginning and theend), the duality of light and darkness, and particularly the bringing out of darkness intolight.
Both Bacon and De Vere used the boar, a wild pig, as a heraldic symbol. The boar wassacred to Apollo, the divine swineherd, because its hoofprint was said to imprint the groundwith the sign of “AA” [Dawkins 1999, 3-4]. Bacon’s name lends itself to punning on theboar, as Mistress Quickly does in Shakespeare’s Merry Wives of Windsor. And inShakespeare’s “Venus and Adonis” the hero is slain by a boar.
A good case can be made for either man’s being the actual Shakespeare. Certainly, FrancisBacon was an acknowledged Rosicrucian whose writings celebrated the pursuit ofknowledge and ultimate truth. He was a polymath well versed in science, literature,philosophy, mathematics, law, and cryptology, who even invented several ciphers of his own[Dawkins 1999, 1]. He used the symbol of the Pillars of Hercules in the frontispieces of hisscientific treatise Novum Organum and his history of Henry VII [Leary 2004].
Yet there are objections to the Baconian theory of authorship. First, Francis Bacon was stillalive when the Sonnets were published in 1609, but he did not claim to be their author at thattime. Nor did he participate in editing the plays published in the First Folio in 1623, althoughhe was still living. The error-filled First Folio has required too much amending to have beenedited by the author himself. Third, Bacon produced such a quantity of writings in his ownname that it would have been impossible for him to write an additional 37 plays and 154sonnets, at a minimum, under a pseudonym. Moreover, the events of his life do not parallelthose of the plays as Oxford’s do, and his lucid writing style shows none of the imaginativeflair that distinguishes the works of Shakespeare [Ogburn, D. 1952, 538]. ComparingBacon’s utopian (Rosicrucian) novel, The New Atlantis, with Shakespeare’s magical play,The Tempest, makes the distinction in their styles quite evident [Walker 2007].
But Oxford (Edward De Vere) has all of Bacon’s qualifications and more. Cutting-edgescholarship by Oxfordian researcher Derran Charlton reveals that Oxford was involved at ahigh level with the Rosicrucian and Freemason movements, as well as being a published poetand a playwright for Queen Elizabeth’s court [Charlton 1991,7]. In his youth, Oxford showedprecocious talent for languages, music, and poetry. Educated in Elizabeth’s Court of Wardsfrom the age of 12, he earned a bachelor’s degree by the age of 14 and the equivalent of amaster’s degree in law from Gray’s Inn at 17 years of age [Ogburn, D. 1952, 10-13].


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 6 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page6image26752
OXFORD’S CONNECTION WITH KNIGHTHOOD AND THE ARTHURIANTRADITION
One of the Earl of Oxford’s hereditary titles was Lord Bolbec, whose crest featured a lionrampant. Researcher Derran Charlton has examined rare documents showing that until 1571,the rampant lion had no spear, but after 1572, it was depicted holding a broken spear[Charlton 1991, 5]. Edward de Vere had won a jousting tournament in 1571, a victoryawarded to the knight who broke the most lances of his opponents. Charlton speculates thatthis changed symbol may have contributed to the choice of the compound name “Shake-speare”; but even more important, the jousting establishes his contribution to keeping alivethe legends of King Arthur. All English jousting tournaments were performed in memory ofKing Arthur, especially to stir patriotism at times when England seemed under threat ofinvasion [Charlton 1991, 9].
The most significant Arthurian revival occurred during the reign of Henry VII, the first of theTudor monarchs, who needed to unify England after the devastating Wars of the Roses.Henry VII had a Tudor Rose painted in the center of a round table (thought to be the originalRound Table of King Arthur). He also named his firstborn son “Arthur” and foundedArthurian Masonic Lodges, where membership was by invitation [Charlton 1991, 6]. TheArthurian Knights incorporated Knights of the Grail, Knights of the Spear, Knights of theSword, and Knights of the Word. The Knights of the Word were responsible for reviving andre-invigorating the Arthurian legend. The Arthurian Society was necessarily secretive, butthe King invited knights he could trust. Among them was John de Vere, the 13th Earl ofOxford, whose motto was “Vero Nihil Verius,” meaning “nothing truer than truth” or“Nothing truer than Vere” [Charlton 1991, 7]. That was Edward’s motto also.
The chivalric ideals of knighthood also influenced Spanish and Portuguese Knights ofExploration, whose charge was to explore the world and discover new lands.
The world-girdling knighthood circle was completed by the marriage of Prince Arthur toCatherine of Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand, Head of the Knights of the Order of St. James[Charlton 1991, 7]. To bring the European countries into the modern world, Henry VIIencouraged alchemy, which simply meant the search for new technology and chemicaltransformations. To that end he promoted Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, of which Chapter 7 isdevoted to alchemy. The philosopher’s stone, and Merlin the Magician, are central to theArthurian legends, linking them to alchemy and the occult sciences.
Although some alchemists wanted to turn base metals into gold, others merely sought newknowledge and illuminating truths. They believed that as knights became more chivalrous,noble, and just, they would be transformed in character, much as the colors in coal can betransformed into sparkling diamonds.
The Arthurian knights devised, or adopted, the motto “I AM.” This suggests the Biblicalquotation, “I am that I am,” a phrase that Edward de Vere also used. These initials might alsoplay into another Shakespearean mystery: the initials M.O.A.I. in the play Twelfth Night,which suggest a cipher representing, “I am the Alpha and the Omega – the beginning and the


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 7 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page7image27176
end.” The joke is on the self-important Malvolio, who aspires to woo a woman above hisstation in life.
The symbolism used by Edward de Vere in his jousting tournament at Whitehall in 1581 hasstrong overtones of Masonic ideals. Billing himself as “the knight of the tree of the sun,” hestrode forth from a tent of orange tawny taffeta, embroidered with silver, with pendants onthe pinnacles [Charlton 1991, 9]. He sat down under a huge bay tree that had been gildedover completely, to represent the gold of the sun and the splendor of the Queen. His chiefopponent, the Earl of Arundel, had recently made outrageous accusations that Oxford hadengaged in immoral acts and said disrespectful things about the Queen. To counter thesefalse charges, Oxford vowed to Elizabeth that he would defend this royal tree to the death,that he would incorporate his heart into that tree, that he “stood ready to die upon the pointsof a thousand lances, [rather] than to yield a jot in constant loyalty” [Charlton 1991, 9]. Thenhe won the tournament. The pageantry employed Masonic symbols of the tree of life, the sun,the pendants, and the knightly determination to live to high standards of loyalty, truth, andjustice.
CIPHERS, STEGANOGRAPHY, AND THE AUTHORSHIP QUESTION
Baconian scholars Penn Leary (of recent memory), Bob Fowler (who has taken over Leary’sweb site), and others have attempted to prove Bacon’s authorship through numerology andcodebreaking strategies [Leary 2005]. These Baconian scholars find his name, variouslyspelled, embodied in the works, including the Dedication to the Sonnets. They apply aversion of Masonic code to interpret the dots between words in the enigmatic twenty-eight-word Dedication. Leary has suggested that the initials “T.T.”, under the Dedication, maystand for the Pillars of Hercules, a symbol used by Bacon to indicate the search forknowledge as a ship sailing into uncharted waters “ne plus ultra” [Leary 2005]. But theycannot explain why Bacon would have accepted anonymity for only some of his work, notall. Nor can they say why he would have encoded his name in the Dedication, yet left readerswith no other message that would reveal the name of the dedicatee.
Leary and many other Baconians believe that Francis Bacon was an unacknowledged son ofQueen Elizabeth, fostered by her loyal subjects Nicholas Bacon and his wife. But even if hehad such a secret to reveal, it does not prove that Francis wrote the plays.
Oxford, however, fits the profile of Shakespeare to an astonishing degree. Thomas Looney(pronounced LONE-ee) was the Scottish schoolmaster who first identified Oxford asShakespeare [Looney 1920]. Since then, many Oxfordian scholars, notably Dorothy andCharlton Ogburn, followed by their son Charlton Ogburn, Jr., have shown that Oxford hadnumerous life experiences closely matching events in the plays and sonnets [Ogburn, C.1984]. They concur with many other scholars, including some orthodox Stratfordians, thatthe “Fair Youth” of the Sonnets was Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton, thededicatee of the first two narrative poems published under the name “William Shakespeare”in 1593 and 1594.


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 8 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page8image26992
The senior Ogburns, in their biography of Edward De Vere entitled This Star of England(1952), plunged even deeper into controversy by alleging that Henry Wriothesley was thelove child of Edward De Vere and Elizabeth Tudor, giving rise to a stormy controversyknown as the “Prince Tudor” theory. Their son, Charlton Ogburn, Jr., to avoid controversy,took no position on this theory in his groundbreaking analysis of the authorship question, TheMysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality (1984) [Ogburn, C. 1984]. Helater changed his position, to counteract an emerging trend toward interpreting the sonnets ashomoerotic, because the fatherly tone of the first seventeen sonnets (“procreation sonnets”)seemed to him the very antithesis of a homosexual attraction. The Prince Tudor theoryremains controversial, but it does explain many of the mysteries regarding Shakespeare’s lifeand motivations. If the poet was indeed addressing his natural son, the terms of affection canbe understood as paternal, and the meaning of many of the sonnets becomes clearer.
Pursuing that question while researching for my book, The Secret Love Story inShakespeare’s Sonnets, and building upon the work of scholars John Rollett, Robert.Prechter, and David Roper in Oxfordian publications, I found ciphers in the twenty-eight-word Dedication that revealed the names of E. De Vere, Henry Wriothesley, and ElisabethRegina—as well as all three of their mottos and the puzzling title words, “TwelfthNight”[Gordon 2005, Chapter 2]. These encryptions must have been intentional because theodds of all these names appearing by chance would be astronomically small. Furthermore,these observations fit into an overarching scenario that explains the need for secrecy andmakes the content of many sonnets clearer than ever before.
Below is a picture of the original Dedication in the book of sonnets published in 1609
that has several puzzling features. Notice that the letters are all capitals, more like a Romangravestone than the conventional dedications of the time. Unlike a Roman headstone,however, the dots are not placed at the beginning of each line, only at the end of each wordor initial. Notice also that the shape of the Dedication forms three inverted pyramids ortriangles, which symbolize strength in Masonic literature and are sometimes interpreted as atrinity representing the union of male and female, to generate new life. Some Oxfordianscholars have discussed in a chat group that the arrangement of lines forms a pattern of 6-2-4,the same numbers as in the name of Edward (6) De (2) Vere (4). Though one would not wantto carry numerology too far, this numerical clue does suggest that Shakespeare/Oxford wasfamiliar with numerology. The pyramids, inverted as they are, form the shape of V, whichresembles the mason’s square but can also stand for Vere. (The letter W was often written asVV in Elizabethan times, so we might also be tempted to see the initial VV for Wriothesleytopping the V for Vere in the tri-pyramid structure.) Perhaps these observations are notespecially significant, and perhaps there are other clues yet to be discovered, but the links toMasonry and Rosicrucian symbolism are undeniably there for anyone to see.


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 9 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page9image26608
file:///page10image392 Look closely at the “initials” which have been widely presumed to be the initials of thepublisher, Thomas Thorpe. Penn Leary, the Baconian scholar who has searched tirelessly forthe name “Bacon” encrypted in Shakespeare’s works, has suggested that this pair of “T’s”might stand for the Pillars of Hercules [Leary 2005]. But these letters are not like the letters“T” in the rest of the dedication. They are, in fact, not even the Greek letter tau for “T” butactually two Greek gammas, suggesting the letter “G.” This takes us deeper into the Masonicsignificance of the letter “G.” Many Masonic lodges place a large Roman “G” in the centerof the compass and the square. Generally this is interpreted as standing for “God” and“Geometry,” but it is curiously non-geometric in shape. Brother John A. Cockburn, in anonline article for the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, points out that theoriginal Freemasons would have used the letter gamma, which is shaped like a builder’ssquare [Cockburn 1897, 1]. Later it was changed to the Roman G, and thus has become afixture that would be very difficult to change.
By aligning two gammas, Shakespeare suggests the columns of the Temple of Solomon,through which an initiate passes in the pursuit of wisdom and truth. Francis Bacon used thesymbols of the Pillars of Hercules in the frontispiece of his book, Novum Organum,suggesting the scientist’s voyage into uncharted waters, but the Solomon Temple Pillarsseem more appropriate in the Shakespearean context—passing from darkness into light.
CRYPTOGRAPHY SYSTEMS KNOWN PRIOR TO 1609
Just as Rosicrucianism thrived as an undercurrent of thought and moral codes in RenaissanceEurope [Brydon 1994, 5-6], systems of ciphering and cryptology spread from guilds guardingtrade secrets to intellectual fraternities who corresponded by secret and symbolic writings,often using assumed names. Religious strife and competition between nations also spurredthe formation of spy systems and methods of encrypting messages. On a web site devoted toKnights Templar, Tass Weir (also spelled VVeir) observes correctly that the claim of asteganographically concealed cryptogram in the Sonnets front matter should be viewed andjudged in the context of the popularity and availability of cryptographic information whenthe Dedication was written [Weir 1996].


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 10 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page10image20000
Weir posts a timeline of manuals on cryptography that were available prior to the 1609publication of the Sonnets [Weir 1996]. According to Weir, the first European manual oncryptography was de Lavinde’s ciphers, produced in 1379. The nomenclature system itdescribed reportedly held sway over all Europe and America for the next 450 years [Weir1996]. A few other examples will suffice:
1470: Leone Battista Alberti's Trattati in cifra was published in Rome.
1518: Johannis Trithemius wrote (but did not publish) his Steganographia, which“circulated in manuscript for a hundred years, being copied by many persons eager to suckout the secrets that it was thought to hold” [Kahn 1967, 132]. A copy of the Steganographiawas a prized possession of Dr. John Dee, an astrologer to Queen Elizabeth and an alchemistwho explored occult subjects. Dee was acquainted with many Elizabethan intellectuals,including Edward De Vere, Francis Bacon, Philip Sidney, and Walter Raleigh [Woolley2001].
1540: Giovanni Battista Palatino published his Libro nvova d'imparare a scrivere... Con vnbreue et vtile trattato de le cifere. It was reprinted in 1545, and twelve more times by 1588.
1550: Girolamo Cardano's De subtilitate libri XXI was published. Cardano was a notedmathematician, physicist, and philosopher. This work, containing much information onencipherment, was reprinted nine times, including a French translation in 1556.
1556: Cardano published De rerum varietate libri XVII, a follow-up to his popular DeSubtilitate. Both books were “translated and pirated by printers throughout Europe”[Kahn 1967, 144], as well as being reprinted four times by 1581 [Kahn 1967, 107].
Francis Bacon was well known for developing some of his own systems of encryption anddecryption, elucidated in his 1605 work, The Advancement of Learning. The book wasrewritten in Latin, greatly expanded, and issued in 1623 as De Dignitate et AugmentisScientiarum. An English “translation” of Augmentis was published in 1640. At the end of theenlarged section on cryptology he stressed the importance of using ciphers which “may beemanaged without suspition.” “For if Letters Missive fall into their hands, that have somecommand and authority over those that write; or over those to whom they were written;though the Cypher it selfe bee sure and impossible to be decypher'd, yet the matter is liable toexamination and question; unless the Cypher be such, as may be voide of all suspition, ormay elude all examination” [Bacon, cited in Weir 1996]. He considered steganography(hiding a message within a plaintext) to be the best system, if well done.
Because of Bacon’s reputation, it would be easy to assume that he had devised thesteganographic message in the Sonnets in 1609. But what motive would he have had? Baconhad received many advancements from King James I, who succeeded Elizabeth in 1603. Hemay have had royal blood, but he had no ambition to be King. If the sonnets were dedicatedto Southampton, how could Bacon explain their relationship or the need for keeping it secret?


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 11 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page11image26048
EDWARD DE VERE AS CRYPTOGRAPHER
The only contemporary of Bacon who had both a deep secret and the talent for encrypting itwas Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. According to historian Neville Williams in hisbook, The Life and Times of Elizabeth I, rumors had been circulating around the court thatOxford and Elizabeth had a love affair in 1572-1573, and their love child was being raised asthe Third Earl of Southampton [Gordon 2005, 25]. If the rumors were true, and if Elizabethchose to acknowledge him as her son, Southampton might have had a claim to the throne.Yet he had been condemned as a traitor—serving a life sentence in the Tower until KingJames I released him.
One credible scenario is that Edward De Vere loved Elizabeth all his life, though they werenever free to marry. Under the pseudonym of “William Shakespeare,” De Vere addressedmany sonnets to Elizabeth (not all of them were addressed to the famous “dark lady”).Probably the poem entitled “The Absent Lover” was addressed to Queen Elizabeth (deareDame), challenging her to decipher his name. Here is the plaintext of the poem as it appearedin B. M. Ward’s biography:
The Absent Lover
The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his name,doth crave some spedie relief as followeth.
L’Escu d’amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
The force of faith which never will remove,
But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death:That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes,And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throws.
In dolefull days I lead an absent life,
And wound my will with many a weary thought:I plead for peace, yet sterve in stormes of strife,I find debate, where quiet rest was sought.These panges with mo, unto my paine I prove,Yet beare I all uppon my shield of love.
In colder cares are my conceipts consumd,Than Dido felt when false Enaeas fled;
In farr more heat, than trusty Troylus fumd,When craftie Cressyde dwelt with Diomed.My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame,That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same.
So that I live, and dye in one degree,Healed by hope, and hurt againe with dread;


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 12 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page12image21784
Fast bound by faith when fansie would be free,Vntied by trust, through thoughts enthrall my head.Reviv’d by joyes, when hope doth most abound,And yet with grief, in depth of dollors drownd.
In these assaultes I feele my feebled forceBegins to faint, thus weried still in woes:
And scarcely can my thus consumed corse,Hold up this Buckler to beare of these blowes.So that I crave, or presence for relief,
Or some supplie, to ease mine absent grief.
L’envuoie
To you (deare Dame) this dolefull plaint I makeWhose onely sight may some redresse my smart:Then shew your selfe, and for your servauntes sake,Make hast post hast, to helpe a faythfull harte.Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long,Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong.
—Meritum petere, grave
Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn explain the publication history of this poem [Ogburn, D. 1952,1257-58]. It was first included in the collection A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, published in1573, with Oxford’s posy, “Meritum petere, grave,” on the title page. Most of the includedpoems, except the few signed by George Gascoigne, were probably by Oxford using variousposies or pseudonyms. The collection was reissued in 1576 in a spurious edition entitled ThePoesies of George Gascoigne, making no mention of De Vere’s contributions, and deletingall mention of the enciphered name in “The Absent Lover.” In his biography, B. M. Wardrestored the clue, enabling us to decipher the poet’s name as shown below.
The poet challenged the recipient (deare Dame) to discover his name, which can bedeciphered as follows:


Read this column downwardE(scu) d(‘amour)
w(hich)a(nd)
r(est)d(ebate)
D(idoe(nthrall)
V(ntied)e(ase)
r(edress)e(lles)

Read this column upwardE(scu)
r(est)E(naeas)
V(ntied)e(nthralled)
d(olors)d(rownd)
r(elief)a(bsent)
W(hose)d(efended)
e(lles)


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 13

www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page13image21896
Adapted from Edward De Vere's biographer B. M. Ward, cited by Dorothy and CharltonOgburn in This Star of England, pages 1257-1258.
Certain spelling conventions of the Elizabethan age must be considered in solving thispuzzle. Most important is that Elizabethan English had fewer letters (only 23, compared toour present 26). The U and the V were interchangeable, so the cryptographer could use the Vas a U in untied, yet employ it as a V in the name Vere.
THE EMBEDDED PATTERNS
The plaintext of the poem appears meaningful on its face, which is one mark of an excellentencryption, according to the criteria set forth by Francis Bacon. Following an unusual six-line stanza pattern, the rhyme scheme of ababcc is consistently maintained throughout sixverses. The poet uses true rhymes, which sometimes necessitate an inverted sentencestructure to fulfill the rhyme scheme, as in “And broke the thrusts, which absence at methrows.” So conventional and elegant is the poetry, that without the clue in the introduction,we might never look for a secret message. Since the poet’s name has twelve letters, givinghimself thirty-six lines in the poem enables him to spread out the letters of his name, and thusto meet two more challenges within the poetical framework—that is, embedding his nametwice, first reading downward and then reading upward.
Although the poet says his encryption is in “ciphers,” a more precise term might be“steganography,” because the plaintext conceals the encrypted message
unobtrusively. Ciphers often substituted numbers for names, as can be seen in letters byQueen Elizabeth’s spies. Or ciphers might require a key possessed by both sender andreceiver, such as a certain pattern of equidistant letter sequencing. In such cases, theawkwardness of the plaintext might suggest a hidden text. Codes, in contrast, may consist ofall numbers or all letters in nonsense arrangements, making them vulnerable to knowncodebreaking methods.
Edward De Vere was familiar with codebreaking strategies such as equidistant lettersequencing, but so were many of his enemies. Thus, he avoided such obviously numericalpatterns in this poem, but he did follow a strict pattern of encryption. Having provided theclue in the headnote that the hidden text was his name, he began with the first line, whichcontained a French word beginning with E (Escu) and another beginning with D (d’amour).The metaphor of a “shield of love” is particularly apt, since a shield provides protection, andhe was protecting the name of the recipient (deare Dame), by hiding his own where no onebut she (or someone else who was privy to the secret) could discover it. Assuming that DeVere was addressing Queen Elizabeth, she would have taken great pleasure in the word playand in De Vere’s flattering application of the courtly love tradition—an inaccessible womanbeing worshiped from afar. He may also have been pleading for justice, because she hadpermitted Gascoigne to plagiarize De Vere’s poetry in order to avoid gossip about DeVere’spoems being addressed to her.
Although at first the hidden-text letters may seem random, the key letters are always theinitial letter of a word in a given line. They also appear in a fixed order moving top to bottom


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 14 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page14image27968
and then bottom to top. In lines containing more than one key letter, the order may proceedeither from left to right or from right to left. In Line 10, for example the RD of Edwardappears in the words debate and rest. In Line 22, we find the V first, in Vnited, and the Elater, in enthrall.
This way of embedding may have been an invention of Edward De Vere, since it does notfollow the usual acrostic pattern of beginning each line with a significant letter. The analysis,however, is quite instructive, because it establishes a pattern that we can see in theDedication to the Sonnets by William Shake-speare. Thus it enables us to approach thatriddle in a similar frame of mind, assuming that De Vere was using the pen name of WilliamShakespeare, and wanting to send his message to future generations. De Vere had to beclever enough to get past the censors and enemies who wanted the name of Edward De Vereto be buried forever within a dung-heap of calumny.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TWELFTH NIGHT
Now let us return to the cipher of “Twelfth Night,” which appeared quite unexpectedly in thededication. This cipher forms a rough “V” shape, which can stand for “Vere” (meaning“true”) or the shape of a mason’s square, which also suggests being “on the square” or tellinga truth. After finding the ciphers for the names of father, mother, and son, and their mottos, Ihad discovered the trinity that formed the key to the sonnets [Gordon 2005, Chapter 2].
To read the enciphered names in the diagram below, begin with a star; follow the dotted linesin the direction of the arrows of the same color. Note that the letters must be read in a definitesequence, in one direction or another on a given line, although not in equidistant letter counts.This pattern, which was used by Edward De Vere in “The Absent Lover,” can be applied to theSonnet’s Dedication, presumably by the same poet under his pseudonym.


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 15 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page15image18096
file:///page16image392 But was there another piece of evidence in this serendipitous finding? In checking for thesignificance of the Twelfth Night holiday, I learned that the twelve days of Christmas beganon December 25 and ended in a splendid celebration on January 6. Then it occurred to me


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 16 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page16image3824
that Henry Wriothesley was born on October 6, 1573. So January 6, 1573 would have beenthe probable date of conception. On that magic night, Elizabeth was celebrating with herfavorite court playwright, Edward De Vere. And where was the Second Earl ofSouthampton? Imprisoned in the Tower for his Catholic sympathies, with no access to hisCountess. So it might well be that the Third Earl of Southampton was a changeling child,raised by the Second Earl as his heir in exchange for his release from prison.
So now the hidden meaning can be inferred. “I wish you all happiness, my beloved son, foryou are a child of love, conceived in amorous play on a magical holiday when anything canhappen. Though your parents could not marry, being bound by duties and restrictions, theirlove for you is genuine and everlasting. These verses are the only legacy I can leave you,without causing you harm or serious losses, but in some far future time they will berediscovered, and you will enjoy that eternity that only living literature can confer upon you.”
NOW THE SECRET CAN BE TOLD
Certainly it was no crime for Elizabeth and Edward to fall in love and create a child in amoment of passion. Yet the need for secrecy regarding Elizabeth’s pregnancy was a politicalimperative. To protect her kingdom from attacks by foreign Catholic monarchs, she createdthe persona of the Virgin Queen, holding herself open to the possibility of forming analliance through marriage.
Speaking ill of the queen could invoke serious penalties in the police state that ElizabethanEngland had become. Yet gossip continually circulated about the Queen’s love affairs[Erickson 1983, 266]. In 1570, some English subjects were tried—and some executed—forslander against the Queen [Erickson, 266]. Some had tongues and ears cut off; some weretortured and imprisoned [Erickson 1983, 269]. Though suppressed in England, rumors ranunchecked in other European countries. The Venetian, Spanish, and French ambassadorsreported that Elizabeth had several children (presumably by her long-term lover, the Earl ofLeicester) [Erickson 1983, 269]. Reports from such various sources claim that Elizabeth hadas many as five children, (presumably including sons Francis Bacon and Robert Devereux byDudley).
Understandable though it is that English Oxfordians want to preserve the idealized image ofthe Virgin Queen, that sterile image has been replaced throughout most of the world by amore lovable vision of Elizabeth as a woman with human flaws offset by majestic virtues.Understandable as it is that for four hundred years Shakespeare devotees have cherished theromanticized ideal of a country lad blossoming into miraculous greatness, it is time that werestored the good name of Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, and credited him withenriching millions of lives with his life’s work.
It is time we recognized the devotion of De Vere’s daughter Susan; her husband, PhilipHerbert, Earl of Montgomery; and his brother, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, whocollected the scattered, suppressed works of Susan’s father and published them as the FirstFolio of William Shakespeare’s plays, lest these treasures be lost to the world.


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 17 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page17image27264
It is time that the sacred brotherhoods to whom the poet appealed, now proceed through thepillars of wisdom, hear their brother’s long-stifled plea, bring his truth from darkness intolight, and perhaps in the process find some of the lost Words so long veiled in mystery.


The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 18 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page18image3648
REFERENCE LIST
Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis (AMORC). 2007. “Our Traditional andChronological History.”http://www.rosicrucian.org/about/mastery/mastery08history.html.
Anderson, Verily. 1993. The De Veres of Castle Hedingham. Lavenham, Suffolk, UK:Terrence Dalton.
Brydon, Robert. 1994. Rosslyn – a History of the Guilds, the Masons, and the Rosy Cross.Midlothian: Rosslyn Chapel Trust.
Bull, Peter. 2007. Shakespeare’s Sonnets Written by Kit Marlowe.http://www.masoncode.com/Marlowe%20wrote%20Shakespeare's%20Sonnets.htm.
Charlton, Derran K. 1991. Edward de Vere and the Knights of the Grail. The Spear ShakerReview, May 1991, 4-10.
Cockburn, John A. 1897. “The Letter G.” Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, the Transactions of theQuatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 10:40. Reprinted by the Grand Lodge of BritishColombia and Yukon, Dec. 19, 2002, on web sitehttp://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/letter_q.html.
Dawkins, Peter. 1998. “Shakespeare and Freemasonry” Freemasonry Today, Winter 1998.Reprinted on web site http://www.sirbacon.org/Dawkinsfrmsnry.htm.___________. 1999.“Ciphers of Francis Bacon.” Francis Bacon Research Trust.http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/essays/frameset-essays.html.
Dodd, Alfred. 1933. Shakespeare: Creator of Freemasonry. London: Rider & Co.
Erickson, Carolly. 1983. The First Elizabeth. New York: Summit Books.
Fowler, Bob. “Sir Francis Bacon, Shakespeare, William Tudor, and Freemason Symbology.”
http://www.light-of-truth.com.
Gardner, Martin. 1972. Codes, Ciphers and Secret Writing. New York: Dover Publications.Gordon, Helen Heightsman. 2005. The Secret Love Story in Shakespeare’s Sonnets.
Philadelphia: Xlibris.
Guffey, Robert. 2007. “Was Shakespeare a Freemason? Masonic Symbolism in Macbeth.”
Reprinted by Rosslyn Templars, www.RosslynTemplars.org.uk. Nov. 2006.
Heisler, Ron. 1990. “The Impact of Freemasonry on Elizabethan Literature.” The Hermetic
Journal. Reprinted at http://www.levity.com/alchemy/h_fre.html.
__________. 1992. “The Forgotten English Roots of Rosicrucianism.”The Hermetic Journal.Reprinted with permission http://www.levity.com/alchemy/h_fre.html.
Johnstone, Michael. 2005. The Freemasons: The Illustrated Book of An Ancient
Brotherhood. New York: Grammercy Books.
Kahn, David. 1967. The Codebreakers. New York: Macmillan.
Leary, Thomas ‘Penn’. 2004. “Friedman,” in The Second Cryptographic Shakespeare.
http://home.att.net/~mleary/. Reprinted by
Online Books Library: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu.
____________. 2005. “Are There Ciphers in Shakespeare?”. Personal web page, p. 14, no
longer online. But see www.light-of-truth.com for cipher theory.
Levin, Carole. 1999. “The Courtships of Elizabeth R.” Renaissance Magazine 4, no.2, issue
14.
Looney, Thomas. 1920. “Shakespeare” Identified as the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford.
London. Reprinted online by Shakespeare-Oxford Society, www.shakespeare-oxford.com.


file:///page19image21376 file:///page19image21536 file:///page19image21696 file:///page19image21856 file:///page19image22016 file:///page19image22176 file:///page19image22336 file:///page19image22496 file:///page19image22656 file:///page19image22816 file:///page19image22976 file:///page19image23136 file:///page19image23296 file:///page19image23456 file:///page19image23616 file:///page19image23776 file:///page19image23936 file:///page19image24096 file:///page19image24256 file:///page19image24416 file:///page19image24576 The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 19 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page19image25504
Ogburn, Charlton, Jr. 1984. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality.New York: Dodd, Mead and Company.
Ogburn, Dorothy and Charlton. 1952. This Star of England. New York: Coward-McCann,Inc.
Prechter, Robert R. 2005. “The Sonnets Dedication Puzzle.” Shakespeare Matters: The Voiceof the Shakespeare Fellowship4, no. 3:1-2.
Rollet, John. 1999. “Interpretations of the Dedication to Shakespeare’s Sonnets.” TheOxfordian 2 (October 1999):60-75. Reprinted with further commentary in Malim,Richard, ed. 2005. Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Works of Edward De Vere.Tunbridge Wells, UK: Parapress Ltd., 253-266.
Roper, David L. 2007. The Shakespeare Story. http://www.dlroper.shakespearians.com.Seiden, Ellen. 1999. “Was the Virgin Queen Really a Virgin?”. Renaissance Magazine 4,
no.2, sssue 14. Reprint at www.geocities.com/queenswoman/elizaseiden.html.Smith, Laurence Dwight. 1971. Cryptography: the Science of Secret Writing. New York:
Dover Publications.
Walker, Mather. “The Troilus and Cressida Puzzle and the Design of the First Folio.”
Part I. www.sirbacon.org.
Ward, B. M. 1928. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, Reprinted by Shakespeare-OxfordSociety, 2003.
Weir, Tass. 1996. Knights Templar web site. www.veling.nl/anne/templars.
Woolley, Benjamin. 2001. The Queen’s Conjurer: The science and magic of Dr. John Dee.
New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Wright, Daniel L. 1998. “Shaking the Spear at Court.” Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter,
Summer, 1998.
Wrixon, Fred B. 1998. Codes, Ciphers, and Other Cryptic and Clandestine Communication.
New York: Barnes & Noble.


file:///page20image13480 file:///page20image13640 file:///page20image13800 file:///page20image13960 file:///page20image14120 file:///page20image14280 The Rose+Croix Journal 2007 – Vol 4 20 www.rosecroixjournal.org


file:///page20image15208

David Guyatt
10-01-2014, 11:02 AM
For the sake of accuracy, at least a degree of accuracy anyway, I think it appropriate to add a rider to the foregoing.

The personality/ies of who wrote Shakespeare is, to a large extent, a culdees sac; an interesting diversion, but a diversion non-the-less. It is always the message that is important, and not the messenger. ::shock::

Steve Franklin
10-01-2014, 12:26 PM
For the sake of accuracy, at least a degree of accuracy anyway, I think it appropriate to add a rider to the foregoing.

The personality/ies of who wrote Shakespeare is, to a large extent, a cul-de-sac; an interesting diversion, but a diversion none-the-less. It is always the message that is important, and not the messenger. ::shock::

From what I have absorbed so far, and I stress again that I have just dipped my toes into the subject, is that the "anti-Stratfordians" feel that knowing the name of the messenger improves our understanding of what exactly the message was meant to be.

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that the businessman Shakspere appears to have had no fear whatsoever of the Star Chamber or any other authority. The no-doubt complex reasons for that, no matter whether the man was a dramatist or just a front man, so far elude me.

Steve Franklin
10-01-2014, 01:05 PM
You might find the following website of interest: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/2012_freemasons_revelations.html (http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/2012_freemasons_revelations.html)


The occult teaching of freemasonry is very heavy on astronomical/astrological matters. Scroll down the page until you come to the heading Jacob's Ladder for the astrological/qabalistic meaning. For good measure it is probably necessary to understand that the title "Jacobs Ladder" (accessible in the dream-world in other words) actually refers to the Qabalah - and the glyph of the Tree of Life, extended out into the four worlds: https://janeadamsart.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/7-jacobs-ladder-diagram1.jpg

I would additionally note that Freemasonic occult lore is very heavily based on the Qabalah (http://www.masoncode.com/Masonry%20and%20Cabala.htm).

I would add that I wouldn't take too seriously some other statements by the writer of the lined website - for example that Leonardo Da Vinci was a Freemason. In Leonardo's day there was not such thing as Freemasonry. The latter is understood to have been founded in 1717, whereas Leonardo died in 1519. This, however, is not to say that there were prior occult fraternities stretching back into history. There were.

Lastly, Sir Francis Bacon (http://www.thewayofthequest.com/francis-bacon.html) was, like Leonardo, a polymath and was schooled in the occult.


Interesting. Especially the part about the 4 seasons, which I figured out independently. This is from my chapter on Leonardo and the comet of 1487:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6352&stc=1

As for the Tree of Life, that was originally Pythagorean and not kabbalistic at all. The following illustration, which has propagated across the web with and without proper attribution, is from my chapter on Seth and Typhon:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6353&stc=1

"In the system of Pythagoras, the planets were arranged by how long it took them to (appear to) revolve around the earth. These 'planets' included the sun and the moon. His metaphor was musical and his theory involved the music of the spheres, as he called it. I have gone into greater detail in the chapter 'The Stairway to Heaven' in my Origins of the Tarot Deck....

"Matthews sees the Logos as Sophia. This so-called Tree of Life is nothing more than the Pythagorean Tetraktys expressed in an alternate form that consists of ten points arranged into four dimensionally significant shapes―a point, a line, a plane (or triangle), and a solid (or tetrahedron). These four geometric shapes were identified with the Tetraktys as early as 1987 by David Fideler in his introduction to The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. A second variation of this diagram demonstrates visually why it is referred to in its kabbalistic incarnation as the Tree of Life. The identification with the Tree of Life is mine. This second version is in fact a cross between the Egyptian hieroglyph ankh, or "life," and the symbol for Venus, the goddess of Love.

"In the system due to Pythagoras, the upper sphere above Saturn is that of the fixed stars. In the kabala (or kabbala), it is the zodiac, so that, again, we are left with an extra object, the Logos or Chokmah. Clearly, there is another astronomical body here, no doubt Pliny's Typhon.

"By the time the book of Revelation was written, according to Matthews,


'The Woman Clothed with the Sun stands forth ... as a continual reminder of the struggle of Sophia to emerge from her embattled guise. Whether we see her as Isis or Mary, for this book has both images within it, the presence of Sophia is strongly upheld here.'


"In this book, John has a


'vision of a woman "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars," who was with child. A seven-headed dragon came to devour the child as it was born. War in heaven ensued, and Michael and his angels cast the dragon down to earth. The dragon still pursued the woman who was given two wings like those of an eagle to fly into the wilderness, there to abide for three and [a] half years [or seven half-year cycles].'


"Clearly, someone here understood the nature of the early biblical time scale, not to mention the otherness of the cosmic being who battled the sun, the moon, and even the twelve stars that represented the fixed stars of the zodiac. In later ages, the ancient story was adapted to the realities of the peaceful solar system. The Virgin of the zodiac took the role of the queen of heaven, and Hydra that of the serpent or Typhon. Saturn ruled the planetary realm―as well as his children, the Elohim―as the ecliptical star Regulus, the Little King. The role of the son was played by the ever dying and returning solar orb rather than his human incarnation, so that modern mythographers could confidently ascribe the ancient tales to the peaceful rotation of the seasons, free from any conception of the catastrophic nature of what went before. And the followers of that ancient son wait in vain for his return as his ancient nemesis fails to put in an appearance, having been murdered on the way to the theater by the earth itself, for, though the Serpent may be dead, the God for whom they wait will never be born again."

David Guyatt
10-01-2014, 01:34 PM
For the sake of accuracy, at least a degree of accuracy anyway, I think it appropriate to add a rider to the foregoing.

The personality/ies of who wrote Shakespeare is, to a large extent, a cul-de-sac; an interesting diversion, but a diversion none-the-less. It is always the message that is important, and not the messenger. ::shock::

From what I have absorbed so far, and I stress again that I have just dipped my toes into the subject, is that the "anti-Stratfordians" feel that knowing the name of the messenger improves our understanding of what exactly the message was meant to be.

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that the businessman Shakspere appears to have had no fear whatsoever of the Star Chamber or any other authority. The no-doubt complex reasons for that, no matter whether the man was a dramatist or just a front man, so far elude me.

Steve, I believe both the main contenders were Rosicrucians, so you have a clear answer about what the message is pointing towards.

Rosicrucian philosophy is not alone in its knowledge on these matters. The search for this mystery dates back to the mists of times.

I, personally, have long had a great interest in Alchemy - not, I stress, the general public understanding of that term that focuses on the physical transmutation of metals and elements (although that too, as a by-product). Alchemy is a fundamental key of Rosicrucian practices and thought. As it is also a key to other esoteric systems - including eastern Yoga and Chinese Taoist disciplines.

Hope this might help...

PS, I think you'll find the Qabalah dates back well before Pythagoras, btw.

R.K. Locke
10-01-2014, 06:44 PM
Thanks for the replies, chaps. I'll respond again once I've had a chance to read and digest it all.

Steve Franklin
10-01-2014, 07:22 PM
PS, I think you'll find the Qabalah dates back well before Pythagoras, btw.

While doing the research for my Origins of the Tarot Deck, it became fairly apparent that Pythagoras was syncretizing a whole series of earlier and foreign ideas. I can't say for sure that this included the Tetraktys/Tree of Life or not, but it certainly wouldn't be out of character. I should point out that the man claimed to remember his past lives, though, interestingly enough, their dates don't match the cometary cycle, though I have him as one of the cometary avatars that include Socrates, da Vinci, and "Shakespeare." Many of these folks can honestly be described as the "genius of the age."

It's also interesting that the scholarly community has recently entered a phase of revisionism that has cast doubt on the reality of even folks like Pythagoras and Socrates, not to mention King Arthur and Simon bar Kokhba. I haven't looked at the reasons for this renewed skepticism, and I don't think the "authorship question" is part of this. In this particular case, Shakespeare is quite the exception, though it may be that the drift toward the idea of multiple authors is part of it.

David Guyatt
10-02-2014, 09:08 AM
Steve, I found it genuinely heart-warming that you have made your Origins of the Tarot Deck freely available on your website HERE (http://neros.lordbalto.com/AppendixC.htm).

I, obviously haven't read the entire thing, just speed read parts of it. I noted what you said about there being two main branches of tarot research, namely the fortune telling branch that has focused on the images themselves, and the "world gaming" branch that has sought the origins of there cards themselves (I think I have this broadly right?).

I think that occultists work on the basis that there is a correspondence between the 22 letters of the Hewbrew alphabet and the 22 major trumps - as you have pointed out, and adding that this link is untenable. But it is my understanding that the "fit" derives not so much from a contrived alignment but because both correspond to the 22 paths of the Tree of Life.

And herein lay one of the best kept secrets of the occult Qabalah that was not made public until 1983 (according to what I was told), when it was revealed that the great significance of the pathways of the Tree of Life, and the 10 - now 11 - Sephiroth themselves, were that they were used as imaginative doorways and a roadmap of the soul and the Collective Unconscious [microcosm/macrocosm] via the technique of meditational Pathworking. The purpose of this Great Work was, clearly, aimed at Consciousness.

This has powerful correspondences to Jung's Analytical Psychology, as Jung practised his own form of this that he called Active Imagination. It is my understanding that these techniques amount to the real inner workings of the Qabalah, Tarot, Alchemy etc.

Of course, the images of the Tarot change somewhat with the deck used. And, so far as I know, different decks are often peculiar to different occult schools, each of which have slightly (sometimes largely, I suspect) differing means of achieving their objectives. My father, who studied these things, concentrated on the Paul Foster Case tarot (though I can't now remember if he used Case's deck or not - he had a few, which I now have along with all his papers) because that was the one his school had adopted for use, although they had nothing directly to do with B.O.T.A.

Anyway, I wondered if you had done any study of Pathworking/Active Imagination on these subjects?

Steve Franklin
10-02-2014, 05:31 PM
Steve, I found it genuinely heart-warming that you have made your Origins of the Tarot Deck freely available on your website HERE (http://neros.lordbalto.com/AppendixC.htm).

I, obviously haven't read the entire thing, just speed read parts of it. I noted what you said about there being two main branches of tarot research, namely the fortune telling branch that has focused on the images themselves, and the "world gaming" branch that has sought the origins of there cards themselves (I think I have this broadly right?).

I think that occultists work on the basis that there is a correspondence between the 22 letters of the Hewbrew alphabet and the 22 major trumps - as you have pointed out, and adding that this link is untenable. But it is my understanding that the "fit" derives not so much from a contrived alignment but because both correspond to the 22 paths of the Tree of Life.

And herein lay one of the best kept secrets of the occult Qabalah that was not made public until 1983 (according to what I was told), when it was revealed that the great significance of the pathways of the Tree of Life, and the 10 - now 11 - Sephiroth themselves, were that they were used as imaginative doorways and a roadmap of the soul and the Collective Unconscious [microcosm/macrocosm] via the technique of meditational Pathworking. The purpose of this Great Work was, clearly, aimed at Consciousness.

This has powerful correspondences to Jung's Analytical Psychology, as Jung practised his own form of this that he called Active Imagination. It is my understanding that these techniques amount to the real inner workings of the Qabalah, Tarot, Alchemy etc.

Of course, the images of the Tarot change somewhat with the deck used. And, so far as I know, different decks are often peculiar to different occult schools, each of which have slightly (sometimes largely, I suspect) differing means of achieving their objectives. My father, who studied these things, concentrated on the Paul Foster Case tarot (though I can't now remember if he used Case's deck or not - he had a few, which I now have along with all his papers) because that was the one his school had adopted for use, although they had nothing directly to do with B.O.T.A.

Anyway, I wondered if you had done any study of Pathworking/Active Imagination on these subjects?

My approach is, and has been, purely historical, though I find it quite hilarious that I have been "accused" of being an occultist in print:

"In Tarot history, any connection is fair game. For instance, because there are fifty-six filled in holes at Stonehenge and fifty-six cards in the Minor Arcana, to an occult commentator such as Stephen Franklin the two not only might be but must be connected. (Franklin, who connects the cards with astrological figures in a far-reaching argument based on Pythagorean, Hindu, and Chinese sources, would recoil at being called an occultist, but in the strict sense of the word he is one.)"
--Jay Kinney in The Inner West

This from a cartonist and associate of R. Crumb. Well, I guess then I must be an occultist. ;-)

There is definitely a connection between the tarot and the alphabet, but it's another step removed, in that the 28 signs of the lunar zodiac are closely related to the 56 minor cards of the tarot; and the Phoenician alphabet, as well as the syllabic system used on the Phaistos disc, derives from the same lunar zodiac. I delve into this in the appendix to Origins and also in Chapter 9 of my current chronological reconstruction, Typhon: A History of the Holocene Period.

No, I have not done much with the kabbala or with the tarot as an occult device. I have done some work with the I Ching, which is distantly related to the tarot and more closely to 4 Kings or Chaturanga, the Indian 4-handed chess. I suspect that any complex graphical symbol system can be used for psychological/divinitory/occult purposes without regard to the original purpose of the device. Why this is true is beyond me at present. I do find that the calendrical aspects of the tarot are most obvious in the Rider-Waite deck, more obvious than the earliest surviving Italian decks, suggesting that A. E. Waite had either decoded it himself or received an explanation from someone on the inside. Any suggestions on who may have informed Waite on the matter? Associates, secret societies, etc.?

I find the suggestion that the Rosicrucians [substitute other secret societies here] existed before the time of Pythagoras quite interesting in that Pythagoras shows up in Southern Italy in the late 6th century BC, presumably already in possession of the tarot board, and it remains there unremarked upon for almost 2 millennia until it finally shows up in Milan in the 15th century in the form of a deck of cards. There almost certainly must have been some secret organization involved in maintaining it. Did this include da Vinci? Unknown at present.

My publisher wanted to republish Origins as a digital book, thus keeping it bottled up for another hundred years or so. I decided it was time to release it to the wider world for better or worse.

SF

David Guyatt
10-03-2014, 08:08 AM
Re A E Waite, I'm sure you know he was a member of the Golden Dawn and was a Freemason - being a member of the Societas Roscruciana in Anglia, which was the home lodge of the three founding members of the Golden Dawn (Wynn Westcott, MacGregor Mathers and William Woodman).
I would look to these two organisations for the transmission of his knowledge that led to his deck (which again, as I'm sure you know, was illustrated by another member of the Golden Dawn. Some of the teachings and techniques of the Golden Dawn were profound. Not many members of the Golden Dawn were equal to the task, however. But this is the story of humanity as a species, I would argue.

In those days, almost everything about the occult was privately published and kept secret, only being circulated amongst lodges and schools. There were almost zero open transmission. Even later in the Sixties and Seventies the amount of information publicly available was still limited and what was available was only sold in two bookshops in London, hidden away in back streets. You were unlikely to trip across them by accident (it was probably different in the US, I suspect).

Today each school still retains it's own unique information that is transmitted only to senior members and is not made public -- although so much previously secret information is now in the public domain, that a diligent researcher with a budget - and a penchant for Indian, Egyptian and Chinese lore etc - could pull the underlying techniques and aims together fairly well. Yet this would only provide you with limited understanding. Looking at a meal prepared by a Michelin star chef and knowing the ingredients and techniques used to prepare said meal is intellectually stimulating but in no way allows one to taste and participate in the meal - which is, of course, the entire purpose of it.

And I would add that, in the last analysis, the origin, transmission and discovery of knowledge, throughout history, depends entirely upon actual participation. This is the the key to the raison d'être of all genuine schools. If this were not the case they would be next to useless.

Anyway, Jung's Collective Unconscious (http://www.carl-jung.net/collective_unconscious.html) explains why this is so.


The collective unconscious is an universal datum, that is, every human being is endowed with this psychic archetype-layer since his/her birth. One can not acquire this strata by education or other conscious effort because it is innate.We may also describe it as a universal library of human knowledge, or the sage (http://www.carl-jung.net/glossary.html#Wise_old_man) in man, the very transcendental wisdom that guides mankind.
Jung stated that the religious experience must be linked with the experience of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Thus, God himself is lived like a psychic experience of the path that leads one to the realization of his/her psychic wholeness.
Jung about the Collective Unconscious
The collective unconscious - so far as we can say anything about it at all - appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact, the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious... We can therefore study the collective unconscious in two ways, either in mythology or in the analysis of the individual. (From The Structure of the Psyche, CW 8, par. 325.)

Steve Franklin
10-03-2014, 02:39 PM
Re A E Waite, I'm sure you know he was a member of the Golden Dawn and was a Freemason - being a member of the Societas Roscruciana in Anglia, which was the home lodge of the three founding members of the Golden Dawn (Wynn Westcott, MacGregor Mathers and William Woodman).
I would look to these two organisations for the transmission of his knowledge that led to his deck (which again, as I'm sure you know, was illustrated by another member of the Golden Dawn. Some of the teachings and techniques of the Golden Dawn were profound. Not many members of the Golden Dawn were equal to the task, however. But this is the story of humanity as a species, I would argue.

In those days, almost everything about the occult was privately published and kept secret, only being circulated amongst lodges and schools. There were almost zero open transmission. Even later in the Sixties and Seventies the amount of information publicly available was still limited and what was available was only sold in two bookshops in London, hidden away in back streets. You were unlikely to trip across them by accident (it was probably different in the US, I suspect).

Today each school still retains it's own unique information that is transmitted only to senior members and is not made public -- although so much previously secret information is now in the public domain, that a diligent researcher with a budget - and a penchant for Indian, Egyptian and Chinese lore etc - could pull the underlying techniques and aims together fairly well. Yet this would only provide you with limited understanding. Looking at a meal prepared by a Michelin star chef and knowing the ingredients and techniques used to prepare said meal is intellectually stimulating but in no way allows one to taste and participate in the meal - which is, of course, the entire purpose of it.

And I would add that, in the last analysis, the origin, transmission and discovery of knowledge, throughout history, depends entirely upon actual participation. This is the the key to the raison d'être of all genuine schools. If this were not the case they would be next to useless.



Thanks. I did take a look at Waite's biography in the interim and, yes, he does appear to have had the access, if anyone did, to the resources that could have provided him with the underlying structure of the tarot. The question remains, though: What was the actual organizational structure in Italy that could have survived for ~2 millennia and kept the tarot board/deck bottled up but intact for that long? For what it's worth, my money is still on some hidden survival of the Pythagorean school at Croton and later Metapontum, perhaps merged into some obscure Catholic sect that popped its head above water for an historical instant with the appearance of Guglielma of Bohemia and Sister Manfreda (Maifreda) da Pirovano ("The Popess" of the Visconti-Sforza Tarot deck--partial genealogy of Manfreda here (http://www.lordbalto.com/images/SforzaGen.jpg)) in the late 13th century, only to have it unceremoniously lopped off, so to speak, by the Italian Inquisition. This is all speculation, of course--grist for another mill.

Getting back to the problem of W. Shakespeare, though, I feel that the solution requires a close chronological analysis of the First Folio. Again, I haven't gotten very far with this, but a couple of things occur to me.

# The Folio must have been in production for a good while, what, a year or two at the least? The editors/publishers would have had to gather the various manuscripts, working scripts, and more or less corrupt quarto editions (only 16 of 36 appeared in such editions) and then reduced them to a single accurate (as far as possible) version that appeared in 1623. Remember that no manuscripts or scripts of any kind are mentioned in Shakspere's will, so it wasn't a question of simply going to the heirs and retrieving the plays.

# No other plays appeared after the First Folio, suggesting that it was some kind of memorial edition, appearing close-on to the death of the author.

Now we know that Shakspere of Stratford "retired" in 1610 or thereabouts, and died in 1616. That's 13 years from his retirement to the appearance of the First Folio, and 7 years from his death, a bit of a long time between his pen falling silent and the memorial edition. The monument, with or without a quill pen, appeared prior to the Folio--no one knows when. Edward de Vere died in June of 1604, so even less of a reason to publish a memorial edition 19 years later. Stokes, in An Attempt to Determine the Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays of 1878, places Henry VIII in 1613, The Tempest in 1610/1611, Winters Tale in 1610/1611, Cymbeline in 1610, and on and on. The first play clearly after de Vere's death, according to Stokes, was King Lear in 1605. Othello was in 1604. That's 9 years writing from the grave.

We have the opposite problem with some of the other candidates (except Marlowe, whose date of death, assuming he survived his "murder," is unknown). Francis Bacon didn't die until April of 1626, no reason for a memorial edition in 1621-1623. Amelia Lanier survived until 1645, yet no quarto editions after 1616 and no new published plays after 1623. Shakspere dies and Lanier decides to stop writing? She couldn't have found another alias? I haven't gone through all of the known candidates for "Shakespeare" yet, but it will be interesting to see how the other candidates fit the timeline. I am still leaning toward Marlowe, but I am not yet positive. In passing, I should note that Walsingham, Marlowe's benefactor, died in 1630, so plenty of time to assist in the publication of a memorial editon of Marlowe's plays upon his death.

[Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that if Marlowe did indeed write the plays, then Walsingham would almost certainly have retained fair copies, if not the original manuscripts, thus simplifying immensely the logistics of publishing the First Folio.]

R.K. Locke
10-03-2014, 06:23 PM
I too am leaning towards Marlowe at this very early stage, but there are elements of the Bacon and Lanier claims that are certainly very intriguing.

So much more to read and learn though.

Steve Franklin
10-03-2014, 07:05 PM
I too am leaning towards Marlowe at this very early stage, but there are elements of the Bacon and Lanier claims that are certainly very intriguing.

So much more to read and learn though.

I will try to keep the thread informed of my progress. I should stress that my primary interest is in identifying the cometary avatar for 1593. This only intersects the authorship question in that it's always nice to get the identities of one's avatars correct. ;-) There is actually precedent for this kind of substitution, back around AD 6.

I should also point out that I have nothing against the good gentleman from Stratford, and would not be annoyed if a play turned up in his handwriting, as bad as that was. My next avenue of research should probably be to determine what happened to Walsingham's possessions after he died. That could go a long way toward explaining why there exist no early scripts of the plays. I can understand that Walsingham would have destroyed the actual manuscripts in fear of the dreaded Star Chamber, only abolished by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1640 (enacted in 1641).

David Guyatt
10-04-2014, 08:30 AM
One thread that might be of interest to - although possibly not - were the Knights of the Helmet - the forerunner to the Rosicrucians, and I am copying an essay below from sir bacon.org (http://www.sirbacon.org/doddch2martyrdom.htm)




From : Alfred Dodd's BookThe Martyrdom of Francis Bacon (http://www.sirbacon.org/links/martyrdom.htm)
pp. 30-35
Chapter II
His Birth, Life and Labours, 1561-1621




http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/AAgfbac.gifhttp://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/athena2.gif



http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/AAgfbac.gif


(special thanks to Gerald Francis Bacon)
Pallas Athena was the Goddess of Wisdom and was supposed to preside over the whole of the intellectual and moral side of human life. She was the patroness of the useful and elegant arts such as weaving (felling), imparting to her devotees the peuculiar Masonic Virtues of Prudence, Courage, Preserverance. She protected the State from outward enemies. The Britannia on our English coins is taken from Pallas. She was credited with being the inventor of musical instruments. The Olive wreath denoting Peace was her emblem. She was a Creator and Preserver.
She was depicted in Greek Art with a Helmet on her head. She held the Spear of Knowledge in her right hand, poised to strike at the Serpent of Ignorance writhing under her foot. The large Helmet denoted that she waged invisibly a silent war against Sloth and Ignorance. She was usually placed on the Greek Temples with a Golden Spear in her hand. When the morning rays of the sun glinted on the weapon, causing it apparently to tremble, the common people were in the habit of saying smilingly : "Athena is Shaking her Spear again." She was thus known as "the Spear Shaker" or " the "Shaker of the Spear."
This was the Goddess to whom Francis Bacon plighted his troth when a youth.
The members of this Secret Literary Society which centered in Pallas Athena were known as The Knights of the Helmet. They had a ritual&;created by Francis Bacon&;and were initiated with an elaborate ceremonial. There was a vow, recitatives, perambulations. The Initiate was capped with the Helmet of Pallas to denote he was henceforth an "Invisible" in the fight for Human Advancement. A large Spear was placed in his hand&;indicative of a pen&;for he was to Shake the Spear of Knowledge at the Dragons of Ignorance. He thus became a "Spear-Shaker", and the head of the little band of "Spear-Shakers" was "Shake-Speare" himself, Athena's visible representative on earth.......Francis Bacon.

This little group of law students&;with a few outsiders like Gabriel Harvey, a Cambridge Professor, the one-time tutor of Francis in Prosody&;became the brains of the secret movements in the Elizabethan Era which led to the English Renaissance. The prime Fraternity became known ultimately as the Rosicrosse.
Their activities began with an attempt to create a flexible English language, to provide words which Englishmen could express themselves, a literature written in their own tongue to take the place of Latin. To this end the Rosicrosse made translations from many languages and issued text-books dealing with all sorts of subjects. They wrote original works anonymously. They had to create an English reading public and they did so in many ways..... by feigned attacks on each other, stimulating controversy, by stories and plays of educational and moral interest. A great deal of Francis Bacon's financial difficulties in these days, and even later, was due to the fact that he had to pay for the books to be printed, and that he was running the printing and publishing side of his creative efforts at a dead loss. He was actually thrown into prison more than once for borrowed monies, such debts being incurred soley through the expenses of his idealistic "Philanthropia." These Rosicrosse books were signed with the numerical Seal of the Rosicrosse, 157 or /and 287 and often the author's real name by a numerical signature or anagram. In these books Francis Bacon had the opportunity to secrete his personal secrets which he dare not write about openly.
Thus began the Society of the Rosicrosse, and thus the Founder began a series of writings which eventually became the Fourth Part of The Great Instauration. Francis Bacon became an anonymous writer, using many pen-names until he had learned the art of creating personalities by a perfect blending of "FORMS" or human passions. This very word, "Form", Francis Bacon uses in The New Organ of Interpretation for the understanding of all Mental Phenomena and the Thinking Man, thus leading to the creation of the "Actual Types and Models" of Mental and Emotional Passion that were "to be set before the Eyes" as on a Stage by a "Shake-spear."
The Rosicrosse Literary Society, we know, was definitely in being in 1604

"for on the 6th January the Queen held a Masque Ball, and Inigo Jones, having been asked to design the costumes, drew among other sketches one over which he himself scribbled the words, 'A ROSICROS." (F. de P. Castells, Our Ancient Brethren. p. 90)From another angle of study Parker Woodward says :

"There is very little doubt that Francis formed a Secret Society for the prosecution of his scheme for the Advancement of Learning, the Maintenance of Religion, and the Improvement of Manners, Morals, Arts, and Sciences......Overt signs can be collected only by watchful care over a number of years." (Sir Francis Bacon, p.54)
The same author, writing of the year 1592, says : 'Francis was at this time, if not earlier, well helped by a staff of men capable of writing a sort of shorthand, who afterwards transcribed their work." (Early life of Lord Bacon. p. 59)
See Elizabethan Scriveneries, in Shakespeare, Creator of Freemasonry, by Alfred Dodd.Under the Cloak of the Secret Literary Society Francis Bacon built up his "Forms", the dramatic creation of Personalities; speaking his own thoughts to the world through their mouths. Now can be better understood his saying : "Motley's the only wear : It is my ONLY SUIT......."

"Invest me in my Motley: give me leave
To speak my Mnd, and I will through and through
Cleanse the foul body of th' infected world
If they will patiently receive my medicine.

&;As You Like It(written presumably prior to 1600: First Printed and Published 1623.)
So......in the "despised Weed" (Disguise) of a Dramatist, Shakespeare, he "procured the good of all men."

("I have , though in a DESPISED WEED, procured THE GOOD OF ALL MEN." &;from Francis Bacon's Prayer written in 1621;
"Why do I still keep INVENTION (Poesy) in a NOTED WEED." &; Shakespeare's Sonnets )Through his stories he tried to uplift common humanity educationally and ethically, giving his countrymen, in his open works as well as his concealed ones, a vocabulary of some twenty thousand words. He painted broad canvasses of Life that taught the triumph of goodness and the dethronement of evil......great epics of moral power. He showed in the most practical manner, to succeeding generations of scholars, that he knew how to hold the mirror up to Nature, because he knew the secret of applied metaphysics, the interpretation of Nature according to the Novum Organum, i.e., PART III. In short, he demonstrated that he fully understood the laws that govern human nature, and how to blend creative effort along definite lines in order to produce characters in Art Form, the various "Forms" that live in the Great Plays. Had he openly declared his views that he put into the mouths of his various characters, Franis Bacon would have been brought into conflict with Church and State. He wrote his views under the Mask of a living man, as Sir Nicholas had done. This man was buried in the heart of the country.....literally buried in Stratford Church&;and had been for seven years&;when Part IV of the "Types and Models", interpretive of Nature, were mysteriously produced in 1623 under the title of Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories and Tragedies.This book contains the various "Forms" of mental and moral passion&; of "Light and Heat "&;to illustrate his experimental Natural Philosophy.

While he was establishing the educative aspect of Rosicrosse activities by printing and publishing text books,etc., Francis Bacon has also began another important work&; intended to be the crown of his labours, the establishment of an organized, Brotherhood with Rites and Ceremonial based on the Ancient Mysteries, Classical Myths, the craft-customs of the defunct guild of operative masons.... a Rite in which the Nature Wisdom of Egypt should be blended with the simple, ethical New Commandment of Jesus...."That ye LOVE one another." It was, virtually, a remodelling of the Contiental Templar Knights Secret Order which was then almost moribund....confined to a fast diminishing select few, and had outlived its former usefulness and grandeur. Francis Bacon aimed at remoulding the Ceremonial on broader grounds that would have, ultimately, a popular appeal as well as an esoteric one. He finally redrafted the Nine Degrees of the Templars into Thirty-Three, half of which were based on purely Christian Ethical Concepts. "Thirty-Three" was chosen as the Highest Degree because the number "33", was the numerical signature of "Bacon" :
B A C O N
______________
2 +1+ 3+ 14+ 13 = 33The first modern Freemasons' Lodge was held at Twickenham Park and Gray's Inn. It consisted of Three Degrees and the Royal Arch. It's first members were drawn from the Rosicrosse Literary Society : A Rosicrosse-Mason was a Brother who was privy to the Secrets of the Craft and the Rose.
http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/the_rose.gif(color added)


Woodblock emblem on the title-page of A Collection of Apothegmes New and Old, by the Right Honourable Francis Bacon, Baron of Verulam, Viscount St. Alban,published in London in 1661, printed by Sarah Griffin for William Lee. Francis Bacon created the Higher Christian Degrees gradually through the years, the majority being tried out at Twickenham Lodge. In 1620 all the Degrees had been created with their traditional histories, feigned tales and rituals; and the Brotherhood was well established in Lodges, Chapters and Presbyteries dotted all over the Kingdom &;England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Continent. It had even spread through military and naval officers and gentlemen to the New World.

Part VI was therefore actually in being in the form of a series of Ethical Rituals, some simple, some elaborate&;thirty-three in all&;and regularly worked secretly by an organized Brotherhood who recognized each other, unsuspected by the "uninstructed world", through secret words and tokens. Had the Fraternity been known to exist it would have been stamped out as a menace, for Authority would never have tolerated a "Commonwealth" within a "Commonwealth". The Church would have frowned on an Ethical System as subversive to Christianity, which all the divines then held could only be interpreted by creeds and dogmas. So Freemasonry was planted secretly like a bulb in the darkness and left to root itself and grow : And it was planned eventually to emerge into the Light of Day exactly one hundred years after the publication of the 1623 Great Shakespeare Folio... in 1723. (with The Book of Constitutions of The Freemasons, by Rev. James Anderson, being the first annoucement to the world of the Brotherhood.)
But while Freemasons' Lodges lay concealed from sight, there was a vigourous movement initiated by the Rosicrosse to bring ethical principles to public notice&; especially among liberal-minded thinkers&; and to familiarize the mass-mind with idealism in its loftiest form..... the amelioration of the common lot. In 1614 there was printed in Cassel (Germany) and elsewhere for the next few years, a series of Manifestoes based on the Theme, The Universal Reformation of the Whole Wide World, the Fama Fraternitatisand the Confessio Fraternitatis. From what quarter they proceeded no one knew. But they were circulating in manuscript in 1610 in the Tyrol, and there is now evidence that they were in circulation even before this date in England. There is also sufficient proof that the writer of the manifestoes was Francis Bacon, who had them translated into German and published anonymously. They were a call to all good men, irrespective of creedal belief, to unite against the evils that afflicted humanity on the lines of an Ethical Brotherhood.
The Rosicrucian booklets created a great stir at the time and much controversy. Many letters were written stating the willingness of the writers to join such a Brotherhood. But the anonymous author never replied to any of his correspondents and after some years the agitation died down. The seeds of curiosity had, however, been scattered abroad openly. The Fama and other Rosicrucian literature were studied and their principles practically applied by some enthusiasts to everyday life, by forming small commonwealth's of their own. Some parties even migrated to the New World that the might live their own lives, modelled on the Fama, free from persucution. Genuine inquirers were, however, noted and many were quietly absorbed into the secret Craft Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, being, later, passed on to the still more esoteric Rosicrucian College.

Before 1616 Francis Bacon had compiled Part V of The Great Instauration&; the Rosicrucian Manifestoes&;and published them openly to the world, besides having established the secret Colleges of he Fratres. He had given the world anonymously something on account of the full, ethical system of Rite and Cermonial, that by allegory and symbol gave a spiritual interpretation of the Universe...the system of Natural Philosophy, Freemasonry, timed to appear a hundred years later. The Rosicrucian pamphlets were "to serve as wayside Inns in which the mind might rest." They are still regarded as Inns for mental refreshment by many persons today who find their highest happiness in obedience to the teachings of the Rosicrucian literature.

This aspect of Francis Bacon's concealed activities must be borne in mind in order to understand his character....the secret ideals which, after all, were the first things in his intentions, and which inevitably had its repercussions on the open life which has been so variously interpreted and misinterpreted by so many critical biographers. His "Philanthropia" led him into the paths of an "Active Philosophy", so he termed it, as a social reformer and an ethical teacher. These were the touchstones by which he tested his personal actions. Thought had to be combined with action, otherwise the noblest thoughts were meaningless, insincere, and futile. It should lead essentially to practical results.
The three concealed Parts of his system were bound together by education, reform, ethics which he could not openly champion in an age of tyranny, intolerance and ignorance. His creation of a vast vocabulary, his moral tales of dramatic passion that even the unlettered could understand, his Rosicrucian ferment thrown upon the stagnant waters of society and the establishment of a Brotherhood can now be seen in their influence on the Elizabethan Era and succeedinggenerations. The Mystery of Freemasonry, the Mystery of the Rosicrucian Manifestoes, the Mystery of the Shakespeare Plays can all be traced to one source&;the concealed Architect and Master Builder. They are the missing parts of The Great Instauration which Spedding and Ellis, with other eminent scholars, having searched for in vain, eventually concluding with a sigh that he never wrote them. What they all overlooked was this : That Francis Bacon's System not only embraced the Reformation of Physics and Physical Well-being but the Invisible Worlds of Mental and Moral Thought and Action : and that his Plan, copied from the "Ancients", was to deliver his Philosophy by TWO Methods &;one Public and one PRIVATE. In Valerius Terminus, Ch.18, he says he will use

" the discretion anciently observed..... of publishing part and reserving PART TO A PRIVATE SUCCESSION, and of publishing in such a manner whereby it may not be to the taste or capacity of all but shall as it were single and adopt his reader....both for the avoiding of abuse in the excluded, and the strengthening of the Affection in those ADMITTED," i.e. exclusion by Blackball.
[This is a clear intimation of Initiation into a Secret Order.]
"Now my plan for publication is this : I wish to be published to the world and circulate from mouth to mouth ; the rest I would have passed from hand to hand with selection and judgment. My Formula of Interpretation.....will thrive better if committed to the charge of some fit and selected minds AND KEPT PRIVATE."
"Elsewhere he talks of an ORAL METHOD OF TRANSMISSION, which reminds one at once of Masonry." (W. F.C. Wigston, Bacon and the Rosicrucians, p.44)
"I , going the same road as the Ancients, have something better to produce, says Francis. This is, then, the Secret of The Great Instauration or RESTORATION. He has returned on the road to Antiquity, copying the Dramatic Rites of the Mysteries in their Moral Applications by Degree Methods, and seeks to outvie the Dramatic Art of AEschylus, Euripides and Sophocles.This confirms more than sufficient proof that Francis Bacon was more than a Publicist. He was a secret Teacher with his Secret School of Disciples. Spedding and others never took these SECRET PUBLICATIONS into account. They ignored his plain words. They never sought for them; and they never sought for his Secret Society that was to be maintained by "ORAL TRANSMISSION." They therefore missed entirely the full import of his Labours&;his concealed work outlined in Parts IV, V, VI.
Over his own name he never published anything until he was forty-four years of age&;beyond ten short Essays in 1597. The best years of his life have apparently slipped away from him barren of creative effort. Actually, they were years overflowing with his concealed labours. On the definite completion of he basis from which could be launched the attack on the Citadels of the Kingdom of Ignorance (the secret bases from which sprang our new outlook on Literature; i.e. the Renaissance crowned by the production of the Shakespeare Plays: the Royal Society : the Theosophic Rosicrucian College : the Ethical Craft of Masonry: the New Philosophical and Scientific outlook whose watchwords were "Utility and Progress") he then&;and not until then&;started the ball rolling openly by printing The Advancement of Learning in 1605. It was PART I of the Instauration or the Revival of Learning.
In 1620 was published PART II, the Novum Organum or The New Organ of Interpretation.
In the Sylva Sylvarum, published in 1627, this book being "A Collection of Collections" (Spedding) or "the materials out of which anything is to be constructed," is to be found

"an accumulation of facts, beliefs, fables, and conjectures ranging over all the fields of Nature." (Nichol)which Francis Bacon had been collecting all his life. "This Natural History," said he, "is the World as God made it and not as men have made it," and, added Dr. Rawley, his chaplain, in deeply significant words which the Universities have never interpreted :

"He that looketh attentively shall find that these particulars have A SECRET ORDER (Preface, S.S., 1627)
[The Masonic work entitled The New Atlantis was bound with the Sylva Sylvarum and contains particulars of his "Secret Orders."]This was PART III of the Instauration.
This "Collection" of experiments and alleged scientific facts was Francis Bacon's first attempt, says Dr.Rawley,

"to write such a Natural History as may be Fundamental to the Erecting and Building of a True Philosophy; for the Illumination of the Understanding; the Extracting of Axioms; and the producing of many Noble Workes and Effects."Apart from the fact that the "Author" of the Shakespeare Plays must have possessed similar peculiar and intimate out-of-the-way information respecting the phenomena of Nature and Human Nature, the Sylva Sylvarum, with other books, may be said to be the foundation-stone of the Royal Society of which Francis Bacon was the direct instigator and founder according to its first President, Dr. Spratt. Francis Bacon's idea of a Solomon's House of Science for the collection of natural facts, placed in a systemized order, led to the establishment of the Gresham College or Academy of 1660 and then to the Royal Society of Charles II. Boyle, Wren, Moray, Ashmole, and Locke were the men who directly founded the R. S., and they were also the driving force in Speculative Masonry. This connection between Masonry and the Royal Society in its early history is extremely significant. "Solomon's House" is the exoteric side of his System, while "Solomon's Temple"&;is the esoteric teaching to be found in Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry&;the ethical interpretation of the facts of Nature.
This was the reason why The New Atlantis was issued with the Sylvarum in order to identify Francis Bacon's "Secret Order" with the Symbolism of Nature : for he that looketh attentively shall find that the Atlantis indeed discloses "A Secret Order", but only a Mason can detect it. There are, however, other "Secret Orders," of a different kind in the Work not yet disclosed. The New Atlantis, which was afterwards published as The Land of the Rosicrucians, reeks with Masonic Symbolism. James Hughan, one of the leading Masonic authorities in his day, said :

"The New Atlantis seems to be, and probably is, THE KEY TO THE MODERN RITUALS OF FREEMASONRY."It was intended to be regarded as the preface to them. The Author left it with these significant words : "A WORK Unfinished ; The rest was not PERFECTED."
It is clear that by Easter Sunday, 1626, when Francis Bacon departed from the scene of his activities, he had definitely completed his philosophic system and established the Movements connected with them. The Shakespeare Plays had been gathered together in 1623 in an omnibus volume containing twenty plays printed for the first time; the sixteen previously printed were largely re-written; and several never heard of previously&;such as Henry VIII&;were inserted. (Shaksper of Stratford, be it remembered, died in 1616.) Shakespeare's Sonnet-Diary he bequeathed to his Fraternities (Xmas 1625). We may term this his last act...........

David Guyatt
10-04-2014, 09:02 AM
On your puzzle about Marlowe, have you considered his membership to the secret society the School of Night (http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/christopher-marlowe.htm) which is said to have been close to the Rosicrucians?

I mention this only as an aside, but it was/is certainly the case in Freemasonry that important esoteric possessions of a brother who has passed are gathered together by his Lodge members and taken away.

Of course, Walsingham was a highly secretive man, as the Queen's spymaster and the forerunner of 007. ::shock:: I have often pondered the question of whether he was, himself, a member of the Rosicrucians? I can find nothing to even hint that he was, so probably not. But it is self evident that the British Secret Service - which grew from him - have a long history of occult connections, as witnessed by their "eye in the triangle" logo:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6355&stc=1

Steve Franklin
10-04-2014, 01:27 PM
On your puzzle about Marlowe, have you considered his membership to the secret society the School of Night (http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/christopher-marlowe.htm) which is said to have been close to the Rosicrucians?

I mention this only as an aside, but it was/is certainly the case in Freemasonry that important esoteric possessions of a brother who has passed are gathered together by his Lodge members and taken away.

Of course, Walsingham was a highly secretive man, as the Queen's spymaster and the forerunner of 007. ::shock:: I have often pondered the question of whether he was, himself, a member of the Rosicrucians? I can find nothing to even hint that he was, so probably not. But it is self evident that the British Secret Service - which grew from him - have a long history of occult connections, as witnessed by their "eye in the triangle" logo:


First, I am aware of the "Shake-Spear" meme. This has been floating around the anti-Stratfordian world for a while now. I have not reached any conclusions on this yet. But keep in mind that there were 8 non-canonical plays published under "William Shakespeare," "W. Shakespeare," and "W. S." between 1595 and 1611. Also keep in mind that "Shake-speare" and "Shaks-pere" are different names with different meanings, so in either case Shakespeare is a nom-de-plume, whether meant to call to mind Shakspere or not. The widely flaunted Elizabethan spelling fluctuations never approached Shakespeare as a variation.

The original Thomas Mendenhall study was actually commissioned by someone trying to demonstrate that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare. The article in The Popular Science Monthly is here (http://books.google.com/books?id=KSQDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA97&dq=%22A%20Mechanical%20Solution%20of%20a%20Literar y%20Problem.%22&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q=%22A%20Mechanical%20Solution%20of%20a%20Literary %20Problem.%22&f=false). Bacon failed the test by a wide margin. Now it has been argued that comparing Bacon's philosophical and scientific works with "Shakespeare's" fictional works would give different results, but notice that Bacon's word usage peaks sharply at 3 words, whereas "Shakespeare's" fictional usage peaks less sharply at 4 words. One would expect that if Bacon had written Shakespeare, his average word usage would have grown even shorter, fiction being less technical than non-fiction. And again, Marlowe's usage mirrors "Shakespeare's" precisely, even closer than the sonnets mirror the plays.

As for secret societies, I have no problem with associating any historical figure with one or another of these, especially in times of danger from the religious and civil authorities. Look at the American Revolution and the membership of many of these gentlemen in the Freemasons. I am, however, trying to keep my research focused on literary and exoteric data, at least for the moment. The mystery of "Shakespeare" is that, though supposedly a commoner, he understood the workings of the royal court and the idiosyncracies of its members, not the hidden knowledge they might have picked up as members of some underground association. I have no intent to impune your interests. I am just trying to steer clear of their target. For now, Occam must rule. In terms of the tarot, however, where there is little exoteric evidence between Pythagoras and Sister Manfreda, I am open to esoteric evidence.

David Guyatt
10-04-2014, 04:49 PM
I understand your reservations, Steve. For you it's an academic study.

One possible problem that you might be encountering when trying to trace origins is that so much of the esoteric lore was transmitted as an oral tradition --- from mouth to ear --- and was not written down (and when written down was full of blinds impenetrable to the uninitiated. This oral tradition may create the impression that knowledge leapt whole from one period to another, and one place to another, without there being an apparent trail.

In regard to the the origin of the Tarot, Paul Foster Case states in his slim volume, The Esoteric Keys to Alchemy:


The Western literature of alchemy can be traced back to the days when Alexandria was the meeting place for the group of adepts of the Inner School who later transferred their activities to Fez, and from that city issued the earliest versions of the Tarot.

He adds that much of its doctrine was definitely Neo-Platonic, which in turn is tinged with ideas brought to Alexandria by wandering teachers from India, and that, therefore there is a mixture of Hindu thought, Egyptian Magic and Greek Philosophy in these Hermetic teachings that were set forth in alchemy and Tarot.

This might be of some help, I think.

Steve Franklin
10-04-2014, 09:33 PM
I understand your reservations, Steve. For you it's an academic study.

One possible problem that you might be encountering when trying to trace origins is that so much of the esoteric lore was transmitted as an oral tradition --- from mouth to ear --- and was not written down (and when written down was full of blinds impenetrable to the uninitiated. This oral tradition may create the impression that knowledge leapt whole from one period to another, and one place to another, without there being an apparent trail.

In regard to the the origin of the Tarot, Paul Foster Case states in his slim volume, The Esoteric Keys to Alchemy:


The Western literature of alchemy can be traced back to the days when Alexandria was the meeting place for the group of adepts of the Inner School who later transferred their activities to Fez, and from that city issued the earliest versions of the Tarot.

He adds that much of its doctrine was definitely Neo-Platonic, which in turn is tinged with ideas brought to Alexandria by wandering teachers from India, and that, therefore there is a mixture of Hindu thought, Egyptian Magic and Greek Philosophy in these Hermetic teachings that were set forth in alchemy and Tarot.

This might be of some help, I think.

Pythagoras was certainly in Egypt (538 BC), but before the Library was built, and then taken to Babylon by Cambyses II (525 BC), then, perhaps, traveled to India, after which he returned to Samos (517 BC), then moved to Croton in Magna Graecia in the south of the Italian peninsula where he founded his famous school (509 BC, the year the Roman Republic was founded at Rome). What I find suspicious is that both the tarot and many of Shakespeare's plays have deep roots in Italy, so it's fair to ask whether Marlowe might have moved to Italy because he was somehow associated with an organization that had its headquarters there. Keep in mind that Marlowe was suspected of having Catholic sympathies and, but for the intervention of the Privy Council, would therefore never have received his Masters Degree, so I wouldn't rule out an organization with Catholic aspects. Pythagorean Catholics? The idea isn't necessarily as strange as it sounds. Note the association of the tarot with Sister Manfreda of the Umiliata Order.

Waite could then have been involved in this same group and its British branch and received the true meaning of the tarot therefrom. Or, he could simply have decoded it the way I did. It's really not hidden all that well. It may not have been intentionally hidden at all.

David Guyatt
10-05-2014, 09:04 AM
I understand your reservations, Steve. For you it's an academic study.

One possible problem that you might be encountering when trying to trace origins is that so much of the esoteric lore was transmitted as an oral tradition --- from mouth to ear --- and was not written down (and when written down was full of blinds impenetrable to the uninitiated. This oral tradition may create the impression that knowledge leapt whole from one period to another, and one place to another, without there being an apparent trail.

In regard to the the origin of the Tarot, Paul Foster Case states in his slim volume, The Esoteric Keys to Alchemy:


The Western literature of alchemy can be traced back to the days when Alexandria was the meeting place for the group of adepts of the Inner School who later transferred their activities to Fez, and from that city issued the earliest versions of the Tarot.

He adds that much of its doctrine was definitely Neo-Platonic, which in turn is tinged with ideas brought to Alexandria by wandering teachers from India, and that, therefore there is a mixture of Hindu thought, Egyptian Magic and Greek Philosophy in these Hermetic teachings that were set forth in alchemy and Tarot.

This might be of some help, I think.

Pythagoras was certainly in Egypt (538 BC), but before the Library was built, and then taken to Babylon by Cambyses II (525 BC), then, perhaps, traveled to India, after which he returned to Samos (517 BC), then moved to Croton in Magna Graecia in the south of the Italian peninsula where he founded his famous school (509 BC, the year the Roman Republic was founded at Rome). What I find suspicious is that both the tarot and many of Shakespeare's plays have deep roots in Italy, so it's fair to ask whether Marlowe might have moved to Italy because he was somehow associated with an organization that had its headquarters there. Keep in mind that Marlowe was suspected of having Catholic sympathies and, but for the intervention of the Privy Council, would therefore never have received his Masters Degree, so I wouldn't rule out an organization with Catholic aspects. Pythagorean Catholics? The idea isn't necessarily as strange as it sounds. Note the association of the tarot with Sister Manfreda of the Umiliata Order.

Waite could then have been involved in this same group and its British branch and received the true meaning of the tarot therefrom. Or, he could simply have decoded it the way I did. It's really not hidden all that well. It may not have been intentionally hidden at all.

If it's not hidden at all well, as you suggest, then what is the true meaning of the tarot? Just curious...

Steve Franklin
10-05-2014, 03:48 PM
If it's not hidden at all well, as you suggest, then what is the true meaning of the tarot? Just curious...

Hidden only to those outside the School of Pythagoras at Croton and later Metapontum. It is, in essence, a mnemonic device containing calendrical, astronomical, mathematical, and other information provided by Pythagoras to his followers in a form that was easy to remember. It appears to be based upon an earlier Indian system related to the game of pachisi obtained at Babylon or in India itself sometime after 525 BC.

Just looking at the Walsingham estate at Chislehurst: It seems that Scadbury was inherited by Thomas Walsingham V, the son of Marlowe's patron, upon the latter's death in 1630. Scadbury, where Marlowe may have been arrested, was sold by Thomas V about 1655, so the question presents itself: If the Walsinghams were in possession of the original clear copies of "Shakespeare's" plays, did they remain at Chislehurst with Sir Richard Bettenson, who purchased the manor, or did they stay in the Walsingham family whose name died out within 2 more generations, but whose descendants survived under other surnames? And why, if they still exist, would they remain hidden away so long after the abolition of the Star Chamber?

David Guyatt
10-06-2014, 08:25 AM
If it's not hidden at all well, as you suggest, then what is the true meaning of the tarot? Just curious...

It is, in essence, a mnemonic device containing calendrical, astronomical, mathematical, and other information provided by Pythagoras to his followers in a form that was easy to remember.


It's so much more than that.

And in saying this, I am not referring to the supposed divinatory nature of the Tarot (which doesn't really interest me), but rather the archetypal and symbolic meaning transmitted in these cards - and the fact that they correspond with alchemical, Qabalistic and numerological (Gematria, Notariqon etc) techniques of deeper elucidation than you know or could guess.

But I accept that our minds will not meet on this subject and will leave it at that.

Magda Hassan
10-06-2014, 09:30 AM
I've been thoroughly enjoying this discussion regardless ::rockon::::fortuneteller::::drwho::

Steve Franklin
10-07-2014, 03:01 AM
I notice a problem with another of the main suspects in the Shakespeare Authorship Question: William Stanley, who died in 1642, 3 years before Lanier. Again, "Shakespeare" dies in 1616, and Stanley doesn't write another play for 26 years? I am beginning to suspect that whether this guy Shaxpere could even read or write or not, he may have had something to do with the reason for writing the plays, no matter who actually did so. After all, he was a shareholder in the Globe Theater. Could it be that he stopped paying for the writing of the plays? Of course, if Marlowe was the actual author, he could very well have died at about the same time. Henry Paine Stokes places the writing of Henry VIII at 1613, so Marlowe himself would have stopped writing shortly thereafter. 1613 is just an estimate, of course, so one might begin to suspect that Shaxpere's retirement sometime between 1611 and 1613 actually had something to do with Marlowe's death, his source of plays having dried up. But note that the Globe Theatre burned on July 21, 1613.

David Guyatt
10-07-2014, 07:47 AM
Mundanity apart, it might be relevant to the discussion to simply note that the Globe is often a way to describe this planet upon which we live (globe, earth, world etc). And as Shakespeare wrote in the monologue in As You Like It, "All the world's a stage - and all the men and women mere players," suggesting the Globe Theatre was simply a microcosm of the greater macrocosmic theatre - thereby expanding the meaning to a different level - dramatisation as a collective psychodrama.

David Guyatt
10-07-2014, 09:01 AM
During a week long analytical symposium I attended in Zurich in 1991, I had been given a series of personal introductions by my own analyst to a number of other "old school" Jungians in Zurich. One of these was Hanni Binder, who had been taught by Jung and who speciliazed on Tarot and Astrology. When I met her she was, as I recall, in her 91st year and a grand old lady she was too, still possessing a quick wit and penetrating eyes. I found my visit with her to be illuminating. She is now long deceased.

Anyway, in order to further explain what I mean by the symbolic importance of the Tarot trumps, I refer to Sallie Nichols excellent book "Jung and Tarot - An Archetypal Journey. Nichols is a Jungian analyst in SF and her book, first published in 1985, really is an excellent introduction to the subject. I am unable to find a downloadable version, but an extract is available at Scribd HERE (https://www.scribd.com/doc/74052614/Jung-and-Tarot-An-Archetypal-Journey-by-Sallie-Nichols). I recommend one navigate to page 31 and begin reading her amplification of the symbolism and meaning of the Fool.

One subject she has not included in her account, however, and one that deserves attention is the correspondence of the Fool with Odin/Wotan who also had the title of the Wanderer, and who was accompanied not by one dog snapping at the Fool's heels, but by two dogs (or wolves) and who roamed the primeval forest. Odin was the Norske God of magic and poetry and sacrificed an eye to gain the mastery of Rune magic. He is also the Fool with a thousand faces, each bubbling and shifting and vying to reach the surface (therefore a shape-shifter), and if you ever meet him, you will find this to be a quite shocking experience.

Nichols, in her book, makes the point that the Trumps are "the so-called projection holders, meaning simply that they are the hooks to catch the imagination." Again and agin, authorities on these subject state how important and significant the imagination is as a tool of cognition - without which we are willfully rendering ourselves blind to a higher/deeper order of knowledge and understanding.

Steve Franklin
10-07-2014, 02:16 PM
One subject she has not included in her account, however, and one that deserves attention is the correspondence of the Fool with Odin/Wotan who also had the title of the Wanderer, and who was accompanied not by one dog snapping at the Fool's heels, but by two dogs (or wolves) and who roamed the primeval forest. Odin was the Norske God of magic and poetry and sacrificed an eye to gain the mastery of Rune magic. He is also the Fool with a thousand faces, each bubbling and shifting and vying to reach the surface (therefore a shape-shifter), and if you ever meet him, you will find this to be a quite shocking experience.


Well, you really can't seem to leave this alone, so, I find no need to sugar coat it anymore.

You really need to read my book to which you linked earlier.

The Fool, far from having any occult or Jungian significance, is simply a representation of the 365th day of the year, the odd man out, so to speak, beyond its 13 normalized 28-day sidereal lunar months and 52 even weeks, both of which bring the year to 364 days. This is the day spoken of in the English term "a year and a day" used in sentencing people during the Middle Ages. April Fool's Day is a remnant of this earlier even-week year formerly used in parts of France and elsewhere, though it more likely was originally celebrated between the end of February and the beginning of March. The point of the even week was that holidays always fell on the same day of the week, hence no need for the rigmarole resorted to by the Church to locate Easter. Good Friday could be celebrated on the same of the year and would always fall on a Friday, and Easter Sunday could be celebrated on the same day every year and that would always be a Sunday. It also allowed an exact 9-month interval between the death of the sun at the beginning of spring and its rebirth at the winter solstice, a metaphor that is obscured by the ridiculous method used by the Church.

As for Jung, though I have read him, I find him unconvincing. I lean more toward Freud, in that Freud relied upon much less mystical postulates and fewer undemonstrable ideas like the collective unconscious, which Jung never got around to clearly defining, let alone proving. My impression of Jung is that he was attempting--unsuccessfully--to rescue religion from the clutches of rationalism. Freud couldn't do hypnosis and therefore resorted to dream analysis. Jung couldn't do logical thought and therefore resorted to mysticism and--dare I say it--mumbo jumbo. In that sense his ideas were no more cogent than a Medieval theologian trying to save people's "souls" by burning them at the stake. All of these Dark Age systems derive from the inability of their practitioners to understand the fragments that survived into Roman and post-Roman times from the Classical world, whose explanations were restricted, even then, to initiates and students of great teachers like Pythagoras. That Jung could try to explain the devices and systems of analysis developed by one of the greatest scientific and mathematical minds of the ancient world by resort to Medieval distortions and pure inventions borders on the laughable.

Let me be clear about this. I have no problem with people practicing the religion of their choice, whether it be the religion of Shakespeare from Stratford or the religion of Analytical Psychology. What I object to is the assertion that these are based on anything resembling science and honest scholarship. They are not. The proof is that, unlike honest scholarship, they lead to the discovery of no new knowledge. They simply "explain" what is already believed by the use of circular reasoning and appeal to authority.

Steve Franklin
10-07-2014, 02:25 PM
Mundanity apart, it might be relevant to the discussion to simply note that the Globe is often a way to describe this planet upon which we live (globe, earth, world etc). And as Shakespeare wrote in the monologue in As You Like It, "All the world's a stage - and all the men and women mere players," suggesting the Globe Theatre was simply a microcosm of the greater macrocosmic theatre - thereby expanding the meaning to a different level - dramatisation as a collective psychodrama.

Is all analysis, then, to be based on mystical speculation and not hard scholarship? Are we to see all human actions and creations as simply a manifestation of Jung's supposed collective unconscious, his transparent attempt to talk about "God" without appearing to use religious methods to do psychology? Seriously?

Magda Hassan
10-07-2014, 02:44 PM
....I lean more toward Freud, in that Freud relied upon much less mystical postulates and fewer undemonstrable ideas like the collective unconscious, which Jung never got around to clearly defining, let alone proving. My impression of Jung is that he was attempting--unsuccessfully--to rescue religion from the clutches of rationalism.

Freud couldn't do hypnosis and therefore resorted to dream analysis. Jung couldn't do logical thought and therefore resorted to mysticism and--dare I say it--mumbo jumbo.


Don't think Freud does logic or rational either...his writing on hysteria and penis envy is pathetic and tragic. He was too caught up playing high priest of his own cult to see through anything other than the eye of his own self obsessed penis. And he knew where the money was and had no intentions of exposing a huge swathe of the Austrian ruling classes as the sexual abusers and predators they were.

Steve Franklin
10-07-2014, 05:03 PM
I was looking at the locations of "Shakespeare's" Italian plays, the non-historical ones at least, using them as a kind of travelogue on the hypothesis that Marlowe escaped to Italy and that the plays follow his travels there. It looks like the first one was The Two Gentlemen of Verona, set in Verona and Milan, Verona being about 160 kilometers (100 miles) east of the larger Milan. This is rather interesting in that Guglielma, whom her followers believed to be an incarnation of the Holy Ghost, arrived there from Bohemia in 1260, the tarot reappeared there in a version commissioned by Bianca Maria Visconti and painted by Bonifacio Bembo between 1441 and 1450, and Leonardo went to work there for Ludovico Sforza, the son of Bianca and later duke of Milan, in 1487 after disappearing (supposedly in the East) for 4 years. Marlowe would have arrived there shortly after 1593, though Stokes places the play at 1591 based on sparse evidence. One has to wonder what exactly was percolating below the surface in Milan that drew these disparate characters there over a period of 333 years. The timeline through Leonardo is here (http://neros.lordbalto.com/ChapterNineteen.htm).

David Guyatt
10-08-2014, 09:37 AM
Mundanity apart, it might be relevant to the discussion to simply note that the Globe is often a way to describe this planet upon which we live (globe, earth, world etc). And as Shakespeare wrote in the monologue in As You Like It, "All the world's a stage - and all the men and women mere players," suggesting the Globe Theatre was simply a microcosm of the greater macrocosmic theatre - thereby expanding the meaning to a different level - dramatisation as a collective psychodrama.

Is all analysis, then, to be based on mystical speculation and not hard scholarship? Are we to see all human actions and creations as simply a manifestation of Jung's supposed collective unconscious, his transparent attempt to talk about "God" without appearing to use religious methods to do psychology? Seriously?

Why would I want to leave this alone, Steve? I started the thread, after all? It's dear to my heart. This is a discussion forum not a soap-box.

I did look at your book that I linked earlier and found it interesting but not outstanding or remarkable. You seek a rational material explanation for your world and for the history that interests you. Fair enough. But, so far as I can see, all the subjects that interest you, quite strangely also directly intersect with esoteric subjects? An accident perhaps, or intention, or something else, I wonder? Perhaps the Fool is having fun with you? If you had chosen exoteric subjects this would not happen. Anyway, in your historical quest you so seem to wish to remove the one element that actually makes history. Man himself and his psychological drives and flaws.

I have no objection to that if that's what turns your head. But if you post on this forum, you can anticipate other views and perceptions to balance your limitations. And if I may say so, it is evident that you are subject to preaching your own religion of rationalism and material science. It is no better or worse than any other form of myopia, or intolerance, that many of us are so wearingly familiar with.

I think you're getting over-fixated on and confused about the word "occult" - which simply means concealed or hidden. Hidden from you in this case. But also hidden from a great many other people too. And to a greater extent the hiding is self imposed. It's not wishing to look and, therefore, not wishing to see. As a kid I thought that when I hid in the game of hide and seek, and covered my eyes I couldn't be seen. I couldn't see therefore, I couldn't be seen. A similar psychology exists in adults, a sort of... won't see - can't see. Ergo it's not real and it doesn't exist.

Although you say you have read Jung, your unfamiliarity of the subject is apparent throughout all you have contributed in this thread. And I seriously doubt you have a genuine grasp of Freud either (a college course on psychology is my guess?) for the reasons cited below (both were close friends and associates and both analysed each other btw - but differed over one major point that Magda hit upon). I would be unfair of me to stipulate each and every error of misunderstanding you made between Jung and Freud or your general ignorance on the subject itself. Because you can't rationally demonstrate the Collective Unconscious satisfactorily to yourself, doesn't mean it isn't demonstrably real. But it is hidden. Especially from you at the moment, I would say. Perhaps it's all that hampering honest scholarship and science that's to blame?

While I think you could do worse than spending time to get a better understanding of depth psychology, I'm sure you would reject the idea as being unimportant. You are content to be locked into a model of obtuse material reasoning. For you, man's psyche - his driving force - has little - or, in fact, nothing - to do with these subjects. Whereas the fact is that have everything to do with them.

That's the recurring key that is missing from your everlasting puzzles and, forgive me for saying this, but you seem determined to ensure this remains the case. But that's your choice, of course. An open mind is a wonderful thing that we most often witness in children, sad to say.

Mythology has accompanied man since the very beginning and continues to permeate us as a species. Also fairy tales, recounted by mother's to their children all over the world (although crap kiddies TV is taking over in the west). We can add to this mix subjects like Tarot, Alchemy, Astrology, the mystery of Shakespeare etc etc. There really are a great many subjects - always renewed and with new permutations always appearing. Permeating all these is a symbolic language which is the key to the heart of them all. Freud also recognised this and symbolism was a very significant part of his psychological method. Adler likewise (in other words, the three grandfathers of modern day psychology). And it may come as a surprise to you, I think, but dream analysis sits at the core of all psychological analysis of whatever school. It is the objective way to access the unconscious psyche.

Symbolism and humanity are inseperable handmaidens.

Not to be inclusive of both elements, the symbolic and that material is to be half a man.

While I understand that none of the foregoing will make the slightest impact upon you, it is fair notice that I will continue to engage - not to attempt to change your mind, that is your responsibility - but to ensure a degree of balance is presented.

David Guyatt
10-08-2014, 10:18 AM
....I lean more toward Freud, in that Freud relied upon much less mystical postulates and fewer undemonstrable ideas like the collective unconscious, which Jung never got around to clearly defining, let alone proving. My impression of Jung is that he was attempting--unsuccessfully--to rescue religion from the clutches of rationalism.

Freud couldn't do hypnosis and therefore resorted to dream analysis. Jung couldn't do logical thought and therefore resorted to mysticism and--dare I say it--mumbo jumbo.


Don't think Freud does logic or rational either...his writing on hysteria and penis envy is pathetic and tragic. He was too caught up playing high priest of his own cult to see through anything other than the eye of his own self obsessed penis. And he knew where the money was and had no intentions of exposing a huge swathe of the Austrian ruling classes as the sexual abusers and predators they were.

Yes, Freud's obsession with sex in the sense that Freud was reductive in his analysis and, for him, the unconscious was simply a collection of repressed emotions and desires -- whereas Jung conceived of the Collective Unconscious where the Archetypes were seated. The playing high priest to his own cult also strikes strong chord. It might've been more a case of playing high priest to his own ego, though (his words were "I cannot risk my authority" in connection to a dream he had that he had asked Jung to analyse, and refusing to go on with the analysis).

David Guyatt
10-08-2014, 11:59 AM
I was looking at the locations of "Shakespeare's" Italian plays, the non-historical ones at least, using them as a kind of travelogue on the hypothesis that Marlowe escaped to Italy and that the plays follow his travels there. It looks like the first one was The Two Gentlemen of Verona, set in Verona and Milan, Verona being about 160 kilometers (100 miles) east of the larger Milan. This is rather interesting in that Guglielma, whom her followers believed to be an incarnation of the Holy Ghost, arrived there from Bohemia in 1260, the tarot reappeared there in a version commissioned by Bianca Maria Visconti and painted by Bonifacio Bembo between 1441 and 1450, and Leonardo went to work there for Ludovico Sforza, the son of Bianca and later duke of Milan, in 1487 after disappearing (supposedly in the East) for 4 years. Marlowe would have arrived there shortly after 1593, though Stokes places the play at 1591 based on sparse evidence. One has to wonder what exactly was percolating below the surface in Milan that drew these disparate characters there over a period of 333 years. The timeline through Leonardo is here (http://neros.lordbalto.com/ChapterNineteen.htm).

Perhaps a clue lies in the commissioning in about 1425 of a deck by the Duke of Milan that were painted by Michelino de Besozzo that are believed to consist of a deck of 60 cards including 16 trumps bearing representations of 16 Roman gods.


Was the choice of the 16 Roman gods that of the commissioner or the artist? If there is no clear evidence that the Duke particularly requested pagan gods, then a reasonable deduction is that the artist chose to include them, and the focus then would move to him.


De Besozzo doesn’t appear to have amassed a large work that I can see, but he did paint the Mystical Marriage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria. She was the daughter of the pagan King Costus (Ruler of Alexandria) and Queen Sabinella. Catherine was exceptionally well educated and well versed in the arts, sciences and philosophy. She became a cult figure in the late middle ages (which covers the period of De Besozzo).


Another figure appearing in de Besozzo’s painting of the Mystical Marriage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria was St. Anthony, attended by his pig (Bacon?). He was known by the title of Anthony of Egypt, amongst several others. A number of paintings of him by famous artists show him with a skull (David Teniers the Younger; the Temptation of St. Anthony; Dali, The Temptation of St. Anthony) which reverberate skull symbolism that appear in numerous other paintings (St. Jerome being fairly common - El Greco, the Ecstacy of St. Jerome; Jan Sanders van Hemessen, St. Jerome; Aertgen van Leyden, St. Jerome, Cavarozzi’s Saint Jerome; Michelangelo’s St. Jerome, Durer’s woodcut, St Jerome and numerous others) One might additionally note the Skull in Shakespeare (Yorik) and the importance of the skull in alchemy.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6359&stc=1


De Besozzo also painted The Madonna in the Rose Garden (the Madonna was accompanied by St. Catherine), where the rose would, I think, have been the Rose of Sharon, from the Song of Songs, signifying the mystical child. The rose (and mystical birth) has a very considerable symbolic meaning in various schools of esotericism and alchemy.


Thus there is a very clear correlation between de Besozzo and Egypt and, in particular, Alexandria. There is a very clear correlation between de Bosozzo and mystical experiences that, in turn, connect to alchemy, mysticism, alchemy and, of course, psychology (Jung’s Mysterium Coniunctionis - a treatise on the mystical marriage). And a very clear correlation between these subjects and the Tarot via the same artist.

Magda Hassan
10-08-2014, 02:03 PM
For me it is less his obsession with sex, most men are quite obsessed with it to greater or lesser degrees, mostly greater, but his total lack of insight into women, women's lives, women's experiences. He has no idea and it shows. So while he has certainly contributed to our understanding of the human condition ultimately one half of that humanity is missing from his worldview. I wont even bother to mention the class bias. So it is not much of a world worth knowing imho and makes me wary of much of the rest of it he lives in. Here there be dragons. Both Freud and Jung explored symbolism extensively. Jung more so in my observation. More deeply. Both synthesised the use of symbols into their respective theories and warned about ignoring them at one's peril.

I've always loved Freud's quote 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'. Well, thank fuck for that. Not completely hopeless after all. Pity he couldn't also see that the numerous reports of incest and sexual abuse was not some poor victim's fantasy wish. We still live with the huge amount of damage done by his collusion with abusers to maintain patriarchal rights at the expense of truth. Better that his pernicious mumbo jumbo bull shit theories make generations of victims be blamed for their abuse than Freud's delicate ego and dubious 'authority' be put at risk.

R.K. Locke
10-08-2014, 07:09 PM
Further to what has already been written, there has actually been real science done on a number of contested issues which are deemed to be "mumbo-jumbo" by materialists. Some examples:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trickster-Paranormal-George-P-Hansen/dp/1401000827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412794561&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Children-Remember-Previous-Lives-Reincarnation/dp/0786409134/ref=asap_B001IXRWB8_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412794698&sr=1-1

http://www.wfs.org/blogs/richard-samson/signs-connected-consciousness-detected-global-scale

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html


Furthermore, there is an argument to be made for linking Jung's theories to the increasingly popular philosophical discipline of panpsychism:

http://vimeo.com/44013533

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Consciousness-Its-Place-Nature-Physicalism/dp/1845400593/ref=asap_B001JP1VWG_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412794876&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panpsychism-West-Bradford-Books-Paperback/dp/0262693518/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=023Z17ZHDHVBAJ5WWW37


And so on, and so on. The information is all out there if you care to look for it, but the chances are that you won't bother if you are wedded to the religions of materialism and scientism.

R.K. Locke
10-08-2014, 07:10 PM
But back to Shakespeare...

David Guyatt
10-09-2014, 09:32 AM
But before returning to Shakespeare, one further train of thought on the Tarot trumps and the Collective Unconscious, that further amplifies prior meanings.

I have mentioned before elsewhere, that Jung developed a method of harnessing his imaginative function that he called Active Imagination. In fact, this encompasses a far older technique that has been taught in esoteric schools throughout time and in those that use the Qabalah, it is referred to as Path Working. Medieval European Alchemists, Taoist Alchemists and Indian Yogi's all use similar methods too. It is a true voyage of discovery. But there be dragons too.

I have always hesitated to discuss this in any detail (and still am reluctant to be honest) because the technique requires a considerable amount of prior work/preparation in order to avoid possible dangers - in the same way that you would have many lessons in a pool with a swimming teacher before jumping in the pool alone and at night - and out of earshot of others. Although it is true that some people are naturally adapted for this and take to it very easily. Others would be right to avoid it altogether. One friend of mine many years ago (decades, in fact) tried the method and a voice in his head warned him to turn back. He found it a quite terrifying prospect and did turn back, and was wise to do so. His is now dead but would, these days, be the first to admit that he was badly conflicted, psychologically speaking, back then - and I am certain had he continued he would have had very traumatic psychological experiences. Meeting face to face with a living, breathing, sentient, intelligent and talking Archetype is a very powerful experience never to be forgotten.

In a controlled meditative state, one can imaginatively project a chosen trump card in the mind's eye. The Fool would be a good starting place because we all need to know that we really are fools before we ever can approach wisdom (if we ever do). Building it carefully and clearly and without addition or omission is important - and it usually takes a lot of time and discipline to learn to build and hold accurate images. Choosing a suitable deck (I would avoid Crowley's for example) also seems a valid precautionary thing to do. Once you have the image alive and flaming in your mind's eye (as though projected on the wall of the inside of your forehead), you simply walk through the picture - imaginatively speaking. And hey presto. Wisdom dictates that one does not eat for several hours before engaging in this, but would eat something immediately the session is over.

Aggression will be met with aggression, negativity with negativity. To act with politeness and dignity and good, old fashioned manners will be met with politeness and dignity and old fashioned manners. What you transmit is what is reflected back to you.

It is also vital to be able to separate the here and now from the then and there, in your own mind - and developing a small thought ritual of entry and exit isn't a bad thing, as it focuses attention on the separation of these two worlds. The reason for this is that the then and there can be very captivating; we recall the old Celtic tales of someone entering faery land being unable to find their way back and being lost for evermore. It sounds ridiculous I know, but I can speak to the reality of it. Also we can bring back the then and there to the here and now is we are not careful. And that would have very dire personal consequences. The whole thing is to be treated with great care and good common sense. No one willingly sticks their finger in an electric socket to see if it is on or off. Multiply that by a far greater magnitude and you have a sense of the actual energy involved.

I also strongly recommend that this technique be taught by a competent analyst, for example, or through a respectable school, where a curriculum would be adhered to and supervision would be present. History is rife with cautionary stories of alchemists who were poisoned by the noxious fumes of Mercury and went mad. Those genuinely interested will find a suitable teacher/supervisor if they but persist in their desire to find one.

David Guyatt
10-09-2014, 11:08 AM
Back to Shakespeare and Bacon et al.

My interest in this particular debate is fairly recent (2003). From my father effects following his death I obtained and read a book he had titled Arcadia, by Paul Dawkins, and published under the imprint of The Francis Bacon Research Trust Journal, Series 1, Vol 5, that deals with the "Life and Times of Francis Bacon, 1579-1585". It is named Arcadia because it claims to teach the "Ancient Egyptian Mysteries - Arcadia and the Arcadian Academy". My father was a Co-Mason (as was my mother too), and I think it likely he obtained this book during his Masonic studies - although he had previously studied esoterica for many years and was a senior member of an occult school, whereas my mother was Wicca. One might, therefore, imagine that I was doomed from the beginning - but the fact is I introduced my father to the occult school and that, in turn, opened the door for my mother to study Wicca, which she had long had a background interest in. I am, therefore, no innocent in this.

In any event, this is an interesting book and there is a lot of information therein which I have not come across outside on the internet. For example, the author states that Robert Dudley and QE1 conceived Francis Bacon, but politically couldn't admit to having born a child (two, in fact) and therefore, it wads arranged for the child Francis to be secretly adopted by Sir Nicholas Bacon. It is thought that the bacon family derived from the French/Norman Bascoigne family which were the Lords of Molay in France. This family came to fame because of Jacques de Molay, the last publicly known Grandmaster of the Knights Templar (and, of course, their oracular skull of Sidon that was called Baphomet. Perhaps, or perhaps not, this might be why a skull appears in Shakespeare play Hamlet attributed to Yorick with the meditative worlds "Alas, poor Yorick, for I knew, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest."

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6360&stc=1
Eugene Delacroix's Hamlet contemplating Yorick

But this is not the only picture of a skull in Shakespeare. In his poem The Phoenix and the Turtle, Shakespeare dedicated the poem to the son of Katheryn of Berain, John Salusbury.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6361&stc=1
Portrait of Katheryn of Berain by Adriaen van Cronenburgh

Yorick was the dead court jester, and if we reference the Tarot book written by Jungian Sallie Nichols above, and in particular refer to the online copy of her chapter on the Tarot trump, The Fool, we learn that the Court Jester is attributed to that card.

Below is an image of the emblem of Pallas Athena from the title page of Nova Atlantis

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6362&stc=1

Is that a jester's head (http://www.sirbacon.org/athenabacon.htm) sitting at the foot of the tree?

Pallas Athena is the British Goddess, Britannia btw:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6363&stc=1

David Guyatt
10-10-2014, 12:01 PM
http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/promuscover.jpg



"If Bacon wrote Shakespeare,
the Promus is intelligible -
if he did not,
it is an insoluble riddle."
-Robert Theobald (http://www.sirbacon.org/theobald.htm),
Shakespeare Studies In Baconian Light, 1901








From Edward D. Johnson: "The Shaksper Illusion," chapter:"Francis Bacon's Promus"
FRANCIS BACON 'S Promus is by itself sufficient evidence to show that the man who wrote the Promus also wrote the "Shakespeare" Plays.
Bacon kept a private memorandum book which he called The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies (http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/titlepage.gif) which from time to time he jotted down any words, similies, phrases, proverbs or colloquialisms which he thought might come in useful in connection with his literary work, gathering them together so as to be able to draw upon them as occasion should require. The word Promus means storehouse, and Bacon's Promus contains nearly 2,000 entries in various languages such as English, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and French.
The Promus which was in Bacon's own hand-writing, fortunately was preserved and is now in the British Museum. It was reproduced and published for the first time by Mrs. Henry Pott (http://www.sirbacon.org/links/pott.html) in 1883. No one, of course, knows the date when he commenced to make this collection, it may have been written during the years 1594 to 1596. Folio 85 being dated Dec. 5, 1594(This is a sample page (http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/promus2.gif)), and Folio 4 being dated 27 Jan. 1595. The Promus was a private note book and was unknown to the public for a period of more than 200 years after it was written.
Now it is a significant fact that Bacon in the works published under his own name makes very little use of the notes he had jotted down in the Promus . What was the object of making this collection of phrases, etc.? The answer is that they were used in his dramatic works published by Bacon in the name of ''William Shakespeare.'' A great number of these entries are reproduced in the ''Shakespeare'' plays. An appendix (http://www.sirbacon.org/links/appendix.htm) to the book has a table illustrating the many entries which also appear in the works of Shakespeare.

The Stratfordians try to get over this fact by contending that these expressions were in common use at the time, but Bacon would not be such a fool as to waste his time by making a note of anything that was commonly current. The words and expressions in the Promus occur so frequently in the ''Shakespeare'' plays that it is quite clear that the author of the Plays had seen and made use of the "Promus "and Will Shakesper could not have seen Francis Bacon's private notebook.

The most important evidence in the Promus is the word ALBADA, Spanish for good dawning (Folio 112). This expression good dawning' only appears once in English print, namely, in the play of King Lear where we find "Good dawning to thee friend," Act 2, Scene 2. This word ALBADA is in the Promus 1594-96 and King Lear was not published until 1600's.If Will Shaksper had not seen the "Promus", and as he could not read Spanish, it would mean that some friend had found this word ALBADA, meaning good dawning and told Shaksper about it, and that Shaksper then put the word into King Lear, which sounds highly improbable. A part of one of the folios in the "Promus "is devoted by Bacon to the subject of salutations such as good morrow, good soir, good matin, bon jour, good day. From this it would appear that Bacon wished to introduce these salutations into English speech. These notes were made in the Promus in 1596 and it is a remarkable co-incidence that in the following year 1597 the play of Romeo and Juliet was published containing some of these salutations, and they afterwardsappeared in other "Shakespeare" plays good morrow being used 115 times; good day, I5 times; and good soir (even), 12 times. These words are found in the ''Shakespeare'' Plays and nowhere else.

The following show some of the connections between the Promus and the "Shakespeare" Plays.

Promus (I594-96) "To drive out a nail with a nail.''
Coriolanus, Act 4 Sc. 7 (1623) ''One fire drives out one fire; one nail, one nail."
"One nail by strength drives out another."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Fire shall try every man's work."
Merchant of Venice, "The fire seven times tried this''
Act 2, Sc. 9 (1600)
* *
Promus (1594-96) "Conscience is worth a thousand witnesses."
Richard III, Act 5, ''Every man's conscience is a thousand swords." Sc. 2 (1597)
* *
Promus (1594-96) "A Fool's bolt is soon shot."
Henry V, Act 3, Sc.7(1623) "A Fool's bolt is soon shot."
* *
Promus (1594-96) "Good wine needs no bush."
As You Like It,Epilogue (1623) "Good wine needs no bush."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "I had not known sin but by the law.''
Measure for Measure Act 2, Sc. I (1623) "What do you think of the trade Pompey? Is it a lawful trade."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Gratitude is justly due only for things unbought."
Timon of Athens, Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) "You mistake my love, I give it freely ever; and there's none can truly say he gives, if he receives.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) "To slay with a leaden sword."
Love's Labour's Lost, Act 5, Sc. 2 (1598) "Wounds like a leaden sword."

* *
Promus (1594-96) 'If our betters have sustained
the like events; we have the less cause to be grieved.''
Lucrece (1594)''When we our betters see bearing our woes, we scarcely think our miseries our foes.''
* *
Promus 1594-96) "When he is dead, he will beloved."
Coriolanus, Act 4 Sc.6 (1600) "I shall be loved when I am lacked."

* *
Promus (1594-96)Suum cuique." (To every man his own).
Titus Andronicus,Act I, Sc. 2 (1600) "Suum cuique is our Roman Justice."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Galen's compositions and Paracelsus' separations.''
All's Well that Ends Well,"So I say both of Galen and Paracelsus." Act 2, Sc. 3 (1623)

* *
Promus (1594-96) "He had rather have his will than his wish."
Henry V, Act 5, Sc.2 (1623) "So the maid that stood in the way for my wish shall show me the way to my will."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "They have a better question in Cheapside, 'What lack you?
King John, Act 4,Sc. I (1623) "What lack you?"
* *
Promus (1594-96) "Poets invent much."
As You Like It, Act 3, Sc. 3 (1623) ''The truest poetry is the most feigning."

* *
Promus (1595-96) "He who loans to a friend loses double."
Hamlet, Act I,Sc. 3 (1604) ''Loan oft loses both itself and friend."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "We think that a rich man is always right."
Timon of Athens,Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) ''Faults that are rich are fair."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Have recourse to a foreign war to appease parties at home."
2 Henry IV, Act 4,Sc,5 (1600) "Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Always let losers have their words."
Titus Andronicus, Act 1, Sc. I (1600) ''Losers will have leave to ease their stomachs with their bitter tongues."
* *
Promus (1594-96) "The prudent man conceals his knowledge."
3 Henry VI, Act 4 Sc.7 (1623) "'Tis wisdom to conceal our meaning."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Things done cannot be undone."
Macbeth, Act 5, Sc.i (1623) "What's done cannot be undone."

* *.
Promus (1594-96) "Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak."
Hamlet, Act, I,Sc. 3(1604) ''Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."

* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Leisure breeds evil thoughts.''
Anthony and Cleopatra Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) "We bring forth weeds when our quick minds be still."
* *
Promus (1594-96) "A boy's love doth not endure.''
King Lear, Act 3 Sc. 6 (1608) "He's mad that trusts in a boy's love."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "A cat may look on a King."
Romeo and Juliet, Act 3,Sc.3 (1597) "Every cat and dog may look on her."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "He had need be a wily mouse should breed in a cat's ear."
Henry V, Act 3 Sc. 7 (1623) "That's a valiant flea that dare eat his breakfast on the lip of a lion."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Our sorrows are our school-masters.''
King Lear, Act 2, Sc. 4 (1608) ''To wilful men, the injuries that they themselves procure, must be their schoolmasters.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) "To fight with a shadow."
Merchant of Venice, Act I, Sc. 2 (1600) ''He will fence with his own shadow.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Diluculo surgere saluberrimum est.''
Twelfth Night (Act 2,Sc,2)(1623) "Diluculo surgere, thou knowest.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) "To stumble at the threshold."
3 Henry VI, Act 4, Sc. 7 (1623) "Many men that stumble at the threshold.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Thought is free.''
The Tempest, Act 3 Sc.2 (1623)''Thought is free.''
Twelfth Night, Act I,Sc. 3 (1623) ''Thought is free.''
* *
Promus (1594-96) "Out of God's blessing into the warm sun."
King Lear, Act 2, Sc. 2 (1608)"Thou out of heaven's benediction com'st to the warm sun."
* *
Promus (1594-96) "Put no confidence in Princes"
Henry VII, Act 3' "0, how wretched is that poor man, that hangs on princes' favours.''
* *
Promus (1594-96) ''Frost burns.''
Hamlet Act 3 Sc.4 (1604) ''Frost itself as actively doth born."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Appetite comes by eating."
Hamlet, Act I, ''As if increase of appetite had grownby what he feeds on."
Sc. 2 (1604)
* *
Promus (1594-96) "Better coming to the ending of a feast than to the beginning of a fray."
I Henry IV , Act 4, "The latter end of a fray and the beginning of a feast." Sc. 2 (1598)
* *
Promus (1594-96) "He stumbles who makes too much haste."
Romeo and Juliet,Act 2, Sc. 3 (1599) "They stumble that run fast."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Anyone can manage a boat in calm weather."
Coriolanus, Act 4, Sc. I (1623) ''When the sea was calm, all boats alike show'd master-ship in floating."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Happy man, happy dole."
Merry Wives of Windsor Act 3, Sc. 4(1623) "Happy man be his dole."
Henry IV, Act 2,Sc. 2 (1598) "Happy man be his dole."
The Taming of the Shrew Act I, Sc. I (1623) "Happy man be his dole."
The Winter's Tale, Act 1, Sc. 2 (1623) "Happy man be his dole."
* *
Promus (1594-96) "An ill wind that bloweth no man to good."
2 Henry IV, Act 5, "The ill wind which blows no man to good."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Seldom cometh the better."
Richard III, Act 2,Sc. 3(1597)''Seldom comes the better."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "A thorn is gentle when it is young."
Henry VI, Act 5,Sc. 5 (1623) "What can so young a thorn begin to prick."

* *
Promus (1594-96) "He who has not patience has nothing.
"Othello, Act 2, Sc. 3 (1622) "How poor are they that have not patience.''

* *
Promus (1594-96) "Know thyself."
As You Like It, Act 3, Sc. 5 (1623) "Know yourself."


from: sirbacon.org (http://www.sirbacon.org/links/notebook.html)

R.K. Locke
10-25-2016, 09:04 PM
And so it begins...


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/24/499144368/christopher-marlowe-officially-credited-as-co-author-of-3-shakespeare-plays?sc=tw



Christopher Marlowe Officially Credited As Co-Author Of 3 Shakespeare Plays


October 24, 2016·12:57 PM ET

Rebecca Hersher


Oxford University Press has announced that its new edition of the complete works of William Shakespeare will credit Christopher Marlowe as a co-author on the three Henry VI plays.

Despite years of controversy about the authorship of some of Shakespeare's work, this is the first time a major publishing house has formally named Marlowe as a co-author.

Christopher Marlowe is a 16th century British poet and playwright. The extent of his possible influence on (or even collaboration with) William Shakespeare is the subject of much academic scholarship, as NPR has reported, but for many years, mainstream academics had mostly derided efforts of independent scholars who challenged the authorship of plays attributed to Shakespeare.


Who Wrote Shakespeare's Plays? Debate Goes On


The new Oxford edition, which will be available in November, was edited by four Shakespeare scholars: Gary Taylor of Florida State University, John Jowett of the University of Birmingham, Terri Bourus of Indiana University and Gabriel Egan of De Montfort University.

Taylor tells NPR the conclusion that Marlowe should be credited as co-author is partly based on a combination of new and old research. In particular, Taylor cited 2009 research by Hugh Craig and Arthur Kinney that analyzed vocabulary from the Henry VI plays and compared it to plays known to have been written by Marlowe, and a 2015 article by John Nance analyzing the prose of Part 2 of Henry VI.

Taylor himself has published scholarly work on Marlowe and Shakespeare, including work from last year titled Imitation or Collaboration? Marlowe and the Early Shakespeare Canon, on which he collaborated with Nance.

"All these publications have been subjected to rigorous peer-review," Taylor told NPR in an email.

He said there is also new work by Craig and another Shakespeare scholar, John Burrow, that is specifically on Henry VI, Part 3, and will be published in a companion text devoted entirely to research on the authorship of work attributed to Shakespeare. The chapter on the third part of Henry VI is one of 25 chapters on authorship, written by 18 scholars in five countries, according to Taylor.

Oxford University Press told The Associated Press that "identifying Marlowe's hand in the Henry VI plays is just one of the fresh features of this project."

Much of the authorship analysis is quite technical because it involves analyzing every word of entire plays, looking for patterns and clues. For example, an article on Marlowe's presence in the Henry VI plays, due to be published in the next issue of Shakespeare Quarterly, is a collaboration between another of the Oxford project editors, Gabriel Egan, and a team of mathematicians from the University of Pennsylvania.

The addition of Marlowe's name to the Henry VI plays does not settle the question of Shakespearean authorship. Carol Rutter, a professor of Shakespeare and performance studies at the University of Warwick, told the BBC, "It will still be open for people to make up their own minds. I don't think [Oxford University Press] putting their brand mark on an attribution settles the issue for most people."

Rutter told the BBC, "I believe Shakespeare collaborated with all kinds of people ... but I would be very surprised if Marlowe was one of them."

As for how Marlowe's vocabulary and style could have made it into Shakespeare's work without direct collaboration, Rutter said: "It's much more likely that he started his career working for a company where he was already an actor, and collaborated not with another playwright but with the actors — who will have had Marlowe very much in their heads, on the stage, in their voices. ... They were the ones putting Marlowe's influence into the plays."

Although she disagrees with the conclusion reached by Taylor and his co-editors, she told the BBC she thinks the discussion of authorship is good for Shakespearean scholarship. "We have really stopped thinking about the richness of the writing experience in the early modern theater, and by crediting Marlowe, people like Gary Taylor are making us attend to that," she said.

David Guyatt
10-26-2016, 07:29 AM
How interesting RK.

Marlowe has for a long time been considered to be one of (I think it was 7) "pens" of Shakespeare - at least in certain quarters. Of course, the number "7" is very dear to the Knights Templar (likewise the Skull and Bones of course).

Mark A. O'Blazney
10-26-2016, 10:30 AM
How interesting RK.

Marlowe has for a long time been considered to be one of (I think it was 7) "pens" of Shakespeare - at least in certain quarters. Of course, the number "7" is very dear to the Knights Templar (likewise the Skull and Bones of course).

More fascinating still are the circumstances behind the murder of Master Marlowe…….. he'd tend to get drunk in public places and start screaming obscenities about…. Our Lord & John the Baptist……. not a good idea, given the context of the times, would you say?

Paul Rigby
10-26-2016, 10:37 AM
How interesting RK.

Marlowe has for a long time been considered to be one of (I think it was 7) "pens" of Shakespeare - at least in certain quarters. Of course, the number "7" is very dear to the Knights Templar (likewise the Skull and Bones of course).

More fascinating still are the circumstances behind the murder of Master Marlowe…….. he'd tend to get drunk in public places and start screaming obscenities about…. Our Lord & John the Baptist……. not a good idea, given the context of the times, would you say?

That was his job - he was, after all, a "projector" (in modern parlance, an agent provocateur).

David Guyatt
10-26-2016, 12:02 PM
How interesting RK.

Marlowe has for a long time been considered to be one of (I think it was 7) "pens" of Shakespeare - at least in certain quarters. Of course, the number "7" is very dear to the Knights Templar (likewise the Skull and Bones of course).

More fascinating still are the circumstances behind the murder of Master Marlowe…….. he'd tend to get drunk in public places and start screaming obscenities about…. Our Lord & John the Baptist……. not a good idea, given the context of the times, would you say?

That was his job - he was, after all, a "projector" (in modern parlance, an agent provocateur).

Apparently the story of his death is exaggerated. Marlowe, Sir Francis Boar and doubtless other of the Shakespeare "pens" unquestionably were spooks, but...



Blame it on the BelgiansHilary Mantel

The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe by Charles Nicholl (http://www.lrb.co.uk/search?author=Nicholl,+Charles)
Cape, 413 pp, £19.99, June 1992, ISBN 0 224 03100 7


‘You don’t want to see him,’ said the porter at Corpus, when Charles Nicholl went to Cambridge to look at the portrait that is probably Christopher Marlowe. ‘He died in a tavern brawl.’
Nicholl viewed the putative Marlowe, in his opulent slashed doublet, and wondered how he could afford the outfit. He looked at his buttery bills too, and noted when the shoemaker’s son had money to spend; noted when (unless he was starving himself) he was absent from college. His conclusion? There was no tavern. There was no brawl. It is an old lie that Nicholl has set out to nail, but he is unable, he admits, to substitute a new truth. All he can hope for is a ‘faint preserved outline where the truth once lay’. In Elizabeth’s England, men lied to their reflection; and Marlowe belonged to a shadow world of espionage, where every straight action is mirrored by treachery, where the agent provocateur is king.
Charles Nicholl has previously written on alchemy in the Elizabethan age. ‘As above, so below’: this was the maxim of alchemists. It works in the real world too. The factious giants of Elizabeth’s court are supported by a vast root-system of con-men, of prison informers, of spies, ‘projectors’ and ‘ambodexters’. Marlowe was part of this underground world: this is not in contention. But his reputation is surrounded by rumour, misinformation, disinformation. Shady and unpleasant he may have been, Nicholl says, but we owe him something – not simply because he was a great dramatist and poet, but because his death was murder, and the crime is unsolved. Nicholl is an investigator with a compelling sense of duty to the past and the people who inhabit it. To accept an untruth, to assent to a lazy version of history, is not just negligent but immoral.
Charles Nicholl writes vividly, without the academic’s compulsion to cover his back; but where he is speculating he says so clearly. Part of the success of his book comes from the fact that he has focused sharply on his central incident. He begins with an account of Marlowe’s death; he leads us away from it, into the thickets of European politics and the literary and political underworld; then he leads us back, by ways digressive but sure, to the Widow Bull’s victualling house in Deptford, where in spring 1593 four young men spent a day drinking wine in the garden.
Mrs Bull’s house was not a tavern, nor was she a sort of Mistress Quickly, half-expecting a fight to break out as the sun declined. She was a bailiff’s widow, with some court connections; her house was a respectable one. Nicholl evokes the Deptford evening: the scent of apple orchards mingling with the reek of fish and sewage. At about six o’clock, the young gentlemen came in for their bespoke supper. A short while later, Ingram Frizer put the point of his dagger into Christopher Marlowe’s right eyesocket. He inserted it to a depth of two inches. Marlowe died quickly, with no great fuss.
The full text of this book review is only available to subscribers of the London Review of Books.
Source (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n12/hilary-mantel/blame-it-on-the-belgians)

Unfortunately the LRB is locked behind a paywall and as interesting as it looks I ain't paying for the rest. ::stampfeet::

Mark A. O'Blazney
10-26-2016, 04:21 PM
Thanks. Will keep an eye out for the rest of this fascinating article/review.

Much more to this mystery, yes? Wading throughout the internet can be dizzying at times.

Tracy Riddle
10-26-2016, 05:07 PM
A fascinating subject. This guy closed his blog down a year too early:
http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/ (http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/)

Paul Rigby
10-30-2016, 07:18 AM
Looney's 1920 classic in PDF: https://ia800207.us.archive.org/9/items/shakespeareident00looniala/shakespeareident00looniala.pdf

If you want to listen to the book:


http://youtu.be/nK5fDsCgVXk

Published on Feb 8, 2014

The establishment's view of Looney is well-captured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Thomas_Looney

Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as patron of Francis Bacon: http://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2012_Hughes_EO-ELR.pdf

Extract:


In 1578, 18-year-old Francis Bacon had arrived back in England for his father’s funeral. Unable to return to Paris for lack of funds (unfortunately for Francis, his father had died before providing him with a living), and with nothing more important to engage his voracious intellectual energies, Bacon hooked up with Oxford, falling quickly into the role of Puck to his Oberon, Ariel to his Prospero.

His Lordship returned the favor by connecting the talented youth with printers who published his poems, anonymously at first, then, with Sir Walter Raleigh’s help, as by Edmund Spenser. With the real Spenser far off in the wilds of southern Ireland, and with Sir Walter willing to see to it that he got a stipend for the use of his name, Bacon was encouraged to publish for the public some of the writings he’d been distributing to the Court community via manuscript, among them such divergent works as The Faerie Queene, written to entertain the Queen and her ladies, and Mother Hubberd’s Cupboard, a satire in the vein he’d soon be spieling
as Thomas Nashe.

Lacking a paying Court position, Bacon was forced to provide for himself by working as a high level private secretary to Court figures in need of politically sensitive, well-written letters and official documents in both English and Latin. First among his patrons was Secretary of State Walsingham, who, when Oxford refused to write for the Court during his banishment, urged Francis to step in with plays for the boys in a style that came as close as he could manage to the euphuism that the Queen had come to expect and that were directed and staged by Oxford’s secretary John Lyly. By the end of the decade there were eight of these, which, like Oxford’s Euphues novels, were published under Lyly's name.