Jump to content

First Folio


Kate
 Share

Recommended Posts

      THE GENIUS OF SHAKESPEARE BY SIR JONATHAN BATE WIDELY SEEN AS THE HIGHEST ORTHODOX SHAKESPEARE/STRATFORDIAN AUTHORITY IN THE WORLD AND THE BACONIAN-ROSICRUCIAN CRYPTIC DEVICES ON PAGE 157 THE NUMBER REPRESENTING THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE ROSY CROSS.

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 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 8) 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.

SEE THE POST BY KATE ABOVE AND THE LINK GIVEN BELOW RELATING TO SIR JONATHAN BATE:

https://folio400.com/phernalia/new-phoenix-wings/

JB1.png

JB2.png

rl.webp

method.png

Edited by A Phoenix
  • Wow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE ORIGINAL GENIUS is 176 Simple cipher, add the big 6 above it and get 182.

ONE EIGHTY TWO is 157 Simple cipher and 287 Kaye cipher, on page 157.

The Original Genius?

TO is 33 Simple cipher, G is 33 Kaye cipher, on page 157.

I'll be back later for more fun...

😉

 

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big 6 at the top could be F.

Then two lines and "Consider..."

We can find "B" and "a" easy enough (see below). But I feel like those two lines contain B and A that I am missing. So far numbers are not jumping out enough to be them.

image.png.3839c6451835b1c6da035ca5ef6cc319.png

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, how about this:

image.png.e97ccdf385a2c6d6fad9dc5cecf1f7b6.png

The two T's are Thirty-Three, but also two Pillars that begin the first two lines into page 157. Perfect Rosicrucian/Bacon layout. We set forth and pass beyond the Pillars into the RC page about what a genius Bacon was.

The only other upper-case letters (even if the first line is all caps) are O and G.

OG is 21 Simple cipher. And 2=B and 1=A.

So we have:

F
BA
Con

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi,

Can I put out the suggestion that we perhaps begin to pay more attention to the number 22, if not doing so already. I'm coming across repeated synchronicities pointing me to this number. The esoteric reason behind it would be two-fold (surprise, surprise); the number 11 is a visual representation of the two pillars and also the Gemini glyph which correlates to Mercury and duality, as I explain in Part One of the 3 part video. Double  11 is 22. 22 was Bacon's birthdate and the other reasons for 22 is explained in my ebook.

In the chart for the founding of America there is some good reason to suspect that the time for the birthchart is not as the Ebenezer Sibly engraving suggests (there's a whole hoo-haa around that anyway) but is actually 2.22pm.

We saw that in the First Folio (FF being double Francis which is interesting as to why that name has stuck over others so determinedly) that the 2b or not 2b is the iconic line which links to Ben Jonson's use of Two and To and the B woodcut with a cipher of 2 but page 222 was of great interest. I think maybe the next pages to examine are the 11's and 22's .

I have also just seen a tweet about the Double Eleven society (?) 

Editing to say I've just watched a video by a chap, J. Antony, where he explains it as the Twice 11 Brethren of the Rosy Cross.  I don't understand why these guys insist that De Vere wrote Shakespeare rather than just seeing that he may have been, prior to his death, part of the wider group of Rosicrucians (albeit the black sheep of the 'family') that had Bacon at the helm and were all working to the same ends. K

Edited by Kate
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 7:12 PM, A Phoenix said:

THE GENIUS OF SHAKESPEARE BY SIR JONATHAN BATE WIDELY SEEN AS THE HIGHEST ORTHODOX SHAKESPEARE/STRATFORDIAN AUTHORITY IN THE WORLD AND THE BACONIAN-ROSICRUCIAN CRYPTIC DEVICES ON PAGE 157 THE NUMBER REPRESENTING THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE ROSY CROSS.

Thank you A Phoenix !

This is another remarkable work, in both form and content, and another incredible discovery that you share with us. 🙏❤️

I took the plunge and tried to see what I could find.

The TT standing for Thirty-Three and the Two Pillars was well spotted by Rob (Light-of-Truth).

I believe that the importance of the two Pillars is confirmed on the third line by the J of "Judgements" and the B of "But" which can represent the two pillars "Jachin" and "Boaz" ( or is it  for J onathan B ate ? 🙂 ) 

Genius.png.0a9cfbab859cfbaeeda67f74b2199a4d.png

I don't know if all this was intended but there seems to be a lot of coincidences.

Notice that "To be or not to be" share the same simple and reverse cipher as "William Tudor I" and "Fra Rosi Crosse".

And 49, its short cipher, is the simple cipher of ... WIT or WTI !

Regarding the number 219, this is the sum of 100 + 119 or in other term :

FRANCIS BACON + MEDIOCRIA FIRMA (Francis Bacon's motto) 

By the way , "WHO WROTE THE PLAYS" = 219 😉 

If "hundred" is the simple cipher of FRANCIS BACON, "two hundred" is the reverse cipher of FRANCIS BACON.

And 200 is also the gematria of the Hebrew letter R (Resh) meaning HEAD.

Interestingly, if we add the value of the position of each "Shakespeare" from "Judgements" to "genius" it gives us :

33 + 90 + 168 + 219 = 510

And 510 is precisely the full gematria of ... Resh ראש (Head) !

I decided to take a look at the 510th page of the First Folio ...

510.png.195710e5467231732e050cdc0dc5a11e.png

To be on page 156 was,for me, an invitation to take a look at the following page, the page ... 157 !

FBACON33.png.e6068a813c0e91fd28848b750e8f49f7.png


  • Like 1
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chapter 6 : The Original Genius of " The Genius of Shakespeare" by Jonathan Bate, begins on page 157.

157 + 6 = 163

The page 163 of Shakespeare's First Folio is well-known by the Baconians since the incredible work of Mr Simon Miles on the play "The Merchant of Venice" and the "Janus Signature".

image.png.4de3766d0f3181574e7641b29ba12c20.png

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/181/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html

The Original Genius or The Original Janus ? 🙂 

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcQCljc1Mv8&t=3432s Talk by Simon Miles - The Janus Signature (At 58:46)

See https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research  Francis Bacon (Bassanio/Bellario) and Anthony Bacon (the titular character Antonio) and The Merchant of Venice

 

 

  • Like 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Yann, High Wizard of B'Hive.

We have missed you. 

When I was preparing the previous post on The Genuis of Shakespeare by Jonathan Bate, I was immediately thinking of you and Rob, on account that the two of you provide analysis and insights that only you two can. In my opinion Yann, regarding your type of textual/cryptographic analysis you are simply the best in world.  

Awesome. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE GENIUS OF SHAKESPEARE BY JONATHAN BATE AND BACONIAN-ROSICRUCIAN CRYPTIC DEVICES.

Hi Yann, Rob, and Kate,

Following on from the above posts I have just taken another look at the work by the world's leading orthodox Shakespeare authority Professor Bate and there are a few interesting aspects of it I would like to share with you. 

I have included photographs of its content page and other key pages from the text.

The first chapter 'A Life of Anecdote' finishes on page 33: 33 Bacon in simple cipher.

The third chapter 'The Authorship Controversy' finishes on page 100: 100 Francis Bacon in simple cipher.

The fifth chapter 'Shakespeare's Pecularity' (one pecularity is that it comprises 28 lines of printed text headed by the number 5: 28+5=33 Bacon in simple cipher) commences on page 133: 133 a split cipher for Francis Bacon (100)/Bacon (33) in simple cipher.

The sixth chapter 'The Original Genius' begins on page 157 (see a facsimile of it in an above post): 157 Fra Rosicrosse (Brother of the Rosy Cross) in simple cipher.

The last page falls on page 386 opposite which is a blank page (representing the true, concealed and invisible author of the Shakespeare works?) that would be page 387: 387 a double cipher for Francis Bacon (100) in simple cipher and Fra Rosicrosse (287) in kay cipher.

 Now just who is the true concealed invisible author of the Shakespeare works?

Well I have left a small clue in the last image!

 

 

JB7.jpg

JB4.jpg

JB6.jpg

JB2.jpg

JB8.jpg

FBF.png

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind words A Phoenix.❤️

And what to say about your last post ?

Once again, this is awesome ! 😮  Great findings  !❤️

And thank you for sharing !

Did you noticed the last two numbers of the index .  102 and  TODOR 222 !

Another coincidences ? I don't think so ! 😃

I also like the fact that the index begins on page 373 . Could it be a reference to the 373th page of the First Folio ?

336451694_2022-06-26(4).png.46dd9acc5040bf9f37bd34fd19db10d0.png

And what to say about the page 33 ?

1682893014_2022-06-26(3).png.f783f69acb7dd9a1f59a118d8047307b.png

Did he ever leave any hints in these plays as to his true identity ? 😄

 

Edited by Allisnum2er
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

When I was preparing the previous post on The Genuis of Shakespeare by Jonathan Bate, I was immediately thinking of you and Rob, on account that the two of you provide analysis and insights that only you two can.

Since Friday morning I have been pretty much in full web development/administrative mode solving serious issues and technology with a new client. It is usually the hat I wear every day. But I have had a slow few months and have been all about Bacon.

Funny, I stop in the B'Hive all day when I can, thinking in the back of my brain. But the Baconian "scientific" rigid hat for computer work changes my mind processes and it takes the Shakespearean/Rosicrucian "creative and imaginative" hat to seek ciphers. Obviously it is not a switch that I can flip and go from one to the other in an instant! 🙂

 

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday evening, my last research brought me back to the fifteenth page of the First Folio.

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/15/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html

I took it as a sign, an invitation to take a closer look at this page.

And here is the day's pick 😊 ...

JANUS.png.ebd5a8694417ffa02937346d1431aec4.png

PRINCE F. BACON , THE SON OF THE VIRGIN

ARGOS is the French name of ARGUS.

Do you know that there are TWO Argus (Son of Arestor) in the Greek Mythology ?

ARGOS.png.e41f00ba49ccb22e67130a58fef682ff.png

And the last but not the least ...

1952348589_WillJanus.png.b198f974bbc0fa3c40a6d63b346243ef.png

 

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Yann et al, What do we know about Vladimir Nabokov? Second stunning coincidence of the day, I came to post what I’m about to post here earlier and decided not to as I don’t know who to credit.  I had screen shotted a tweet with 2 pages of Nabokov entitled Shakespeare, but didn’t note who posted it. 
 

Anyway, I had seen the word genius in it and then thought I saw Bacon’s name. I don’t know anything about Nabokov though or if he’d be doing this(?)
 

The coincidence is that I just checked my Twitter feed and the first tweet to meet my eyes was from a guy who AP and I know who is caught between de Vere and Bacon (but tends to side with de Vere) asking who wants to talk about Nabokov!
 

Anyway, here’s the screenshots (I will remove if there’s an issue about no link). What caught my eye as we’d been discussing ‘genius’ was the lines:

”concealing for all time your monstrous genius beneath a mask” 

F Bacon is in those words.

634B6D09-3770-47E2-A5FA-64A761B0A9B6.jpeg.0cba96b4fe79cdfa25413e94a778439f.jpeg
FEFB3B6A-EC20-417F-8012-91EC1D26B181.jpeg.0d58ab23aabac3198393d960d474d188.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Wow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is clearly referring to Bacon!!

image.png.53946b061a0afe458664fd124827aa7b.png

Lethe, I had to look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethe

In Classical Greek, the word lethe (λήθη) literally means "oblivion", "forgetfulness", or "concealment".[3] It is related to the Greek word for "truth", aletheia (ἀλήθεια), which through the privative alpha literally means "un-forgetfulness" or "un-concealment".

He is saying Shakespeare was Bacon's "beloved Lethe".

Edited by Light-of-Truth
  • Like 3

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ir appears he was a probably Baconian:

https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/718

Vladimir Nabokov's 1947 novel Bend Sinister has long been considered problematic and over-ambitious. ... It is my contention that Nabokov employs the crackpot theories of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, a proponent of the theory that Francis Bacon composed the works of William Shakespeare, as an outlandish tool for reconciling the novel's contradictions, a makeshift mechanism for incorporating the deistic narrator, ghostly Olga and Vladimir Nabokov, the true author, into a metaphor for an otherworld that, Nabokov insisted, was unimaginable.

Maybe something to read:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1g69xb9.14?seq=1

This looks interesting to on a quick scan, but my eyes are SHOT tonight:

http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/new-or-little-known.pdf

In Bend Sinister Bacon is evoked primarily as a token of cryptography via alleged
acrostics in Shakespeare (and secondarily as a cipher for science), while in Pale Fire he
serves, concealed, as an icon for hidden things that may be discovered by the careful and
curious. There is no lack of cryptograms in Lolita, either, and Bacon’s presence along
with the “paper chase” and its Shakespearian overtones brings on a double-edged
concern. On the one hand, it encourages the continued quest for concealed messages in
Lolita and perhaps other works as well (most such quests have been successful in varying
degrees); on the other, Nabokov’s disparagement of Baconian acrostic-seekers in Speak,
Memory
(20) (thanks to Jansy Mello for reminding me of this passage)—they serve as his
analogue of Freudian symbol-hunters!—combines with the paper chase’s ultimate futility
to suggest that such code-breaking may be beside the point.

There is no doubt that anagrams, cryptograms, and acrostics play a significant role
in several of Nabokov’s works. To the extent that all of these in some manner hark back
to Bacon, they remind us of hidden secrets, of the deceptive simplicity of the visible, and
the quest for true knowledge about ultimate sources. Humbert’s situation is much clearer:
he could, if he wanted, come to know something of the true Dolly Haze. But his
obsession makes it impossible for him to do so; we readers are left to view what we can
of her through the bars and cobwebs of his mind.

Edited by Light-of-Truth
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kate, I do not know anything about Nabokov ! Thank you for sharing ! 🙏

Here are some ideas regarding possible anagrams .

image.png.3564904fa0f4b99e0626a58d82810ecf.png

100 = FRANCIS BACON simple cipher

Right after the hundred-eyed ARGOS, the hundred-mouthed bard ! 😉 

And the Boar's head can be a reference to the Emblem "In Dies Meliora".

Have a great day !

  • Like 3

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kate said:

“No! At the distant hour when you felt banished” surely refers to when Bacon’s name was traduced in the bribery scandal?!  

Or maybe when he "died" on Easter Sunday 1626? Either might fit! Especially to those who know.

😉

 

  • Like 3

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/29/2022 at 2:32 AM, Light-of-Truth said:

Ir appears he was a probably Baconian:

https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/718

Vladimir Nabokov's 1947 novel Bend Sinister has long been considered problematic and over-ambitious. ... It is my contention that Nabokov employs the crackpot theories of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, a proponent of the theory that Francis Bacon composed the works of William Shakespeare, as an outlandish tool for reconciling the novel's contradictions, a makeshift mechanism for incorporating the deistic narrator, ghostly Olga and Vladimir Nabokov, the true author, into a metaphor for an otherworld that, Nabokov insisted, was unimaginable.

Maybe something to read:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1g69xb9.14?seq=1

This looks interesting to on a quick scan, but my eyes are SHOT tonight:

http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/new-or-little-known.pdf

In Bend Sinister Bacon is evoked primarily as a token of cryptography via alleged
acrostics in Shakespeare (and secondarily as a cipher for science), while in Pale Fire he
serves, concealed, as an icon for hidden things that may be discovered by the careful and
curious. There is no lack of cryptograms in Lolita, either, and Bacon’s presence along
with the “paper chase” and its Shakespearian overtones brings on a double-edged
concern. On the one hand, it encourages the continued quest for concealed messages in
Lolita and perhaps other works as well (most such quests have been successful in varying
degrees); on the other, Nabokov’s disparagement of Baconian acrostic-seekers in Speak,
Memory
(20) (thanks to Jansy Mello for reminding me of this passage)—they serve as his
analogue of Freudian symbol-hunters!—combines with the paper chase’s ultimate futility
to suggest that such code-breaking may be beside the point.

There is no doubt that anagrams, cryptograms, and acrostics play a significant role
in several of Nabokov’s works. To the extent that all of these in some manner hark back
to Bacon, they remind us of hidden secrets, of the deceptive simplicity of the visible, and
the quest for true knowledge about ultimate sources. Humbert’s situation is much clearer:
he could, if he wanted, come to know something of the true Dolly Haze. But his
obsession makes it impossible for him to do so; we readers are left to view what we can
of her through the bars and cobwebs of his mind.

Re Bend Sinister take a look at this 

https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/nabokov-and-shakespeare/

Am I missing something or reading it incorrectly. In the face of all this evidence that Nabokov is clearly saying Bacon was the author by even quoting his phrase, is this article really saying this suggests Nabokov thought  Oxford (De Vere) was the author? I am genuinely confused.

6C802DEA-3367-4893-A44F-ECF243E7FD53.jpeg.3b4befeed94d0a243582b94e362a6ef2.jpeg

 

280CA421-BC33-437C-9777-8FE3FDAC80DB.jpeg.8b38814bc403bf88d742b314abb2942c.jpeg

 

3203F6F4-14A0-4B43-B71F-3E756BB2D398.png.45a0be986a4a5a6fdd3afd6db7b27a2b.png

F678C1BA-9788-4582-AF17-E905B31493B2.jpeg.5ca22a5a84aa7b88b8b8478f2f55f9c0.jpeg

 

8AA27DD7-95E4-4583-8827-1E77CF03DB3B.jpeg.fd4e09ba1ead9732f1bf0d5a84033fac.jpeg

 

 

Edited by Kate
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...