from Richard Allan Wagner: The Lost Secret, 2009

  from Richard Allan Wagner:  The Lost Secret, 2009    

  http://fliphtml5.com/lnym/vbgp/basic

  Both Nicholas and Lady Anne had written numerous books.  In one instance, however, Sir Nicholas made the mistake of allowing publication of a book in which his real name was given for its authorship.  The book fell to the Queen‘s disfavor and she denied him the high honor of being promoted to her Privy Council.  Thereafter, Sir Nicholas Bacon frequently lectured his children about the pitfalls of writing under one‘s own name.  Veiled anonymity, masks and concealment were important themes Francis clung to for the rest of his life.   In Elizabeth‘s England, actors were required to have both a license and a patron.  Bacon‘s biological father, the Earl of Leicester, who loved the theater, was the first man to license a troop of actors for the stage.  It was through his father that Bacon became acquainted with actor James Burbage who built the first theater in England.  During the summer of 1575, the Earl of Leicester lavished the Queen with an incessan tarray of extravagant entertainment at his Kenilworth Castle (on the River Avon) and later at his Woodstock estate.  It was his last-ditch effort to win over Elizabeth‘s sentiments 20

toward acknowledging him as her Prince Consort.  These Revels lasted for weeks.  They included hunting, bear baiting, music, dancing, masques (theatrical plays), lavish banquets and spectacular displays of fireworks.  Many historians regard theKenilworth/Woodstock Revels as the high watermark of Tudor culture.  Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester   One of the most impressive aspects of the Revels involved a theatrical production (featuring James Burbage) in which Elizabeth and her court were portrayed as a sort of 21

latter-day version of Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.  The masque was designed to depict Elizabeth as an idealized goddess called the Fairy Queen. Flattery was, perhaps, Elizabeth‘s greatest weakness.  Needless to say, she was delighted with the entertainment.  In some respects, the masque resembled a poem entitled The Tale of Hemetes, the Heremyte ostensibly written by the poet George Gascoigne who was incorrectly given credit for the masque.  Gascoigne staunchly denied having anything to do with it.  However, a very young and mysterious person by the name of Robert Laneham is thought to have been the masque‘s true author, producer and director.  Clearly, Leicester had the utmost confidence in him.  There is much evidence to show that the youthful and enigmatic Laneham was none other than Bacon himself. This was his first success as a playwright.  He was definitely in his element.  And, of course, Laneham or lean ham‖was one of the earliest pen names used by Bacon.*  Author Ross Jackson states:  The theme of the Kenilworth/Woodstock entertainment was a lofty one that would dominate all of Bacon‘s future work under all the various masks he used, and would inspire others to follow his lead.  This event signified nothing less than the launching of the English Renaissance in literature, though the fact would not be realized until it was all over many years later.  And it was all started by a 14 year old boy.  Francis and his elder foster brother Anthony were virtually inseparable.  Anthony was completely devoted to Francis who often referred to his brother (in letters and other documents) as my comfort and consorte‖ and my second self.  Until his death in 1601 Anthony Bacon was his brother‘s secretary and chief collaborator.  The various antics and theatrical activities of the Bacon brothers were a constant cause for concern to their 22

puritanical mother.  Lady Anne regarded everything related to poetry and theater as the devil‘s work.  It is no wonder that she consistently scolded and wrote to them--not to Mum, nor Mask, nor sinfully Revel.  Her disapproval of writing poetry and plays is another reason Francis was reluctant to put his name on his works. During the year following the Kenilworth/Woodstock Revels, the Bacon brothers were enrolled for further education at Gray‘s Inn. The Inns of Court were, in essence, the finishing schools of the nobility.  There, the young nobles were schooled both in law and how to properly conduct themselves in the Royal court.  Although Francis quickly mastered all facets of the law, he had no interest in its practice.  His passions lay elsewhere.  In a letter to his uncle Burghley, he declared ―I have taken all knowledge as my province.  This idea formed the genesis of an intellectual revolution Bacon called the Great Instauration (great restoration) in which he would revive the great literary and scientific spirit that had been the hallmark of the Classic Greco-Roman culture--and he would catapult it to still greater heights.  At the age of 15, Bacon discovered the truth about his royal heritage.  He was shocked, to say the least.  In order to take the heat off the matter, Elizabeth sent Francis on an extended trip to the Continent.  While abroad, he would study the customs of other countries and further expand his education.  She even gave him a somewhat ceremonious send off.  To those who were not in the know, the spectacle of the Queen overseeing the departure of this teenage commoner who kissed her hand must have raised a few eyebrows.   Upon his arrival in France, young Bacon wasted little time acquainting himself with the leading scholars and poets in the land.  Of particular interest was the French prince of 23

poets‖ Pierre de Ronsard who had assembled an eclectic group of poets, scholars, and linguists called the Pleiade.  Much like Bacon, Ronsard was dedicated to the advancement of knowledge.  He also used his poetry as a medium for building andt ransmitting a new, more sophisticated French language.  For the most part, the process involved the mixing and splicing of the prefixes and suffixes of different Greek, Latin, Italian and Spanish words.  Bacon was so impressed with the simplicity of Ronsard’s methods that he decided to apply them to his own revamping of a highly primitive English language. The French were enamored with Bacon‘s stellar intellect. They referred to him as ―the jeweled mind,‖ and ―the man who knows everything.  Elizabeth sent the artist Nicholas Hilliard to France to do a painting of her son. Bacon‘s brilliance inspired Hilliard to such an extent that he inscribed the words--would I could paint his mind around the border of the painting.  Francis Bacon by Nicholas Hilliard 24

Much of Bacon‘s stay in France was spent as a guest of Henri III, King of the Navarre Province (later Henri IV of France).  Despite his constant vacillation between Catholicism and Protestantism (for political reasons) Henri was a closet Rosicrucian.  He was popular with his subjects who considered him to be a good and enlightened King.  Bacon’s admiration for Henri would later be revealed in one of his plays.  The court of Navarre proved to be a fertile setting for Bacon‘s numerous projects. Using the pseudonym Pierre de La Primaudaye, he put the finishing touches on his L’Academie Francaise (The French Academy, a piece on which he had been laboring for some time.  It turned out to be the world‘s first encyclopedia.  The Academie cleverly emulated Plato‘s style of dialogue in which the principle dialectician is named Achitob (instead of Socrates).  Of course, Achitob is a sly anagram using the Kabbalist Atbash Cipher, reversing the letters by starting with the last letter, then the first, back-and-forth until the word has been turned outside-in, arriving at Bacohit.  Thus, baco is Latin for Bacon, and ―hit is an old, English Chaucerian word meaning hid or hide--hence, Bacon hid.  The French Academy saw its first French publication in 1577.  Later, more expansive English publications were printed in 1584 and 1618.  As an important note, many of the Academie‘s‖ themes show up in some of the Shakespearean works, and the writing style is undeniably that of Bacon.  Author and scholar William T. Smedley states:  A comparison between the French and English publications points to both having been written by an author who was a master of each language… The marginal notes are in the exact style of Bacon.  A similitude occurs frequently just as the writer [Smedley] finds them again and again in Bacon‘s handwriting in volumes 25

which he possesses.  The book abounds in statements, phrases, and quotations which are to be found in Bacon‘s letters and works.  At Navarre, Bacon met the great love of his life Marguerite de Valois.  She was Henri’s estranged wife and the daughter of Catherine de Medici.  Although she was nine years his senior, Francis was head-over-heels in love with her.  She was his paradigm of feminine attributes--beautiful, intelligent, educated and immensely talented.  There were only four fundamental problems with Bacon‘s naïve and unrealistic plan to marry Marguerite.  First, she was unavailable for matrimony, second, she was Catholic, third, Elizabeth sternly disapproved of such a union, and finally, Marguerite‘s feelings toward Francis were not reciprocal.  The odd thing about the matter is that Bacon was more resentful of his mother‘s disapproval than of Marguerite‘s rejection.  Another significant landmark Bacon reached during his sojourn at Navarre was his acceptance into the order of Operative Freemasonry.  Operative Masons were the branch of the Knights Templar who built Europe‘s magnificent cathedrals.  Each Mason had his own distinctive mark which he would etch or engrave somewhere on the structure he helped to build.  Bacon‘s mark consisted of the capital letters IM, which in Latin is equivalent to the English words I am.  On the title page of the 1624 Paris publication of The Advancement and Proficience of Learning, he incorporated his Operative Masonic mark into the design….

  Basil Brown‘s insight into the situation provides a most credible solution as to how the lives of the true author of the Shakespearean works and the man from Stratford became mutually involved.  All other explanations tend to defy the odds. In Part 3, titled Bacon’s Smoking Guns:  The Hard Evidence, I will prove the Baconian case beyond a reasonable doubt.  One of the greatest problems with the man from Stratford is that the scarce historical facts about him would, essentially, fit on a postcard.  Another significant detail about his obscure life is that his name really wasn‘t Shakespeare, it was Shaksper (pronounced shack-spur).  On his marriage certificate his name is spelled Shaxper.  Bacon, who loved to tinker with punning names and rhyming words, was clearly fascinated by the quaint similarity between the two names.  We see the evidence of Bacon‘s tinkering with the names Shaksper and Shakespeare in his Northumberland Manuscript (to be discussed in Chapter 19).  The man from Stratford became the perfect front man for the Shakespeare maskwhether by chance or by design--the exact extent of his closeness with the Shakespeare circle is not known, but it is clear that this phantom of Stratford was never involved with any of its workings.  It was as if he had conveniently materialized out of thin air to function as the straw man at just the right time.  At the outset of the 17th Century, several events had a drastic impact on Bacon‘s work.  Following the execution of the Earl of Essex in 1601, the ailing Anthony Bacon died, possibly (as some scholars believe) by his own hand.  Essex and Southampton had been principle patrons of the Shakespeare enterprise, but Anthony more than anyone else financed most of his brother‘s activities.  Then, in 1603 the death of Queen Elizabeth 47

placed Bacon in a financial vacuum.  Now in his early forties, he had little choice but to put his legal expertise to work in the law profession.  Although his Shakespeare pen would not be silenced, it was somewhat curtailed.  The historical timeline for the Shakespeare plays being written during that period shows a reduction in productivity (often referred to as the plague years).  Some adjustments were required.  Ben Johnson, who Bacon called My man John, became his new secretary, while the Herbert family, particularly Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (Philip Sidney‘s sister) provided vital support for the enterprise.  But most importantly, Bacon had to find ways to be in the favor of a new monarch. 48

4 The Transition to the Jacobean Dynasty   As far as anyone can surmise, Elizabeth refused to name a successor.  At the time of her death, the Queen‘s closest advisor, and the most powerful man in England, was Robert Cecil the highly ambitious and disfigured (hunchback) son of Lord Burghley.  Cecil was both Bacon‘s foster cousin and lifelong enemy—it was he who cruelly set the stage by which young Francis first learned of his royal identity.  Naturally, Robert Cecil became Bacon‘s model for the perverse and twisted characterization of King Richard in Richard III.  Ironically, Elizabeth‘s passing made Cecil the temporary head of state.  For all intents, the matter of choosing her successor rested snugly in the palm of his hand.  Bacon had long since abandoned the idea of ever sitting on the Tudor throne.  Moreover, even if Elizabeth had made a death bed declaration that Francis should succeed her (as some historians believe she did) Cecil had the power to quash it.  The nearest blood relative (aside from Francis) in line for succession was King James VI of Scotland who was the son of Elizabeth‘s late cousin Mary Stuart.  Elizabeth had always looked upon James with the utmost contempt.  However, Cecil, who the Queen referred to as elf, and pygmy, saw James as a monarch with whom he could do 49

business.  During the waning months of Elizabeth‘s reign, Cecil secretly brokered a deal with James, offering him the throne of England in exchange for titles and wealth.  The Cecils, Lord Burghley and Robert    On March 24, 1603, James Stuart was proclaimed King of England—just 8 hours after Elizabeth‘s death.  True to their bargain, James granted Cecil the title of the 1st Earl of Salisbury.  Unlike Elizabeth, who exercised considerable restraint in awarding positions of privilege and high office, James recklessly handed out knighthoods and titles like cheap currency.  As the true surviving heir to the Tudor throne, Bacon posed a potential threat to James who sought assurances from him both for his loyalty and warranty that he would never 50

beget any Tudor heirs who, in the future, might challenge the rule of the Stuart Monarchy.  In order to insure that the Tudor dynasty would end with Elizabeth, Robert Cecil took delight in acting as the King‘s go-between with Bacon.  In a series of letters to Cecil, Bacon writes:  I desire to meddle as little as I can in the King‘s causes,‖ also as for ambition, I do assure your honor, mine is quenched, and my ambition now I shall only put upon my pen.  Bacon‘s compliance resulted in James rewarding him with a progressive stream of titles and government offices, starting with his knighthood in 1603 followed by his appointment to the King‘s Council Extraordinary.  The following year, King James promoted Bacon to a position of membership in the King‘s Council Learned for which Bacon was paid a sufficient sum of 60 pounds per annum.  The Shakespeare enterprise was back on its feet churning out Measure for Measure,  All’s Well That End’s Well, Othello, and King Lear.  Prior to 1605, in accordance with the Rosicrucian custom of writing anonymously or using pseudonyms, Bacon had no intention of placing his real name on anything he wrote.  In fact, he had initially toyed with the idea of using still,another pseudonym for his philosophic-scientific treatises.  Fortunately, after decades of non-stop writing, he decided to put his name on the first publication of his Advancement and Proficience of Learning which, after L’Academie Francaise, was the second in his line of philosophic and scientific works--had this not been the case, Francis Bacon‘s name would have been lost to history.  With Elizabeth gone and James in, Bacon‘s prospects had dramatically changed for the better.  The year 1606 ushered in a wave of fresh events. First, Bacon‘s Shakespearean style had matured leading to Anthony and Cleopatra, and his darkest play, Macbeth 51

written specifically for James‘ edification.  Second, Bacon married the youthful Alice Barnham, daughter of Lady Packington.  Although the union produced no children (as promised), Francis and Alice were happily married until his death in 1626.  The following year (1607) brought Bacon a promotion to the high office of Solicitor General.  Due to Bacon‘s increasing political responsibilities, the production of the Shakespeare plays dropped, generating, on average, one a year--with Pericles in 1607, Cymbeline( 1609), The Tempest (1610), and The Winter’s Tale (1611).  Bacon was elevated to Attorney General in 1613.  In June of 1616 he became a member of the King‘s Privy Council.  The following year he was raised to the office of Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.  These were busy years for Bacon.  He had accomplished much in a very short span, and his intellectual pursuits were diverse.  King James was not alone in enlisting Bacon’s immense talent. 52

PART TWO BACON AND THE ROSICRUCIAN- MASONIC TREASURE TRAIL 53

5  The Rise of the Rosicrucians and Freemasons   The Catholic suppression of the Knights Templar in 1307 had driven European philosophy and science completely underground.  The progressive minds from the Templar ranks proficient in the arts and sciences found refuge in small, secret enclaves throughout Europe.  The clandestine ―movement‖ was generically known to its adherents as The Invisible College, and ―The Great Society.  It is not certain when such terms as Rosicrucian and Freemason began to take root.  But it is certain that the Movement lacked any semblance of cohesive organization and purpose.  Nonetheless, the Movement was the specific cause of the Renaissance which, inits early phase, had been dominated by a burst of artistic genius under the Italian masters such as Da Vinci and Michelangelo.  The following century, however, witnessed the intellectual explosion of the English Renaissance which brought revolutionary innovations in literature, science, and social philosophy with Bacon as its chief architect.  Dr. John Dee, the immanent authority on Hermeticism and Kabbalism in England laid the groundwork for the formation of the Rosicruician Order.  He most certainly initiated young Bacon into the Order, as evidenced by Jacob Cats‘ engraving (1655) of Dee passing the Lantern of Rosicrucian Light‖ to Bacon over an open grave. 54

Jacob Cats‘ engraving (1655) of John Dee passing the Lantern to Francis Bacon    For all intents, Bacon was now the leader of the Rosicrucian movement.  However, in 1611, Michael Maier, the German Rosicrucian Master, who in earlier years had become associated with Bacon through John Dee, came to London for two basic reasons.  First, the new English language (being created by Bacon‘s Fra Rosi Crosse society) was rich in Rosicrucian symbolism.  The lavish metaphorical lexicon of Shakespeare had fast become a medium for expressing the underlying ideals and philosophy of the Movement, and Maier hungered to digest it.  Second, he wanted Bacon to give direction to the Movement and articulate its purpose.  To that end (according to Rosicrucian tradition) Maier, who possessed no real authority, proffered the unprecedented position of Rosicrucian Imperator to Bacon who humbly accepted.  In laying the foundation of a Rosicrucian society, Bacon took steps to insure that it would serve the purpose of helping to build and spread his Great Instauration.  However, 55

his greatest concern for the society was that its spiritual philosophy should always remain secular avoiding the temptation of becoming a religion.  Bacon understood that all religion begins with a spiritual philosophy expounded by a charismatic historical leader around whom people rally--eventually denigrating into a cult of personality in which the personality always becomes the focal point while the spiritual philosophy is relegated to obscurity.  As a measure to insure that Rosicrucianism wouldn‘t become Baconism, Bacon invented a mythical Rosicrucian founder whom he cleverly dubbed Christian Rosenkreutz or Brother CRC--some sources make references to Father CRC (Rosenkreutz is German for Rose Cross).  As had been the case with Shakespeare, the names were carefully crafted as encryption devices corresponding to the powerful Kabbalistic number 13.  Bacon‘s love of concealing coded messages in plain sight is a consistent feature in all of his pseudonymous works.  It was the method by which he communicated higher levels of meaning to the initiated reader. Bacon made use of the numerical encryption techniques he had employed in Walsingham‘s spy network. These usually involved theSimple, Kaye, Reverse, Short, and Pythagorean Ciphers--each employing a unique system of matching the letters of a name or word to specific numbers which, when added together result in a master code number. Thus, in accordance with the Pythagorean Cipher, the name Christian Rosenkreutz adds up to the number 103.  In the Simple Cipher, both Brother CRC and Father CRC also yield a total of 103 while the name Shakespeare, in Simple Cipher, gives the same result.  All of these pseudonyms correspond to the number 103 signifying they are, in essence, the same person.  As a 56

general rule, zeros are treated as nulls, and are not counted.  Hence, 103 simplifies to 13.  The true significance of this amazing number will be revealed in a later chapter.  Another remarkable aspect of the coded Rosenkreutz legend involves the year 1407 as the founding date of the Rosicrucian Order.  Notice that it is exactly 100 years after the downfall of the Knights Templar--100 equates to Francis (67) Bacon (33), Simple Cipher.  Bacon further used the year 1407 as a code number to be deciphered by simply adding the numbers in reverse, i.e. 70 + 41 = 111 = Bacon (Kaye Cipher).  In 1614 Bacon wrote the first Rosicrucian Manifesto titled Fama Fraternitatus as an anonymous treatise.  Many literary scholars (including the Shakespeare-Rosicrucian scholar W.F.C. Wigston) have noted that the Fama not only reads like Shakespeare, but its philosophical agenda is precisely that of Bacon‘s Advancement of Learning and The New Atlantis.  It basically presents a mysterious biographical story about Christian Rosenkreutz who is also referred to as Brother CRC.  The story describes his quest to attain the secrets of Hermetic and Kabbalistic knowledge while traveling and studying in the Middle-east.  Eventually, he becomes a Master of arcane knowledge.  Bacon followed the Fama with two more manifestos:  the Confessio Fraternitatus in1615 (again written anonymously) and the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz in 1616 using the name of Johann Valentin Andrea, a figure shrouded in mystery reminiscent of Shaksper.  The Chymical Wedding was clearly written with John Dee in mind.  Bacon took care to place Dee‘s famous Monad hieroglyph beside the text of the wedding invitation on the title page.  Overall, the three manifestos called for a reformation of society on all levels--social, spiritual, scientific and artistic.  Moreover, they stressed the need to adopt a new 57

methodology for investigating nature through experimentation over reliance on the authority of Aristotle and Galen whose works emphasized the system of syllogistic, deductive reasoning.  Bacon effectively demonstrated the superiority of his method of deductive experimentation ,thus forming the foundation of the modern scientific method set forth in his seminal work, the Novum Organum (1620).  1616 was a pivotal year for Bacon.  It marked the completion of his work on the Rosicrucian manifestos, and it saw the death of his front man Shaksper.  With the publication of the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz, Bacon was ready to take his concept of a new, enlightened, secular society much further.  As had been the case with the Rosicrucians, Operative Freemasonry was stagnating without direction or purpose.  The old order had adopted the practice of accepting worthy men such as Bacon into their ranks who were not employed in the trade of masonry. As descendants of the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians and the Operative Freemasons both made use of the same symbols and rituals.  On a deeper level, the Chymical Wedding reflected Bacon‘s desire to (alchemically) transmute the two orders into one unified society sharing the same ideals, goals and philosophy.  The Rosicrucian manifestos reveal Bacon‘s obsession for discovering all of nature’s hidden secrets.  The fundamental inspiration for his philosophy is based on Proverbs 25, Verse 2 of the Old Testament:  It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings to search out a matter.   Bacon‘s new society would mirror God‘s work by uncovering everything concealed in nature.  However, that concept posed a unique problem with regard to Proverbs 25--i.e. the business of searching out a matter was clearly reserved for kings.  The die had already been cast with the story of Brother CRC— 58

therefore, the issue of being equal to kings forced Bacon to create, still, another mythical figure who would fill the gap--thus, the legend of Hiram Abiff was born along with the parallel secret society of Speculative Freemasonry.  Naturally, Bacon made no significant distinction between Rosicrucians and Freemasons.  They were all one family.  Similar to the role of Christian Rosenkreutz (with the Rosicrucian order) Hiram serves the dual function as the mythical founder of Freemasonry and the archetype of the Master Mason.  The only difference is that Hiram Abiff, who is not a king, is equal to the biblical King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre because they all share in the knowledge of the Master‘s word‖ (i.e. divine knowledge).  Bacon‘s story has King Solomon enlisting the help of Hiram Abiff as the architect of his temple.  During the construction, Hiram is confronted by three fellow-craft workers who demand that he give them the Master‘s secret word.  Hiram refuses, whereupon the three fellow-crafts murder him.  They proceed to bury Hiram‘s body in a shallow grave which they mark with a sprig from an acacia tree.  Later, Hiram‘s body is found and dug up from the grave and the murderers are subdued and executed.  To this day, all Masonic 3rd Degree candidates are required to assume the staged role of Hiram—being ritualistically murdered and then raised (from the grave) becoming Master Masons by virtue of being metaphorically RAISED to the ―Sublime‖ level of kings.  Hence, all Master Masons assume the identity of Hiram, making them all equal and worthy (as kings) to emulate God‘s work.  Needless to say, the Shakespearean works are ripe with Rosicrucian-Masonic symbolism and ritual (to be discussed in greater detail in chapter 23).  Furthermore, the Fra Rosi Crosse society who were the first Speculative Freemasons, made extensive use 59

of various secret encryption techniques.  These included Key words which usually had both a symbolic and numeric meaning.  The letters in a word or name have a specific number value in accordance with a Cipher Table.  The numbers matching the letters are added up to render a code number.  The name Fra Rosi Crosse adds up to the number 157 in the Simple Cipher, and then umber 287 in the Kaye Cipher.  As mentioned earlier, these numbers function as the Fra Rosi Crosse seals which are consistently encoded throughout the Shakespearean works, thereby serving as identifying markers of the Fra Rosi Crosse society.  One of the reasons Bacon selected these two particular numbers is that, when combined, they add up to the important Kabbalistic number 444 (to be discussed in a later chapter).  Elizabethan Cipher Tables 60

6 The King James Bible   In his first regnal year, King James presided over a conference between Episcopalians and Puritans.  The primary topic for discussion concerned the numerous, and sometimes conflicting versions of the Bible, most of which were not written in English.  King James I 61

The Puritan leader John Rainoldes stressed the need for a uniform English translation of the Bible.  The King approved the idea, and commissioned a force of 54 translators to execute the project.  The translators were then arranged into six groups operating under specific guidelines.  It was the consummate set-up.  Bacon had every intention of producing his own translation of the Bible since his teen years, and the King provided the perfect opportunity and means for its implementation, along with the ideal cover for which Bacon was only too happy to insure that James would receive full credit for the undertaking. Hence, the Bacon Bible would forever be known as the King James Version by virtue of Bacon‘s need for a patron to finance such an immense project, and a front man behind which he could operate with complete invisibility.  By 1609, the translating was completed and the roughly drafted manuscripts were handed over to James who, in turn,  covertly committed them to Bacon‘s care.  Thus, Bacon, along with his Fra Rosi Cross society, applied the Shakespeare touch to the work resulting in the most impeccably polished bestseller the world has ever seen.  With the publication of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 and the 1623 Shakespeare Folio, the English Language underwent a total transformation in just 12 years.  The late actor Charleton Heston stated:  no other literary work reads more like Shakespeare than the King James Translation of the Bible.‖*  Author Edwin D. Lawrence said When Bacon was born, English as a literary language did not exist, but once he died he has succeeded in making the English language the noblest vehicle of thought ever possessed by mankind.  This he accomplished merely by his Bible and his Shakespeare.  62

Just as he had done with the Shakespeare work, Bacon incorporated both coded messages and Rosicrucian-Masonic symbolism into the ―KJV‖ (King James Version) which identified him as the author, or in this case, the chief translator and editor.  One of the most obvious of Bacon‘s coded devices used in the 1611 publication of the KJV is his trademark headpiece‖ engraved on the cover.  The same engraving block had also been used to print the headpiece of the 1593 publication of Venus and Adonis (the first work to bear the Shakespeare name).  Later, it would appear in Bacon‘s Advancement and Proficience of Learning.  All of Bacon‘s works used variations of this design (to be further discussed in chapter 24).  Without a doubt the most significant encryption technique employed throughout Bacon‘s works involves a variety of numerical ciphers.  These typically involved the Simple, Kaye, Reverse, and Pythagorean Cipher Tables--each matching specific numbers to the letters of the alphabet.  Bacon chose Psalms (his favorite book in the Bible) as the junction for his encrypted messages.  He also used Key words as signposts to provide coded instructions (much like a treasure map) to the initiated reader.  So, just as he uses synonyms for his name such as hog, sow, swine, etc. to serve as Key words in the Shakespearean works, he also makes use of the same system in the KJV, starting with the appearance of the word swine in Leviticus, Chapter 11 verse 7.  This, of course, directs us to Psalm 117.  Bacon chose the number 117 because it corresponds to the name John Dee in Reverse Cipher.  Turning to Psalm 117, we find that it consists of precisely 33 words (Simple Cipher for the name Bacon).  No other biblical translation does this. 63

The second appearance of the word swine occurs in Deuteronomy, Chapter 14 verse 8.  Turning to Psalm 148 we find that it is comprised of 202 words.  In encryption codes, zeros are ignored as nulls, leaving the number 22.  This is code for Bacon‘s birth date, January 22 (i.e. the 22nd day of the year). Again, no other biblical translation does this.  Additionally, Bacon deliberately chose the number 148 because it matches the name William Tudor (Simple Cipher).  This would have been Bacon‘s royal name had he acceded to the throne.  Throughout the KJV, Bacon always uses the word swine as the substitute for his name, with only one exception, the word boar is the third Key word in the series representing Bacon‘s name.  This is significant because the boar is a predominant feature of Bacon’s coat of arms.  He is definitely taking us to a higher level of understanding.  There is an important lesson to be learned before we can move on.  And, sure enough, we appear to be at a dead end since the word boar has shown up in verse 13 of Psalm 80.  However, Bacon has chosen this Psalm to point out the significant Fibonacci connection betweent he numbers 13 and 8 (to be discussed in a later chapter).  However, the Key to encoding the instructions leading us forward is in the wording of the verse itself:  The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it.  The Key words here are waste and devour.  In Bacon‘s day, those words were synonymous with takeaway or subtract.  Thus, we are simply being instructed to subtract 13 from 80,r esulting in the number 67.  In the Simple Cipher that number matches the name Francis.  We now turn to Psalm 67, and, voila, it consists of exactly 111 words (the name Bacon in Kaye Cipher).  Again, no other translation of the Bible will yield the same results. 64

By now, the keen reader has acquired a fundamental understanding of Bacon’s methodology.  However, he has provided still another revelation for our discovery.  Starting from the beginning, with first word of the book of Genesis, we notice that (unlike any other biblical translation) the 46th word of the KJV is Light.  This is the single most important word in both the Rosicrucian and Masonic vocabularies. It‘s a signpost directing us to Psalm 46.  There are several reasons Bacon chose this Psalm as the converging point for his coded message.  First, the structure of the Psalm, prior to its retranslation, provided an ideal slate upon which Bacon could pen an ingenious ―super-message.‖  Second, its numerical value of 46 stands between the numbers 45 and 47.  These three numbers, aligned in series, serve as a backdrop for a spectacular display of code using the Pythagorean, Kaye and Simple Ciphers.  Thus, we start with the preceding Psalm 45.  That number corresponds to the name Shakespeare in the 1 through 9 Pythagorean Cipher.  Moreover, Psalm 45 has 17 verses.  The number 17 in the Pythagorean Table matches the name Bacon.  This is another signpost.  Once again, the wording of the verse provides critical information as it indicates the importance of a name is about to be revealed:  I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee forever and ever.  The revelatory stage has been eloquently set as we now step into Psalm 46.  In the Kaye Cipher, the name Christian Rosenkreutz corresponds to the number 406, i.e. 46.  It is no accident that the word Light, the 46th word in the KJV, matches that name which in turnl eads us to Psalm 46 which functions as another signpost.  So, we count down to the 46th 65

word of Psalm 46, we land on the word shake.  Reversing the process, we count up from the end of the Psalm (starting with the word Selah) to the 47th word which is spear.  Until now, Baconian scholars have missed the significance of the number 47, insisting that the word Selah be ignored so that the word spear would be the 46th word from the Psalm‘s ending.  They also ignore the fact that the word Selah appears two more times in the coded message.  If the word is to be ignored once then it should be rejected altogether, but that would then destroy the encryption.  Bacon knew what he was doing.  He deliberately ends the Psalm with Selah for two reasons.  First, the word Selah corresponds to the number 33 in Simple Cipher.  Here, Bacon is using one of his favorite encryption devices by ending the Psalm with his own signature, 33.  And second, he wants the word spear to be the 47th word from the end for the purpose of presenting us with a brilliant metaphor.  Thus, in Simple Cipher, the number 47 matches the name Hiram.  This is no coincidence as the number 47 is twice mentioned in the Masonic 3rd Degree lecture with regard to the 47th problem (also known as the Pythagorean Theorem) in Euclid‘s Elements—it is the number of the Master Mason.  Now comes the main course, the pieces de resistance.  We count the number of words between the words shake and spear, resulting in the number 111, which corresponds to the name Bacon in the Kaye Cipher.  In a master stroke, Bacon has united the names Shakespeare (45), Christian Rosenkreutz (46), and Hiram (47) with his own name, thereby revealing the three names, along with their three matching numbers to be pseudonymous aspects of himself. 66

Furthermore, Bacon has crafted a way to prove it out mathematically.  We remember that his two Rosicrucian seals when combined equal 444.  And, when we place the trio of numbers side-by-side, i.e. 45 46 47, a remarkable pattern emerges.  Just as he employs the method of displaying his code numbers in the Psalm both frontward and backward, Bacon does the same with the trio, i.e. 444 and 567.  We now combine them, resulting in 1011, or 111.  Moreover, we get the same result by partitioning the trio in halves, then combining them, i.e. 454 + 647 = 1011.  None of this is coincidence!  Finally, the metaphorical meaning becomes clear.  At the outset of his initiation into each Masonic Degree, the initiate (Candidate) proclaims his wish to receive Light.  Thus, being lead to Psalm 46, the initiate seeking Light (knowledge), represented by the number 46, begins his journey of insight and discovery as he enters the Bacon Light represented by the number 111 through which he is transformed from initiate to Master in the number 47.  Therefore, Christian Rosenkreutz (46) and Hiram (47) serve as Masonic pillars flanking Bacon (111) in the unifying form of Shake 111 Spear.  The rich linguistic style of the KJV is uniquely different from all other versions of the Bible.  The numerous parallels with the Shakespearean works are unmistakable, this includes the encrypted content that is simply not present in any other biblical translation.* 67

7 Inventing America   The concept of a utopian state originated with Plato‘s Republic.  Prior to the seventeenth century, such societies existed only on paper and in the imaginary realm. Bacon‘s vision of an ideal Rosicrucian civilization is described in his book The NewAtlantis.  The locale for this society, however, would not be Europe, as Michael Maier had hoped--rather it would have a fresh start in the New World that lay across the ocean to the west.  English colonization of the new continent had been a fanciful preoccupation throughout Elizabeth‘s reign, but all attempts to colonize were ill conceived and shortlived.  One of the principal items on King James‘ agenda was the more expansive and enduring enterprise of New World colonization.  This laid the foundation for the implementation of Bacon‘s Rosicrucian society.  With the King‘s approval, Bacon drafted a charter for a colonial venture called the Virginia Company of which he was a founding member.  The charter, in fact, was a constitution providing the structure and guidelines for governing the new society.  This would later inspire the authors of the Constitution of the United States of America.  The year 1606 saw the establishment of several Rosicrucian colonies, the most prominent taking root in what is now Pennsylvania.  Later, Benjamin Franklin (who was greatly influenced by Bacon‘s work) would emerge as the highest ranking Rosicrucian-Masonic figure from that colony.  Likewise, other Rosicrucian-Masonic founding fathers 68

of the new American nation such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine were avid readers of Bcon.  Jefferson is said to have carried a picture of Bacon with him wherever he went.*  In his book The Secret Destiny of America, Manly P. Hall writes:  Franklin spoke for the Order of the Quest, and most of the men who worked with him in the early days of the American Revolution were also members.  The plan was working out, the New Atlantis was coming into being, in accordance with the program laid down by Francis Bacon a hundred and fifty years earlier.   In May of 1609, a Virginia Company voyage involving nine ships carrying 500 colonists was severely struck by a hurricane.  One of the ships, the Sea Venture was presumed to have perished with all aboard. Unknown to the rest of the fleet, the vessel had run aground on the island of what is now Bermuda.  Up to that time, mariners had looked upon the unexplored island in superstitious awe, believing that it was a habitat of witches and demons.  Bermuda was thought to be a remnant of Atlantis ruled over by the gods Neptune and Jupiter.  Much to their surprise, the castaways of the Sea Venture found the island of Bermuda to be a lush, demi-paradise with abundant food and fresh water.  They stayed for nine months before refloating the ship, and making their way to Virginia.  Meanwhile, news of the miraculous misadventure reached England.  The actual details of the event, however, were kept in a strictly confidential report known only to the Virginia Company‘s board of directors of whom Bacon was a foremost member.  The Sea Venture incident became the inspiration for The Tempest, the only Shakespearean play that is neither tragedy, nor comedy, nor history.  In essence, the play is a philosophical dream sequence dramatizing both Bacon‘s views of Rosicrucian- 69

Masonic principles and his scheme for the Advancement and Proficience of Learning. The play‘s chief protagonist Prospero is patterned after John Dee, while the monstrous, deformed Caliban (an anagram of canibal) is another of Bacon‘s numerous personifications of Robert Cecil.  Soon after the Sea Venture episode, the first colonial currency went into circulation. It consisted of four different coins:  the Shilling, Sixpence, Threepence, and Twopence.  The coins, appropriately referred to as Hog Money, had the image of a boar stamped on the front, and the image of the Sea Venture on the back.  There is a remarkable resemblance between the boar on Hog Money and the boar in Bacon‘s coat of arms.  Boar from Bacon‘s coat of arms with the Crescent moon brand above the front left leg.  Engraving from Bacon‘s Novum Organum 70

Colonial Hog Money  Although the colonists were English subjects, they saw their enterprise as a fresh start in a land they regarded as their own.  Names like Nova Scotia, New England, New York, and New Hampshire were nothing more than extensions of the Old World.  They wanted their new country to have an identity that would be easily distinguished from the motherland.  Hence the name America began to take a firm hold with its new occupants proudly calling themselves Americans.  But where did the word America come from? 71

The conventional explanation for the origin of the word America rests with an obscure German monk by the name of Waldseemuller who, in 1507, published a book titled Cosmographiae Introductio that included a map of the New World.  Waldseemuller was familiar with numerous accounts of sailors using a word sounding like America when speaking of the continent to the west.  After reading of the exploits credited to the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci, Waldseemuller simply married the two unrelated pieces of information resulting in his erroneous assumption that Vespucci was the discoverer of the new land mass which the German monk arbitrarily dubbed America.  In their book The Hiram Key, the Masonic authors Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas cast further light on the origin of the word America:  Waldseemuller got the name right but the explanation wrong.  His personal inclination for meaningful names misled him, and the power of the printing press ensured that his error was transmitted widely in avery short space of time.  Very shortly after he had written these words, he realised his great mistake and publicly retracted his assertion that Amerigo Vespucci was the discoverer of the New World--but by then it was too late, people had an explanation tha tseemed to make some sort of sense.  It was a classic case of history (to paraphrase Henry Ford) becoming bunk.  In truth, knowledge of a westerly continent over the Atlantic Ocean was not new.  Contemporary archeological and forensic evidence support the fact that the ancient cultures of the East had been in contact with the North and South American Continents for thousands of years.  Additionally, the name America in reference to a land mass west of the Atlantic, had been in use long before Vespucci‘s time. 72

An early Jewish sect known collectively as the Nasoreans, Essenes, and the Qumradians made reference to a perfect place on earth marked by a star they called Merica.‖  Actually, the star is the planet Venus, which, next to the moon, is the brightest body in the night sky.  According to the Nasoreans, Merica is a land of paradise that lay directly to the west under the blazing star.  It is believed that the Templar knights, in their excavation of the Temple Mount, discovered an abundance of Nasorean scrolls along with the meaning of the word Merica.  Francis Bacon, more than anyone, understood the word‘s significance, and it is no coincidence that the name-America began to be common used during the years of the Virginia Company‘s colonization.  Considering Bacon‘s theme of using important unifying Kabbalistic numbers, it should come as no surprise that the word Merica adds up (in Bacon‘s Reverse Cipher) to the number 103.  Thus, there were 13 English colonies not by accident but by design was an important and consistent feature in Bacon‘s overall scheme. 73

8 Fall from Grace   Until his death in 1612, the powerful and corrupt Robert Cecil had been Bacon‘s chief antagonist.  For many years Cecil took perverse delight in using his influence to block any advancement of Bacon‘s political status.  Once Cecil was gone, Bacon‘s career enjoyed a meteoric rise in just a few short years.  But now he was beset by another potent enemy Sir Edward Coke who proved to be Bacon‘s foremost adversary throughout his political life.  Coke‘s animosity toward Bacon began many years earlier when, as Queen Elizabeth’s heavy handed Attorney General, he and Bacon frequently clashed over legal and political matters.  During the trial of Essex, in which Coke was the presiding Judge, Bacon constantly had to restrain the over zealous prosecutor‘s abusive behavior while interrogating prisoners.*  Following the execution of Essex, Coke‘s hatred of Bacon intensified, particularly when the two men competed for the hand of Elizabeth Cecil (Lord Burghley’s granddaughter) whom, after her brief union with the wealthy Sir William Hatton, became his widow in 1587.  Soon, thereafter, she opted to wed the more eminent Attorney General Edward Coke over the penniless poet Francis Bacon--a decision she bitterly lived to regret--resulting in a marriage that was so notoriously stormy that Lady Hatton refused to adopt the name of her estranged husband.  Furthermore, Bacon and Lady Hatton remained close lifelong friends, and her affections for him were no secret to an insanely jealous Edward Coke. 74

The Attorney General knew of Bacon‘s royal heritage.  For Coke, Essex‘s downfall had been like the scent of blood to a shark.  It appeared that Elizabeth had thrown her sons to the wolves--a signal to Coke that Bacon was fair game.  The matter of Bacon’s legitimacy became Coke‘s pet obsession, resulting in his incessant taunts at the would-be heir to the Tudor throne.  On one public occasion, following a disagreement on some obscure issue, Coke launched a vituperative attack at Bacon shrieking, Mr. Bacon, if you have any tooth against me, pluck it out; for it will do you more hurt than all the teeth in your head will do you good.‖  Bacon replied ,Mr. Attorney, I respect you: fear not: and the less you speak of your own greatness, the more I will think of it.  Coke responded --I think scorn to stand upon terms of greatness towards you, you who are less than little; less than the least.‖  Coke, of course, was alluding to the prevailing view of illegitimacy in the pecking order of Elizabethan society. The scathing exchange of insults escalated into Coke making reference to Bacon as Elizabeth‘s bastard.  Bacon sternly answered--Do not depress me so far; for I have been your better, and may be again, when it please the Queen.  It was a warning to Coke that he had crossed the line in which his insult betrayed a state secret, and that he could be in further jeopardy should the Queen still name Francis as her successor.  Bacon then dispatched a letter recounting the incident to Cecil. Nevertheless, the venomous Attorney General vowed to attain nothing less than Bacon‘s total destruction.  In 1618, Sir Francis Bacon reached the zenith of his legal and political career when King James conferred the office of Lord High Chancellor of England upon him, along with the title Baron Verulam.  Later, Viscount St. Alban was added to the list of Bacon‘s 75

titles.  It is worthy of note that upon receiving the titles of Lord Verulam and Lord St. Alban, Francis quit referring to himself as Bacon (a further hint at his true heritage).  For most men, basking in the glory of sitting in England‘s highest political seat was viewed as a blessing, but for Bacon it was a curse in disguise.  Much like Thomas More who served as one of Henry VIII‘s Chancellors, Bacon was an island of virtue in a sea of corruption‖ upon which an out-of-control Stuart monarchy was foundering.  The unbridled extravagances of King James and his Favorite bedmate, George Villiers, Earl of Buckingham, were bleeding the coffers dry and driving the country into financial ruin.  The crown‘s principle sources of revenue resided in an unprecedented sale of patents and monopolies.  Moreover, the legal system relied almost entirely on the conveyance of fees, fines and gifts from litigants to the judges who rendered verdicts on their prosecution.  For many years Bacon had been the strongest opponent of such practices, but his words fell on deaf ears.  The most egregious source of abuse was the Inn and Hostelries monopoly.  Author Ross Jackson explains:  The Inn and Hostelries monopoly had been originally established with good intentions several years before in order to regulate drunkenness in the nation‘s taverns and inns.  The King had sold for a hefty fee the lucrative rights to administer the giving of Liquor licenses to two commissioners, Sir Francis Michell and Sir Giles Mompesson, a relative of the Favourite.  Proceeds from licenses went primarily to King James with about 10% going to the commissioners and another 10% going to Edward Villiers, one of the Favourite‘s brothers.  But as time went on, corruption crept in, with the King‘s full knowledge and approval.  The monopoly developed into a 76

racketeering scheme, and everyone around the table knew it.  The two commissioners simply refused licenses to respectable innkeepers unless they could afford to pay enormous bribes, while granting licenses to those who ran their inns as brothels if they handed over a major part of the illicit gains to the monopoly holders.  The commissioners had the authority and used it, to send to prison any innkeepers who resisted their offers of protection.  The protection and prostitution racket was one of the King‘s major sources of income.  Bacon well knew the predicament the abuses of the patents and monopolies placed on the common people who were becoming increasingly outraged by the immense strain of the whole corrupt system.  He consistently tried to reason with the King and his Favorite (nicknamed Steenie) into a compromise, but they wouldn‘t budge.  Finally, during a meeting of the Privy Council (November 1621), Bacon advised that the forthcoming session of Parliament would be seeking to do everything within its power to pressure the King into abolishing all patents and monopolies.  He then boldly proposed a compromise measure by which the bulk of the patents and monopolies would remain in force if the Council would only vote to eliminate the Inns and Hostelries monopoly.  Beside the King, Buckingham and the rest of the Villiers family were principal beneficiaries of the monopoly, and would suffer a tremendous financial setback if it was eliminated.  Bacon’s proposal was put to a vote and was soundly defeated.  Perhaps the Lord Chancellor was overly optimistic about human nature as it applied to the political arena, believing that even politicians were fundamentally good and would do the right thing if properly reasoned with. 77

Meanwhile, Bacon‘s old adversary Edward Coke, of whom the King was none too fond, was unemployed and looking for a way to jump-start his slumping career.  Next to Bacon, Coke was the best legal mind of the time.  The basic distinction between them was that Bacon, like Thomas More, was incorruptible and steadfast to a fault, while Coke was completely unscrupulous with a killer instinct and a knack for self-expediency.  Edward Coke   Lacking the King‘s favor, Coke, who had (many years earlier) been Speaker of the House, decided to regain the favor of the people by getting elected back into Parliament.  Utilizing his vast experience and forceful personality, Coke‘s plan was to build a power-base within the House by playing champion to whatever the prevailing mood happened to be--or, as Bacon put it, Coke was a man who-plowed according to his own tides.  It wasn‘t long before Coke was Chairman of the Grand Committee for Grievances.  As such, he began to fan the flames of discontent with the patents and monopolies issue.  Ironically, Coke, who had helped create many of the patents and monopolies, was now 78

conveniently voicing strong opposition to them.  The atmosphere in Parliament was fast becoming a hotbed of hostility toward anyone thought (or accused) of being responsible for abuses.  The opportunistic Chairman had little difficulty playing to the emotions o fParliament‘s 400 members, working them into a mob-like frenzy.  They were out for blood, and Coke was going to give it to them.  Since the King and his Favorite were the principal abusers--with the King above reproach, Coke had no choice but direct his parliamentary witch hunt elsewhere.  Besides, Parliament was a legislative body, not a court of law.  And, should matters escalate to the point of causing the King too much distress, he could always (as a last resort) exercise his prerogative of simply dissolving Parliament.  As for Coke, it really didn‘t matter where the path of condemnation led… as long as it led to Francis Bacon.  The blame game had already commenced with members of Parliament shouting for Steenie‘s head.  If King James had allowed his Favorite to be sacrificed, the whole affair could have ended then and there.  But James wasn‘t about to give up his Steenie.  Coke stood before the House pointing out that a precedent had, in the past, been briefly instituted to allow Parliament to function as a de facto court.  He suggested the House reinstate the old custom in order to deal more effectively with the issue at hand.  Realizing such a measure would greatly enhance their power, the members of Parliament wasted no time enthusiastically voting it in.  Coke had more surprises, but in this case, he had unwittingly opened a Pandora‘s Box that would have far reaching consequences for the country.  Author Ross Jackson elaborates:  Coke did not mention that the custom was initiated 250 years before as a weapon of factional rivalry and had been discontinued more than 150 years ago.  Thus was laid the foundation for a new instrument of terror that 79

would plague the nation for several decades until the whole country collapsed from exhaustion.  Coke had established his new Court, which he would reign over with an iron hand as the Grand Parliamentary Inquisitor in the disguise of a reformer.  In a virtual blink of his eye, Coke had transformed Parliament into a kangaroo court whose members were largely untrained and lacking experience in the rule of law.  In fact, Coke‘s court operated in accordance with its own rules and whims.  By all rights the concern over abuses should have been directed toward the two corrupt commissioners Michell and Mompesson and the Favorite‘s brother Edward Villiers.  But instead, Coke turned the blame on the Lord Chancellor Bacon and the Lord Treasurer Henry Montagu, arguing that the King had been misled by his chief administrators.  Of course, Coke took care to suppress the fact that Bacon had persistently plead with the King to abolish the patents and monopolies.   King James, who was present at the session, added a bit of his own theatrics as he rose in a display of surprise, feigning indignant shock that his top executives would lead him astray.  He was expediently following Coke‘s lead in setting up his loyal Chancellor to be sacrificed as Steenie‘s scapegoat.   Coke had artfully steered both the King and Parliament into a simple choice:  condemn Buckingham or Bacon.  To further his case against Bacon, Coke introduced the same trumped-up charge that, 86 years earlier, had been used to attack Henry VIII‘s Chancellor Sir Thomas More--to wit, Bacon was alleged to have accepted bribes while hearing cases put before him as Chancellor.   As evidence, Coke enlisted the testimony of John Churchill who had been employed as one of Bacon‘s clerks.  Churchill claimed Bacon had taken bribes from various litigants, however, Coke neglected to disclose the fact that Churchill had been 80

suspended by Bacon for misappropriating funds from the Chancery.  Moreover, Coke hadn‘t revealed that he had given Churchill and other questionable witnesses immunity from prosecution in exchange for their (false) testimony.  The immanent historian Nieves Mathews sheds further light on Coke vs. Bacon:  if corrupted he [Bacon] was, rather than the reverse.  One may wonder whether Coke himself would have done any better in his place.  Or would have tried, for had he attained the desired position of Lord Chancellor there would surely have been no grand championship of reform, and we may surmise that considerably more attention would have been given to the decrying the defects of other courts of justice than to curbing the powers of Chancery.  The next phase of the scheme was to put Bacon on trial in which case Coke would, essentially, function both as prosecutor and judge.  However, in his reckless zeal to bring Bacon down at any cost, Coke failed to consider the dire consequences such a trial would ultimately have on the King and his Favorite--or did he?  Bacon had warned that a strike at the Chancellor would be followed by a strike at the crown.  If a trial was to proceed, Buckingham would most certainly be examined by the defense.  How would he explain (in the presence of Parliament) his Privy Council opposition to Bacon‘s proposal to eliminate the Inns and Hostelries monopoly?  Furthermore, Coke‘s case against Bacon was a complete fabrication supported only by the pathetic lies of a few convicted criminals whose basic complaint was that the Chancellor had found them guilty--clearly exculpatory evidence that he had not been bribed.  In fact, during Bacon‘s tenure as Chancellor, not a single verdict in over 8000 had ever been reversed.  Like Thomas More, Bacon‘s hands were clean, and the record 81

shows it.  This was a trial Bacon couldn‘t lose.  If allowed to proceed, however, it was also a trial that would air all of the King‘s dirty laundry.  Therefore, there could be no trial. Yet Bacon still had to be sacrificed.  But how could the Chancellor be immolated thens tripped of his office without being prosecuted?  Until now, a key question which has not been properly examined is why would a formidable attorney as Edward Coke present such a ridiculously weak case against Bacon?  The answer can be summed up in one word:  stratagem.  Coke knew Bacon’s mind and character only too well.  He knew Bacon held to the highest standard of ethics, honor and loyalty.  On many occasions, Coke heard Bacon say that he was bound by his loyalty to God, his monarch, his country, and his fellow man above himself.  Coke had not forgotten how the reluctant Francis Bacon dutifully carried out his part in his brother‘s trial because of his sense of loyalty to the Queen who commanded him to participate.  The wily old Coke realized the only person who could bring Bacon down was Bacon himself.  In all probability Coke never expected a trial to take place.  In order to get to Bacon, he had to first get to the King.  Coke had masterfully set up the parliamentary chess board so as to paint the King into a corner that would force him to choose one of two options.  First, he could dissolve Parliament--a catastrophic choice that would further bankrupt the treasury because it would nullify much needed subsidy funds to be derived from Parliament.  Moreover, dissolving Parliament would only add fuel to the incendiary public sentiment that was already raging against the crown.  The other option was to appeal to Bacon‘s sense of loyalty and desire to do what was best for monarch and country by commanding him to plead guilty.  Coke wasn‘t merely hoping the King would 82

choose the second option, in all likelihood he fully counted on it. If the thought of commanding Bacon to plead guilty hadn‘t already entered the King‘s mind, Coke most assuredly helped to plant it there.  The dirty business of commanding Bacon to abandon his defense and plead guilty without a trial required the discretion and secrecy of a backroom deal--thus, in a private meeting with Bacon, the King issued his command.  Afterward, Bacon wrote:  The law of nature teaches me to speak in my defense.  If, however, it is absolutely necessary the King‘s Will shall be obeyed.  I am ready to make an oblation [sacrificial offering] of myself to the King, in whose hands I am as clay to be made into a vessel of honour or dishonour.  Yet with respect to the charge of bribery I am innocent.  Evidence that Bacon complied with the King‘s command, and that a deal was struck between them along with Buckingham is well substantiated by their actions and certain key documents.  On April 24, 1621, Francis Bacon stunned Parliament by reading a carefully prepared speech in which he declared that he had given up his defense, requesting that Parliament--condemn and censure‖ him.  He further threw himself on the mercy of Coke‘s faux court, asking that they consider taking back the Great Seal as sufficient expiation‖ (atonement).  Although the statement was tantamount to a guilty plea, Bacon never actually said he was guilty of anything.  Coke was furious.  Not only was he out to destroy Bacon, Coke‘s quest was to inflict the worst possible stain of humiliation and defamation on the Chancellor‘s good name.  In desperation, Coke had Churchill cull 28 vaguely worded cases out of 8000 to which he would falsely testify that bribery had been involved.  These were then translated into specific charges and dispatched to Bacon for his written confession.  On this, author William Hepworth Dixon writes:  Thus, on a 83

scrutiny, unparalleled for rigour and vindictiveness, into Lord St. Alban‘s official acts not a single fee or remembrance traced to the Chancellor himself could by any fair construction be called a bribe.  Not one appeared to have been given on any promise; not one appeared to have been given in secret; not one appeared to have corrupted justice.  Yet Bacon had promised King James to plead guilty, so on 30th April he sent to the House of Lords a confession in which he pleaded guilty, answering the various counts fully.  He admitted the receipt of several gifts, fines, fees and presents, some by his officers, some by himself.  If the receipt of such fees and gifts is held by the Peers to be proof of corruption, he confesses to the offense.  But nowhere does he allow his judges to infer that he has ever accepted a fee or reward to pervert justice.  Despite the fact that the respective cases mentioned in the charges failed to satisfy the legal requirements for establishing that bribery had ever taken place, or that justice had been perverted, Coke‘s panel of Peer judges automatically deemed all 28 of Bacon’s responses to the charges as confessions of guilt.  Coke‘s stratagem succeeded.  He finally had what he wanted.  The judgment (sentence) was as follows:(1) That the Lord Viscount St. Alban, Lord Chancellor of England shall undergo fine and ransom of 40,000 pounds. (2) That he shall be imprisoned in the Tower during the King‘s pleasure. (3)  That he shall for ever be incapable of any office, place, or employment in the State or Commonwealth. (4)  That he shall never sit in Parliament nor come within the verge [12 miles] of the Court. 84

On the day after his sentence, Bacon was officially visited by a small group of his most loyal supporters:  the Lord Treasurer (Henry Montagu, Viscount Mandeville), the Lord Steward (Ludovic Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox), the Lord Chamberlain (William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke), and the Earl of Arundel (Thomas Howard, also the Earl of Surrey).  The four men ceremoniously retrieved the Great Seal from the now former Chancellor.  Later that day, Bacon was taken to be imprisoned in the Tower of London.  The length of time a prisoner of the Tower served was indefinite, at the King‘s [or Queen‘s] pleasure.  The proof of Bacon‘s innocence and the fact that he had made a deal with the King and his Favorite is abundantly clear for a number of reasons.  First, King James suspended the 40,000 pound fine, assigning it to four creditors of Bacon‘s choosing.  This, in effect, released Bacon from having to pay the fine.  Second, upon being incarcerated in the Tower, Bacon immediately sent a letter to Buckingham demanding his liberty, it reads:  Good my Lord procure the warrant for my discharge this day… When I am dead, he is gone that was always a true and perfect servant to his master, and one that was never author of any immoderate, nor unsafe, nor unfortunate counsel, and one that no temptation could ever make other than a trusty and honest and thrice loving friend to your Lordship; and howsoever I acknowledge the sentence just, and for reformation sake fit, the justest Chancellor that hath been in five changes since Sir Nicholas Bacon‘s time. Your Lordship‘s true friend, living and dying, Fr. St. Alban.  Tower, 31st May, 1621.  On receiving the letter, Buckingham immediately had Bacon released.  It is the shortest confinement (two nights) in the Tower‘s history.  It is also noteworthy that the letter was stashed away as a state secret, not seeing the light of day until 221 years later. 85

Additionally, the King allowed Bacon back into to the verge. Moreover, he granted Bacon a full pardon, thereby overruling the verdict, with one exception, the provision barring the ex-Chancellor from holding public office remained in force.  Eventually Bacon appealed to Parliament for a complete reversal of his sentence which was granted along with a 1,200 pound annuity which had been withheld from him.  John Churchill was allowed back into the Chancery where he resumed his nefarious ways only to be convicted of fraud and forgery.  Coke was permanently banished from the Privy Council and the Royal Court.  Years later, Buckingham was stabbed to death.  King James died in 1625, passing the legacy of his highly unstable monarchy on to his son Charles.  In creating his parliamentary court, Coke had let the malevolent genie out of the bottle.  With its new-found power, Parliament continued to hunt for more victims, culminating in the trial and execution of King Charles I, followed by civil war.  Bacon‘s warning that a strike against him was equivalent to a strike against the crown proved to be prophetic.  George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham 86

9 End Game  Bacon‘s experience with the malicious attack on him and the subsequent acts of betrayal and humiliation at the hands of his false friends‖ left him with a bitter taste.  His pardon from King James came only after he turned over his beloved childhood residence of York House to Buckingham. The King had also promised a healthy pension which Bacon never received.  Now at the age of 61 he knew his days were numbered, and he began to plan accordingly.  However, the great irony of Bacon‘s political fall is that it freed him up to resume his writing.  Had the plot against him failed, we might never have come to know Shakespeare or the modern scientific method.  Bacon‘s ordeal had given him a new view of posterity and the effect it would have on his work.  The years 1621-1623 witnessed a creative explosion from his pen.  At least three new Shakespeare plays were written:  Coriolanus, Timon of Athens, and Henry VIII.  In 1623 the first Shakespeare Folio was published along with the expanded version of The Advancement and Proficience of Learning including the Novum Organum.  Prior to that, a number of quarto versions of the plays had been published anonymously, and some were printed under the hyphenated name (i.e. Shake-speare).  But more importantly, the Folio systematically integrated all of the plays into one, cohesive volume of work without which most (if not all) of the Shakespearean work might not have survived intact. 87

Most of the Shakespeare plays are rich in references to events that occurred in Bacon’s life.  The single work that clearly deals with the effects of his downfall is Timon of Athens.  Bacon carefully chose the title of the play for two fundamental reasons: first, he admired the Greek philosopher Timon‘s satires of various dogmatic philosophers.  And second, both of the names Timon and Francis correspond to the number 67 in the Simple Cipher.  Furthermore, the title Timon of Athens adds up (in the Kaye Cipher) to 330, i.e.33.  Thus, Timon is a personification of Bacon--a man who is charitable and generous to a fault.  He tends to place the welfare of his friends above his own, patronizing their arts and crafts and lavishing them with gifts and extravagant banquets.  Upon hearing of the imprisonment of one of his friends for failing to pay a debt, Timon immediately arranges to pay off the debt, setting his friend free.  Naturally, Bacon wrote Edward Coke into the play under the guise of Apemantus‖ a churlish‖ (crude and intractable) philosopher.  One senator in the play describes Apemantus as being opposite to humanity.  And, of course, the name Apemantus is actually a Latin form of Ape-man.  Timon‘s philanthropy eventually turns into a reversal of fortune when he discovers that he has gone bankrupt.  He turns to the people he has helped, but they all shun and betray him.  A revengeful Timon then invites his false friends to a feast.  They all attend, believing he has somehow regained his financial resources.  But instead of a feast,  Timon removes the lids from the serving trays revealing only lukewarm water which he liberally splashes in their faces.  Lukewarm water symbolizes disgust and uselessness.  Bacon may also have used the splashing of lukewarm water as a metaphor for urination. 88

Filled with disillusionment and scorn for humanity, Timon leaves the city to live alone in a cave.  He lives off the land, spending much of his time bitterly cursing the fickle nature of humankind.  One day while digging for roots to eat, he uncovers a large cache of gold.  Meanwhile, back in Athens, the military general Alcibiades falls out of favor with his fellow citizens who banish him from the city.  Riding alone in the country, he happens upon Timon who greets him with insults and profanity. Alcibiades respectfully tells Timon he has heard of the misfortune the Athenians have inflicted on him, and that he is raising an army for a war against Athens.  Timon gives Alcibiades gold to finance the endeavor.  Following Alcibiades‘ departure the troublesome Apemantus shows up harassing Timon with his pesky advice.  Timon responds with curses.  The exchange of words that follows is nothing less than a reenactment of the infamous verbal duel between Bacon and Coke thirty fives years earlier:  Apemantus.  Thou art the cap of all fools alive.  Timon. Would thou wert clean enough to spit upon.  Apemantus.  A plague on thee, thou art too bad to curse.‖ Timon.  All villains that do stand by thee are pure; Apemantus.  There is no leprosy but what thou speak’st. Timon.  If I name thee.  I‘ll beat thee, but I should infect my hands.  Apemantus.  I would my tongue could rot them off!  Timon. Away, thou issue of a mangy dog!  Choler does kill me that thou art alive; I swoon to see thee. Apemantus.  Would thou wouldst burst. 89

Timon.  Away, thou tedious rogue!  I am sorry I shall lose a stone by thee. Apemantus. [throws a stone at him]. Timon.  Beast!  Apemantus.  Slave!  Timon.   Toad!  Rogue, rogue, rogue!  Later, Alcibiades and his newly gathered army lay siege to Athens.  The Athenians beg for mercy.  Alcibiades agrees to spare only those who have not wronged him or Timon.  But alas, a messenger arrives with news that Timon has died.  Like The Tempest, Timon of Athens falls under the category of the strange plays‖ as it is both a tragedy and a biting satire.  From an autobiographical standpoint, next to Hamlet, Timon is clearly Bacon‘s most cathartic work.  During his final few years, Bacon took care to preserve his work for posterity while putting his affairs in order.  Following his impeachment as Chancellor, Bacon was abandoned by some of his good pens primarily because he could no longer afford to pay them.  However, there were a number of friends whom he called his good pens who

forsake me not‖ whose labors for their master remained steadfast to the end.  These included Ben Jonson, Tobie Matthew, Thomas Hobbes, George Herbert, Peter Boener, Sir Thomas Meautys and Dr. William Rawley.  Each man served as a secretary to Bacon, fulfilling a specific purpose according to his talent and ability.  Author Peter Dawkins writes:  Francis Bacon was known to work fast, quoting from memory, from an enormous store of sources.  He usually knew exactly where to find a quotation, often 90

pointing it out to his secretaries for them to check.  His mind was so active and his capacity for work was so enormous that he kept his scribes busy day and night.  He would have a secretary sit by his bed while he slept, so that he could dictate his dreams as soon as he woke.  Since Ben Jonson was an early innovator of the Folio format, and his own Workes had been published in Folio seven years earlier, he was given the task of overseeing the publication of the first Shakespeare Folio.  It was tricky work as Bacon‘s front man Shaksper died in 1616.  Shaksper‘s essential role in the enterprise was to function as a lightning rod in the event that any political thunderstorm should strike at the Shakespeare circle.  But the need to perpetuate the myth of William Shakespeare‖ as the presumed author of the work remained imperative despite the fact that many more Shakespearean plays had been written well after Shaksper‘s death.  Until 1623, Bacon privately regarded the name Shakespeare to be an abstract extension of himself.  To the public, however, Shakespeare was nothing more than a name that appeared on a number of in-quarto plays and poems.  With the exception of Elizabeth’s concerns over Richard II, no one ever bothered to consider who the actual author was.  Bacon‘s massive task of amalgamating 36 plays into one book required considerable planning and financing.  The wealthy Herbert family (in whose house Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley were secretly wed) had spawned a line of Pembroke Earls all fiercely loyal to the Tudors.  Although it cannot be proven, it was the Herbert brothers William (3rd Earl of Pembroke) and Phillip (4th Earl of Pembroke and 1st Earl of Montgomery) who were longtime patrons of the Shakespeare circle, who most certainly provided the necessary funding for the Folio which would explain why the Folio is dedicated to 91

them.  Additionally, whoever commissioned the Flemish artist Martin Droeshout to create the mysteriously contrived image of the Folio‘s supposed author had to have had deep pockets--this, again fits the Incomparable pair of Brethren perfectly.  It is not clear if Bacon intended Droeshout‘s engraving to bear any resemblance to Shaksper, but it is clear that great measures were taken to present the portrait‖ as a coded message (see Droeshout Portrait in chapter 25).  To this day, no one knows what the Stratford man Shaksper really looked like (if indeed he actually existed).  However, it is quite remarkable that most depictions of the author Shakespeare‖ are based on the Droeshout engraving.  Aside from the fact that Ben Jonson disliked Shaksper, the problem of the conspicuous time-gap between Shaksper‘s death and the publication of the Folio posed still another problem.  The shroud of mystique blanketing the authorship of the plays had served Bacon well, but the need for the decoy front man hadn‘t diminished.  Now, in giving Shakespeare a face, Bacon was definitely stretching the envelope.  If the Stratford man was to provide further use as a front for Shakespeare, where would fresh manuscripts for 36 plays suddenly come from, and who had been quietly sitting on them for the past seven years?  Furthermore, who was going to step forward with the newly edited manuscripts claiming to have the authority to publish them under the assumed name of the deceased man?   It was all a sticky business.  The cover story needed an upgrade, and Jonson had a solution.  Two actors, John Heminge and Henry Condell, had performed in Johnson‘s play Every Man in His Humour as well as several Shakespeare plays. They had been associated with Shaksper through his dabbling in the theater business both as a bit actor and a small 92

owner of stock in the Globe and Blackfriars Theaters.  Although they were not literary men, Jonson recruited them to pose as editors seeking to publish the Shakespeare plays in Folio.  The new cover-story became a masterpiece of innuendo through which Heminge and Condell seem to convey the idea that they are somehow carrying out the author’s wishes as his executors, even though they never specifically say what the author wished or who he was.  Along with Droeshout‘s engraving, the Folio has eighteen dedicatory pages cryptically praising the author.  The carefully worded dedications resonate with a distinctive legal tone, as if written by a lawyer.  The deliberate and incessant mixing of allusions to Shakespeare the author and Shakespeare the actor tends to lead the reader to assume that they are one and the same.  But Jonson issues a caveat as he writes:  Reader, look not on his picture, but his booke.  Another important factor in the Folio‘s publication is that its patron, William Herbert (3rd Earl of Pembroke), was also Lord Chamberlain to King James.  As head of the King’s Office of Revels, one of the Chamberlain‘s duties was to decide which plays were suitable for public consumption.  Naturally, the Folio was approved for publication without any question regarding its authorship.  Next to the King James Bible, the Shakespeare Folio was Bacon‘s greatest literary achievement.  But his restless mind was further engaged with the implementation of his new scientific methodology as set forth in the Novum Organum.  Unlike his literary works, Bacon struggled with the dilemma of whether to publish his scientific and philosophical labors under his own name or use another pseudonym.  In truth, he came 93

dangerously close to choosing the latter option--in which the case Bacon could very possibly have been lost to history.  In the end, Bacon spent his days pursuing of his passion for unveiling the secrets of nature.  One of the projects he proposed for his Fra Rosi Crosse society was to create a scientific society (later known as the Royal Society‖) dedicated to testing his inductiv emethod through experimentation.  His book the Sylva Sylvarum was the first work to show how the modern scientific method should be applied.  A particular experiment in the book dealt with the preservation of the body by means of refrigeration.  In a demonstration to the King‘s physician, on a cold winter‘s day, Bacon stuffed a chicken carcass with snow.  The experiment was a success, but in the process Bacon caught pneumonia.  Within a week the greatest genius the world has ever known passed into posterity (or so the story goes).  Sir Thomas Meautys had a marble tomb placed inside St. Michael‘s Church, St. Albans to serve as Bacon‘s final resting place.  The outpouring of praise for the Apollo of the ages‖ was immense.  His personal chaplain (and secretary) Dr. William Rawley edited and published a collection of 33 eulogies (including his) titled the Manes Verulamiani.  Perhaps Ben Jonson eulogized Bacon best, writing:  One, though he be excellent and the chief, is not to be imitated alone; for never no imitator ever grew up to his author; likeness is always on this side truth.  Yet there happened to be in my time one noble speaker who was full of gravity in his speaking; his language, where he could spare or pass by a jest, was nobly censorious.  No man ever spake more neatly, more compressly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered.  No member of his speech but consisted of his own graces.  His hearers could not cough, or look aside from 94

him, without loss.  He commanded where he spoke, and his judges angry and pleased at his devotion.  No man had their affections more in his power.  The fear of every man that heard him was lest he should make an end.  After Bacon Dr. William Rawley was executor to Bacon‘s estate which for the most part had been appropriated by creditors.  All that remained were his manuscripts, letters and notes.  Most of the letters and some of the notes are preserved in the British Museum.  As to the manuscripts, Rawley was instructed to publish some‖ and reserve the rest for a private succession of literary sons.  Bacon‘s literary sons were the members of his Fra Rosi Crosse society who, upon his death, inherited his Rosicrucian-Masonic infrastructure.  The manuscripts, very likely, went from Rawley‘s hands into their care.  There has been much speculation and debate over the fate of the manuscripts.  Some scholars believe they made their way to Scotland where they were hidden away along with the lost treasure of the Knights Templar in the underground vaults of Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh.  Still others are convinced that the treasure trail extends from Rosslyn to Oak Island in Nova Scotia, while others have staked their bets on the Bruton vault under William and Mary College in Virginia near Jamestown.  Bacon‘s vision of a scientific society came to fruition 34 years after his death in the form of the Royal Society during the reign of Charles II.  Its Rosicrucian-Masonic founders included Elias Ashmole, Robert Boyle, Christopher Wren and Sir Isaac Newton.  The age of modern science had arrived. 95

10 The Rise of the Stratfordians  At the time the 1623 Shakespeare Folio was being published, a mysterious monument featuring a bust of Shaksper was erected in the Stratford parish church.  No one knows who arranged for its construction or who paid for it.  Ostensibly, the monument‘s purpose was to direct the reader of the Folio to Stratford.  A brief eulogy of Shakespeare written by the poet Leonard Digges makes a strange allusion to thy Stratford Moniment.  Digge‘s eulogy appears to have been tacked on toward the end of the Folio‘s dedications as an afterthought.  It would also appear that the monument was built prior to the publication of the Folio, and that Digge‘s eulogy was added so that the reference to the Stratford Monument would not be overlooked.  Another peculiarity about the monument is that the bust of Shaksper bore no resemblance to the Droeshout engraving.  Moreover, there was nothing about the image to suggest any connection to literature.  Instead, the bust depicted a rustic looking man with a stern face and a drooping mustache clutching a sack of grain--a fitting representation, considering Shaksper of Stratford was known to have been a grain merchant in his latter years.  After a century of neglect, the original bust was removed and replaced (1748) by a completely different looking bust that remains to the present day.  Author Alfred Dodd 96

offers an apt description:  The effigy which stands in place of the curious original is in general outline the same, but a cushion takes the place of the bag‘ and a large quill pen is placed in his hand.  His hands no longer suggest that he hugs his money bag or wool-sack in an almost miserly fashion, and the smirking, doll-like face is very different from the shrewd, hard-faced man who knew excellently well how to drive a bargain.  The reason we know about the original bust is due to an engraving of the Stratford Monument which appears in Sir William Dugdale‘s book, Warwickshire, published in 1656.   Despite the existence of the Stratford Monument people remained largely unaware and unconcerned about the Shakespeare authorship for nearly one and a half centuries.  In 1769, the celebrated London actor David Garrick traveled to the village of Stratford to pay homage to a man he erroneously thought to have authored the Shakespearean work.  Upon his arrival, Garrick found the Stratford citizens to be profoundly oblivious to who Shakespeare was.  The village was ravaged by filth and decay.  All vestiges of the mud wall houses in which the Shaksper family had dwelled were long gone.  But Garrick the actor became Garrick the entrepreneur.  He saw an opportunity to turn Stratford and Shakespeare into a profitable enterprise.  Thus, Garrick unwittingly cashed in on the specious legacy of the 1623 Folio, and the Stratfordian myth of the man the world came to know as William Shakespeare was born.  Almost instantaneously, Garrick began to use his celebrity to attract outside visitors (with money to spend) to his Stratford jubilees in which he produced and starred in virtually all of the Shakespearean plays.  Other profitable jubilee attractions included guided tours of Shakespeare‘s alleged birthplace and souvenirs of furniture and other 97

miscellaneous items supposedly owned by Shakespeare along with plenty of food and ale.   Shakespeare of Stratford had become a cottage industry.  In many respects, it was a forerunner of the modern Renaissance Faire.  But more importantly, as the popularity of the Shakespearean work increased, the Stratford myth of Shakespeare gradually worked its way into the hallowed halls of orthodox history.  Eventually, biographical books about the life of a man named Shakespeare (who, technically, never really existed) began to materialize out of sheer invention and supposition.  On this, author Ross Jackson states:  Many books were written about Will Shaksper, and an uncritical and unquestioning public consumed them with great interest.  What the public did not notice was that these books invariably started out with the unstated but tenuous assumption that the man from Stratford wrote the works.  These biographies were not based on the known facts of Will Shaksper‘s life… but consisted mainly of speculations about how he must have done that‘, how he must have traveled there‘, how he must have known this person‘, how he must have been proficient in this language‘, and how he must have been the greatest genius that ever lived‘, with little or no hard evidence to back up the assertions.  Generations were brought up to accept this myth about Will Shaksper without question.  Amazingly, by the onset of the nineteenth century, the Stratfordian version of William Shakespeare the author was generally adopted as gospel among historical and literary academicians.  Most learning institutions in Britain and America were busily teaching the Stratfordian doctrine to a naïve and uninformed public. 98

The first known published statement questioning the authorship of the Shakespearean works appeared in Life and Adventures of Common Sense by Herbert Lawrence in 1769. By the mid nineteenth century, many prominent writers and scholars had begun to scrutinize the Stratfordian doctrine.  They discovered glaring holes and inconsistencies in the traditional story.  One Shakespearean scholar, Delia Bacon (not related to Francis Bacon) wrote a book titled The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded (published 1857) in which she proposed a carefully documented thesis showing the Shakespearean works to be the product of an elite group of writers led by Francis Bacon.  Not to be undone, the Stratfordians launched an all-out attack on Delia Bacon, denouncing her as the woman who hates Shakespeare.  Many prominent people in the academic world such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Thomas Carlyle responded to the Stratfordian abuse of Delia Bacon with supportive words in her defense and proclamations of advocacy for the new Baconian thesis concerning the Shakespearean authorship.  Most notably, Mark Twain became the staunchest anti-Stratfordian (and Baconian supporter) with his book Is Shakespeare Dead?  in which he severely lampooned the Stratfordians as mindless Troglodytes.  Regarding the Stratfordian biographies, Twain writes:  we set down the conjectures‘ and suppositions,‘ and maybes,‘ and perhapses,‘ and doubtlesses,‘ and rumors,‘ and guesses,‘ and probabilities,‘ and likelihoods,‘ and we are permitted to think,‘ and we are warranted in believing,‘ and might have beens,‘ and unquestionablys,‘ and without a shadow of a doubt,‘ and behold!  Materials?  Why, we have enough to build a biography of Shakespeare.  He then compared the Stratfordian myth of Shakespeare to a Brontasaurus skeleton which was on display at the New York 99

Museum of Natural History.  The enormous skeleton only had nine actual bones, the rest of the colossal structure consisted of plaster.  Myths and legends are hard to deal with.  Once they get started, they take on a life of their own.  This phenomenon is commonly called The Liberty Valance Effect.  You know, from the old movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance in which John Wayne shoots the menacing outlaw Liberty Valance then makes it look like Jimmy Stewart did the deed.  Even Jimmy believes he killed Valance.  The townspeople treat him like a hero. Thereafter, Jimmy‘s character moves up in the world as a very important man.  Years later, he finds out the truth, but it‘s too late.  The legend has become history.  He tells the real story to a prominent news reporter who has no interest in seeing history revised, even though it is contrary to the truth.  The reporter says:  When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.  And so it is with the Stratfordian legend of Shakespeare! 100

.........................................