Jump to content

Who is in the "MONVMENT" and "decks" this tombe?


Recommended Posts

This has often made me chuckle: ref: the epitaph under the effigy of the Stratford monument: we are told to "stay" and "read if thou canst"  who is "with in this monument" and a litter further on we are told the name "decks" or decorates "this tombe" but we know the monument is not a tomb, and anyway the actual tomb has no name other than "IESVS" inscribed.

epitaph.jpg.762c90ec8e4eb7cac50adbc17e53bbd6.jpg

The question is who's name is hidden, and how can we extract it?

Is anyone interested enough to chat about this subject?

 

 

 

  • Like 4

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, peethagoras said:

This has often made me chuckle: ref: the epitaph under the effigy of the Stratford monument: we are told to "stay" and "read if thou canst"  who is "with in this monument" and a litter further on we are told the name "decks" or decorates "this tombe" but we know the monument is not a tomb, and anyway the actual tomb has no name other than "IESVS" inscribed.

epitaph.jpg.762c90ec8e4eb7cac50adbc17e53bbd6.jpg

The question is who's name is hidden, and how can we extract it?

Is anyone interested enough to chat about this subject?

 

 

 

Thanks for posting this image of the text on the monument. The clearest I've ever seen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Eric, don't mention it. Yes it seems to be an exact copy of the original with bells on. I have no idea where I got it from, there seems to be no copyright issues. Someone has gone to a great deal of effort to tidy it up. Thanks to whoever it was. It's only a shame the church at Stratford could not do the same to the monument and gravesones - make excellent legible copies and store the originals away for safety.

  • Like 2

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2024 at 8:47 AM, peethagoras said:

This has often made me chuckle: ref: the epitaph under the effigy of the Stratford monument: we are told to "stay" and "read if thou canst"  who is "with in this monument" and a litter further on we are told the name "decks" or decorates "this tombe" but we know the monument is not a tomb, and anyway the actual tomb has no name other than "IESVS" inscribed.

epitaph.jpg.762c90ec8e4eb7cac50adbc17e53bbd6.jpg

The question is who's name is hidden, and how can we extract it?

Is anyone interested enough to chat about this subject?

Peter Dawkins has a wonderful essay that is well worth reading:

https://www.fbrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/The_Stratford_Shakespeare_Monument.pdf

image.png.e2607edec777dc7574d97755a38e19b3.png

  • Like 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

4 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Peter Dawkins has a wonderful essay that is well worth reading:

Yes I know his stuff well. I was once a member of his thing. But I found him too much into secret handshakes for my taste, but there you go.

He certainly has been over the numbers and letters in the monument, but to my way of thinking he has missed so much.

But he never says who's name is hidden with in this MONVMENT or on this TOMBE.

An example of things he seems unable to grasp concern the first two lines in the epitaph, the Latin text. If we consider 33 being the 'Bacon number', then what are we to make of the initials of first and last three words:

pigman.png.aefed870b38b7def112793b853392677.png

Can we imagine  ==>  P I G   HOM  <==  as meaning pig man? Ergo Bacon?

The letters form 3 3 as well.

What about the other initials? S A M T T P ?

their alphabet values after adding give 69: the number of NUMBER.

Or even (stretching a bit more) FRANCIS B.

 

  • Wow! 1

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2024 at 1:47 PM, peethagoras said:

The question is who's name is hidden, and how can we extract it?

Doubting Thomas

This is my take on the Stratford monument and graves thing. Textual tons have been hammered out with many theories, but I have yet to see anyone offer an answer to the big question in the monument epitaph.

The observer is offered a challenge:

Read if thou canst whom envious death hath placed with in this monument Shakespeare....... whose name doth deck this Tombe.....

The observer is challenged to read who is the this monument, and whose name decks (decorates) this Tombe.  To any reasonable and sensible mind the name Shak_peare (with a missing e) is already given, so what the heck is going on?

The answer to this puzzle requires one to think out of the box a little:

We are given this challenge: read if we can who is in THIS  MONVMENT.

My answer is TOM  NVMEN

What is NVMEN or numen? It is a Latin word which means "divine will, divinity," and is literally "a nod" (the notion being "divine approval expressed by nodding the head"), from nuere "to nod".

So in MONVMENT we read TOM and divine approval via the nod of a head. A head nodding will become pertinent later.

Next we are to read a name that decks, or decorates THIS  TOMBE.

TOMBE  holds the same name as MONVMENT,  that being TOM.

But what about the two remaining letters in TOMBE,  B and E?

According to the alphabet B = 2 and E = 5,

So TOMBE becomes TOM 2 5.

What does 2 and 5 signify? First we must consider that TOM is an English short version of THOMAS.

(That being a late Greek name Θωμᾶς - meaning twin?).

Next we count down the English text to line 2 word 5 which is WHOM. Note the spelling: the same word appears a little later, only this time the spelling is correct for the period: WHOME.

Why the difference? because the 5th word in English line 2 is WHOM and makes WHO M.

What does it mean? It points to someone with the initial M.

     Back to TOMBE which is now TOM 2 5.

We have English line 2 word 5, so now we read English line 5 word 2 which is MORE.

So now we see that WHO M was meant to point at WHO MORE.

Putting MORE with TOM gives TOM MORE, and here we can surmise that we are meant to read THOMAS MORE.

In fact, we are probably meant to think Sir Thomas More, the man who defied Henry VIII and paid the price for it by losing his head. Thus: Thomas More, connects to numen , a divine spirit and a nodding head.

Centuries later Sir Thomas More was made a saint by the Roman Catholic church.

Having arrived at the name, we can consider the fact that Sir Thomas More wrote Utopiæ , and that tale was no doubt of interest to Bacon, when he set forth with his own book New Atlantis.

It can be shown that the Monument Epitaph contains the word ATLANTIS, and it is not difficult to see it, if one were to look in a certain way. But that's another matter.

 

 

  • Wow! 1

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, peethagoras said:

Yes I know his stuff well. I was once a member of his thing. But I found him too much into secret handshakes for my taste, but there you go.

I met Peter Dawkins when I was a tiny baby in the Bacon world. I'd say my first year or so after being interested in Bacon in 1997/8. Peter, Lawrence, and myself sat in the SirBacon.org website laboratory in the East Bay of California. And then we took a truly Royal Tour of San Francisco Bay tasting the best sushi and taking in the very finest views.

For me, Peter Dawkins in person and in his books, without ever saying anything nor suggesting any tests to pass introduced me into some kind of indescribable Baconian Invisible College treasure hunt that I still pursue. In this curious Invisible College reality in which I reside I never need to share any personal data or need a password, and I've never seen or expected a bill. All this may very well be in my active imagination. Nobody can prove I am a member of a society nobody can prove exists. I cannot even prove it to myself, but I suspect it exists and I might be a member. 😉

 

Is there a "secret handshake"? If there is, I am curious what it is. 🙂

To me, the "secret handshake" is the fire and passion that makes us even interested in Francis Bacon.

🙂

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 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

I liked NUMEN inside MONUMENT, and I agree that Bacon is clearly using letters and numbers in an inventive manner here, but I find it hard to believe that Thomas More should deserve that kind of attention. If it could be shown that Bacon found something very interesting in More's Utopia, or that he made use of Utopia in a way that would help us understand Bacons's project better, then this kind of focus on More would make more sense to me.  I have already argued that I think Francis Bacon is concealed in the monument, in the form of his initials (here). I think we also find one of his aliases, Hiram Abif, in the form of the initials HA.

The line you focus on is ungrammatical, since it lacks punctuation after MONUMENT. One way to make it grammatical is by reading the S in SHAKESPEARE as a genitive. After the genitive, we find Hiram Abif’s initials HA:

READ IF THOU CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST, WITH IN THIS MONVMENT’S HA

Now the challenge given is what is concealed within the initials HA. I think this is a hint:

WITH IN THIS M O = WIT H IN THIS M O

WITH IN THIS M O = WIT HINT H IS M O (O indicating a cipher).

image.png.6877df2b5c3050f5a3dd65ed20ecfc7c.png

 

The H should be moved 4 steps in the alphabet, to make an M. Doing this also with the A, the initials HA becomes ME

HA -> IB -> KC -> LD -> ME

This could be taken as someone communicating that HA (Hiram Abif) is ME.

The initials HA correspond to the number 81. Counting from the end of the inscription, and counting ligatures as one letter, letter number 81 is the ligature ME inside NAME, which could be taken as confirming that we are supposed to make HA into ME inside SHAKSPEARE’s name. The idea of counting HA = 81 is supported by ME C, TEL HA found by reading every third letter up to HA in HATH (C = 100 = FRANCIS BACON, TELL is frequently printed as TEL in the First Folio).

image.png.81b654c5faf97283139ecbf8d0e73a28.png

  

Edited by Hen. W.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hen. W. said:

letter number 81 is the ligature ME inside NAME

One might even pretend that NAME, when read as NA ME, and numbered, becomes 14 ME where 14 = Dee.

That's the weird NA TURE of the thing.

 

  • Like 1

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE might make THOMAS NUMEN SEEK PAR

where P A R = 15  1  17 and adds to 33

so: MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE becomes THOMAS NUMEN SEEK 33

or perhaps THOMAS  NUMEN  33  KEES

 

In passing: the 33rd word in the epitaph is MONVMENT.

 

  • Like 1

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why was Thomas More so important to Bacon that he made the epitaph about him? What is Bacon trying to tell us by hiding his name in the epitaph? (If I got the same question about Hiram Abif, I would say that Bacon is telling us that his project is closely connected to Freemasonry, and that he himself had a prominent role in the founding of Freemasonry).

Edited by Hen. W.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Hen. W. said:

But why was Thomas More so important to Bacon that he made the epitaph about him?

Hello Hen,W.

I am not able to guess what was in the minds of those who crafted the Shakespeare project. I can guess that much of what we read, including the epitaph and graves in Stratford, was the handiwork of John Dee. That is a guess based on 50 years of trying to get to grips with Dee's enciphering methods. I can guess that Ben Jonson was part of the thing, a kind of apprentice to Dee. But as to what they thought, or what motivated them, I cannot say.

As for Hiram Abif, I have very little knowledge about his character. I know the basic tale regarding his murder, and I suspect he is placed among the Masonic figures in the King James New Testament title page. But that, like all other things is just a guess.

If you ever find a message something like say, 'Hiram Abif was a Mason', let me know, so I can check it's validity.

I don't think the epitaph is about Thomas More, I think it's about Francis Bacon. More is there to point to Bacon's New Atlantis, for surely Bacon read Utopiae?

Bacon's name, and his relationship to Shakespeare is written as clear as can be (after deciphering) in the epitaph and gravestone texts.

Thank you for the Input.

 

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peethagoras said:

As for Hiram Abif, I have very little knowledge about his character. I know the basic tale regarding his murder, and I suspect he is placed among the Masonic figures in the King James New Testament title page. But that, like all other things is just a guess.

Have you read Rick Wagner's article about Hiram Abiff and Sonnet 55? There is a ink in this interesting thread:

 
See more on Hiram Abiff :

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

2 hours ago, peethagoras said:

Hello Hen,W.

I am not able to guess what was in the minds of those who crafted the Shakespeare project. I can guess that much of what we read, including the epitaph and graves in Stratford, was the handiwork of John Dee. That is a guess based on 50 years of trying to get to grips with Dee's enciphering methods. I can guess that Ben Jonson was part of the thing, a kind of apprentice to Dee. But as to what they thought, or what motivated them, I cannot say.

As for Hiram Abif, I have very little knowledge about his character. I know the basic tale regarding his murder, and I suspect he is placed among the Masonic figures in the King James New Testament title page. But that, like all other things is just a guess.

If you ever find a message something like say, 'Hiram Abif was a Mason', let me know, so I can check it's validity.

I don't think the epitaph is about Thomas More, I think it's about Francis Bacon. More is there to point to Bacon's New Atlantis, for surely Bacon read Utopiae?

Bacon's name, and his relationship to Shakespeare is written as clear as can be (after deciphering) in the epitaph and gravestone texts.

Thank you for the Input.

 

If a main point of the epitaph was to point to Bacon's New Atlantis, then it would make sense to make use of Thomas More. I agree. As to what you say about Hiram Abif, I do not understand that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2024 at 1:47 PM, peethagoras said:

 

epitaph.jpg.762c90ec8e4eb7cac50adbc17e53bbd6.jpg

The question is who's name is hidden, and how can we extract it?

Is anyone interested enough to chat about this subject?

 

 

 

Hi Peethagoras,

The Stratford-upon-Avon Shakespeare Monument: Cipher in the Inscription

Coincidentally, since Hen W posted on the other thread that he/she has made about the inscription when first joining, I have been looking at this for a while now. It's going to take a while to explain too, so my apologies in advance for a wordy post.

Here's what I found. 

First of all, I have always been "concerned" that Sir William Dugdale recorded an inscription that is slightly different to the one above, see my article here: https://the-power-paradox.shorthandstories.com/the-shakespeare-authorship-question-unravelling-the-mystery/index.html  and the image below. The Stratfordians will excuse this away as Dugdale and/or his note-taker or engraver being bad at detail. They will cite a number of other differences in Antiquities of Warwickshire that don't match tombs in the county. However, I have discovered that Dugdale was Father-in-law to Elias Ashmole. Ashmole was a huge Francis Bacon and John Dee 'fan'. He definitely had contact with Dee's son, Arthur.

Ashmole's book on alchemy is prefaced by him literally saying that information was concealed in poetry.  Ashmole was most certainly a Rosicrucian and we also know for sure he was a Freemason as he told us (right down to the location, day and time). Although Ashmole was only born one year after Shakespeare died, most of his inner circle were involved in, or closely affiliated with, those who put the FF together or who were mentioned in it. Surprisingly, he never directly mentioned Shakespeare (I checked this as it's so surprising and it was confirmed by 'Claude', but I am happy to stand corrected).

So knowing this, although I hate casting aspersions, I do think that if the powers that be in Stratford guessed that there may be a cipher in the inscription which might reveal Will Shakespeare not to be the author, they might, perhaps rather understandably, have tried to subtly change it as the years went on. If anyone cracked it that would present them with a huge crisis, so it makes sense. We do find that the original 'curse my bones' inscription and the one on the monument above are slightly different to those that were originally recorded. They were apparently changed in the course of updating and renovating the monument in later years. The reason given is that different engravers have different styles of lettering.

 

Shakespearemonumentdugdale.png.932105003cd18e17b8f66a74bc888f76.png

One difference in Dugdale's inscription (besides Will looking nothing like the Will that's there today), is the word Plast is Plact and also he doesn't shorten the word Thy but says The. There are other small differences too that are obviously important to cryptologists. He has included the whom and whome though - so the argument he was shoddy in his recording perhaps carries slightly less weight.

Anyhow, what struck me is that although the letters change there are 64 words in the inscription. 64 is a really important number in the Mystery Tradition as it is the cube of 4. It's significance dates right back to the Chinese Book of Changes, the IChing, and probably way before. In Masonry it is the size of the 64 square checkerboard floor called the Mosaic Pavement. 

So if we use Dugdale's inscription and use a transposition cipher (as Ashmole suggests) using the first letter of each word, we find the letters are different in the original.

With a transposition cipher,  as I think Hen explained, you take the number of letters and put it into a grid - in this case 8 x 8 as it makes a square (I have tried 4 x 16. 16 x4 too, I haven't tried 2 x 32, I also haven't tried swapping each letter in the grid for a number, which someone might like to do as Magic Squares contained numbers).

With Transposition you write the letters in downwards columns and then a message might be instantly revealed by reading down or across or diagonally (you can even move columns). I can see no message so I asked AI to look and it ran through them all: double transposition, caesar, substitution etc and came up with nothing. What I did see though in my very first attempt using columnar transposition on the 64 letters was this. In the 3rd column you can make Sir FB bracketed by two T's so TT= 33. There is a stray C at the bottom and C = 100, so all in all, probably a good case to be made - but not conclusive. As Ashmole said: No other answer should be returned, meaning to my eyes that it'll be absolutely without doubt once deciphered.

monumentstratforddecipher.png.53aa98b1763e059d38d5a5c358aa7008.png

I also anagrammed, and sure enough you can make the full name Sir Francis Bacon out of the 64 letters in the grid and plenty of other words too, including Anthony and ones that "Shakespeare" is pointing to on the Wilton House Monument - Shadow Player. However, it means zero as they would need to be in some pattern. It's not enough to be randomly placed, we could make anything we choose. That said, it could point to the fact that with the correct decryption technique we could bring the letters into some irrefutable pattern. I have tried all week and got nowhere, but do hope you, Peethagoras and Hen, and everyone else will keep looking.  I have also blacked out alternate boxes to make a checkerboard in case the letters that are left reveal anything. So far I can't see it. I like the three triangular T's  in one of the checkerboards above though! 

 

monumentstratforddecipher3.png.f59c9b9c63574548433bf91ae75eaa80.png

I'll keep looking when I have time too. Remember it may be in old English, if anything is there. They could not foresee how our language would evolve.

ashmole2.png.141fa533bcb1a7439520de8edeb0b6c9.png

  • Wow! 2

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kate said:

First of all, I have always been "concerned" that Sir William Dugdale recorded an inscription that is slightly different to the one above, see my article here: https://the-power-paradox.shorthandstories.com/the-shakespeare-authorship-question-unravelling-the-mystery/index.html  and the image below.

Kate, your article is done beautifully! Excellent presentation. 🙂

Your above post covers some important ground as well!

 

  • Like 1
  • 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

Thanks Rob.

Here's a little more info for anyone here or reading from outside of the forum.

I saw the reference in the thread to Hiram Abif (sometimes later spelt Abiff).

Everything comes in threes  in the Mystery tradition. There is Solomon, Hiram, King of Tyre and Hiram Abif. It's all allegory and metaphor. The third degree ritual of Masonry is a later introduction than Bacon's time but it's all about the death of ignorance and the rebirth /resurrection into the light of truth (!) - knowledge. Masonry is all about Light. Hiram is about light. The Mercury square is important when you understand how much myth relates to the Sun, Moon and Mercury. Masonry is not religious but there are links to Christ (Jesus) with Hiram and Christian Cabala. 

Hope that sparks further lightbulb moments, especially if the inscription is linked up to Hebrew Gematria. The problem is online gematria sites are not to be trusted. You can see that by inputting a phrase and then seeing what results you get on different sites. It has to be done looking at examples from the later 1500s early 1600s.

FWIW, I feel there is likely a code in the inscription due to the 'Read if thou canst' line and the three final T's on the last two lines (in Dugdale's version - disputing the 4 boxed T's on the later version) which is why I have devoted so much time to it. This is the one thing which, if found and irrefutable, could finally bring this mystery about the authorship to the wider public.

MercuryMagicsquare.png.d15e59be92b4e0f85f310d7b02ef4363.png64mosaicpavement.png.484186e73ce7c649fbadef5e18aa4f5e.png

  • Thanks 2

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Kate said:

I have always been "concerned" that Sir William Dugdale recorded an inscription that is slightly different to the one above, see my article here

Hello there Kate, thanks for the input, it is much appreciated.

I happened to take a quick peek and saw your response, but I cannot stay long due to life's demands etc.

I have read your article and found it very interesting. You seem to be into Rosicrucianism and Free Masonry, the first is of some interest to me, the second leaves me cold - can't seem to generate any enthusiasm for the subject. Not that there's anything wrong with Masons etc, but the subject is too deep for my quite shallow mind to delve.

The reason I made the point about Rosicrucians is that I have been trying like mad to find a relationship between Rosicrucians and a symbol I came across which is a serpent on a tau cross. To be a little more precise, the symbol has been placed with great care, and its a serpent directly on a T cross. If you have any info I would love to see it.

Back to the subject: I don't know what to think re Dugdale, it is astonishing that the so-called friends of "william Shakespeare" went to all that trouble with the First Folio etc, and knowing the monument exists, did nothing when someone placed the epitaph to a poet under the effigy of a farmer. Although some claim it belonged to Will's dad. Like almost everything else to do with this subject, nothing makes sense. Read Ben Jonson's works, and note his gravestone: nobody has any problems there. If you get my drift.

I don't have a problem with Dugdale's copy of the two inscriptions, all it tells me is that he was not aware of the works of Dee & Co. Although I would have thought that something like "READ IF THOU CANST" might have caused some pause.

Whatever the truth is may never be known, and if it was brought to light, it would probably be far too weird or complex to be grasped by the modern mind.

I will post you again re this page when I get some time available.

Regards, and keep on trucking.

  • Like 2

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kate said:

FWIW, I feel there is likely a code in the inscription due to the 'Read if thou canst' line and the three final T's on the last two lines (in Dugdale's version - disputing the 4 boxed T's on the later version) which is why I have devoted so much time to it. This is the one thing which, if found and irrefutable, could finally bring this mystery about the authorship to the wider public.

'Read if thou canst'

It does make one curious. Talk about a clue! LOL

Of course, to me, the original carv'd letters would be the ones I would want to see first.  Bacon was still alive, right? Enjoying the fun and games they were playing.

I might not be quick to suggest that future ciphers did not contain something of value for us to know while they were hiding the original truth. The keepers always have a purpose. Maybe knowing who they are at any given time helps in our path.

Today? Still the Strats, the biggest lie still lives.

  • 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

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...