Jump to content

Christie Waldman

Members
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

324 profile views

Christie Waldman's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • One Month Later
  • Collaborator
  • Dedicated
  • Week One Done
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

64

Reputation

  1. Hi Kate, on p. 32, I think the name is "Junius" instead of "Janius," in the Federalist Papers. Junius Americanus. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-17-02-0018-0001, https://selfeducatedamerican.com/2012/10/06/junius-americanus/. This gives a 1770 date. https://www.textbookx.com/book/9781437337792/. Thanks so much for taking the time to do that. The quotation from Bacon about "kind of a musician's bow" is here, I believe: De Augmentis, bk 2, ch 13, Spedding 4:316, HathiTrust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.32044014199384. I have it in my essay, "Francis Bacon, Shakespeare, and The Secrets of Nature: Violence, Violins, and--One Day--Vindication?" (p. 31, fn 132). https://sirbacon.org/waldman/Waldman Violence Violins Vindication final 5-21-21.pdf. It makes me think of the reported incident about Queen Elizabeth and Dudley privately listening to a little boy playing a stringed instrument. Does anyone have that reference? In my opinion, one reason he hid his identity as poet-dramatist was because in his art he could speak of private matters in a concealed fashion that he could never speak of otherwise. It was forbidden by law to speak of "the succession."
  2. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK02-B223-F10-001.1.6&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt--Shakespeare+authorship------------------------0-1 Thank you, Lawrence. I have always wanted to read this, and it is a missing piece in a puzzle for me. The "digital transcription" (i.e., scan?) made in 2016 seems to have not been made with sufficient care, for you can easily read the typewritten pages, one by one, when you click on each of the 34 images (with typed pages above, digital transcription below), zooming in. Where the transcription reads "h" as "l", you can clearly see that Keller typed an "h." (Prior written permission is needed to use "any image" from the site.). What a fascinating site! You can also read her letters with Mark Twain at this site. No transcription problem here! https://www.afb.org/about-afb/history/helen-keller/letters/mark-twain-samuel-l-clemens/letter-miss-keller-sl-clemens-0. Thank you, thank you, thank you. What a beautiful soul she was! She died in 1957, in the same year as the publication of the Friedmans' book. If it comes up jabber-wocky, "click on item," to go to the typewritten pages which are easier to read.
  3. Thank you for mentioning my book, A Phoenix, which began as an attempt to review Mark Edwin Andrews' Law versus Equity (added 5-31-22: which can be read on loan from the Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/lawversusequityi00andr). To be clear, Mark Edwin Andrews was a law student who stated outright he was a Stratfordian when, for a summer Shakespeare course he was taking in 1935, he wrote the manuscript which was published in 1965 by the University of Colorado Press as Law versus Equity in The Merchant of Venice: A Legalization of Act IV, Scene 1. During his lifetime, Andrews had worked as a law instructor and industrialist and was assistant secretary of the U.S. Navy to President Truman for three years. In his well-researched book, Andrews did make Bacon "Bellario," in his paraphrase in modern English courtroom language of Act IV, Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice (Part 1, pp 1-16. Part II consists of his well-researched notes, pp 19-73, with appendices). He tells us he did this primarily because Bacon "played," in real life (twenty years after the play was thought to have been written in 1596-97), a "Bellario" role to King James's "Duke" in an actual 1616 legal case. Andrews even compares the language in the Order Bacon wrote in the actual case (the text of which he provides) with Portia's famous "quality of mercy" speech (long note 16, 34-41, esp. 40-41; also see 52, 53, nn 36, 37). Also, Andrews marvels (as do the rest of us) at the playwright's accurate use of a great number of precise legal terms of art. He can't logically explain Bacon's behind-the-scenes "presence" in the play (just as Bellario never appears on stage). He says, the mental seeds in one brain (Bacon's) took root in the other's ("the mind of the country boy from Stratford") and that one "seer" would recognize another in any age (p. 45). These are remarkable statements from a professed "Stratfordian"! B. J. and Mark Sokol were dismissive of Andrews's book in two brief paragraphs in their article, "Shakespeare and the English Equity Jurisdiction: The Merchant of Venice and the Two Texts of King Lear (The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 50, no 200 (1999), 417-439) (calling his trial scene rewrite "highly fanciful" and accusing him of "showing off a wide knowledge of legal history"--showing off?), as was Harvard law professor John P. Dawson who dismissed Andrews’ book as a “youthful escapade. . . .Though no new light is cast on Shakespeare, it must have been fun at the time” (Shakespeare Quarterly 18, no. 1, Winter, 1967, pages 89–90, https://doi.org/10.2307/2868078). Yet U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harlan F. Stone, in 1937, wrote, "Often, in listening to The Merchant of Venice, it has occurred to me that Shakespeare knew the essentials of the contemporary conflict between law and equity. But until I read your manuscript I had never realized how completely the play harmonized with recognized court procedure of the time. You have done an admirable piece of work ...." (ix). One thing Andrews surely wanted to pass on was Shakespeare's (the Duke's) exhortation to "do equity" (Conclusion, p. 77). I hear you saying, A Phoenix, that Antonio and Bassanio could be seen as Anthony and Bacon, the Bacon brothers. I do not disagree. I think a playwright puts at least a little of himself into each character he/she/they creates. I've heard it said that it is the same when a person dreams. I also think there are levels of interpretation with this play and one can take you to the next. Would you agree? It is a code, of sorts. After writing my book, I've continued to research the play. My new working theory is that Bellario could "stand for" Robert Bellarmine and Shylock could "stand for" Giordano Bruno. Shylock could simply be "Sh! Lock!" because no one would speak of him in England after he left, as Hilary Gatti has observed, due to his suspect religious and scientific views. Sometimes things can be hidden so well just under the surface. Bruno was a scientific philosopher, poet, and playwright, and defrocked priest who had lived and lectured in England from 1583-86, ending up in Venice in 1592, where he was imprisoned that year by the Inquisition. In 1593, he was moved to Rome for his Inquisition trial (in 1599). His books were banned in 1597. https://www.famous-trials.com/bruno/261-home. Books: Ingrid D. Rowland, Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008) and Hilary Gatti, The Renaissance Drama of Knowledge: Giordano Bruno in England (Routledge, 2013) (Hilary Gatti has a new book out on Bruno, 2021, https://independent.academia.edu/HilaryGatti.). Bacon through top intelligence channels would have been in a strong position to know what was happening with Bruno. This is my theory I am exploring. (Added 5-31-22. I would go as far as to say that Shakespeare (among other things) was dramatizing a conflict between the concepts of law and equity. A Phoenix rightly insists that Andrews emphasized, in his imaginative prose dramatization of Act IV, Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, the jurisdictional conflict between the English courts of law and equity (which came to a head in 1616 with Bacon heading the committee that advised King James). If, as Andrews suggests, the seeds for The Merchant of Venice were planted in Bacon's brain and took root in Shakespeare's (now how does that happen?), the seeds to learn more about equity as a concept were planted in my brain by reading Andrews' book in the year or so before I attended law school. Bacon wrote that equity was a component of every law. Wow! He also said, "Certainly it partakes of a higher science to comprehend the force of equity that has suffused and penetrated the very nature of human society." Why would he have buried the names of twelfth century Italian civilian jurists who wrote about higher concepts of law in The Merchant of Venice, as I think he did? Partly, of course, because England was a predominantly common-law country, and the civil law was foreign, (as I said above). Did Portia "stand for" Azolinus Portius ("Azo"), Nerissa for Irnerius, Bassiano for Bassanius, Gratianus standing for Gratian, Shylock as Accursius, Stephano for Stephen of Tournai? Did the author of The Merchant of Venice contemplate embedding ("couching") the names of these men into his play so that their teachings would not be forgotten? I do think so. (see chs 9 and 10 of my book, Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice). In fact, there is a new book, Law and the Christian Tradition in Italy: The Legacy of the Great Jurists (London: Routledge, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003014539 ) which gives the biographies of these men. Andrews was writing his manuscript in 1935 (published in 1965) just one year after Congress had passed a statute authorizing the U.S. Supreme Court to unite the court rules of law and equity, leading to new rules of federal civil procedure passed in 1938, applicable to cases both at law and equity (Henry L. McClintock, Handbook of the Principles of Equity, 2d ed. (St. Paul: West, 1948), 14. Almost every one of the fifty states has merged their courts of law and equity (jurisdictionally). In 1948, McClintock wrote, "The only hope for the preservation of equity lies in a continuous study of it as a system based on fundamental conceptions, but applied in all of the various fields of law." (p. 19). Equity as a concept is not just some relic from the past, but something integral to a conception of justice as fair in the Anglo-American legal system. And that is why The Merchant of Venice is important, and why Andrews' book matters most (see his "Conclusion"), in my opinion. (McClintock, 1948, gave two definitions for equity that are still valid (though there are other definitions): "(a) In the general juristic sense, equity means the power to meet the moral demands of justice in a particular case by a tribunal having discretion to mitigate the rigidity of the application of strict rules of law so as to adapt the relief to the circumstances of the particular case; and (b) In Anglo-American law, equity means the system of legal materials developed and applied by the courts of chancery in England and the courts succeeding to its powers in the British Empire and the United States." p. 1.))
  4. I agree about Hoby and how the Bacon family connection is often not mentioned. In the U.S. at least, a reported legal case is usually referred to as a "case" (as in Bacon's "Case of the Post-Nati," as printed in Spedding) which is different from a treatise which one tends to think of as a legal reference book, literally (though you may have been thinking of the case as, figuratively, a "treatise" because it contained Bacon's profound exposition of the law within it). As to Bracton (1210-1268 (for perspective: Richard II: 1367-1400)) as a legal authority: in legal argument, Bacon would cite authorities that would help him win his case, but Daniel R. Coquillette has observed Bacon's tendency not to rely too much, or cite too often, legal authorities (I agree). I have thought this was partly because Bacon was influenced by the great learning of the civil law, which I believe he hoped to graft into the English common law (as with his "Maxims") (and did he use the Shakespeare plays towards this end???), but he was working in a common law system in which the civil law was suspect because it was associated with the Catholic nations of Europe. As Coquillette writes, it would have been professional suicide for him to have "come out" strongly as a civilian (His nephew by marriage, Sir Julius Caesar, was a civilian lawyer who did suffer professionally for his "want of law."). Also, in general, Bacon taught that in the modern, "scientific approach" he was advocating, people should question authority. All was grist for his mill. In his book on Francis Bacon's jurisprudence which I highly recommend, Francis Bacon (Stanford U. Press and Edinburgh University Press, 1992), Coquillette stressed over and over again the influence of the civil law (that practiced on the Continent which was initially based on Roman Law, from the sixth century Code of Justinian) on Bacon. "Bracton" (probably a churchman, who probably did not write all of the treatise called Bracton ascribed to him)relied upon Azo, a great 12th century Italian civilian lawyer. In his "Maxims of the Law" which he dedicated to Queen Elizabeth (not published until 1631 (Coquillette, Francis Bacon, 333)), Bacon quoted Azo several times, but only once by name, as I recall; other times, he referred to him only as a great authority. Bacon was up against Coke, the great common law lawyer of the time, in the "Case of the Post-Nati." Bacon was himself a great legal authority whose imprint on the law is still being felt today (as in the United States' Federal Rules of Evidence, Coquillette has observed--I believe it is in one of his several articles on Bacon and the "civilians"). In my book, Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, I discuss Bracton, with footnotes to other authorities (including Coquillette and the respected legal historian Kenneth Pennington) which discuss Bracton in a legal history context; see my book, pp. 35, 78, 91, 93, 163, 164, 198, 206. Legal history is fascinating! I apologize, I am not being as specific with references as I should be. If someone wants more information, I'll try to provide it, upon request. (Added 5-29-22, the Coquillette article I mentioned, on Bacon's influence on modern legal rule-making, is Daniel R. Coquillette, "Past the Pillars of Hercules: Francis Bacon and the Science of Rulemaking," University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (June 1, 2012), 549-592, available here https://works.bepress.com/daniel_coquillette/95/. Bacon was a legal reformer. The concluding quotation is Bacon's: "I hold every man a debtor to his profession, from the which as men of course doe seeke to receive countenance and profit, so ought they of duty to endevour themselves by ways of amends, to be a help and ornament thereunto; this is performed in some degree by the honest and liberal practice of a profession . . . but much more . . . if a man bee able to visite and strengthen the roots and foundation of the science itself; thereby not only gracing it in reputation and dignity, but also amplifying it in perfection and substance." Francis Bacon, A Collection of Some Principal Rules and Maxims of the Common Lawes of England (1639)). (Added 5-28-22) Also good to read is Ernst H. Kantorowicz, "Shakespeare: King Richard II," The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985, first pub. Princeton U.P., 1957), 24-41, discusses how "Shakespeare" (that statesman/legal scholar which Bacon was and Shaxpere was not) wove into Richard II the medieval "legal fiction" that the king had two bodies, the "king body natural" and "king body politic" (39). Edit again: I see that Donna Hamilton cites Kantoriwicz several times, but not pages within his chapter on Richard II. Also, Hamilton points to Thomas Smith's De Republica Anglorum (1583) as a prime source (among several) of ideas to "Shakespeare" in Richard II. Smith (1513-1577) was the first Regius Professor of Civil Law, appointed in 1543 by Henry VIII. Smith had served as an English ambassador to France (1562-66, 1572 "for a short time"). Bacon was in France with Sir Amias Paulet's embassy from 1576-1579. I am thinking it was likely that Bacon read Smith's book, perhaps even in manuscript prior to its 1583 publication. He may even have met Smith personally. I'd like to know more about connections between Bacon and Smith. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 on Smith. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Smith,_Sir_Thomas. (Added 5-29-22. The Oxfordians point to the fact that the Earl of Oxford was tutored in Smith's household, but the Earl of Oxford did not have the practical knowledge that Bacon gained from being a statesman, jurist, and legal reformer, in addition to being a poet.)
  5. Mention of John Weever in Cockburn: In N. B. Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (1998), in a discussion of a Latin play performed at Cambridge, Laelia, Cockburn suggests Laelia may have been a source for Twelfth Night. Two of the men who had acted in the Queen's Day device presented by Essex (written by Bacon, said Spedding and E.K. Chambers) had also performed in the Cambridge performance of Laelia, March 1, 1595 (229-233, 229). They were George Meriton and George Mountaine, we know from John Weever's Eipgrams in the oldest cut and newest fashion (1594-1599) (Epigram 19 in the "Fourth Week") and also a letter (Rowland Whyte to Robert Sidney (229). Cockburn suggests it could be inferred that Bacon, having seen these actors in Laelia, arranged for these two actors to perform in the Essex device for Queen's Day (230).
  6. I hope you feel better soon! Thanks for your kind post.
  7. Yes! This is the pattern! The more names I have to search for it under, the better. Thank you, Light-of-Truth! I was afraid it was terribly off-topic, but you never know what others are interested in.
  8. Kate, I'm sorry. I am always editing everything. It always comes to me later better ways to say things. I did not mean to be abrupt or too critical. Lately I have been reading about patchwork quilt patterns, trying to trace the history of a pattern my grandma used in a quilt she left behind (called "Pointed Tiles" in Barbara Brachman's encyclopedia of quilt patterns) that I made into a quilt. It has what is sometimes called an eight-pointed "star" in it, but the star itself does not sit within a square block, in Grandma's pattern.Rather, part of it interlocks with the next unit. In the Book of Genesis in the Bible, God says he worked 6 days and on the 7th day he rested. And on the 8th day everything began anew, is the idea I came across, in reading about this eight-pointed star. It's odd how I was just reading about this and it seems to fit with our discussion about "nothing ever being finished." Up to now, I've tried to stay "on point" with the conversation (to use a quilting term). But, if anyone is interested in exploring this further: here is the idea in a tile pattern, called "star and cross." https://www.fireclaytile.com/tile/patterns/detail/tile-star-cross. This shows the little square and "house" shape that are used in the tile pattern that Grandma also used in her quilt. https://aktiles.com/antique-pattern/. I have only seen an example of one other quilt made this way. I would really like to see more examples. Maybe the pattern has other names, as well. https://christinagwaldman.com/2019/03/12/grandmas-quilt-with-free-directions/ and https://annquiltsblog.blogspot.com/search/label/pointed tile. This eight-pointed "star" is sometimes called the Seal of Melchizedek (whom I was taught was a precursor, a "type" of Christ, in the Old Testament; thus, it could be seen as a symbol of God or eternity. It is associated with prosperity, optimism, and other good things. The symbol had more ancient origins--there's plenty of information on the internet. This symbol has been seen to be related to the eight-pointed cross of the Knights Templar, and it has some connection to the Masons, and the Mormons. It can be seen in some Byzantine mosaics and from there was taken up by Islamic artists). "Pointed Tiles" seems to me to be related to the "Garden Maze" pattern which I've seen in leaded windows in Franco Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet and other foreign movies, and in quilts, but I'll stop here. I've become intrigued by the intricacy of the design one can make with these two simple shapes, the five-sided "house" and the square.
  9. Forgive me, but nothing can ever be put to bed once and for all. That would be unscientific. A working hypothesis is always subject to change, to adjustment, as new information comes to light.
  10. See Google Kenneth Patton, this website, for his views on Friedman, in Setting the Record Straight: An Expose of Stratfordian Baconian Tactics, bk 1. https://sirbacon.org/pattonstrs.htm, https://sirbacon.org/commentaryfriedman.htm, (Book I ; 94 pages; internet exclusive) includes his "A Vindication of William Stone Booth" and a detailed critical analysis of Elizebeth & William Friedman based on their book, The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined (in Bibliographies, SirBacon.org.). In his book, Friedman himself set the standards by which he said the evidence failed. No man should be judge in his own cause. He tried to discourage amateur cryptologists from looking at the Shakespeare plays. I find both Elizabeth Wells Gallup's (based on Bacon's biliteral cipher) and much of William Stone Booths' work to be credible. Those are the ones I am familiar with (my book, appendix 2). Friedman himself studied Bacon's biliteral cipher for several years for the NSA. Granted, they were important cryptologists whose work during WWII was invaluable. What is reading itself but decoding and deciphering? Bacon was a linguistic genius who used codes and ciphers in his intelligence work as a matter of course. To say there are no secrets buried in the Shakespeare works and other literary works of the period would be just plain wrong. There was a huge interest in cryptology in the Shakespeare age. To hide puzzles for other people to find was fun, for both the creator and finder, just as people enjoy working crossword and other puzzles today. It's a mental workout. Some things are harder to find than others. Some secrets lie just under the surface, and others take more digging. It's like in the story "The Emperor's New Clothes" where it is the little child who states the obvious. Also, maybe we should consider the source when it is the expert Stratfordians saying "Don't go there." Yes, evidence should be judged by standards, but the Friedmans were writing sixty-five years ago. Has science not progressed since then? We know it has. Bacon's biliteral cipher was the basis upon which modern computer coding is based. Friedman in his book and in his lectures at the NSA which were declassified said Bacon's biliteral cipher was the one theory he thought had the most validity. Elizabeth Wells Gallup ruined her eyesight looking for tiny differences in font in looking for Bacon's biliteral cipher. She, and a team at the Riverside Lab, deciphered a whole play, "The Tragedy of Anne Boleyn." That is the only one I have read, of her published work. I think it is pretty amazing how she deciphered that play by following clues which led her to a number of different literary works, not just "Shakespeare's." A whole play was written by taking lines from here and there to make a coherent work of art. Maybe the proof is in the pudding. (Edit: added 4-14-2022: Perhaps more of an explanation is required. Maybe proof is the wrong word, but the finished product is rather remarkable. Some, including Stratfordians, find it incredible that the well-educated Elizabeth Wells Gallup could have spent thirty years using Bacon's biliteral cipher to decipher whole plays, by following the cipher to take lines from various works, including works with Bacon and Shakespeare on the title page, but also including works by Burton ("T. Bright"), Greene, Peele, Marlowe, et al (set out in the appendix toThe Tragedy of Anne Boleyn). Some have claimed she even borrowed lines from Spedding's claimed original loose translation of Bacon's In Felicem Memoriam Elizabethae Angliae, which Rawley says he first translated into English (London, 1658. Bacon had said in a prior will draft that he desired for it to be published). Neither Rawley, Spedding, nor Gallup (nor Bacon for that matter) are here to ask, but there may be a reasonable explanation that does not involve fraud as to why Gallup's few lines from In Felicem are close to Spedding's. What I had wondered when I read the play for the first time was what Henry VIII had actually said when his daughter was born. Spedding had commented in prefatory remarks that he did not know why Bacon had spent so much time defending Anne Boleyn in In Felicem. Like many, no doubt, I do not fully understand Gallup's method, but she does explain it in her 1906 book, in which she also replies to criticisms, as she did in a Pall Mall article (vol. 27, no. 109, May, 1902) https://archive.org/details/sim_pall-mall-magazine_1902-05_27_109/page/122/mode/2up and a forty-page pamphlet published the same year, for those who truly wish to understand it. She did not ignore her critics. You can read more at links here: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Gallup%2C Elizabeth Wells%2C 1846-. Before anyone decides, they ought to read her own defense of her work. Some Stratfordians have said she just pieced together a bunch of plagiarisms. Not all Baconians believe her work is valid (see articles in Baconiana). True, her work has not been replicated, but it took her thirty years. Consider whether a "crazy" person is capable of sustained work at that level of engagement. Who today would be willing to give thirty years to such a project? Was Bacon capable of making such an encryption? I would say yes. What motivation? To help preserve the truth to be discovered in future generations? To get people reading the old books again, to keep alive their memory? Because that was one of the things a genius who had spent years in intelligence work did for fun in his spare time? Because it was fun to create a new work of art out of old works of art? All I know is, when I was writing my book, Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand (New York: Algora Pub., July, 2018), I google-searched one line from The Merchant of Venice which Portia speaks: "For the intent and purpose of the law hath full relation to the penalty," and the only other place that line showed up was The Tragedy of Anne Boleyn (first pub. London: Gay & Bird, 1901; Detroit: Howard Pub. later Chicago: Riverside Labs, 1916 (which wrongly says, unlike the 1901 version, on the title page it is from the "Novum Organum ... described in his Advancement of Learning," but Bacon only barely mentioned ciphers in the Adv. of Learning. It was in the De Augmentis (Spedding 4:444) that Bacon more fully discussed his biliteral cipher--not in the New Organon. Why did that error occur, which was not on the 1901 title page?). How closely did the Friedmans work with Mrs. Gallup at Riverbank Labs, Geneva, Illinois? They say, in their book, from 1915-1920, minus the war years, or beginning in 1915 for Mr. Friedman, in 1916 for Mrs. Friedman, and that they left to work as cryptologists for the United States during the war years, after that back to Riverside for a year-and-a-half, leaving again in 1920 (William F. and Elizebeth S. Friedman, The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1958; online Feb. 8, 2018), pp. 208, 211). When did Mrs. Gallup first come to Riverbank? It looks like 1912; that was when Col. Fabyan built lodgings for her and her team there. I didn't find any date on her arrival at Riverside in the Friedmans' book, though they say she "stayed until well into the 1920's (Friedmans, 205-208, 205). I have a suspicion her eyesight, which she was complaining had been strained by the close work of deciphering as early as 1900, were played out long before that, and Col. Fabyan had been providing her with a respectful retirement in her later years (There's a 1900 newspaper article written when Elizabeth Wells Gallup and her sister Katie Wells returned home from England if you search "Milford Times, Dec. 1, 1900, "The Baconian Cipher" (https://milfordhistory.org. Or, it's on p. 4 of this https://digmichnews.cmich.edu/?a=d&d=OaklandMT19001201-01.1.4&e=-------en-10--1--txt-txIN---------- ). It looks to me like she had already done all her important work of deciphering, and had it published, long before joining Riverside Labs, but appearances can be deceiving. The coincidence of my finding that line only in The Merchant of Venice and in The Tragedy of Anne Boleyn still intrigues me. There are lines in the play that are funny when put, as they are, into the mouth of Cromwell. The play hangs together as an actual play that could be performed. That takes a certain skill. Mrs. Gallup was not a playwright. What would have been her motivation for fraud? Money? Delusion? No, I do not think the Friedmans treated her fairly in their 1957 book. They insinuated she was not rational (p. 197, footnote reference to Freud). Again, one might ask: what motivation? Was her work perceived to threaten the British line to the throne? To be part of a German plot? Amelie Deventer Von Kunow's book and lectures faced a prejudice of anti-German sentiment, as well. In sum, I have only read the one play, of those she claims to have deciphered. I can't prove one way or the other whether her work is valid, but I don't think it can be proven conclusively it is not. In the end, though, whether Mrs. Wells Gallup's work is valid is peripheral to the core of strong evidence linking Bacon with the authorship of the Shakespeare works that is not dependent upon ciphers.
  11. Thanks, Kate. I know you had asked Ryan, but I had the book right here so took a stab at answering. I would love to see the Cockburn book get reprinted so more people have easier access to it.
  12. Bacon was so very private. He knew many people laugh and jeer at things they do not understand. That is why he hid precious truths, thinking those who cared enough to dig to find them would value them more (Spedding says something like this, and it seems right). But here we are on the internet, talking openly about codes and ciphers. Some will laugh and jeer, but some will laugh and jeer no matter what we say. Kate, you asked what Cockburn had said. The late British barrister N. B. Cockburn said he personally was "allergic" to ciphers (intro, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (1998), p. 7). In his 740-page book, he made his case for Bacon's authorship of Shakespeare without resort to ciphers. On page 280, he states his view that the only use Bacon made of ciphers was in writing letters in code in his intelligence and diplomacy work. He believed the focus on codes and ciphers had hurt the Baconian argument at the end of the 19th century. Cockburn also stated he did not believe Bacon ever wanted his secret of Shakespeare authorship to be known, "lest it damage his standing as a philosopher." (p. 280). I do not agree with Cockburn on all points, but he was entitled to his opinions. Each of us has our own idols, the motes in our eyes that keep us from seeing things as they truly are. When Cockburn says, "A moment's thought shows the utter absurdity of the Baconian concept of cryptograms" (p. 280), he falls prey, I think, to that easy deception of thinking how things look on the surface is all there is to the subject. The Friedmans are not the last word on the subject, though they are often still quoted as such (The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958). They had their own "motes." On page 287 of their conclusion, the Friedmans wrote, "It must be remembered that the biliteral cipher is the one reputable system among all those proposed so far in support of anti-Stratfordian theories--that is, it is the only cipher which the professional cryptologist could admit as a valid system in itself." It was clear to me the first time I read the Friedmans' book, maybe thirty years ago, that they had set out with an agenda of discrediting every form of code or cipher in Shakespeare, even William Stone Booth' s simple acrostics, etc., which are not so hard to see are there (Subtle Shining Secrecies Writ in the Margents of Books (Boston: Walter H. Baker, 1925). The Friedmans had their own motes, or idols. They set the standards, then judged the case. No man ought to be judge in his own cause, it has been said.
  13. Dear Light-of-Truth, thank you for that! I greatly appreciate our friendship, too. I so wish I had more time at the moment to research ALL THINGS BACON! For the time being, however, work pressures take precedence (though yes, I am here !). I did find comfort in that passage's hopeful tone. What struck me, and it will sound silly, is that I had never thought about how close Hamlet was to Helmet. At first I thought the word was Hamlet. I guess I was expecting to see Hamlet, for some reason. And then, there is "to be (bee?) or not to be." I think there is some of Bacon's wisdom in allowing ourselves to follow trials which might seem silly at first. I wish I knew more about ciphers. Until later, then....
  14. My author website has content about my book, Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice: A Study of Law, Rhetoric, and Authorship (New York: Algora Publishing, 2018. Do you know, those are pawnballs, the pawnshop emblem, decorating the robe of the merchant depicted on my book's cover? That illustration--which my publisher chose--is from a twelfth century encyclopedia "authored" (says the author) by a woman abbess, Herrad of Hohenbourg, the Hortus deliciarum ("Garden of Delights"). Herrad did not use the word "author" to mean she wrote every word. Quite to the contrary! Like a "bee in the garden of the Lord," she collected the works of a number of writers, including theologians, in her encyclopedia. Her book gave the women of her abbey access to the same theological texts the male priests were reading. Seneca and others had previously used the bee metaphor (Fiona J. Griffiths, The Garden of Delights: Reform and Renaissance for Women in the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 80-81, 82-107, 102. Bacon used the bee metaphor on several occasions, as when he wrote: "The Bee adopts the middle course [between empirical and rational],drawing her material from the flowers of the garden or the field, but transforming it by a faculty peculiar to herself. Such should be the activity of a genuine philosophy." (Bacon, Redargutio ("Refutation of Philosophies"), as quoted in Daniel R. Coquillette, Francis Bacon (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 96, citing Benjamin Farrington's translation in Benjamin Farrington, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon, 103-133, 131). Lawrence Gerald made an informative comment on the bee as a symbol of a collector of wisdom at my blogpost, "My Favorite Marchand," May 19, 2019. At my website, I am working on Bacon/Shakespeare authorship bibliographies ("chief, in context, and in commentary"), as time permits. They will never duplicate the extensive SirBacon.org bibliographies, but may hope to complement them. Also, I have a new page called "Bacon on the Web" where I note a few "site-ings" pro and con. I could not have written my book without the Baconian library of resources that may be searched online here at SirBacon.org. I'm very grateful for it.
×
×
  • Create New...