Jump to content

Baconian Ciphers - Misc.


CAB

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

Hi CAB,

Thank you. Personally, I was not familiar with this one.

image.png.fdb5c51f444587376a1088324af4a024.png

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/423/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html

It's the three O's that have my attention. Do I poke around, or go to bed? An early morning tomorrow.

This popped up twice today by chance and not sure why.

image.png.705fb427fbda219e588a6ef788934598.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

This one is extra interesting because it occurs on page 67 (“Francis” in Simple code) of the Comedies, in the play Measure for Measure, in the first column, eight lines from the bottom, we have the phrase

  “Mine were the verie Cipher of a Function”.

Not only do we have the teaser of the word “Cipher” in this line, but the letter count of the line = 33 (equal to “Bacon”), which added to the page number sums to ‘100’ and is equivalent to  “Francis Bacon”. We saw earlier the word Cypher also with a line count of 33 in the Henry V prologue.

 

Cipher_Function.jpg

  • Wow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5) There are only two instances in the First Folio of the number 33 being written out as part of the text. One is in the The Comedy of Errors. The other instance of the number 33 in the plays is in The Tragedie of Julius Caesar and it also stands out to us. I think I first learned of it in one of Peter Dawkin’s writings. Here in Act 5, Scene 1 (Folio pg. 127 of the Tragedies) is mentioned “Caesars three and thirtie wounds”. Though there is no other significant number associated with this instance (that I've noticed), what makes it stand out is the seeming excessive distortion from the historical number of 23 wounds Caesar received. There may be some other reason (than as a Bacon cipher) the playwright would choose to use 33 instead of 23, but it does seem odd since that if one were writing a play with a mind to stage it in a practical way for the actors, that a smaller number rather than a larger would be used. Has this play ever been staged with Caesar receiving 33 stabbings?

As mentioned, the written number of ‘thirty three’ or ‘three and thirty’ is only used in these two instances above. There are other instances of similar numbers, such as “two and thirty” or “five and thirty”. But none of them that I’ve examined have similar peculiarities to them. This can be searched here:

 

Three_Thirty_Wounds.jpg

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

Hmm, Tobie knew Bacon and has said a few things about him. Below is from the article linked above. I have not checked sources, but have no reason to question                    it's content.

Tobie Matthew writes about his friend Francis Bacon :

in a Dedicatory Letter prefacing an Italian translation of Bacon's Essays and Wisdom of Ancients (1617)

"And truly I have known a great number whom I much value, many whom I admire, but none who hath so astonished me and, as it were, ravished my senses, to see so many and so great parts which in other men were wont to be incompatible, united, and in that eminent degree in one sole person. I know not whether this truth will find easy belief.....The matter I report is so well understood in England, that every man knows and acknowledges as much, nay hath been an eye and ear witness whereof; nor if I should expatiate upon this subject, should I be held a flatterer, but rather a suffragan to truth......

 

This is a very powerful statement! 🙂

The matter I report is so well understood in England, that every man knows and acknowledges as much, nay hath been an eye and ear witness whereof; nor if I should expatiate upon this subject, should I be held a flatterer, but rather a suffragan to truth......

  • Like 2
  • Wow! 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

The other instance we note is one that occurs in the play The Comedie of Errors. It is mentioned in the Secret Shakespearean Seals book. Here we find the number 33 written out as “Thirtie three years”. What it has going for it as a possible hint of authorship is its proximity to the number “100” which is the page number above it. Again, the number 100 is the numerical equivalent in the Simple Alphabet of “Francis Bacon”. Sometimes the proximity of two or more primary signature numbers arouses a suspicion that the author wanted to keep authorship sleauths on their toes. Of course, it could also just be a coincidence.

By itself, this isn’t much and could be a coincidence. But it adds weight to the evidence when taken with other similar examples. Other Baconians, such as N.B. Cockburn in his The Bacon Shakespeare Question, and Barry Clarke in his The Bacon Shakespeare Puzzle have both provided extensive evidence and arguments, not involving ciphers, that Bacon wrote this play.

 

100_Thirtie-Three.jpg

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CAB said:

The other instance we note is one that occurs in the play The Comedie of Errors. It is mentioned in the Secret Shakespearean Seals book. Here we find the number 33 written out as “Thirtie three years”. What it has going for it as a possible hint of authorship is its proximity to the number “100” which is the page number above it. Again, the number 100 is the numerical equivalent in the Simple Alphabet of “Francis Bacon”. Sometimes the proximity of two or more primary signature numbers arouses a suspicion that the author wanted to keep authorship sleauths on their toes. Of course, it could also just be a coincidence.

By itself, this isn’t much and could be a coincidence. But it adds weight to the evidence when taken with other similar examples. Other Baconians, such as N.B. Cockburn in his The Bacon Shakespeare Question, and Barry Clarke in his The Bacon Shakespeare Puzzle have both provided extensive evidence and arguments, not involving ciphers, that Bacon wrote this play.

 

100_Thirtie-Three.jpg

I am sure we have discussed this page here before. It is a DOOZY! A. Phoenix quotes these lines on page 6 of this PDF:

The Hidden Baconian Acrostics and Anagrams in the Shakespeare First Folio

image.png.6d50767f2d97041e1d9993e31ee921f5.png

image.png

  • 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

As a reminder, I am posting these not just for the regulars here, who I know to be very familiar with these ciphers and codes. These are posts also for newer  and future visitors not yet familiar with this kind of evidence and meant to be easily found by them to peruse at their leisure.

So next is a variation of the number 33code and it’s attractive for a few reasons. In the play Measure for Measure Act 1, scene 2, in the 1st column of page 63 of the Comedies there is a passage with Claudio speaking. It begins with

 

Cla.   “Unhappily even so….”

 

Towards the end of his lines he says:

 

“…So long, that “ninteene Zodiacks have gone round,

And none of them beene worn; and, for a name

Now puts the drowsie and neglected act

Freshly on me: ‘tis surely for a name.”

 

 Then later and in the next column over we have the Duke speaking and he says:

 

“We have strict Statutes, and most biting Laws,

(The needful bits and curbes to headstrong weedes,)

Which for this foureteene years, we have let slip,”

They are speaking of the same thing yet they mention a different length of time. Some commentators have called this another “authorial error”.  Another writes "Commentators worry about the discrepancy between the 'nineteen zodiacs' mentioned earlier, and the 'fourteen years'. There is no reason to expect the Duke to be exact about a period of decline". One writer mentioned as an explanation the possibility of the manuscript using xiv and xix, or the Arabic numbers 4 and 9, and this might have created the confusion.

So maybe it was an error by the playwright, or the printer was confused. Or maybe the playwright wanted to give the impression that the Duke didn't care to be exact about such things. But why would an author want to give such an impression? There's no justification given. Compared to these possibilities the possibility of an author signature allusion seems as likely.

And so, as with the Julius Caesar 'three and thirtie' wounds 'authorial error' or 'printing error' we have another solved problem based upon Baconian signature cipher theory.  

So, here we have the numbers 19 and then 14 referring to the same period of time. It seems like an error. But they conveniently add up to 33. Perhaps the 'error' was meant to stand out to be noticed. Again, we twice have the reference to a name: "for a name" and "tis surely for a name". The word "hundred" (Simple code for Francis Bacon) is used 14 lines prior to this speech by Claudio. Also, when we count the words in the first passage mentioned, we find that after 67 words (67 = Francis in Simple code) we have the suggestive phrase "I stagger in". Perhaps the design is meant to be discovered only upon a closer inspection of the page.

So again we have the number 33 brought to our attention by an “error” that seems to be difficult for a playwright to have made, and within a text with repeated references to “for a name” and the count of 67 before a meaningful signature kind of phrase. And together they are not far from the count for 100. It looks capable of having been carefully arranged, as so many of these signature candidates do.

 

 

Nineteen_Zodiacs.jpg

Fourteen_Years.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The glory of God is to conceal a thing, but the glory of the King is to find it out; as if the Divine Nature, according to the innocent and sweet play of children, which hide themselves to the end they may be found, took delight to hide his works to the end they might be found out.” - Francis Bacon

 

Here's an intersting candidate to consider that in The Taming of the Shrew on page 222, the Kay count for “Fra Baconi”, we have a speech about disguised identity that he scorns to live in.  along with a possible anagram for “F Bakn” in the first letters of each line (not counting the first which is indented). "Fra Baconi" was used by Francis Bacon in some of his writings. Baconi was his name in Latin as I recall.

 

 

Scorn_Disguise.jpg

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

8 hours ago, CAB said:

“The glory of God is to conceal a thing, but the glory of the King is to find it out; as if the Divine Nature, according to the innocent and sweet play of children, which hide themselves to the end they may be found, took delight to hide his works to the end they might be found out.” - Francis Bacon

 

Here's an intersting candidate to consider that in The Taming of the Shrew on page 222, the Kay count for “Fra Baconi”, we have a speech about disguised identity that he scorns to live in.  along with a possible anagram for “F Bakn” in the first letters of each line (not counting the first which is indented). "Fra Baconi" was used by Francis Bacon in some of his writings. Baconi was his name in Latin as I recall.

 

 

Scorn_Disguise.jpg

Hi CAB

It's wonderful to have such a close reader of the Shakespeare plays here in the B'Hive. You are a literary detective alright. The Taming of the Shrew was on television again  today - the Zeffirelli 1967 version with Burton and Taylor at their finest. It must be one of the most successful translations of any Shakespeare play from stage to screen. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Eric. I hope to at least make a modest contribution to the cause, while recognizing that many others have already contributed very greatly, including both Lawrence Gerald and A Phoenix here, and likely others too. Also, just to clarify, in the previous post of the quote from Bacon re "The glory of god is to conceal a thing...". that was not a saying he invented but one he paraphrased from Proverbs 25.2. It seems though it was a favorite saying of his as he used it at least a couple times. 

Now, because The Bacon-Tobey cipher discovered by Mather Walker was recently mentioned, I think this is a good time to post my own analysis of it. Reviewing it again I think it could very well be one of those that, by itself, should provide proof of Bacon's involvement in the Shakespeare works, which most likely would include writing most, if not all, that ended up in the plays of the First Folio. Therefore I urge open-minded readers to give it extra consideration as to if they think they can or can't argue that it is most probably all by conincidence.  

My analysis is quite long and will need to be broken up into several parts.

The Bacon-Tobey acrostic, Part 1.

It was discovered and written about by Baconian Mather Walker. He researched it quite deeply. What I’m presenting are his basic findings that most pertain to my purpose along with some additional points I found supporting it. 

 The Bacon-Tobey acrostic is found on the second and third pages of The Tempest in the First Folio. The Friedmans did not examine this possible Baconian acrostic. Here is the first part, from page 2, 1st column:

 PROSPERO      Sit down;
      
For thou must now know farther.
 MIRANDA      You have often
      Begun to tell me what I am, but stopt     [stopp’d]
      And left me to a bootless Inquisition,
      Concluding, Stay: not yet.
PROSPERO      The hour's now come;
      The very minute bids thee ope thine ear;
      Obey and be attentive. Canst thou remember

 

Bacon-Tobey_1.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bacon-Tobey acrostic, Part 2.

Here we note that it does not follow the strict rule of a fixed chosen pattern to the pertinent letters. Critics will naturally focus on this. Also, as the Friedmans pointed out, the name of Bacon, especially with the last syllable ‘Con’ will likely be found in any lengthy text. Still, his name stands out with the first initial of his first name Francis, followed immediately by his last name.  This by itself, though, would be a very weak point of evidence as a hidden signature. The next portion strengthens it. Immediately following is Tobey, again not all with initial line letters. But the name Tobey stands out by its being contiguous with F Bacon

The importance of Tobey, to those unfamiliar with Bacon’s life, is that his closest friend was Tobie Matthew. 
So finding the two names together, even with the word ‘Obey’ to complete the name, is quite unusual and should alert anyone 
looking for authorship clues that this may be an intentional assertion by Bacon.  Also, the spelling is not far from 
what Bacon himself had used for his friend:  “I confess and declare that, as I remember, a good while after the cause ended, 
I received an hundred pounds, either by Mr. Tobye Matthew, or from Yong himself.” 

(Sorry about the formatting! I wrestling with it :classic_sad:)

It was to this Tobie Matthew that Bacon was in the practice of sending some of his works for review. For instance in one letter still extant, Bacon wrote:  “I have sent you some copies of The Advancement [of Learning] which you desired; and a little work of my recreation which you desired not [that he had not asked for]”. It was also to this Tobie Matthew that Shakespearian Professor James Shapiro went to for a quote showing how the language and ideas in the Shakespeare plays had entered popular discourse. He quotes Tobie Matthew paraphrasing Falstaff:  “Sir Francis Veer is coming towards the Low Countries, and Sir Alexander Ratcliff and Sir Robert Drury with him. ‘Honor pricks them on, and the world thinks that honor will quickly prick them off again’ ”. This is in reference to the play The First Part of Henry the Fourth where Falstaff says “Honor pricks me on. Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on?” See pg. 18 in A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare, 1599, Shapiro, 2005.

So far this would appear like a slightly unorthodox acrostic. But if the intent is to ‘conceal the message rather than proclaim it’ then an unorthodox form may be needed. This is because, as The Friedmans also pointed out “[anagrams and acrostics] abounded in the literature of the times.”[p.101] and “nor should we be surprised if these devices concern the authorship of the works, for they have often been used to this end. We should even be tolerant of variable and erratic spelling.”  At some points they insisted on a fixed pattern in order to determine validity. Yet at other times they accepted some ambiguity and agreed that any uncertainty could potentially be overcome. In their arguments of faulty patterns they did not look at this type that mix first letters with a contiguous first syllable or short word (like ‘Obey’). What they plainly didn’t like were samples with unclear, seemingly random, selection of letters, or those making up a group of letters and then used as an anagram. If an acrostic was used that followed some strict rule of letter insertion then it would be much more easily detectable and harder to deny if he were confronted with it. The above Bacon-Tobey acrostic should be examined on its own merits.

end of Part 2.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bacon-Tobey acrostic, Part 3.

But that’s not the end of this particular acrostic. What Walker found next was in the next over parallel column where on the line exactly next to the one “Begun to tell me what I am, but stopp’d” we find what appears as the beginning of another acrostic of first letters and a first syllable:

 

PROSPERO     I pray thee marke me:

I thus neglecting worldly ends, all dedicated

To closeness, and the bettering of my mind

with that, which but by being so retir’d

Ore-priz’d all popular rate:in my false brother

Awak’d an evill nature, and my trust

Like a good parent, did beget of him

This is simpler that the first part, but it stands out because 1) it’s a readable phrase “two alike”, 2) it’s directly next to and parallel in the next column to the first part, and 3) it perfectly represents the relationship of Francis Bacon and his friend Tobie Matthew. Bacon, in a letter to  Conde Condomar, who was the Spanish ambassador to England from 1613 to 1622, wrote, in Latin, “Prefectio domini Tobiae Matthaei, qui mihi est tanquam alter ego, ..” the second part translating as “who to me is like a second I”. And this is why a biography on Matthews was titled The Life of Sir Tobie Matthew, Bacon’s Alter Ego.

End of Part 3 of 5 parts.

Bacon-Tobey_2.jpg

Edited by CAB
input end of Part note
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bacon-Tobey acrostic, Part 4

So the phrase “two alike” fits the two contiguous names “F Bacon Tobey” perfectly. The possibility that this has occurred by chance in a Shakespeare play where Bacon is a leading possible hidden author would seem to be extraordinary. And still, the acrostic message doesn’t even appear to end there. On the following column, beginning just a few lines up from the start of the other two acrostic passages in the previous columns, was found another meaningful sequence, which is the following:

 

PROSPERO      Well demanded, wench.
      My tale provokes that question. Dear, they durst not,
      So dear the love my people bore me, nor set
      A mark so bloody on the business, but
      With colours fairer painted their foul ends.
      In few, they hurried us aboard a bark,

      Bore us some leagues to sea; where they prepared
      A rotten carcass of a boat, not rigg'd,
      Nor tackle, sail, nor mast; the very rats
      Instinctively had quit it: there they hoist us,
      To cry to the sea that roar'd to us, to sigh
      To the winds whose pity, sighing back again,

Or it can be read “BANITTO”. This seeming word is again directly across from the “Two alike” phrase (beginning a few lines higher). It stands out because of this relationship and just because it looks like a word. Upon further inspection it is very close to the Italian word ‘Bandito” which can translate to ‘Banished’.  The weak spot here would be the missing letter ‘d’.

End of Part 4 of 5 parts.
        Did us but loving wrong.

Bacon-Tobey_3.jpg

Edited by CAB
Entered end of part note.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bacon-Tobey acrostic, Part 5  (Sorry but I couldn't get this in fewer posts).

However, there are several points of argument that supports the supposition that it can convey the meaning of ‘Bandito’. 1) the sounding is nearly the same; 2) Shakespeare used a very similar spelling of the word as “Bandetto” in The Second Part of Henry VI on page 138 (25th line) of the First Folio and this is known to come from Italian ‘bandito’ which derived from earlier roots of bannire or old French ‘banir’ and we know Bacon was familiar with old French (and Italian) since some Law works were in that language.  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=banish  3) the similar sounds seem perfectly acceptable to the Friedmans who wrote: “since the Folio does not (and could not without arousing suspicion) contain the name of the author’s distinguished contemporaries, it would be reasonable to expect some such phonetic approximation. We do not therefore question certain strikingly odd spellings.” [p. 44]; 4) the scene’s context of ‘Banito’ is about Prospero discussing his own ‘banishment’ from Milan;  5) the idea of being banished fits perfectly BOTH Francis Bacon and his alter ego friend Tobie Matthew.  Bacon, after his impeachment for taking bribes in office was convicted and banished from London, the law courts, and Parliament.

 

Tobie Matthew was banished twice during the reign of King James I for declining to take the Oath of Allegiance. 
The first time in 1607-8. About these events Matthew used the term ‘banished’, but didn’t want to think of it as such: 
“Some nine years since, I was not banished, but absented only, with this clause, that I was not to returne, 
till his (Majestie’s) pleasure were first knowne.” The second time was a little after he returned to England in 1617 
and is again referred to with the word ‘banished’. In December of 1618 the Rev. Thomas Larkin, in a letter to 
Sir Thomas Pickering, says "Toby Matthew was yesterday, now a second time, banished the land,..”

And lastly, 6) there was a curious volume published anonymously in 1620 that connects the epithet ‘bandito’ to Tobie Matthew. In this translation it was titled A Relation of the Death of the Most Illustrious Lord Signor Troilo Savelli, a Baron of Rome / [translated from Italian] by Sir T.M. Knight.  This was ascribed to Sir Tobie Matthew by Henry Peacham in Truth of our Time (p. 102). A 1663 edition was titled The Penitent Bandito, or the Historie of the conversion and Death of the most illustrious Lord Signior Troilo Saavelli, a Baron of Rome. This edition is said to have Tobie Matthew’s name in Anthony a Wood’s handwriting. Wood was an antiquarian and ‘professed Rosicrucian’—a topic to be addressed later. But why the book was renamed ‘The Penitent Bandito’ isn’t known. Bacon would likely have known and read any book by his closest friend, and perhaps there is something in the book related to banishment which later came to mind in the preparation of The Tempest in the First Folio.

In any case, all of these apparent acrostics, associated by their clear parallel locations in successive columns, and with names and phrases perfectly suited to each other, must be extremely unlikely (in my opinion) to be a coincidence. Mather Walker calculated the probability at 181,606,990,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1, using the Friedman’s table of first-line letter occurrences in the Folio. The Friedman’s own test of authorship through acrostic or cipher put the odds necessary for validation at “1 chance in a thousand million” [p. 21] or 1,000,000,000 to 1.  If the probability of the Bacon-Tobey acrostic can be professionally calculated to be at or beyond this number then that by itself, according to the Friedmans, would prove Bacon’s authorship. But if the acrostic does not actually reach that probability, or if the ‘impure’ acrostic pattern is still a little questionable, then other possible ‘hidden bard’ signatures may be enough to settle any doubt.

 

And here is Mather Walker’s full article:

http://www.sirbacon.org/tobiematthew.htm

End of this 5 part series.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a much shorter one. Again, I like the candidates that have multiple things going for them as that makes them much less to be by chance.

In the play The Two Gentlemen of Verona, on significant page number 33, we have a song beginning with a question of identity: “Who is Silvia”. The name Silvia has a Kay count of 146, which equals the Latin name of ‘Baconi’ which is used on some of his books. In addition, in the right column across from this poem, starting at the bottom of the column, the first letter capitals spell out “TIS FB”, which, at least to me, is suggestive.

‘Tis’ is often used in the First Folio for “it is”.

 

Sylvia_TisFB.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a less valuable but still interesting finding because it has perplexed scholars both mainstream and in the non-Strat community for a long time.

This involves a character name and another play on identity found in the play As You Like It.  In Act 5, Scene 1, 1st column of page 204 of the Comedies, there is a segment of the play that some authorship supporters for the Earl of Oxford, Christopher  Marlowe, as well as Bacon have thought seems to transcend the action of the scene itself. This is where the clown Touchstone is talking to the character “William”. William here is portrayed as a kind of unlearned oaf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone_(As_You_Like_It).  Touchstone, the wit of the play is competing with William for Audrey and in this scene he means to embarrass William and warn him off. Touchstone has these lines:

 

Clo. Then learne this of me, To have, is to have. For

it is a figure in Rhetoricke, that drink being powr'd out

of a cup into a glasse, by filling the one, doth empty the

other. For all your Writers do consent, that ipse is hee:

now you are not ipse, for I am he.

Orthodox scholars think it’s ridiculous that there could be any meaning beyond the play’s apparent plot. To me the internal evidence suggests the playwright is stepping in and showing himself to the audience somewhat. The mentioning of “it is a figure of Rhetoricke” could just be used to bring in the word ‘figure’ as a hint of a possible cipher. Does he really mean to give the country lad William a lesson in Latin? (In the play The Merry Wives of Windsor a character named William is given a lesson in Latin but there William is literally a student and the character giving instruction is literally a teacher and the scene is literally one of a lesson in Latin.) If so, then how does the following line about ‘ipse’ connect to the “figure in Rhetoricke”? And what is the meaning of “your Writers do consent”?  Does he really think the unlearned William understands who his “writers” are?

Then in the next speech touchstone threatens William in what Shakespearean scholar Kittredge has said is statecraft terminology “bandy with thee in Faction” and “[o’er]-run thee with policy”, something that Bacon would definitely know. While other authorship skeptics have tried to construe the dialogue’s meaning to their authorship candidate, I thought the place to look would be in the character’s name. Normally, in modern editions the name of Touchstone is used throughout. But in the folio this name is not used to indicate him as a speaker. Instead it begins his entrance as “Enter Clowne” and then “Clo.” is used when he speaks. The simple count for “Clowne” is C=3, l=11, o=14, w=21, n=13, e=5 totaling 67, which equals the simple numerical count for “Francis”. So if the Clowne is “ipse” or “hee” and William is not “he” and the passage is about the concept of identity, then this has the feeling of a hidden signature about it. This is another instance where Baconian cipher theory seems to offer a solution that has been lacking.

 

 

Clown_Ipse.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2024 at 5:57 PM, CAB said:

The Bacon-Tobey acrostic, Part 5  (Sorry but I couldn't get this in fewer posts).

However, there are several points of argument that supports the supposition that it can convey the meaning of ‘Bandito’. 1) the sounding is nearly the same; 2) Shakespeare used a very similar spelling of the word as “Bandetto” in The Second Part of Henry VI on page 138 (25th line) of the First Folio and this is known to come from Italian ‘bandito’ which derived from earlier roots of bannire or old French ‘banir’ and we know Bacon was familiar with old French (and Italian) since some Law works were in that language.  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=banish  3) the similar sounds seem perfectly acceptable to the Friedmans who wrote: “since the Folio does not (and could not without arousing suspicion) contain the name of the author’s distinguished contemporaries, it would be reasonable to expect some such phonetic approximation. We do not therefore question certain strikingly odd spellings.” [p. 44]; 4) the scene’s context of ‘Banito’ is about Prospero discussing his own ‘banishment’ from Milan;  5) the idea of being banished fits perfectly BOTH Francis Bacon and his alter ego friend Tobie Matthew.  Bacon, after his impeachment for taking bribes in office was convicted and banished from London, the law courts, and Parliament.

 

Tobie Matthew was banished twice during the reign of King James I for declining to take the Oath of Allegiance. 
The first time in 1607-8. About these events Matthew used the term ‘banished’, but didn’t want to think of it as such: 
“Some nine years since, I was not banished, but absented only, with this clause, that I was not to returne, 
till his (Majestie’s) pleasure were first knowne.” The second time was a little after he returned to England in 1617 
and is again referred to with the word ‘banished’. In December of 1618 the Rev. Thomas Larkin, in a letter to 
Sir Thomas Pickering, says "Toby Matthew was yesterday, now a second time, banished the land,..”

And lastly, 6) there was a curious volume published anonymously in 1620 that connects the epithet ‘bandito’ to Tobie Matthew. In this translation it was titled A Relation of the Death of the Most Illustrious Lord Signor Troilo Savelli, a Baron of Rome / [translated from Italian] by Sir T.M. Knight.  This was ascribed to Sir Tobie Matthew by Henry Peacham in Truth of our Time (p. 102). A 1663 edition was titled The Penitent Bandito, or the Historie of the conversion and Death of the most illustrious Lord Signior Troilo Saavelli, a Baron of Rome. This edition is said to have Tobie Matthew’s name in Anthony a Wood’s handwriting. Wood was an antiquarian and ‘professed Rosicrucian’—a topic to be addressed later. But why the book was renamed ‘The Penitent Bandito’ isn’t known. Bacon would likely have known and read any book by his closest friend, and perhaps there is something in the book related to banishment which later came to mind in the preparation of The Tempest in the First Folio.

In any case, all of these apparent acrostics, associated by their clear parallel locations in successive columns, and with names and phrases perfectly suited to each other, must be extremely unlikely (in my opinion) to be a coincidence. Mather Walker calculated the probability at 181,606,990,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1, using the Friedman’s table of first-line letter occurrences in the Folio. The Friedman’s own test of authorship through acrostic or cipher put the odds necessary for validation at “1 chance in a thousand million” [p. 21] or 1,000,000,000 to 1.  If the probability of the Bacon-Tobey acrostic can be professionally calculated to be at or beyond this number then that by itself, according to the Friedmans, would prove Bacon’s authorship. But if the acrostic does not actually reach that probability, or if the ‘impure’ acrostic pattern is still a little questionable, then other possible ‘hidden bard’ signatures may be enough to settle any doubt.

 

And here is Mather Walker’s full article:

http://www.sirbacon.org/tobiematthew.htm

End of this 5 part series.

Great work CAB! Greatly appreciate it.

Mather's favorite play was  The Tempest. He wrote about having a peak experience revelation once while viewing the play. His discovery of the Tobey-Bacon Fun Pun Acrostic deserves more attention while William Friedman  deserves  more attention for MISSING IT!

Two A Like : TObey or not TObey can be answered as TWO BE as One.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much Lawrence! I'm glad that I could add something to Mather's great discovery. And also to the great discoveries by A Phoenix, Light-of-Truth, Eric, Allisnum2er and others current and past of the Bacon-Shakespeare truth seekers. I realize that most of the ciphers I post were originally discovered by others so I try to at least add some additional insights or analysis to them. Perhaps at some point we may see if we can select a subset of all the known ciphers that we think are the  most unlikely to be argued as occurring from chance and could withstand scrutiny from at least the non-Stratfordian community. This would strengthen the already strong non-cipher evidence.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another one that will be a little lengthy but I will see if I can get it on one post.

This is also from As You Like It - and is found near the top of the first column on page 197 in scene 3.2. Here the characters Jaques and Orlando are engaging in a bit of banter about which one of them is a fool, and includes this piece of their conversation:

 

Jaq. By my troth, I was seeking for a Foole, when I found you.

Orl. He is drown’d in the brooke, looke but in, and you shall see him.

Jaq. There I shal see mine owne figure.

Orl. Which I take to be either a foole, or a Cipher.

 

The solution here must consider that though Jacques will see his owne figure, what figure will he see? The simple count for Jaques is 69, the Kay count is 147. Neither of those fits the expected Bacon signature counts. But Jaques is also a “foole” according to Orlando. And Orlando takes the figure of Jaques to be either that of a “foole” or a Cipher. The simple count for “foole” is 50, the Kay count is 102. Neither of these make cipher sense either. But Orlando says that Jaques will see the foole or Cipher when he looks in the brooke. When Jaques looks in the brooke he sees his reflection and at that moment the “foole” or “Cipher” is seen. The “two fooles” together (himself and his reflection) add up to 100 which is the simple Cipher, and a figure, for “Francis Bacon”.

         Additionally, the word “foole” as a reflection can be seen to contain the figure “100” in the reverse of “ool” or “loo” or “100”. This also has some semblance to a cipher candidate in King Lear where there is the phrase twice asking “Where’s my foole?” I will discuss it more later.

 

We’ve seen that in this play of As You Like It two of the signature ciphers were related to the words “Clowne” and “Foole”. So I then found it interesting that also in this play in the last scene, on page 206, second column about a third of the way down, there is Duke Senior saying:

 

Du.Se. He uses his folly like a stalking-horse, and under the presentation of that he shoots his wit.

 

 

Defintions of a “Stalking-horse” include the following:

 

1.      Something used to cover one's true purpose; a decoy.

2.      A person or thing that is used to conceal someone’s real intentions.

3.      Something used to mask a purpose.

4.      Something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason

5.      A person whose participation in a proceeding is made use of to prevent its real design from being suspected.

In cryptology this idea has been termed the “cover” text concealing a “plain” text. So Duke Senior refers to the Clowne as one who pretends to be a fool in order to “shoot his wit”. Obviously the playwright understands the concept and uses the plays often to “shoot his wit”. Also, we know that the court 'fool' had express permission to speak 'truth to power'. So is it really that much more of a stretch to consider that a great wit as this playwright was could step up this “stalking horse” concept to camouflage more than he’s been given credit for?  Spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham also used this term of a stalking-horse, so it seems to have had usage in intelligence circles at the time.

 

 

 

Foole_or_Cipher.jpg

Stalking_horse.jpg

  • Wow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
As You Like It - A Bacon-Tudor Family Affair 
 
7b48b1_d47c3d89fca248709e50c3ab36ddbb66~
The pastoral drama As You Like It belongs in the tradition of entertainments put on for Queen Elizabeth stretching back to the magnificent entertainment provided for her by Leicester at Kenilworth, at Bisham produced and written by Bacon, and the dramatic devices written by Bacon for the Earl of Essex to be presented on her Anniversary Day in 1592 and 1595. The device Of Love and Self-Love written by Bacon in 1595 includes two speeches delivered by a Hermit: The Hermits first Speech and The Hermits Second Speech in the Presence, in wish of Contemplation or Studies who in the device is dressed as a philosopher representing Contemplation. The figure of the Hermit is repeatedly referred to in several Shakespeare plays dating from around the period: I Henry VI, Titus Andronicus, Love’s Labour’s Lost, Richard II, The Merchant of Venice, and As You Like It.
 
The court of Queen Elizabeth permeates the background of the play. The role of Rosalind, daughter of Duke Senior shares similarities with Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester informs the figures of Duke Senior and Sir Rowland de Boys, with their royal son Robert Tudor Devereux, reflected in the usurping brother Duke Frederick (Essex attempted to usurp Bacon’s claim on the throne) and the character of Orlando, youngest son of Sir Rowland de Boys, a dramatic refraction of his blood father Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.
  • Wow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much A  Phoenix for the added explanations to As You Like It!  This is a big help in seeing the play's relationship to Bacon and his world at the time. 

Here is a candidate that is more speculative and a bit of a stretch. But it seemed to invite a closer look and so I obliged. It is in The two Gentlemen of Verona, on page 24 of the Folio. There are three characters speaking. Valentine, one of the Gentlemen in the play, is pursuing Silvia. His servant is named Speed. Silvia has asked Valentine to write love letters for her to give to her secret friend to whom she’s attracted. What Valentine doesn’t catch on to, and that his servant Speed uses banter to awaken this insight, is that Silvia’s secret friend is Valentine himself. And that she had asked him to write a love letter “to one she loves” and so it would be a letter to himself. Silvia is pleased with Valentine’s effort “ ’tis very Clerkly-done”. Valentine complains that he didn’t know who it was for so he wrote doubtfully. When he asks if she liked the letter he wrote, Silvia replies “Yes, yes” saying “the lines are very quaintly writ” but she observes that they were done unwillingly. Valentine persists and says “Madam, they are for you”. To which Silvia then responds with some frustration this time “I, I” [meaning Aye, Aye] and that he had only written them for her because it was at her request and that she now doesn’t want them. When Silvia leaves then Speed complains to him that he had missed the jest and tries to explain it to him.

 

In their following banter we have:

 

Speed. To your selfe: why, she woes [woos] you by a figure.

Val. What figure?

Speed. By a Letter, I should say.

…………..

Val. She gave me none, except an angry word.

Speed. Why she hath given you a Letter.

Val. That’s the Letter I writ to her friend.

Speed. And y [that] letter hath she deliver’d, & there an end.

So in these passages there is an emphasis on a Letter, and which Speed says is a ‘figure’ and that it’s being used to woo Valentine. Valentine never did get this jest or riddle and Speed stopped trying to get him to understand. Yet there seemed to be some more double meanings involved. A ‘Letter’ can also refer to a letter of the alphabet. And a figure can of course be a number. Modern editors assume that here ‘figure’ means a “figure of rhetoric” yet Speed doesn’t seem to be suggesting that Silvia was trying to woo Valentine with a rhetorical figure. “To woo” can also mean “to tempt or invite” as if the reader is somehow being tempted to figure something out. So if a letter of the alphabet was being referred to, then which letter was it? There seem to be clues suggesting that it is the letter ‘I’.  This letter is self-referential and in the scene the talk is about a letter being written to oneself. Valentine says that Silvia had given him “an angry word”. And when Silvia was a bit angry with Valentine’s denseness she says “I, I” [“aye, aye” for “yes, yes”] whereas just a few lines earlier the word is spelt as “Yes, yes”.  And when Speed said to Valentine that “she hath given you a Letter”, Valentine replied with “That’s the Letter I ….”

So why would the letter ‘I’ be hinted at in a jest? Well, the numerical figure associated with it is the number ‘9’. And why might the playwright want readers to derive this number?  The only thing I can see is that it combines with the page number 24 to sum to 33 and that makes it meaningful. The self-referential ‘I’ and the figure ‘33’ together can suggest “I, Bacon”. This is similar to the 19 zodiacs and 14 years candidate we looked at earlier. From the Baconian authorship perspective this solves the riddle. Otherwise the dialogue can seem lacking at the end.

 

 

 

Speed-Woo.jpg

Speed-Letter.jpg

  • Wow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA

In the early play The Two Gentlemen of Verona Bacon again names one of his characters Antonio, named after his brother Anthony Bacon, the father of Proteus, one of the two gentlemen of Verona. One of the fables in Bacon’s The Wisdom of the Ancients is ‘Proteus; Or Matter’. In Greek mythology Proteus was able to change his shape at will and adopt different forms and disguises just as Bacon would disguise himself behind his literary mask Shakespeare. In the fable Bacon tells us that Proteus was a thrice excellent prophet for he knew the past, present and the future, who was the keeper and messenger of secrets.

 
7b48b1_30a9b6a4561f45b8a47a71a2d6d65afe~
The play is a discourse on male friendship with homoerotic undertones within a homosocial structure that formed an important part of the hidden world of Francis and Anthony Bacon who was charged with homosexuality in France which carried the death penalty, only for him to be saved by the intervention of his close friend and confidant King Henry of Navarre. In his essay Of Friendship Bacon observes ‘a friend was far more then himself’, and no one was more of a friend to him, than his brother Anthony Bacon.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA

In the early play The Two Gentlemen of Verona Bacon again names one of his characters Antonio, named after his brother Anthony Bacon, the father of Proteus, one of the two gentlemen of Verona. One of the fables in Bacon’s The Wisdom of the Ancients is ‘Proteus; Or Matter’. In Greek mythology Proteus was able to change his shape at will and adopt different forms and disguises just as Bacon would disguise himself behind his literary mask Shakespeare. In the fable Bacon tells us that Proteus was a thrice excellent prophet for he knew the past, present and the future, who was the keeper and messenger of secrets.

 
7b48b1_30a9b6a4561f45b8a47a71a2d6d65afe~
The play is a discourse on male friendship with homoerotic undertones within a homosocial structure that formed an important part of the hidden world of Francis and Anthony Bacon who was charged with homosexuality in France which carried the death penalty, only for him to be saved by the intervention of his close friend and confidant King Henry of Navarre. In his essay Of Friendship Bacon observes ‘a friend was far more then himself’, and no one was more of a friend to him, than his brother Anthony Bacon.

 

 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Proteus-Greek-mythology

 

 

Glaucus-et-scylla-jacques-dumont-romain-

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glaucus-et-scylla-jacques-dumont-romain-musee-troyes.JPG

 

  • Wow! 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CAB said:

Here is a candidate that is more speculative and a bit of a stretch. But it seemed to invite a closer look and so I obliged. It is in The two Gentlemen of Verona, on page 24 of the Folio.

Hi CAB,

I like this candidate ! 🙂 

Here are some thoughts and ideas after a quick glance to the page.

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/42/?zoom=1275

image.png.75867f8991b70249391a7abf723287c4.png

"That's the Letter I writ to her friend." can be linked to "As you injoynd me ; I have write your Letter ..." followed by

"Vnto the secret, nameles friend of yours" that contains 33 letters 🙂 

33 = BACON

Interestingly, by counting from "As you injoynd me ; I have write your Letter ..." the 24th line is ...

"I,I : you writ them Sir, at my request" that contains 27 letters (3^3)

As you said I = 9 (simple cipher) 9 = 3x3

And 9 + 24 = 33

And by counting from "As you injoynd me ; I have write your Letter..." the 33rd and 34th lines are ...

Oh Jest unseene, inscrutible : invisible, ( 33 letters 🙂 )

As a nose on a mans face, or a Wethercocke on a steeple

33 = BACON

33 + 34 = 67 = FRANCIS

 

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you again A Phoenix and Eric for adding to an understanding of the play. And Allisnum2, that really is something in all that can be found in closer examinations of the texts. It seems amazing that Bacon could have planned it all out but I think he was genius enough to do just that - add in various ciphers as he is writing or possibly also as he helped in preparing the pages for printing.

-------------------

This next signature candidate is found on the first page of Hamlet in the folio (Page 152 of the Tragedies) where it begins with another question of identity. This may have been posted before somewhere on this site, in which case I am merely adding my own commentary on it. The character Barnardo, a sentinel at Ellsinore castle, is relieving his fellow sentinel “Francisco”. As in a couple of earlier examples our thoughts are primed with a name like Francis in a context of uncertain identity. Francisco responds to Barnado and there is this exchange:

 

Bar. Who’s there?

Fran. Nay answer me: Stand & unfold your selfe.

Bar. Long live the King.

Fran. Barnardo?

Bar. He.

Fran. You come most carefully upon your houre.

(see first image)

It struck me that the term “unfold” is the inverse of the one Bacon himself used when discussing encryption in his Bi-literarie Alphabet: “It containeth the highest degree of Cypher, which is to signifie omnia per omnia, yet so as the writing infolding, may beare a quintuple proportion to the writing infolded; no other condition or restriction whatsoever is required.” This is found on page 265 of 1640 The Advancement of Learning.  (see second image)

Now, the word “unfold” is used elsewhere by Shakespeare to mean “disclose” and here it would mean the same. But it can have an extra meaning, as Bacon himself would be likely to use, and then “unfold your self” can mean “decipher (literally) your identity”.  Again, the variation of the name of Francis (in “Francisco”) at this important point in the text, with a question of identity, and a demand to reveal oneself using cipher terminology that Bacon has used, then followed closely by a phrase with one of the numerical counts for a Bacon signature, does seem to be an unlikely coincidence. This is the only scene in the play with Francisco in it. The name of Francis, or a variation on it, is only slightly used by Shakespeare and the few times that it is used there seem to be hidden signatures connected with it. Incidentally, the Friedmans also used the term ‘unfold’ in their book. On page 261 they write “What this meant, in all probability, was that in any given case the sense of the message as it unfolded itself would dictate whether a letter should be assigned …”

In this case we have “Fran” and then a letter count of 33, which can allude to “Francis Bacon”. This line is the only one in this column (I didn’t check the second column) with a letter count of 33. 

We can further the suspicion if we refer to non-cipher evidence connecting Bacon to this play. He’s the only authorship candidate known to have read the play’s main source from the Norse tale by Saxo Grammaticus. This source was not printed in English until 1608, after the known date of the play. Bacon, of course, could easily have read the French version, while the actor from Stratford would not be able to, nor likely have it read to him by another:

There are also numerous language and legal idea parallels of the play related to Bacon’s writings which increase the probability of this being an intentionally coded signature.

 

 

 

Unfoldyourself.jpg

Unfold2.jpg

  • Wow! 4
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
×
×
  • Create New...