What if? The question of whether Sir Francis Bacon was the true author of Shakespeare’s works has been a topic of debate and speculation for centuries. The authorship of Shakespeare’s plays has long been a subject of speculation and controversy. While the traditional belief attributes these works to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, there is a compelling case to be made for Sir Francis Bacon as the true author. Bacon’s exceptional intellect, extensive knowledge, and connection to influential circles provide a plausible foundation for considering him as the hidden genius behind the Shakespearean works. Such followers are considered Baconians.
Sir Francis Bacon was a renowned philosopher, scientist, and statesman of the Elizabethan era. He possessed a remarkable intellect and a breadth of knowledge across various disciplines. Bacon’s writings, such as “Novum Organum” and “The Advancement of Learning,” demonstrate his profound understanding of human nature, the sciences, and the arts. His philosophical ideas and innovative approach to knowledge align closely with the profound insights and intellectual depth present in Shakespeare’s plays.
Furthermore, Bacon had a privileged upbringing and access to a wide range of resources and influential individuals. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and later pursued a legal and political career. His association with high-ranking figures, including Queen Elizabeth I and James I, gave him unique insights into courtly life and politics—themes that feature prominently in many of Shakespeare’s plays. The detailed depiction of royal courts, political intrigue, and power dynamics found in Shakespeare’s works suggests an intimate familiarity that could be attributed to Bacon’s firsthand experiences.
The Baconian theory gains further credibility when examining the intricate legal knowledge displayed in Shakespeare’s plays. The plays exhibit a deep understanding of legal matters, including courtroom procedures, legal language, and the intricacies of justice. Bacon, as a lawyer and legal scholar, was well-versed in these aspects and could have easily incorporated his expertise into the plays. Additionally, the use of legal terminology and concepts found in the works aligns remarkably with Bacon’s legal background.
One of the primary arguments against Bacon’s authorship is the lack of direct evidence. However, proponents of the Baconian theory argue that this absence is a deliberate result of Bacon’s efforts to conceal his true identity. The secrecy surrounding the authorship, they claim, was necessary due to political and social considerations. In this context, Bacon’s involvement with a secret society known as the “Rosicrucians” is often cited. Supporters of the Baconian theory speculate that the society served as a means for Bacon to disseminate his works anonymously.
Petter Amundsen, a Norwegian researcher, gained attention in the early 2000s with his claims of discovering hidden codes and ciphers within Shakespeare’s works. Amundsen’s findings purportedly revealed a treasure map and evidence pointing to hidden manuscripts written by Sir Francis Bacon. While these claims sparked curiosity and excitement among some, the academic and scholarly community has largely dismissed Amundsen’s findings as unfounded and lacking substantial evidence.
Amundsen’s central claim revolved around a particular edition of Shakespeare’s works known as the “First Folio,” which was published in 1623, several years after Shakespeare’s death. According to Amundsen, he deciphered intricate codes and ciphers embedded within the text of the First Folio. These codes contained clues leading to Bacon’s hidden manuscripts and a supposed treasure. One of Amundsen’s main assertions was that the First Folio contained a ciphered map of Oak Island, a small island in Nova Scotia, Canada, known for its legends of buried treasure. He argued that the map, when decrypted, would pinpoint the location of Bacon’s manuscripts.
This theory has been met with skepticism. Some cryptography experts examined Amundsen’s codes and found them to be subjective interpretations and arbitrary patterns rather than deliberate encryptions. Amundsen makes a compelling case for the validity of his ciphers and backs them up with repetition and evidence.
One such instance was Amundsen’s ability to correlate the stone structure on the island known as, Nolan’s Cross, with the ancient Tree of Life symbol. In the first season of the History Channel Curse of Oak Island, he uncovered a large stone marker in the landscape with each point of the Tree of Life. The most important point, Mercy Stone, is submerged in the Oak Island swamp. While visiting the island, Amundsen used a metal probe and found a stone marker at the bottom of the swamp. It is potentially where the Mercy Stone is supposed to reside. Recently, the Oak Island team drained the swamp but they have not revisited the Mercy Stone location. Perhaps this will be the year for a new discovery?
Amundsen’s claims about the connection between Bacon and Shakespeare rely heavily on his decoding of Shakespeare’s First Folio. While it is true that Bacon was a prominent figure of the time and had notable intellectual capabilities, the leap from this fact to the conclusion that he was the true author of Shakespeare’s works is a significant one. The consensus among scholars and experts in Shakespearean studies remains that William Shakespeare, the playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon, was indeed the author of the works attributed to him. Can history be rewritten?
Petter Amundsen’s Shakespeare findings, including the deciphering of codes within the First Folio, remain highly controversial and have not gained acceptance within the academic community, despite the plethora of circumstantial evidence and repetition of the cipher. The mainstream scholarly consensus continues to support William Shakespeare as the rightful author of the plays and poems attributed to him.
While the traditional belief identifies William Shakespeare as the author of his plays, the Baconian theory provides a compelling alternative perspective. Sir Francis Bacon’s extraordinary intellect, wide-ranging knowledge, connection to influential circles, and alignment with the themes and intricacies present in Shakespeare’s works make him a strong candidate for authorship. Although direct evidence remains elusive, the circumstantial evidence and the depth of Bacon’s capabilities suggest that he may well be the hidden genius behind the iconic works attributed to Shakespeare. As the debate continues, exploring this alternative authorship theory adds an intriguing layer to the understanding and appreciation of the Shakespearean legacy.
There is a belief that Edward Devere, the Earl of Oxford, is the true author of Shakespeare. Like the Baconians, there are many who provide compelling evidence with codes and decyphers of the First Folio. Can both be true? Stay tuned.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.