Jump to content

Lawrence Gerald

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lawrence Gerald

  1. Customer Review

    Reviewed in the United States on May 9, 2010



    On reading the prologue of Will Contested I prepared myself for truly researched history of the Shakespeare controversy. The last paragraph is a statement about the proper treatment of this tough subject but between the prologue and the last paragraph something else happened,

    James Shapiro succeeded in writing an interesting book, informative in many ways, though lacking thoroughness. Only Dr Shapiro knows why he left out information but it is not hard to guess. I will describe later.

    The dominant motive behind Will Contested was to make a stunning argument for the Shakespeare authorship and deliver it with shock and awe. Literary or military shock and awe is neither without fire power. The Stratford on Avon Shakespeare man regardless the colorful scenario Dr Shapiro places him is as flat an Ayn Rand character (Ayn Rand is a great writer).

    One cannot create a three-dimensional character when the aim is a factual biography of a fictional character as its basis. A biography can be fictionalized but not the other way around.

    Creating a fictional character who breaths and bleeds could be wonderful read but then old school scholars would have to give up the fantasy. However, a good fictional story would be better than what we have now. Stephen Greenblatt tried to find Shakespeare's character in the plays in Will in the World.

    After exhaustive research and painstaking analysis, and with clear devotion Dr Shapiro is apparently still perplexed by the doubters. I think he wonders why everyone isn't as passionate about his opinion as he is. This kind of fervor is effective in the classroom and with loyal followers but not for those who want the complete commonsense story.

    The doubters, for him, are like pesky mosquitoes for which one merely puts up netting to keep them out. Dr Shapiro must be perplexed by the non-scholars who examine the same material as he and then arrive at the opposite conclusion.

    This is because the theories formulated in isolation without the vigor of testing and open examination makes them seem right. "Our Shakespeare" is a phrase that suggests the plays are mine and not yours. It seems that much more is possible in the ivory towers than the real world. Who of those near him is going to tell him there are other conclusions.

    There is a rather nasty innuendo going about that the doubters discriminate against the possibility that a poor commoner could be a creative genius. To be sure the author was a genius. The innuendo is a self gratifying smoke screen intended to put the doubters on the defensive and conceal the bigotry or self serving interests about a genius that really existed.

    The Shakespeare myth is a belief in miracles, not genius. Common sense, not Santa Clause is what we need.

    Dr Shapiro believes that good fiction does not have to be autobiographical. I think he reads to much Steven King because the Shakespeare author would be as powerful in a good way as Kings monsters are in a bad way.

    Keep in mind that England's class system is rock solid and protecting ones fiefdom was often a class struggle. The history of dogma is history itself and Dr Shapiro by being so very sure of his thinking allies himself with the history of the powerful (who write the histories). The only winner here is confusion.

    Prior to the internet Shakespearean fought successfully to keep their story pure simply by ignoring information. Now they wage a strange war. It is a war against information so that the only safe haven for the Shakespeare myth is in the disinterest of the public, the bias of Shakespeare fans , the big cottage industry and financial interest of book producers.

    I don't want to put anyone out of a job. I only want the truth. When the truth is accepted there will be tons of money to be made by many people.

    Contested Will is condescending to some great thinkers in literature and psychology. Can one can claim to be a better judge of human nature than for example; Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud without risking the appearance of arrogance. Dr Shapiro arrogantly capitalizes on and attacks apparent character flaws that, to him, represents the flaw in the reasoning behind doubting.

    Dr Shapiro treads on thin ice in highlighting the Della Bacon story considering the prejudices against women and the use of psychiatry in the suppression of dissenters.

    The most troubling comment Dr Shapiro makes is generalizing about Freud Freud's claims, "like those of many others, it reveals more about the skeptic than it does about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays." Dr Shapiro applies this attitude to every example. I hope that attitude is never applied to you.

    It is an odd conclusion that since main stream publishers still accept and publish the same Shakespeare story decade after decade despite the information to the contrary the main stream story must be true. The true story behind the Shakespeare controversy is about power and influence.

    Please don't tell me that publishers are guided by the virtuous vision of the truth and the education of their readership. They will publish it if it makes money and they aren't sued. I need not press this point.

    Dr Shapiro's laughter at the deification of Shakespeare is interesting because deification is exactly what he does by adhering dogmatically to one conclusion. He finds the flaws in others that he is guilty of. It's obvious to any one that Shakspur is the author if you ignore and dismiss at whim.

    If Dr Shapiro writes a novel equal to Huckleberry Finn I will listen to him intently or if he makes a contribution to psychology that shapes a century of self-knowledge I will be his disciple. Or if he goes head to head with Frederick Nietzsche I will wear the Shakespeare mask.

    In the book I learned that Shakespeare had reached deity status in England at the same time Stratford-on-Avon became a sell-able item. Here-in is the cause of the controversy. Religion and profit make for ruthless and blind bed fellows.

    Here is a fun tid-bit. Go get your King James Bible and turn to Psalms 46 and count 46 words down and then go to the last word and count up 46 words. I will wait while you do that. .... Interesting, huh. There have been no claims that Shakespeare wrote the Bible. Why?

    Contested Will is a good title because a contest of wills is exactly what we have. If the old school literary critics through the years were also our scientists we would still be living in caves.

    I was surprised to read that Dr Shapiro felt compelled to bring up intellectual suppression in universities. He claims to be unaware of academic suppression but it has been a reality ever since there were teachers and students. Suppression can be overt or subtle and Dr Shapiro would be unaware of it unless maybe he was cooperative without question or he is part of the problem.
    In fact Contested Will gives a nice history of academic suppression by the examination of the Shakespeare controversy.

    More than in other Shakespeare promotion books, Contested Will seems to heavily emphasize the enormous number of candidates for authorship with more flocking in daily. Why stress that idea except to suggest "Our Shakespeare" is distinctly separate from all the wannabes and don't mess with my stuff. Avoidance of common sense.

    If reading Contested Will was my introduction to the controversy, I would have wanted to know that the Stratford on Avon man died in 1616 and the 1623 folio was published in 1623(I know). Do you see a problem with the math? Case closed? Not. Shakespeare's friends saved the plays for publication posthumously? Really? Why? Were the English at that time in history any were different from now? Those friends would have had the market and become rich by selling the portfolio. Human nature has not changed since Cro-Magnon. Common sense says the author was still alive in 1623.

    People were different from people today? Ridiculous. Life was harder then but people were no different. If they were different then Shakespeare would be unrecognizable and go unnoticed. If Dr Shapiro's Elizabethan England is different he cannot claim to know how Shakespeare thinks. He wants us to believe they were different and then explains his opinion and reasoning that assumes the cultures are the same. Dr Shapiro is not logical.

    "Shakespeare imagined it all(?)" is an astounding statement and if I didn't know he was a scholar I would assume he was an idiot. It is Dr Shapiro who has the enormous imagination but his claim is transparently self serving: Shakespeare is who I say he is.

    In addition, how is it that information about an event that happened after 1616 appeared in the 1623 plays? What does common sense say? Answer: The author was alive and writing in 1623 and Shakespeare is a myth.

    How is it that the Oxford people think that even though DeVere, who had no friends and died in 16o4 wrote the plays: Answer: DeVere is more of myth than Shakspur.

    At least the Marlow people claim he didn't die but continued to write somewhere else. The Stratfordians just ignore everyone but themselves. It is moot what the Oxfordians say because De Vere died

    Dr Shapiro makes a reference to Homer which I think means: If you reject Shakespeare you have to give up Homer too? Or was it that if you accept Pete Rose into the hall of fame you must accept Shoeless Joe Jackson? Dr Shapiro confuses me on this point.

    Did Dr Shapiro mention the Promus? The Promus was Francis Bacon's notebook that contain references to the plays and actual lines from the plays? Not a peep from the Stratfordian but he is not alone. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed none mentioned the Promus. Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.

    Did Dr Shapiro mention the Northumberland manuscript, a possession of Francis Bacon that has the name, Mr Francis William Shakespeare written on the front? No. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed one mentioned the Northumberland Manuscript but failed to mention Bacon. A rather glaring omission. Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.

    Does it matter that Ben Jonson was equally glowing with Shakespeare and Bacon but wrote to Bacon about the good times together: "And oh, the men," he said. Ben knew both men, right? Shakespeare was gay.Why wouldn't Ben talk about the men with Shakespeare? I'm not going to answer that one for you.

    I could offer you many good concrete examples of Shakespeare existing through Francis Bacon but the information is available on the internet and doesn't take much digging to find it.

    I do not aim to squash the pleasures of "mystery" because by recognizing the author we would be catapulted into literary blissful shock and awe.

    I was interested to read a quote from Sigmund Freud although Freud believed in DeVere. "No single intelligence could have encompassed such a literary and philosophical range; if Bacon had written the plays along with his great philosophical works, he, would have been the most powerful brain the world has ever produced." Well, it looks like that's what we have here. What a story.

    Critics like James Shapiro find the old school packaged Shakespeare story charming because they find their own spin about the plays charming. The story they have fed the public for centuries is no different than the prepackaged assembly line stereotyped selling of name brands.

    Stratfordian means McShakespeare.
    Reviewed in the United States on December 24, 2009
    Thank you Virginia Fellows.

    When there is an established body of knowledge with supporting institutions supplied by a steady flow of new talent that demonstrates, teaches and promotes an industry based on that body of knowledge change is not only unlikely it is resisted.

    Virginia Fellows and her publisher has crossed the line, has taken up the banner with a book that tells the most incredible and dramatic story that Dan Brown couldn't rival. She has challenged the Queens authority to tell the truth to open the private life of Sir Francis Bacon a genius for the ages.

    Superficially it hard to appreciate appreciate the significance of her well written and magnificently poignant biography that has been suppressed for 400 years. A wealth of knowledge has been available for well over 100 years about his life and writings but was not easily accessed until the internet. Many great authors have come and gone during that time but Virginia Fellows has been the one to roast the sacred cow of literature.

    She captures the emotional wars Francis Bacon must have waged within himself about his duty, needs and seeming arbitrary restraints and has brought him into the light of day after centuries of entombment by bias and pedagogy.

    You might think the authorship controversy is a religious war the way mud is slung. Gratefully, Virginia Fellows would have none of that. The Shakespeare Code is a passionate biography but also is an honest appraisal of a prominant and complicated man.

    Even though change is the only thing that doesn't change people fear change and institutions not only loath change but ignore it unless realistically threatened. Take American football, for example, There was the money and interest in new football teams in the major cities but for many years the National Football League refused expansion. Then the rival American football League was formed in 1960 which grew and soon played on an equal par with the NFL resulting in a championship game. NFL was forced to recognize the power of the AFC and merged with it.

    Examples like this could fill volumes, but the volume I want to fill is about the Bacon-Shakespeare problem. My amazement and astonishment that "Baconian spear-shaking" hasn't exploded on the literary scene decades ago has made me suspicious of censorship in higher institutions of learning. That;'s one reason "The Shakespeare Code" is a breath of fresh air.

    They are a lot of people involved in the Stratfordian bureaucracy but no one has wanted to challenge from within until now. Dominant Stratfordian-ism is unfortunate but understandable if you understand human nature and Virginia Fellows does. The average Stratfordian, I believe, loves the truth as much as the next person but to truly wade into the vastness that is Bacon they turn to the shiny Shakespeare Santa.

    Where-as William Shakespeare has mountains nay worlds of warm retoric, until now, the Bacon camp had offered the cold raw evidence and that's just about it. The average Shakespeare fan couldn't jump into an abyss without a bungi chord.

    Now we have a safety net to compete with Santa.

    "The Shakespeare Code" is a break-through biography because Virginia Fellows uses ALL the relevant and available information to create a coherent, new, and exciting biography of the man behind the Shakespeare mask.

    We need more people like Fellows to put their pen where their mouth is and analyze the plays from a Bacon point of view. We need more interest in Bacon-as-Shakespeare because I believe the staleness of the current Shakespeare standards will continue the marginalization of Shakespeare and literature.

    I fear Shakespeare will slowly fade away but not if Virginia has anything to do with it.

    For the public and Hollywood to ignore the incredible drama that went on in the last Tudor family shows true disinterest.

    For the publishers of textbooks to ignore the Northumberland Manuscript as well as the plain logic of Twain and others shows true disinterest.

    That there is a controversy at all shows true disinterest because of the lack of knowledge of the simple fact that for instance, Shagspur died to soon. DeVeres died way too soon and shouldn't be an after thought.

    That there is an abundance of information connecting Francis Bacon with the plays shows true disinterest.

    For a biographies filled with few facts and little relevant information and an abundance of distortion and for one to be considered a Pulitzer Prize finalist shows true disinterest.

    Education? In school we were introduced to the plays and the sonnets using old worn out concepts but did we care if we were taught falsely? It doesn't appear to be. Concerning the Sonnets, My son's teacher said to formulate his own interpretations. What else is she going to say?

    The Shakespeare plays are a must for every library but who reads them? Not many.
    Virginia Fellows aims to change all that.

    I believe the disinterest is caused not by the author but how the information has been handled. The Queen is dead. Long live a new Queen.

    Almost every American kid has played soccer but Americans don't watch soccer for the lack of scoring. The average educated American thinks Shakespeare is great as long as he/she doesn't have to read it because it's tedious and lacks scoring.

    Virginia Fellow scores.

    She has started the AFC of literature with a competitive product wthat may be the start of a new league, one that will score points and will make lots of money for the industrious. The NFL of Stratford will be forced to merge and then the Super bowl of Literature, Science and Art will result for everyone's benefit.

    The riches Virginia Fellows has uncovered is unfathomable and I hope many more of her books are forthcoming.

    Just thinking about it makes me hungry for a B.L.T.E. (Bacon, Leicester, Elizabeth Tudor and Essex - the last Tudor family).
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
    • Wow! 1
  2. Dear reader,


    The original “Don Quixote” is an English book. The Spanish translations appeared in 1605 and 1615, much earlier than the original English publications in 1612 and 1620. Between these two periods, in 1614, a “false” Don Quixote was published under the name Avellaneda. The original English text was never released.


    Francis Bacon was the brain behind the three books of Don Quixote; he wrote the part of the hero.

    Ben Jonson took on the role of Sancho Panza,  John Donne wrote the poems, “the two friends” Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher were assigned the task of writing loose stories.  These authors made use of the library owned by Robert Cotton.

    The printer, William Stansby, inserted concealed clues into the text, in order for the reader to be able to draw conclusions…

    The Spanish translations were carried out by Thomas Shelton (DQI + DQII) and James Mabbe  (the “bogus” DQ).

    Miguel de Cervantes was just a poor Spanish writer who had sold his name to survive. He had told his life-story to the English, so that it could be processed into the DQ. 

    Ten people, sworn to secrecy about their collaboration in the writing of Don Quixote. Now in this book, after four hundred years, clarity is given as to the “who”, “what” and “why” of all this secrecy.

    If you are interested in reading my book (Digital or paperback)

    You can order “The Deciphering of 
    the Don Quixote & the Unmasking of Avellaneda” 
     isbn 9789080462748 
    by sending an email to :   generalfeatures@home.nl  

    Jettie H. van den Boom Geleen, Nederland


    • Thanks 1
    • Wow! 1
  3. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a60441053/william-shakespeare-document-discovered-mystery/


    A Remarkable Discovery of a Document Shatters One of Shakespeare's Biggest Mysteries

    A secret parchment has resurfaced, rewriting the Bard’s sketchy family history.

    LG comments :
    This article does not contain a digital copy of the document alleged to have been written by Shaksper's sister Joan Hart. Professor Matthew Steggle (ms17027@bristol.ac.uk) the source of this story does not verify if the 1757 document is in Joan's own hand  or is it just has her signature?  If Joan was literate its surprising she didn't find time to educate her nieces (Shaksper's daughters) to being able to read and write.
    The  author of this article, Tim Newcomb, states, "Yet, the scarcity of Shakespeare’s personal artifacts does little to dim the luster of his legacy, which stands in stark contrast to his modest, mysterious origins."

    personal opinion of  Mr. Newomb is blinded by the luster and downplays a more significant question. The scarcity of personal artifacts especially when it comes to having a literary legacy shines a very bright light  as to why we have an Authorship question.




    • Thanks 2
  4. Beware the tides of March. During the last 2 weeks of March attendance has doubled for each day. Sirbacon.org exceeded over 10,000 visitors worldwide for the month of March, mostly new visitors landing on all subject manner.  Outside of  our Forum clicks,  pages that have to do with Bacon's "The Four Idols"  and the King James Bible leads the way  which indicate school related interests.  We are Everywhere!

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Wow! 2
  5. On 2/8/2023 at 11:53 PM, A Phoenix said:

    Great find Eric!

    The Essex Ring from:



    Years earlier it is said that Queen Elizabeth had given Essex a ring which if he ever forfeited her favour, if he sent it back to her, its return would ensure his pardon and forgiveness. His royal brother Francis knew that Essex had only to return the ring and all would be forgiven. He may also have been informed that Essex had sent it. But the queen never received the ring. Elizabeth was incredulous that Essex even at his lowest point and with his life in imminent danger did not possess the humility to send the ring it to her. It reinforced her deeply held fears that her concealed son would forever remain unruly and dangerous and she finally signed his death warrant. In those last days while fearing for his life in the Beauchamp Tower (part of the Tower of London) where he was imprisoned before his execution in the face of imminent death Robert Tudor carved into the stone wall his true name over the door way which can still be seen to this present day ‘ROBART TIDIR’, an old way of spelling ROBERT TUDOR, conveying his status as a concealed royal prince of England.

    Locked in the Tower and condemned to death Essex had given the ring to a boy with instructions to pass it to Lady Scrope a Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber to give to Elizabeth. Instead the page boy mistakenly gave the ring to her sister Katherine, the Countess of Nottingham, wife of Charles Howard, first Earl of Nottingham, Essex’s sworn enemy. A relative of Queen Elizabeth and Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber the Countess of Nottingham had been a close friend of Elizabeth’s for more than fifty years. She was privy to the significance of the ring and her husband fearing reprisals from Essex if he lived implored her to keep it for their own protection and survival. Thus while Essex lay in the Tower facing death agonisingly waiting for a reprieve from his mother Queen Elizabeth and she too waited night after night, sleepless and weeping, desperate for her son Essex to send the ring that would save his life, it never came and he was executed. Following his death what life Elizabeth had left slowly began to drain out of her and with it her mind began to deteriorate plaguing her to the end of her days.

     Perhaps resulting from the guilt of her actions not long after Essex’s execution the health of the Countess of Nottingham’s also began to deteriorate and steadily decline. As she lay dying on her deathbed she received a visit from Queen Elizabeth to whom she confessed that she wilfully withheld the ring. Immediately overcome by a violent passion Elizabeth grabbed the dying woman and in an inconsolable rage spat out a torrent of unrepeatable expletives ending with the exclamation “God may forgive you, Madam, but I never can!”. With the words of Queen Elizabeth still ringing in her ears Lady Nottingham soon after died at Arundel House on 24 February 1603, a death which precipitated Elizabeth’s final decline. 

    Why would Essex not give the ring to Francis Bacon to deliver to Elizabeth?

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  6. Joy Hancox has sent me early today a new video she has made to be shared with the  readers of www.sirbacon.org 

    It is a weave that relates to an Allegorical Painting that symbolizes the nativity of Jesus' birth, Francis Bacon's birth and his manufactured death day, April 9th,  Bacon's connection to  being a main shareholder of Brass works in Wales & how it leads to Nuremberg Germany, The 1623 First Folio & The Incomparable  Pair of Brethren, Numerology,  Crop Circles, Baconians Alfred Dodd, and Edward Johnson and more.


    Joy Hancox , author of "The Messenger",  "The Hidden Chapter : An Investigation into the Custody of Lost Knowledge",  Kingdom for a Stage : Magicians & Aristocrats in the Elizabethan Theatre",  "The Byrom Collection and the Globe Theatre Mystery.  See http://joyhancox.co.uk/

    • Thanks 4
  7. On 5/30/2023 at 7:27 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

    Thank you! Very good stuff!!

    Before I learned about Bacon my previous spouse was reading "The Illuminatus! Trilogyby American writers Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, first published in 1975.



    It was a very strange synchronicity time that led up to meeting Lawrence G who founded SirBacon.org. Seems like I remember RAW was Lawrence's room-mate in college. But my mind gets fuzzy over the years...that would be quite the coincidence. LG and RAW in the same dorm room!

    Even before I met Lawrence and he introduced me to Bacon 26 years ago, the Dolphins and Pyramid were already showing up in my life.

    Life is strange inDeed. 😉




    Just found this.  Robert Anton Wilson was a most interesting personality and  prolific writer living in Berkeley CA when I first met him in 1975. We were not college roommates  but maybe in a parallel universe next door. Wilson  was writing books and offering Exo-Psychology  courses which I participated in. I shared with him some info which he used in his soon to be published book, "Cosmic Trigger."

    • Like 4
  8. 10 hours ago, Eric Roberts said:

    Hi Jon

    Thanks for your timely mention of the colour of FB's eyes and hair. I know that this subject has been raised here in the past, but as Julie and I are wrapping up the Francis Bacon genealogy project at the moment, his true parentage is very much front of mind. Please forgive me if I disagree with some of your remarks. This is only as I see it... Francis didn't have red hair. It was described and depicted in paintings as being auburn. Neither did he or his parents, Elizabeth and Robert, have blue eyes, despite some of Hilliard's portraits which would seem to indicate that the contrary was true. And according to google, it is not the case that red haired people always have green or blue eyes. 

    83 % of redheads have Brown eyes, followed by Brown /green hazel then Green/Brown hazel, then brown/blue hazel then grey , green/blue hazel then blue then Green. 

    But forget all that. You raise such an important question. The artist, Nicholas Hilliard, Francis Bacon's travelling companion between 1576-79, clearly painted the young Francis with blue eyes. There is no getting around this fact, even though every other portrait depicts him with brown-coloured eyes. How do we explain this anomaly?

    You will recall the dire circumstances under which Francis left England as a novice attaché for France. His life depended on the utmost secrecy concerning his royal ancestry. Could it have been that, as a self-protective measure, Francis instructed Hilliard to change the colour of his eyes to match those of his foster parents, Lord and Lady Bacon? Or, was it simply artistic licence on the part of Hilliard? It is the case that he painted miniatures of Dudley and Elizabeth with strange, almost colourless eyes. It is easy to see how it could be assumed that Francis, Dudley and QEI all had blue eyes from looking at Hilliard's portraits. 

    The issue of FB's eye colour and heredity was raised by Jean Overton Fuller. If you haven't come across it yet, you might find Lawrence Gerald's interview with her of some interest.


    Peter Dawkins had this to say about Francis's truly remarkable baby portrait:


    In this portrait the child, Francis, is pictured holding an apple in his right hand, whilst holding his left hand over his heart. No detail of good Renaissance painting was without an intended symbolic meaning, particularly those pictures commissioned or executed by the learned progenitors of the English Renaissance and Reformation. The apple is an age old symbol of the fruit of knowledge, and in this early portrait of Francis is prophecied Francis' later words and actions, " I have taken all knowledge for my province." This is his field of action, signified by his right hand, but balanced by his left hand on his heart, charitable and useful. This sums up the whole motivation and life of this great soul, and it can even be sensed in his face as portrayed here, with his rich dark brown eyes or hazel eyes, like those of his brother, Essex, his mother, Queen Elizabeth, his father, Earl of Leicester, and his grandmother, Anne Boleyn. (The Bacon family inherited predominantly grey-blue coloured eyes. See Jean Overton Fuller's Sir Francis Bacon, A Biography, for a discussion of this.) https://sirbacon.org/links/childbacon.htm

    Here is a portrait of Elizabeth I by Nicholas Hilliard with brown eyes.


    How can an infant's eyes change from brown to blue by the time that child reaches young adulthood?


    Something odd is going on here, like we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. There's more to this than meets the eye. Thank you for bring this mystery to our attention once again.





    Good one Eric : "There's more to this than meets the eye." LOL!

    The essence of Jean Overton Fuller's research on Bacon's eye color


    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  9. On 11/7/2023 at 8:05 AM, A Phoenix said:


    The prolific and voluminous Sir Jonathan Bate is now widely regarded as the highest Stratfordian authority in the world. He was educated at Seven Oaks School where he was a contemporary of Jonathan Evans, Director General of MI5 (2007-13). He went to St Catherine’s College, Cambridge (the same university as Bacon) where he earned his PhD on ‘Shakespeare and the English Romantic Imagination’ and then became a Research Fellow at Harvard University founded in 1636 (most probably by Bacon’s Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood), the oldest university in the United States of America, first established by Bacon and his Rosicrucian Brotherhood at Jamestown, Virginia, three decades earlier, in 1607. He was a Fellow at Trinity Hall, Cambridge and afterwards appointed King Alfred Professor of English Literature at Liverpool University, before becoming Professor of Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature at the University of Warwick. In 2011 Professor Bate was elected Provost of Worcester College, Oxford and served as a Governor and a senior Board member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. He sits on the European Advisory Board of the Princeton University Press and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and Fellow of the British Academy. He is also the General Editor of the Internet Shakespeare Editions project-one of the most visited Shakespeare websites in the world. At various times Professor Bate has held visiting professorships at Yale University, the Huntington Library, which houses one of the most important Bacon collections in the world, and the Folger Shakespeare Library, which holds the world’s largest collection of printed works of Shakespeare and arguably the largest collection of printed works on Francis Bacon and the Bacon-Shakespeare Authorship Controversy.    

    His impressive list of publications include Shakespeare and Ovid (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1993), The RSC Shakespeare: Complete Works (Macmillan, 2007: edited with Eric Rasmussen), Soul of the Age: The Life, Mind and World of William Shakespeare (Penguin Books, 2009), and The Genius of Shakespeare (London: Picador, 1997). In his ‘Acknowledgements’ at the back of The Genius of Shakespeare Professor Bate expresses his various debts of support and gratitude ‘The writing of this book was made possible by the award of a British Academy Research Readership, a visiting fellowship at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, and an Andrew Mellon Fellowship at the Huntingdon Library in San Marino, California’.1

    In the preface Professor Bate tells his readers ‘a library devoted to him [Shakespeare] stands on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC a stone’s throw away from the legislature-where every other author has to make do with a niche in the vast Library of Congress [founded on the personal library of President Thomas Jefferson, believed by many to be linked to the Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood, based on Bacon’s system of memory, reason and imagination], the Bard of Avon has his special place across the road, the Folger Shakespeare Library.’2 A secret Baconian-Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Institution.3 To which Professor Bate may also have added is equally only a stone’s throw from The Supreme Mother Council of the World, 330 Ancient And Accepted Rite of Freemasonry, at the heart of the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic capital of United States of America.

    In The Genius of Shakespeare he devotes a chapter to ‘The Authorship Controversy’:

    'There is a mystery about the identity of William Shakespeare. The mystery is this: why should anyone doubt that he was William Shakespeare, the actor from Stratford-upon-Avon?

    It is the first question which the professional Shakespearean is always asked in casual conversation outside the walls of the academy-who wrote the plays? When told of the hard core of evidence that the man from Stratford did so, people are surprised. Sometimes it is suspected that the academics are covering up a scandal…'4

    In my experience most of the schoolmen of the second and third rank downwards do not often know what Shakespeare day of the week it is and therefore a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated down the centuries of world-wide proportions is light years beyond their limited comprehension. What the ordinary schoolmen do not know is the great Bacon-Shakespeare secret is reserved for their betters much higher up of exalted rank sublimely residing on an invisible Rosicrucian plain directing the hallowed walls of academia.

    In The Genius of Shakespeare Professor Bate states 'the theory that it was Bacon failed to convince because the deduction of it depended upon elaborate cryptograms.'5 Leaving the reader with the impression that the Baconians had little or no other evidence supporting Bacon's authorship of the Shakespeare works!

    The observant reader will have noticed that Professor Bate italicized 'it was Bacon' in a sentence in which there was absolutely no need to do so.

    In an attempt to ridicule Baconian ciphers after stating that the 'chief device of the late-nineteenth-and early twentieth century Baconians was the cryptogram', Professor Bate presented an example taken from Ignatius Donnelly's The Great Cryptogram: Francis Bacon's Cipher in the so-called Shakespeare Plays.This is all stated in the open text. However, concealed in the text elsewhere in The Genius of Shakespeare for those with eyes to see is a cryptogram conveying the secret that Francis Bacon, Brother of the Rosy Cross, is Shakespeare.  

    In The Genius of Shakespeare Professor Bate begins his chapter 6 (3 plus 3: 33 Bacon in simple cipher) on page 157: 157 Fra Rosicrosse in simple cipher. The chapter is titled ‘The Original Genius’ and subtitled ‘The idea of genius’. The sentence which also constitutes the first paragraph reads ‘Consider the statement ‘Shakespeare was a genius’. Is this a fact or an opinion?’ The first printed line of it contains 56 letters: 56 Fr Bacon in simple cipher and the full sentence has 63 letters and carries four marks of punctuation: two quotation marks, one full stop and a question mark. This provides a total of 67 Francis in simple cipher. The title and the subtitle comprise 32 letters and one digit at the head of the page: 32+1=33 Bacon in simple cipher. Thus far we have a concealed cryptogram which reads Francis Bacon-Brother of the Rosy Cross.

    Furthermore, it will be noted that the first sentence begins with ‘Consider’, which first three letters contain the second syllable of the name Bacon. If the eye strays further down the page, it will be noticed, the almost subliminal line ‘flashing into our minds’ is followed by a noticeably larger than usual gap between it and the beginning of the Hamlet quote ‘To be or not to be’. This citation is followed by citations from Macbeth ‘Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow’, As You Like it ‘All the world’s a stage’ and the equally famous line from The Tempest ‘Our Revels now are ended’. The phrase ‘To be or not to be’ is found in arguably the most metaphysical line in the whole of the Shakespeare canon. The truth as Bacon said, is the daughter of time not authority, and the hidden truth (as stated on the title page of New Atlantis; Land of the Rosicrucians) will be revealed after some time has passed, tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow and Bacon knew more than anyone, as do his Rosicrucian Brotherhood, that ‘All the world’s a stage’; some of whom masquerade as authoritative Shakespeare or Stratfordian scholars.

    It is often thought the line ‘Our revels now are ended’ represents his departure to the world-with his secret identity as the poet Shakespeare to be discovered at a later date, after some considerable time had passed. After this considerable passage of time let us see if we can find him again on the page before us. If we use the same secret method of delivery that Bacon employed at the end of The Rape of Lucrece and draw a line starting from the right of the syllable ‘Con’ beginning the first paragraph through the capital letter A in ‘And’ (line 😎down through the ‘b’ of the multi-layered meaning of the line ‘To be or not to be’ on to the ‘f’, ending the apposite word ‘proof’, upwards we read the letters yielding the name F Bacon, ‘The Original Genius’ of Shakespeare, that taken together provides us with the concealed cryptogram Francis Bacon, Brother of the Rosy Cross, is Shakespeare.

    1. Jonathan Bate, The Genius of Shakespeare (London: Picador, 1997), p. 371.

    2. Ibid., p. VII.

    3. A. Phoenix, ‘The Fraudulent Friedmans: The Bacon Ciphers in the Shakespeare

        Works’ (2022), pp. 1-340, esp. pp. 172-225, available at www.sirbacon.org.

    4. Jonathan Bate, The Genius of Shakespeare (London: Picador, 1997), p. 65.

    5. Ibid., p. 102.

    6. Ibid., pp. 89-90.



    "Jonathan Bate should change the spelling of his last name to Bait. Jonathan Bait

    The only thing Jonathan Bate catches with his worms is the drift of mediocrity." - Antonine Lakosh

    bait /bāt/


    1. Food or other lure placed on a hook or in a trap and used in the taking of fish, birds, or other animals.
    2. Something, such as a worm, used for this purpose.
    3. An enticement, temptation, or provocation.
      "He did not take the bait by responding to the taunt and getting drawn into an argument."
    On 11/14/2023 at 9:15 AM, A Phoenix said:

    Charles Beauclerk A Descendant of Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, the Founder and President of the De Vere Society

    The leading light of the Oxfordian movement Charles Francis Topham de Vere Beauclerk (b. 1965), Earl of Burford, is heir apparent to Murray Beauclerk, fourteenth Duke of St Albans and is descended from Charles Beauclerk, the first Duke of St. Albans, the illegitimate son of Charles II and Nell Gwynne. He was educated at Eton College and Sherborne school before moving up to Hertford College, Oxford. Through his father he is related to Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford.

    He is the Founder and President of the De Vere Society, former President of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, and trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust.  

    He founded The De Vere Society at Hertford College, Oxford in 1986. According to its own website:

    The De Vere Society is dedicated to an appreciation and celebration of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604) as the true genius behind the literary pseudonym ‘William Shakespeare’. Founded at Oxford University in 1986 the Society organises tours, theatre trips, lectures, forums and social events; it publishes essays, articles, reviews, videos, audio recordings and books, and promotes research around the world. Anyone who enjoys the works of Shakespeare and is intrigued by the greatest of all authorship mysteries is welcome to join.

    Among its patrons is the famous actor Sir Derek Jacobi with Alexander Waugh Chairman and a member of its Board of Trustees.

    After spending more than two decades researching the Shakespeare Authorship Question in 2010 Beauclerk published Shakespeares Lost Kingdom: The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth. In a work whose central theme is the true identity of our immortal poet and dramatist Shakespeare, Beauclerk only once refers to Francis Bacon and the Baconians in the following passage here quoted in its entirety:

    When serious and persistent doubts over the identity of Shakespeare began to appear in print in the mid-nineteenth century, the search was on for the man whose life and learning matched the high culture of the Shakespeare canon. The Victorians promoted Francis Bacon, who held the field for over sixty years. Baconians, as they are now called, were the first to realize the significance of the royal theme in Shakespeare, but their reliance on fantastically complex ciphers, as witness Minnesota congressman Ignatius Donnelly’s The Great Cryptogram (1888), stretched credulity. Then, in November 1918, a sealed envelope was entrusted to Sir Frederick Kenyon, head librarian at the British Museum, by an English schoolmaster with the provocative name of J. Thomas Looney (1870-1944). Inside was a statement of his discovery of the true identity of the man who wrote under the pen name William Shakespeare [i.e., Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford].1

    The mercifully brief passage contains a series of misstatements of fact. As the candidate for the true authorship of the Shakespeare poems and plays Francis Bacon and the Baconians did not hold sway for over sixty years a terminus ad quem determined by the publication of J. Thomas Looney’s letter to Sir Frederick Kenyon in 1918 followed by the publication of his Shakespeare Identified first printed in 1920. It took another half-a century before the Oxfordian movement started to gain any real traction and in the interim it is reported that at one time it had less than fifty supporters before their support began to slowly but steadily rise from the 1970s during which time the Baconians were still the dominant force producing numerous books and The Francis Bacon Society literally hundreds of articles in support of his authorship in its journal Baconiana. 

    This misleading assertion served as a prelude to the incorrect and absurd misrepresentation of the overwhelming mountainous and irrefutable evidence revealing and confirming that Bacon is the secret author of the Shakespeare works, when Beauclerk misinformed that the Baconians reliance on fantastically complex ciphers stretched credulity, citing the example of The Great Cryptogram by Ignatius Donnelly published more than a hundred and thirty years ago. This simply risible and ludicrous nonsense conveyed the misleading impression to the Oxfordian flock that a larger part of the Baconian position rested upon this and little else. Whereas on a point of fact there is not a single living Baconian who rests his or her support for Lord Bacon’s authorship of the Shakespeare works on fantastically complex ciphers put forward by Ignatius Donnelly.

    Rather the evidence advanced and relied upon by Baconian scholars is wide and various and covers all aspects of historical, evidential and factual critical inquiry into Bacon’s authorship of the Shakespeare works, built upon numerous primary manuscript and printed documents, regarding which I provide the following five examples:


    In ordinary circumstances this contemporary manuscript document named the Promus of Formularies and Elegancies would be well known to every Bacon and Shakespeare scholar and student of English literature around the world. Bacon’s unique private notebook held at the British Library contains a total of 51 leaves numbered pages 83 to 132 all written (apart from some French proverbs) in his own hand. The Folio numbered 85 is headed ‘Promus’ and beneath it appears the date ‘Dec. 5, 1594’ with the Folio numbered 114 headed ‘Formularies Promus’ carrying the date ‘27 Jan. 1595’ (i.e., January 1596). It contains 1655 entries jotted down as an aid to his memory. The entries include single words, phrases, lines, turns of speech, metaphors, similes, aphorisms, and various moral and philosophical observations. These include entries drawn from the Bible; Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, and English proverbs; and lines and verses from classical poets and dramatists, among them, Virgil, Ovid, Seneca, Horace, and Terence. It is the Source of several hundred resemblances, correspondences and parallels found throughout his Shakespeare poems and plays.2


    The Bacon collection of manuscripts hitherto known as The Northumberland Manuscript contains various writings by Bacon, comprising letters, essays, religio-political treatises, dramatic devices and originally held two of his Shakespeare plays Richard II and Richard III. 

    All the evidence makes tolerably certain that no part of the manuscript was written after c.1596-7. The precise dating of the manuscript is not merely some historical curiosity. The precision of the date is of the most manifest importance for the very simple reason that in 1597 William Shakespeare was not publicly known as a dramatic author. The pseudonym first appeared on the 1598 quarto edition of Loves Labours Lost the same year it appeared on the title pages of the quartos of Richard II and Richard III, most probably printed from the manuscripts that were originally part of this Bacon-Shakespeare Manuscript.

    In addition to originally having held two of Bacon’s Shakespeare plays Richard II and Richard III, the outer cover of his collection of manuscripts contains references and links to his narrative Shakespeare poem The Rape of Lucrece and another three of his Shakespeare plays Loves Labours Lost, Romeo and Juliet & The Merchant of Venice. This is moreover the only manuscript where the names Bacon and Shakespeare appear together in a contemporary document. Various forms of his name Bacon and Francis Bacon and pseudonym Shakespeare and William Shakespeare are scribbled all over its outer cover on around twenty occasions. Above the entry for his Shakespeare play Richard II appears the entry ‘By Mr. ffrauncis William Shakespeare’, and further down the word ‘Your’ is twice written across his pseudonym William Shakespeare-so it reads ‘Your William Shakespeare’. As if to emphasise this entry a second occurrence of the name ‘ffrauncis’ is written upside down above the first ‘ffrauncis’ thus reading from left to right ‘ffrauncis William Shakespeare’. Below the entry for ‘Rychard the second’, and above the entry for ‘Rychard the third’, appears his name ‘ffrauncis’ and to the left ‘Bacon’ and the right ‘Shakespeare’. Below at the bottom of the outer cover his pseudonym ‘William Shakespeare’ is repeated numerous times, and as if to emphasise one more time Bacon is Shakespeare, we are met with the possessive entry ‘your William Shakespeare’.3


    It is little known to virtually all Shakespeare scholars, the ordinary schoolmen, and the rest of the world that there exists an early manuscript version of the play Henry IV. This manuscript is the earliest extant manuscript of a Shakespeare play ever discovered.

    This manuscript was discovered in 1844 preserved in the collection of the eighth Baronet Sir Edward Dering (1807-96) at Surrenden Hall near Pluckley in Kent. It had previously formed part of the library of the first Sir Edward Dering (1598-1644), an antiquarian with an interest in literature and drama, named after his uncle the Puritan preacher Edward Dering patronised by the Cooke sisters Lady Anne Cooke Bacon, Lady Elizabeth Cooke Hoby Russell, Lady Mildred Cooke Cecil and Lady Cooke Killigrew. The relatively obscure Sir Edward Dering (1598-1644) about whose early life very little is known was-here revealed for the first time-a close friend and relative (twice over) of the author of Henry IV Francis Bacon.

    The so-called Dering manuscript is a single-five act Shakespeare play of Henry IV and is earlier than the first printed quarto of The Historie of Henrie the fourth issued in 1598 and the quarto edition of The Second part of Henrie the fourth printed in 1600. The MS represents the play as Bacon originally composed it when it was one play and not two before developing his original version into two separate parts. Furthermore, we can be reasonably precise regarding the date of the manuscript. It is widely agreed Henry IV followed closely upon Richard II as not only is Henry IV next chronologically its predecessor Richard II clearly points to a sequel. The earlier Richard II is believed to date to around late 1595 or early 1596, and Henry IV was probably composed shortly after, sometime in 1596.

    The so-called corrector’s hand in the so-called Dering manuscript is Bacon’s own cramped hand, as one would expect, from the author of the play.4


    On 8 November 1623 Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard entered on the Stationers’ Register sixteen Shakespeare plays which had not been previously published. Another twenty previously published plays were added giving a total of thirty-six plays in the First Folio therein divided into Comedies, Histories and Tragedies, in an enormous volume of more than nine hundred pages, representing the greatest secular publication in the history of English literature, whose untold impact around the world over the last four hundred year has never been fully understood and thus never fully told. 

    On its 400th anniversary a recent work entitled The 1623 Shakespeare First Folio: A Baconian-Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Illusion uncovers and reveals unknown and untold secrets about the greatest work of literature in the history of humankind. For the first time, it brings forth the hidden connections of its author Francis Bacon and his Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood with all the key members involved in its production, printing, and publication. His hidden relationships with its printers William and Isaac Jaggard, and the other members of the First Folio consortium, John Smethwick, William Aspley, and its publisher Edward Blount.

    It is almost universally unknown that its dedicatee William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke was at the time of its dedication Grand Master of England, one of half of the ‘Incomparable Paire Of Brethren’, with his brother Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, whose joint open and hidden relationships with Bacon went back decades. The other critical member in the production of the 1623 First Folio was its editor and contributor of its two verses Ben Jonson who at the time the First Folio was making its way through the Jaggard printing presses was living with Bacon at Gorhambury, where he was at the heart of the secret plans for bringing together this vast and complex enterprise.

    The Droeshout engraving on the title page of the most famous secular work in English history is iconic and recognised the world over as the contemporary face of William Shakespeare the greatest poet and dramatist of all time. In strikingly marked contrast virtually nothing is known about Martin Droeshout the draughtsman responsible for the most recognisable literary image since time immemorial. A remarkable level of secrecy still surrounds his private life, friends and the social and professional circles he moved in, even though he self-evidently knew some of the most important figures in Jacobean England and moved in the highest circles of his times. This man who for the first thirty-three years of his life lived in the heart of London has scarcely left any documentary trace of his existence akin to him having been deliberately expunged from the records. To the present day his whole life is completely shrouded in secrecy and mystery. The key reason is Martin Droeshout and the famous/infamous Droeshout engraving on the title page of the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio is a mask behind which its concealed author Francis Bacon is hidden in plain sight, which when lifted reveals the truth behind the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic illusion and ludibrium that the semi-illiterate William Shakspere of Stratford was the author of the greatest literature in the history of the world, that at a single devastating stroke brings the whole Stratfordian fiction crashing to the ground.

    For the first time The 1623 Shakespeare First Folio: A Baconian Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Illusion conveys an explosive secret in making known the concealed and hidden relationship between Francis Bacon and Martin Droeshout which has been suppressed for the last four hundred years. Their secret relationship is encapsulated in an earlier Droeshout engraving titled Doctor Panurgus (c. 1621) wherein one of its central figures is a depiction of Francis Bacon replete with a series of clues and indicators to confirm it.

    The figure of Bacon in the Dr Panurgus engraving by Droeshout dating from the early 1620s is drawn from the life, that points to Bacon sitting for it at Gorhambury. The complex engraving has clearly been very carefully planned out and must have involved Bacon giving Droeshout instructions and further directions that over a period of time necessitated numerous revision and amendments, not unlike the Droeshout in the First Folio, which exists in three known states, showing close attention to minor details as well as slight changes made to various aspects of it. This process was all taking place around the time Bacon was planning and preparing his Shakespeare plays for the Jaggard printing house during the years 1621 to 1623 when it is likely that Droeshout made numerous visits to see Bacon at his country estate at Gorhambury where he was most likely residing for periods with Bacon and Ben Jonson as part of his entourage of good pens and other artists that made up his literary workshop.  

    It also lifts the veil of secrecy surrounding the hitherto unknown relationships between Francis Bacon and the other little-known figures Hugh Holland, James Mabbe and Leonard Digges who contributed verses to the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio. Particularly, Bacon’s relationship with Leonard Digges, whose own father Sir Nicholas Bacon was the special patron of his grandfather and father Leonard Digges and Thomas Digges, the poet whose verse prefixed to the Folio refers to the Stratford Monument, which is adorned with Rosicrucian-Freemasonic symbols and Baconian ciphers, secretly commissioned by Francis Bacon and his Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood.

    In addition to all the above cryptic devices secretly inserted by Bacon in the Shakespeare First Folio there are also many remarkable and astonishing references and allusions to himself and members of the Bacon family, which for four hundred years have remained unfamiliar or unknown to the ordinary schoolmen, the casual student, and effectively the rest of the world. These include references and allusions to himself in several different plays where the character is in some instances named Francis and similarly where characters are named after his three brothers Sir Nicholas Bacon, Sir Nathaniel Bacon, and Anthony Bacon. Similarly in the First Folio there are references and allusions to his father and mother Sir Nicholas and Lady Anne Cooke Bacon, her three sisters Lady Katherine Cooke Killigrew, Lady Elizabeth Cooke Hoby Russell and her husband John, Lord Russell, Lady Mildred Cooke Cecil and her husband William Cecil, Lord Burghley, as well as their offspring (Bacon’s cousins) Thomas Posthumous Hoby and Sir Robert Cecil, and the son of their brother William Cooke, named after his father, Bacon’s other cousin, known as William Cooke of Highnam Court in Gloucester.5 

    5] The Memoriae Honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis De Vervlamio, Vice-Comitis Sancti Albani Sacrum (1626) containing 32 Latin verses cryptically conveying Bacon is Shakespeare

    In the months following the death of Francis Bacon to the world his trusted Rosicrucian Brother Dr William Rawley gathered together and published a commemorative work in his honour entitled Memoriae honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis de Verulamio, vice-comitis Sancti Albani sacrum, otheriwse known as the Manes Verulamiani. This rare volume contains thirty-two Latin verses in praise of Bacon which his orthodox biographers and editors have simply passed over, ignored, or suppressed, that portray Bacon as a secret supreme poet and dramatist, writer of comedies and tragedies, under the pseudonym of Shakespeare.  

    The Church of England clergymen Dr William Rawley knew the truth and secrets of the concealed and hidden life of whom the world and posterity know as Francis Bacon. On 22 January 1600 the twelve-year-old William Rawley was admitted bible-clerk of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge where he graduated BA in 1605 and MA in 1608 and was made elector tutor on 19 March 1610. He took his holy orders in April 1611 and in December 1612 he was instituted by the university to the rectory of St Michael’s in Bowthorpe, Norfolk. He was soon after introduced to Lord Bacon whose influence resulted in Corpus Christi College bestowing on Rawley the rectory of Landbeach in 1616. By this time Dr Rawley was already chaplain and ‘Amanuensis, or dayly instrument’ to Bacon assisting him, as he tells us, ‘in the composing, of his Works, for many years together; Especially, in his writing Time; I conceived, that no Man, could pretend a better Interest, or Claim, to the ordering of them, after his Death, then my self.’ He lived with Bacon for the last ten years of his known life (1616-26) and was one of his good pens residing at Gorhambury with the poet and dramatist Ben Jonson when the Shakespeare First Folio was working its way through the Jaggard family printing presses.

    In the final elegy Bacon’s inward friend, the poet and dramatist Thomas Randolph, one of the sons of Ben Jonson, refers to Bacon as Quirinus, strikingly pointing to the fact that Bacon is our secret supreme poet and dramatist, Shakespeare:

    See! how plentiful the flood! I acknowledge these for genuine Muses and their tears. One Helicon will scarce equal them; Parnassus, not covered by Deucalion’s flood, will, wonderful to say, be hidden beneath these waters...When he perceived that the arts were held by no roots, and like seed scattered on the surface of the soil were withering away, he taught the Pegasean arts to grow, as grew the spear of Quirinus [Spear/Spearman; i.e., Shakespeare] swiftly into a laurel tree. Therefore since he has taught the Heliconian goddesses to flourish no lapse of ages shall dim his glory. The ardour of his noble heart could bear no longer that you, divine Minerva [Pallas Athena the Shaker of the Spear who wore a helmet which rendered her invisible], should be despised. His godlike pen restored your wonted honour and as another Apollo [leader of the Nine Muses presiding over the different kinds of poetry and liberal arts] dispelled the clouds that hid you.

                                                 Thomas Randolph, Trinity College.6


    1. Charles Beauclerk, Shakespeares Lost Kingdom: The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth (New York: Grove Press, 2010), pp. 6-7.   

    2. C. M. Pott, The Promus Of Formularies And Elegancies (Being Private Notes, circ. 1594, hitherto unpublished) By Francis Bacon Illustrated And Elucidated By Passages From Shakespeare (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1883); N. B. Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question (Guildford and Kings Lynn: Biddles Limited,1998), pp. 509-47; A. Phoenix, ‘Francis Bacon's Private Manuscript Notebook (Known as the Promus of Formularies and Elegancies) The Source of Several Hundred Resemblances, Correspondences and Parallels Found Throughout his Shakespeare Poems and Plays, (2023), pp. 1-133.

    3. James Spedding, A Conference Of Pleasure, Composed For Some Festive Occasion About The Year 1592 By Francis Bacon. Edited, From A Manuscript Belonging To The Duke Of Northumberland (London: Whittingham an Wilkins, 1870); Frank J. Burgoyne, Collotype Facsimile & Type Transcript Of An Elizabethan Manuscript Preserved at Alnwick Castle, Northumberland (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1904); A. Phoenix, The Bacon-Shakespeare Manuscript (Hitherto known as the Northumberland Manuscript) which originally Contained Copies of his Shakespeare Plays Richard II and Richard III (2022).

    4. A. Phoenix, ‘Francis Bacon and the so-called ‘Dering’ Manuscript of Henry IV, the Unique and Earliest Known Manuscript of a Shakespeare play: or the Holy Grail of Shakespeare Scholarship a Shakespeare Manuscript (c.1596) Originating from Bacon’s Literary Workshop and Corrected in his Hand’ (2022), pp. 1-126.

    5. A. Phoenix, The 1623 Shakespeare First Folio: A Baconian-Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Illusion (2023).

    6. William Rawley, ed., Memoriae Honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis De Vervlamio,
    Vice-Comitis Sancti Albani Sacrum
    (Londini: In Officina Johannis Haviland, 1626); W. G. C. Gundry, ed., Manes Verulamiani (London: The Chiswick Press, 1950); A. Phoenix,
    The Secret Links Between the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Memoriae (1626) Containing Thirty-two Verses Dedicated to Francis Bacon our Shakespeare, the First Folio of the Shakespeare Works (1623), and the Stratford Monument (soon to be published on 1 January 1624).





    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  10. On 2/22/2024 at 3:07 AM, Lawrence Gerald said:

    Mather Walker had a deep passion about all things Francis Bacon and gave me permission to host his many essays and digital books. He was on a mission with his knowledge & inimitable writing style along with a great sense of humor.

    My condolences to his son Wayne and to all that cherished Mather. He will be truly missed.
    Lawrence Gerald

    Special Thanks to Travis Dodge for letting Rob and I know about Mather's passing

    If anyone would like to share about Mather in the Forum please do and or write a message of sympathy can go here




    In case anyone  missed it, the March Newsletter of The FBS posted my Tribute to the Late and Great Mather Walker. Here's a direct link to it :


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  11. https://sirbacon.org/ResearchMaterial/Barnham2.htm


    ......Mr. Harry Paintin, of Oxford, who has most kindly put his great knowledge of family records at our service, points out that in the 16th Century a branch of the Underhills kept the Golden Cross and the Crown Tavern in Oxford, and that they subsequently sold their interest in the latter to the D'Avenant family, who entertained Shakespeare.
                One of the daughters married the first librarian of the Bodleian Library. Another of the family, John Underhill, became Rector of Lincoln College, 1577, and Bishop of Oxford, 1589, and died in 1592, and was buried at Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford.
                It will be noticed that, in one way or another, the name Underhill is mixed up with Shakespeare's, of Stratford-on-Avon, and also with Sir Francis Bacon's wife and family, for Sir John Underhill, who married Lady Bacon, was born at Eatington, in Warwickshire, and was closely related to the family who arranged to sell "New Place" to William Shakespeare in 1597-8.

    Anyone come across this before and think there is something to explore between John Underhill, Bacon, and WS New Place?

    • Like 5
  12. 16 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

    Hi Lawrence,

    What a truly magnificent contribution to Baconian scholarship and also a fitting tribute to Francis Carr, Cornwall and all who went before. This will serve as a great resource in perpetuity for all Bacon scholars and other interested students who wish to learn the truth about the authorship of Don Quixote.  Thank you on behalf all the visitors to sirbacon.org and B'Hive and all the other Baconians around the world.

    For those who wish to learn more see the following:



    Francis Carr, Who Wrote Don Quixote (USA: Xlibris, 2004), 198 pages

    L. Biddulph, ‘The Great Assizes Holden In Parnassus’, Baconiana, Vol. IV, New Series, January 1896, pp. 42-8

    John Hutchinson, ‘Some Thoughts On “Don Quixote”’, Baconiana, Vol. XIV, No. 53, January, 1916, pp. 18-28

    Ben. Haworth-Booth, ‘Philips’ Don Quixote. Folio 1687’, Baconiana, Vol. XIV, No. 53, January, 1916, pp. 29-32

    Parker Woodward, ‘“Don Quixote”’, Baconiana, Vol. XIV, Third Series, No. 56, October 1916, pp. 173-86

    Granville C. Cunningham, ‘Don Quixote’, Baconiana, Vol. XV, No. 58,  April 1917, pp. 110-27

    Parker Woodward, ‘Portraits of Cervantes’, Baconiana, Vol. XVIII, No. 63, (Third Series), March 1921, pp. 56-7

    S. A. E. Hickson, ‘Review of Bacon-Shakespeare-Cervantes’, Baconiana, Vol. XVII, No. 64, Junes 1922, pp. 50-61

    S. A. E. Hickson, ‘Review of Bacon-Shakespeare-Cervantes’, Baconiana, Vol. XVII, No. 65, Junes 1923, pp. 136-42

    S. A. E. Hickson, ‘Extracts And Parallels From The Parnassus Plays, Don Quixote And As You Like It’, Baconiana, Vol. XIX, No. 74 (Third Series), June 1928, pp. 175-85

    Horace Nickson, ‘The Authorship Of “Don Quixote”’, Baconiana, Vol. 78 (Third Series), February, 1931, pp. 271-85

    L. Biddulph, ‘Some Notes On Cervantes’, Baconiana, Vol. XXV, No. 100, July, 1941, pp. 244-9

    Edward Johnson, ‘Don Quixote’, Baconiana, Vol. XXVIII, No. 113, October, 1944, pp. 155-7

    Dr R. Langdon-Down, ‘Observations On Shelton’s Don Quixote’, Baconiana, Vol. XXXVI, No. 143, July, 1952, pp. 58-67

    G. S. O., ‘The Frontispiece Of Volume 1 Of Don Quixote De  La Mancha, (1615) A Bibliographical Discovery’, Baconiana, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 147, December 1953, pp. 107-10

    Pierre Henrion, ‘A Most Humurous Quixotic Quest’, Baconiana, Vol. LXII, No. 179, October 1979, pp. 13-26

    Francis Carr, ‘Cervantes, England and Don Quixote’, Baconiana, Vol. LXXVI, No. 193, 1995, pp. 54-59

    Francis Carr, ‘Who Wrote Don Quixote?’, Baconiana, Vol. LXXVII, No. 194, 1997, pp. 21-30

    John S. Alabaster, ‘Word-Length Frequency In Sonnets Of Shakespeare and Don Quixote’, Baconiana, Vol. LXXVII, No. 194, 1997, p. 31.

    John S. Alabaster, ‘Some Further Links Between Francis Bacon and Don Quixote’, Baconiana, Vol. XXXIX, No. 196, June 1999, pp. 5-41

    John Alabaster, ‘An Analysis Of The Latin In Bacon’s Promus’, Baconiana, Vol. XXXIX, No. 196, June 1999, pp. 55-97

    For further articles and information See: https://sirbacon.org/search_gcse/?q=DON QUIXOTE


    Add this 1612  Thomas Shelton Trans  As Below to your As Above List

    • Like 4
  13. 7 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

    "The 9 pages of Preface are printed in italics except here and there where a word or words are in Roman type like the hyphenated Don-Quixote. The Roman type words add up to 157 in all which is the numerical count of Fra Rosi Crosse. This appears to associate the work of Bacon and the Rosicrucians."

    So far no luck finding an online facsimile, but oh my! Imagine what we might find in the 9 pages!!


    Brilliant  cypher method

    • Like 4
  • Create New...