№ 53. Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians

PAGE STATUS: I began work on this page in late 2020 and for a long time could focus on nothing else. While writing Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum (“The Mirror of the Wisdom of the Rosy Cross”), I realized for the first time the futility of trying to point my readers to the most important section or page. How could anything compare to the Georgia Guidestones or Tomorrowland? The list of pages I toiled over for countless hours is long. And this relatively new page is also something I now consider essential to developing an understanding of what is happening. But my analysis of 
LAST UPDATE: November 25, 2020

“Here is wisdom”


Do you want to put a face to the progeny of Jove? Here it is. Sir Francis Bacon was, is, and shall forever remain the most respected among their ranks since Pythagoras some 2,600 years ago. You probably know him as William Shakespeare. The Georgia Guidestones were his idea. 


O farewell,
Farewell the neighing steed, and the shrill trump,
The spirit-stirring drum, th’ ear-piercing fife;
The royal banner, and all quality,
Pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war!
And O you mortal engines, whose rude throats
Th’ immortal Jove’s dread clamors counterfeit,
Farewell! Othello’s occupation’s gone.

Othello Act 3, scene 3 [bold-red emphasis added]

I do not think I will ever forget the night I looked down at my program at the Austin Symphony Orchestra (before the pandemic) and read these lines. I realized then that Shakespeare knew about Jupiter being the secondhand on a celestial doomsday clock. What I did not know way back then was that this was actually Sir Francis Bacon. A whole new world of thought awaited me.

This page is dedicated to
Peter Dawkins
The world’s foremost authority on the authorship question

Regnans in Excelsis 

The defining moment in these end times was the Regnans in Excelsis (“Reigning on High”), a papal bull that Pope Pius V issued on February 25, 1570, excommunicating Queen Elizabeth. This decision more so than anything else since the Roman Empire would in time reshape the entire Western world. The reason why is very little understood.

How do we define the “end times”? What constitutes the last moment from the perspective of someone such as the Nazarene of Virgil, both of whom lived over two millennia before the event but spoke of it as if it were imminent? Surely they were thinking in terms of what has become known as the precession of the equinoxes, Great Year, or Maya Long Count, some 26,000 years. What are a mere two thousand years in such a larger context?

I divide the end time into four distinct periods.

  1. 1570 – 1604: More precisely from the issuing of the Regnans in Excelsis papal bull on February 25, 1570, to the discovery of SN 1604 on October 9, 1604. 
  2. 1604 – 1615: This is the period of time from the discovery of SN 1604 to the publication of the Rosicrucian manifestos in 1614 and 1615. As discussed in the next section, SN 1604 provided the impetus to “put wheels on the Globe Theatre (my words). During this period of time, the Rosicrucians were founded. As stated in Wikipedia, “Thomas De Quincey in his work titled Rosicrucians and Freemasonry put forward the theory which suggested that Freemasonry was possibly an outgrowth of Rosicrucianism. The theory had also been postulated in 1803 by German professor; J. G. Buhle.” De Quincey and Buhle were right. The medieval guilds for stonemasons would never have evolved into secret societies were it not for Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians. The simplest way to think of Freemasons is that they are the public face of the secret societies that date back to this period of time. In the first Rosicrucian manifesto Fama Fraternitatis, the fraternity committed to remaining secret for 100 years. So it is tempting to think that when the Premier Grand Lodge of England was founded on June 24, 1717, that Rosicrucianism faded into obscurity. While I do not think the AMORC or any other people calling themselves Rosicrucians today can claim a direct lineage to the Rosicrucians from this period of time, there is evidence that the Rosicrucians were in the colonies and that they continued to exist as late as the Civil War. I suspect they were eventually replaced by the leadership within the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, Northern Jurisdiction, which notably included the Ohio River Valley.
  3. 1615 – 2013: This is the time of the Rosicrucians and Freemasons, one of the greatest social experiments of all time, and it was inaugurated by Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends. This is what people do not understand for the same reason that it is difficult to explain water to a fish. The Freemasons founded this country are were in direct control of it through the presidency until after the end of World War II when they morphed into the CIA. These people I call the progeny of Jove have shaped our destiny. Truman was the 13th Freemason president and the 33rd president since George Washington. And in what is known as “Simple Cipher” or gematria, the letters CIA equal 13. This is not a game. It is all by design. And the people behind the design are the same people who ruthlessly killed JFK. So you can either dismiss all this as a “conspiracy theory” or you can wake up to the reality of the world in which you live. The decision is always yours. 
  4. 2013 – PRESENT: The general public cannot see that December 21, 2012, the correct date for the end of 13 baktuns (one Great Cycle) in the Maya Long Count, was designed to make us wary of suggestions that we live in the end times. This is precisely why the progeny of Jove waited until 2013 to move into high gear with all of their plans. 2013 is what I think of as the beginning of the end. It is the year Maya Long Count ended, filming of Tomorrowland began, and the CIA declassified The Adam and Eve Story. Obviously, we are living in this period. This is the end time. 

This section is my discussion of the first of these four periods from 1570 to 1604. The second period from 1604 to 1615 is discussed in the next section.

I am working on finding a better presentation of these ideas. What I have now is a Peter Dawkins YouTube video that I butchered in order to isolate all of his comments about the Rosicrucians dating back to 1570 and the signing of the Regnans in Excelsis papal bull. These are his ideas and the reason I hold him in such high regard. Peter Dawkins is in command of the big picture. He sees what is happening from “on high” to borrow an expression from Pope Pius V. And for that, we all owe him a great debt. I just know I’ve seen him present the ideas more concisely, but as of this writing, I cannot find the video I recall watching. Until then, this one must suffice. 

Elizabeth I, Rainbow Portrait c. 1600-1602. Artist Unknown.

Allow me to “set the stage” so-to-speak. What you must understand is that by excommunicating Elizabeth I, Pope Pius V was sending an open invitation to her enemies to assassinate the queen and for Catholic countries to attack and invade England. There was in fact such an assassination plot the following year in 1571. It is known as the Ridolfi plot. (In the context of my page № 11. The centuries-old War between the Bankers and Purveyors of Wisdom, I note that Roberto Ridolfi was a Florentine banker.) 

A group of intellectuals rallied to her side. Most notable among them was perhaps John Dee. They set about to protect the queen by gathering knowledge from all over the globe. Unbeknownst to all but a handful of people, they included her unacknowledged son, Sir Francis Bacon, who she would later honor by making him the first-ever Queen’s Counsel Extraordinary in 1597. Besides John Dee, the others, described by Peter Dawkins as the “main ones,” in Sir Francis Bacon’s circle of friends include his true father Robert Dudley, the Earl of Lester (read Royal favourite), his “half brother” (in truth they are first cousins) Sir Nicholas BaconSir Henry Lee, the Queen’s Champion, and Sir Philip Sidney. Why Dawkins does not include Ben Johnson in this list escapes me. (See also Francis Bacon’s Friends And Associates by Constance M. Pott, founder of the Francis Bacon Society, April 30, 1900.)

It is interesting to note that the Regnans in Excelsis includes the sentence “She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics.” This I presume to be a reference to the Privy Council, but in truth, the men she surrounded herself with were her immediate family and their most trusted friends. Their leader was Sir Francis Bacon and they would use the information they collected from all over Europe to educate the common man in the Globe Theatre and later the entire world by founding the Rosicrucians and Freemasons. This relatively small group of men, whose original purpose was but to protect their queen, would in time change the entire Western world to such an extent that their influence can be truly said to be unsurpassed since that of the Roman Empire. 

06:04 minute clip from Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians by Peter Dawkins Part 1 on The Francis Bacon Society YouTube channel

Two Supernovae 32 years apart were the impetus for the Rosicrucians and explain the Freemason 32

Before there was SN 1604, there was SN 1572 in the Cassiopeia constellation. At the time, Sir Francis Bacon was 11 years old. A mere 32 years separated these two events. There has not been another supernova observable with the naked eye since then. Given the singular importance of SN 1604 to Sir Francis Bacon and the certainty with which I now believe the 33° in Freemasonry is a reference to him, can there be any doubt whatsoever that the 32° or “Royal Secret” is a reference to these two momentous supernovae? 

According to the Wikipedia’s SN 1572 article, there are only “eight supernovae visible to the naked eye in historical records.”

Johannes Kepler’s original drawing from the book De Stella Nova in Pede Serpentarii (“On the new star in Ophiuchus’s foot”) published in 1606 depicts the location of SN 1604. It is marked with an N (8 grid squares down, 4 over from the left). In both Daniel Mögling’s famous Rosicrucian drawing below and Kepler’s drawing above, the left leg of Ophiuchus touches the supernova. This location is actually very close to the center of the galaxy, which raises a profoundly important and intriguing question.  

Is all of the esoteric symbolism associated with SN 1604 celebrating the supernova and its significance to Sir Francis Bacon and by extension to the origin of both the Rosicrucians and Freemasons, or was the location of SN 1604 in the night sky mystically fortuitous?  

In other words, what is the Royal Secret? From whence cometh our destruction? Is it the center of the Galaxy? Because if this is the truth and Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends knew this long before SN 16704, the location of that supernova in the night sky must have seemed like a message “from above” to prepare for the end time. Words such as “mystically fortuitous” hardily do this justice. The only historical event I can think of which even begins to compare is the crossing of the Red Sea, which I not only think happened but which I am sure was owing to the gravitational effect of the comet Venus lifting the water up out of the sea and then crashing it back down again upon the Egyptian charioteers. Fortuitous? Mystically fortuitous? How can words do either of these events justice? The crossing of the Red Sea is what defined the Jews and has set them apart to this very day. How could they not feel as if they were the “chosen people” of God? SN 1604 has had no less of an impact on all of our lives than did the comet Venus on that fateful day

How can I be so sure? Because along with Ophiuchus is always a symbolic reference to the center (of something).

You must be very clear about this. If SN 1604 were merely a way of symbolically celebrating the decision to put the Globe Theatre on wheels by making what Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends knew available to the newly initiated in England and throughout the world, of marking the founding or repurposing of Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, then what has that to do with the center of anything? 

SN 1604, otherwise known as Kepler’s Supernova, gave rise to what Peter Dawkins refers to as the “historical” Rosicrucians in the YouTube video below. But I suspect there is more to it than this. SN 1604 is so named because it happened in 1604. This was the same year the real William Shakespeare, by which I mean the actor, turned 40 years old. He would die twelve years later at 52 years of age in 1616. Life expectancy in the Elizabethan era is discussed at length in How Did Shakespeare Die? Here is one opinion from the transcript of this podcast:

He was very old of course by the time he died – 52 was a grand old age when the average life expectancy of Elizabethans was in the early 30s. 

– Ben Crystal, Actor, Director and producer.

He is reputed to have been a hard drinker. Sir Francis Bacon must have realized the actor’s days were numbered.

Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum (“The Mirror of the Wisdom of the Rosy Cross”) 

Here is the cover

To catch the spirit of what was happening at this time with Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends, I would point out what surprisingly no one else of whom I am aware has ever noticed, which is that this widely known “Temple of the Rose Cross” drawing from Daniel Mögling’s Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum (Mirror of the Wisdom of the Rosy Cross) published in 1618 is the Globe Theatre on wheels

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Is The Temple of the Rose Cross from 1618 actually the Globe Theatre on wheels?

Stop this slideshow at the Temple of the Rose Cross. In the following discussion, the terms left and right are from the reader’s perspective.

The key to understanding this esoteric drawing is the Latin word “VIDEAMINI,” which both WordSense.eu and the University of Notre Dame: Latin-English dictionary says is a conjugation of the Latin verb video in the second-person plural present passive subjunctive. I lack the expertise to fully analyze the significance of this conjugation other than to say of course the second-person plural is ye, y’all, or more popularly you guys. I sense the conjugation is important because the definition of this verb in the passive voice is considerably different than in the active voice and is given in several sources as seem, seem good, appear, or be seen. However, in the active voice, the Latin verb video has the meaning of to see, look at, consider, reflect (upon), observe, perceive, discern, understand, or comprehend. 

However, the important thing to notice is first and foremost that the verb videamini is touching Ophiuchus, the constellation in which SN 1604 appeared. This is the connection to the center of the galaxy. Beyond the aging William Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon, this is why SN 1604 was a call to arms, to look to posterity. to take what was happening in the Globe Theatre on the road. Now look on the other side of the drawing and you will see that videamini is mirrored. The right side of the drawing is a mirror or reflection of the left. This is extremely important to notice because of the following. 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

What I see is Sir Francis Bacon jumping off a cliff on the right. This is a metaphor for projecting himself into the future beyond the time of his death. Why? As you will hear from Peter Dawkins momentarily, supposedly because of the inspiration of SN 1604. But I see something more. I see his mirror image on the left side of the drawing is Noah’s Ark, which symbolizes the coming Earth crustal displacement, which is to say, the apocalypse. This is the primary message of the drawing. The winged messages above the leaping Sir Francis Bacon and Noah’s Ark leave no room for doubt that the two are to be equated. And what is the message of this?

He knows. Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends know what is going to happen.

Through Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, they are putting into motion a plan which I believe includes a warning to the people. We know of this warning as the Georgia Guidestones. They are thinking 400 years down the road.

As with most things concerning Sir Francis Bacon, I first became aware of the significance of SN 1604 through Peter Dawkins. 

Sir Francis Bacon & Rosicrucian Symbolism from the Francis Bacon Research Trust YouTube channel

The swan in Daniel Mögling’s drawing is a reference to the Cygnus (constellation). This is recalling a luminous blue variable know as P Cygni which was first observed in Cygnus in 1600. This star is no longer thought of as a nova. Beyond providing the mirror for Ophiuchus, the only real significance of the swan or Cygnus constellation is its position in the night sky.

As you can see, Cygnus is soaring over Aquarius and Capricorn, where all the action is taking place. This bird’s eye view suggests what Noah’s Ark makes perfectly clear, which is that these people know what is happening. But the real focus is on Ophiuchus or the center of the galaxy. This is why VIDEAMINI is upside down next to the swan representing Cygnus but is one of the most readable words in the whole drawing at the foot of Ophiuchus. The foot of Ophiuchus is touching VIDEAMINI because this is where SN 1604 appeared in the constellation, as can be seen in 

I also would not put a lot of emphasis on Peter Dawkins’s comments about Paracelsus. Planetary alignments are electromagnetically insignificant. However, the fact that Queen Elizabeth died in 1603 is hugely important for Sir Francis Bacon if for no other reason as another reminder that his days are numbered.  All of these events sparked a movement that would reverberate down through history to the present day. 

The General Reformation of the Whole Wide World

The orginial Roscicrucian manifesto published in 1614 included a ttratise entitled 

The Identity of William Shakespeare (the author, not the actor)

There most certainly was an actor named William Shakespeare, but he did not write the plays in which he acted. The writer was Sir Francis Bacon and one or more other men in his tight-knit circle of friends. This is beyond question, and highly important to this website because, according to no less than Manly P. Hall, Sir Francis Bacon edited the 1611 King James Bible. 

The first edition of the King James Bible, which was edited by Francis Bacon and prepared under Masonic supervision, bears more Mason’s marks than the Cathedral of Strasburg.

Manly P. Hall, Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins

This is why I only ever quote from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. It is more than just a translation and is irreplaceable in this sense. Replace a single word, change the punctuation or even correct an apparent mistake in the KJV and you may lose meaning every wit as important to this generation as are the words of the Nazarene. 

In the following three subsections, I have gathered what I consider to be the best of breed YouTube videos from highly respected individuals who are widely known and respected. I have very little to no tolerance for divergent views on this subject. Anyone who can look at this proof and still argue that the plays of William Shakespeare were penned by the actor or anyone else for that matter is either an academic, hopeless egotist or a fool. I for one can no longer can distinguish between the three. 

Peter Dawkins and the SN 1604 explanation for Christian Rosenkreuz

Peter Dawkins is the foremost authority on the true identity of William Shakespeare.

Sir Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam of Verulam, Viscount Saint Alban (1561-1626), was not only a recognized genius but also a man of many parts—a renowned philosopher, poet, orator, author, essayist, cryptographer, courtier, lawyer, parliamentarian, statesman, intellectual reformer and master of the English tongue. He was the first QC and KC, and in later life became Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and Lord Chancellor, with the titles Baron Verulam of Verulam and Viscount St Alban.

Bacon lived during the height of the English Renaissance and the beginning of the modern era, of which he is considered to be a major founder. Not only was he likened to Plato, as “the Third after Plato”, but the Royal Society of England acknowledged him as their instaurator, as also did the French Academy of France.

He referred to himself as “the herald of the new age”, and Paracelsus prophesied his appearance as “Elias the Artist… who shall reveal many things”. The Order Cabbalistic de la Rosecroix described Elias the Artist as the “Genius Director of the Rose Cross… Spirit of Liberty, of Science and Love which must regenerate the world.”

Bacon was a man of mystery—a Freemason, Rosicrucian and “concealed poet”, acknowledged as “The very nerve of genius, the marrow of persuasion, the golden stream of eloquence, the precious gem of concealed literature,” the “Light-bearer” and “Day-Star of the Muses”, “leader of the choir of Muses and their disciples,” and renovator of Philosophy by means of Comedy and Tragedy (i.e. stage plays).

Likened to both Apollo and Pallas Athena, the Spear-shaker, Francis Bacon led a studio of “good pens” and both inaugurated and led the Shakespeare scene. Clues to his mystery are given in his unique titles, Baron Verulam of Verulam, which means ‘Spear-shaker of Verulamium’, and Viscount St Alban, which is the name of the Romano-British saint, St Alban, the reputed founder of Freemasonry in England. The higher degrees of the original Speculative Freemasonry were those of the Rose Cross.

Bacon not only headed the Rosy Cross Fraternity (Rosicrucians) but his Great Instauration is based on ancient wisdom and biblical and cabalistic principles. A study and knowledge of this is a major gateway into the true but veiled ever-living Wisdom Tradition. The aim is to discover truth.

Peter Dawkins, founder of the Francis Bacon Research Trust. http://www.fbrt.org.uk (Used with permission.)

Francis Bacon Society presents Peter Dawkins 3:- ‘The Shakespeare Monument’ from the The Francis Bacon Society YouTube channel

It is important to understand peter Dawkins’s use of the term “historical” in reference to the Rosicrucian order founded by Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends. By contrast, “The Fraternity of the Rose Cross” spoken of in the first Rosicrucian manifesto, Fama Fraternitatis, is best thought of as allegorical. In other words, Christian Rosenkreuz (also known as Christian Rose Cross or “Frater C.R.C.”) is not a real person. 

SN 1604

How do we know this? How do we know there were no Rosicrucians before Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends? 

01:15 minute clip from Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians by Peter Dawkins Part 1 on The Francis Bacon Society YouTube channel

Christian Rosenkreuz

Born: 1378

Lived 106 years

1378 + 106 = 1484

Body “accidentally” found 120 years later

I feel very strongly that this 120 is referring to the other 12 Zodiac signs. SN 1604 occurred in Ophiuchus

1484 + 120 = SN 1604

In reality, Sir Francis Bacon started with 1604 and worked backward.

SN 1604 – 120 = 1484

Body “accidentally” found 120 years later

1484 – 106 = 1378

Lived 106 years

Born: 1378

The only numbers that matter are in red. In other words, 1378 and 1484 are completely arbitrary. Christian Rosenkreuz is not a real person. The 106-year lifespan is what unites everything in the Rosicrucian signature in the First Folio.

The name Christian Rosenkreuz commenurates SN 1604

This is why the address of Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, a critically important lodge in the symbolism of the Georgia Guidestones, is 108 E Ponce de Leon Ave, but the entranceway to the building has the address 106.

Petter Amundsen and the meaning of numbers 53 and 106

I greatly appreciate Dr. Robert Crumpton’s presentation of the work of Petter Amundsen in the following Cracking The Shakespeare Code YouTube because I share his sentiment that Amundsen does himself a disservice by going to far with his material. But what I have isolated in the following clip is of such profound importance to understanding the world in which we live that words cannot do it justice. 

Everything hinges on the number 53, which explains my page number also. The two occurrences of Bacon in the First Folio are on pages 53 and 53 + 53 = 106, which is the Rosicrucian connection. So in number 53, we have both the authorship of the works attributed to William Shakespeare and the founder of what Dawkins calls “historical” Rosicrucianism. Sir Francis Bacon was behind everything, including the grossly misunderstood Georgia Guidestones

30:54 minute clip from Cracking The Shakespeare Code: Part One (Conspiracy Documentary) | Timeline on the Timeline – World History Documentaries YouTube channel

To recount:

The Pythagorean sgnificance of 53

53 = Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians

53 + 53 = 106

106 = How long the fictitious Christian Rosenkreuz lived. Occurs in Chapter VI of Confessio Fraternitatis


We could here relate and declare what all the time from the year 1378 (when our Christian father was born) till now hath happened, what alterations he hath seen in the world these one hundred and six years of his life, what he left after his happy death to be attempted by our Fathers and by us, but brevity, which we do observe, will not permit at this present to make rehearsal of it…

The “simple cipher” is based on the 24-letter Elizabethian alphabet which does not include the letters J or U. The letters existed, but they were not part of the alphabet. The “J” was usually used as the capital form of the letter “i” in the Elizabethan alphabet. The letter “u” was used only in the middle of a word, and the “v” was used at the beginning.

RC = 17 + 3 = 20

Richard the Third = RC

173 = First page of Richard the Third in the First Folio


5. In designating the author of a work or of an assertion, apud aliquem, inbyin the writings ofany one

Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press

And this is the unmistakeable Rosicrucian signature on the First Folio

How do you say thank you to someone like Petter Amundsen? His genius in discovering this extremely well-hidden code makes it possible for others to focus their attention on Sir Francis Bacon in an effort to understand what he intended to accomplish when, late in his life and after the death of William Shakespeare (the actor), he put the Globe theatre on wheels by founding the “historical” Rosicrucians. Anyone having first seen this video or read his book The Seven Steps to Mercy: with Shakespeare’s Key to the Oak Island Templum who would then argue against Sir Francis Bacon as the author of the works historically attributed to the actor William Shakespeare is either a dullard or a pretentious, egotistical and thoroughly disgusting pedagogue who cares more about being the center of attention than he does the pursuit of truth. There is precisely such a pitifully ugly human being in Cracking The Shakespeare Code and his clothing betrays his true character.

Susan Roberts and the parentage of Sir Francis Bacon

Susan Roberts is in a class by itself. After watching this, I decide no further work was required to establish the true identity of William Shakespeare, the writer. This video’s greatest contribution is in establishing the parentage of Sir Francis Bacon. He was the son of Queen Elizabeth. 

1:28:29 minute video entitled Is Sir Francis Bacon Shakespeare? on The Francis Bacon Society YouTube channel

The Freemason 33° is Simple Cipher for (Sir Francis) Bacon

These are what we might think of as the sacred numbers of the Rosicrucians and by extension the Freemasons. 

The Number 33 in The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall

The full title of this book is An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy: Being an Interpretation of the Secret Teachings concealed within the Rituals, Allegories and Mysteries of all Ages.[6]:vi Ac

replace these images…

There were five printings in 1928 of Manly P. Hall’s Secret Teachings of all Ages.
Here’s a snippet from the introduction written by Hall.
‘The pre-publication sale of this book has been without known precedent in book history. The subscription list for the first edition of 550 copies was entirely closed a year before the manuscript was placed in the printer’s hands. The second, or King Solomon, edition, consisting of 550 copies, and the third, or Theosophical, edition, consisting of 200 copies, were sold before the finished volume was received from the printer. For so ambitious a production, this constitutes a unique achievement. The credit for this extraordinary sales program belongs to Mrs. Maud F. Galigher, who had as her ideal not to sell the book in the commercial sense of the word but to place it in the hands of those particularly interested in the subject matter it contains. Valuable assistance in this respect was also rendered by numerous friends who had attended my lectures and who without compensation undertook and successfully accomplished the distribution of the book.’
Two later editions “The Rosicrucian Edition” (100 copies) and the “Fifth Edition” (800 copies) were published in 1928.
This gives us a total of
First (Subscriber’s) Edition 550
King Solomon Edition 550
Theosophical Edition 200

1300 copies in three special editions

Rosicrucian Edition 100
Fifth Edition 800
Total 2200 Copies

The following entry is from the Table of Contents

The Rosicrucian mask–Life of William Shakspere–Sir Francis Bacon–The acrostic signatures–The significant number thirty-three–The philosophic death.

Bacon, Shakspere, and the Rosicrucians

THE present consideration of the Bacon–Shakspere–Rosicrucian controversy is undertaken not for the vain purpose of digging up dead men’s bones but rather in the hope that a critical analysis will aid in the rediscovery of that knowledge lost to the world since the oracles were silenced. It was W. F. C. Wigston who called the Bard of Avon “phantom Captain Shakespeare, the Rosicrucian mask.” This constitutes one of the most significant statements relating to the Bacon-Shakspere controversy.

It is quite evident that William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name. He did not possess the necessary literary culture, for the town of Stratford where he was reared contained no school capable of imparting the higher forms of learning reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, and in his early life he evinced a total disregard for study. There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere’s handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the “Shakespearian” plays or sonnets have been discovered, nor is there even a tradition concerning them other than the fantastic and impossible statement appearing in the foreword of the Great Folio.

A well-stocked library would be an essential part of the equipment of an author whose literary productions demonstrate him to be familiar with the literature of all ages, yet there is no record that Shakspere ever possessed a library, nor does he make any mention of books in his will. Commenting on the known illiteracy of Shakspere’s daughter Judith, who at twenty-seven could only make her mark, Ignatius Donnelly declares it to be unbelievable that William Shakspere if he wrote the plays bearing his name would have permitted his own daughter to reach womanhood and marry without being able to read one line of the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous.

The query also has been raised, “Where did William Shakspere secure his knowledge of modern French, Italian, Spanish, and Danish, to say nothing of classical Latin and Greek?” For, in spite of the rare discrimination with which Latin is used by the author of the Shakespearian plays, Ben Jonson, who knew Shakspere intimately, declared that the Stratford actor understood “small Latin and less Greek”! Is it not also more than strange that no record exists of William Shakspere’s having ever played a leading rôle in the famous dramas he is supposed to have written or in others produced by the company of which he was a member? True, he may have owned a small interest in the Globe Theatre or Blackfriars, but apparently the height of his thespian achievements was the Ghost in Hamlet!

In spite of his admitted avarice, Shakspere seemingly made no effort during his lifetime to control or secure remuneration from the plays bearing his name, many of which were first published anonymously. As far as can be ascertained, none of his heirs were involved in any manner whatsoever in the printing of the First Folio after his death, nor did they benefit financially therefrom. Had he been their author, Shakspere’s manuscripts and unpublished plays would certainly have constituted his most valued possessions, yet his will–while making special disposition of his second-best bed and his “broad silver gilt bowl” neither mentions nor intimates that he possessed any literary productions whatsoever.

While the Folios and Quartos usually are signed “William Shakespeare,” all the known autographs of the Stratford actor read “William Shakspere.” Does this change in spelling contain any significance heretofore generally overlooked? Furthermore, if the publishers of the First Shakespearian Folio revered their fellow actor as much as their claims in that volume would indicate, why did they, as if in ironical allusion to a hoax which they were perpetrating, place an evident caricature of him on the title page?

Certain absurdities also in Shakspere’s private life are irreconcilable. While supposedly at the zenith of his literary career, he was actually engaged in buying malt, presumably for a brewing business! Also picture the immortal Shakspere–the reputed author of The Merchant of Venice–as a moneylender! Yet among those against whom Shakspere brought action to collect petty sums was a fellow townsman–one Philip Rogers–whom he sued for an unpaid loan of two shillings, or about forty-eight cents! In short, there is nothing known in the life of Shakspere that would justify the literary excellence imputed to him.

The philosophic ideals promulgated throughout the Shakespearian plays distinctly demonstrate their author to have been thoroughly familiar with certain doctrines and tenets peculiar to Rosicrucianism; in fact the profundity of the Shakespearian productions stamps their creator as one of the illuminati of the ages. Most of those seeking a solution for the Bacon-Shakspere controversy have been intellectualists. Notwithstanding their scholarly attainments, they have overlooked the important part played by transcendentalism in the philosophic achievements of the ages. The mysteries of superphysics are inexplicable to the materialist, whose training does not equip him to estimate the extent of their ramifications and complexities. Yet who but a Platonist, a Qabbalist, or a Pythagorean could have written The Tempest, Macbeth, Hamlet, or The Tragedy of Cymbeline? Who but one deeply versed in Paracelsian lore could have conceived, A Midsummer Night’s Dream?

Father of modern science, remodeler

Click to enlarge


From Shakespeare’s King Richard The Second, Quarto of 1597.

The ornamental headpiece shown above has long been considered a Baconian or Rosicrucian signature. The light and the dark A‘s appear in several volumes published by emissaries of the Rosicrucians. If the above figure be compared with that from the Alciati Emblemata on the following pages, the cryptic use of the two A’s will be further demonstrated.

Click to enlarge


From Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy.

Baconian experts declare Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy to be in reality Francis Bacon’s scrapbook in which he gathered strange and rare bits of knowledge during the many years of eventful life. This title page has long been supposed to contain a cryptic message. The key to this cipher is the pointing figure of the maniac in the lower right-hand corner of the design. According to Mrs. Elizabeth Wells Gallup, the celestial globe at which the maniac is pointing is a cryptic symbol of Sir Francis Bacon. The planetary signs which appear in the clouds opposite the marginal figures 4, 5;, 6, and 7 signify the planetary configurations, which produce the forms of mania depicted. The seated man, with his head resting upon his hand. is declared by Baconian enthusiasts to represent Sir Francis Bacon.

p. 166

of modern law, editor of the modem Bible, patron of modem democracy, and one of the founders of modern Freemasonry, Sir Francis Bacon was a man of many aims and purposes. He was a Rosicrucian, some have intimated the Rosicrucian. If not actually the Illustrious Father C.R.C. referred to in the Rosicrucian manifestoes, he was certainly a high initiate of the Rosicrucian Order, and it is his activities in connection with this secret body that are of prime importance to students of symbolism, philosophy, and literature.

Scores of volumes have been written to establish Sir Francis Bacon as the real author of the plays and sonnets popularly ascribed to William Shakspere. An impartial consideration of these documents cannot but convince the open-minded of the verisimilitude of the Baconian theory. In fact those enthusiasts who for years have struggled to identify Sir Francis Bacon as the true “Bard of Avon” might long since have won their case had they emphasized its most important angle, namely, that Sir Francis Bacon, the Rosicrucian initiate, wrote into the Shakespearian plays the secret teachings of the Fraternity of R.C. and the true rituals of the Freemasonic Order, of which order it may yet be discovered that he was the actual founder. A sentimental world, however, dislikes to give up a traditional hero, either to solve a controversy or to right a wrong. Nevertheless, if it can be proved that by raveling out the riddle there can be discovered information of practical value to mankind, then the best minds of the world will cooperate in the enterprise. The Bacon-Shakspere controversy, as its most able advocates realize, involves the most profound aspects of science, religion, and ethics; he who solves its mystery may yet find therein the key to the supposedly lost wisdom of antiquity.

It was in recognition of Bacon’s intellectual accomplishments that King James turned over to him the translators’ manuscripts of what is now known as the King James Bible for the presumable purpose of checking, editing, and revising them. The documents remained in his hands for nearly a year, but no information is to be had concerning what occurred in that time. Regarding this work, William T. Smedley writes: ” It will eventually be proved that the whole scheme of the Authorised Version of the Bible was Francis Bacon’s.” (See The Mystery of Francis Bacon.) The first edition of the King James Bible contains a cryptic Baconian headpiece. Did Bacon cryptographically conceal in the Authorized Bible that which he dared not literally reveal in the text–the secret Rosicrucian key to mystic and Masonic Christianity?

Sir Francis Bacon unquestionably possessed the range of general and philosophical knowledge necessary to write the Shakespearian plays and sonnets, for it is usually conceded that he was a composer, lawyer, and linguist. His chaplain, Doctor William Rawley, and Ben Jonson both attest his philosophic and poetic accomplishments. The former pays Bacon this remarkable tribute: “I have been enduced to think that if there were a beame of knowledge derived from God upon any man in these modern times, it was upon him. For though he was a great reader of books; yet he had not his knowledge from books but from some grounds and notions from within himself. ” (See Introduction to the Resuscitado.)

Sir Francis Bacon, being not only an able barrister but also a polished courtier, also possessed that intimate knowledge of parliamentary law and the etiquette of the royal court revealed in the Shakespearian plays which could scarcely have been acquired by a man in the humble station of the Stratford actor. Lord Verulam furthermore visited many of the foreign countries forming the background for the plays and was therefore in a position to create the authentic local atmosphere contained therein, but there is no record of William Shakspere’s ever having traveled outside of England.

The magnificent library amassed by Sir Francis Bacon contained the very volumes necessary to supply the quotations and anecdotes incorporated into the Shakespearian plays. Many of the plays, in fact, were taken from plots in earlier writings of which there was no English translation at that time. Because of his scholastic acquirements, Lord Verulam could have read the original books; it is most unlikely that William Shakspere could have done so.

Abundant cryptographic proof exists that Bacon was concerned in the production of the Shakespearian plays. Sir Francis Bacon’s cipher number was 33. In the First Part of King Henry the Fourth, the word “Francis” appears 33 times upon one page. To attain this end, obviously awkward sentences were required, as: “Anon Francis? No Francis, but tomorrow Francis: or Francis, on Thursday: or indeed Francis when thou wilt. But Francis.”

Throughout the Shakespearian Folios and Quartos occur scores of acrostic signatures. The simplest form of the acrostic is that whereby a name–in these instances Bacon’s–was hidden in the first few letters of lines. In The Tempest, Act I, Scene 2, appears a striking example of the Baconian acrostic:

“Begun to tell me what I am, but stopt
And left me to a bootelesse Inquisition,
Concluding, stay: not yet.

The first letters of the first and second lines together with the first three letters of the third line form the word BACon. Similar acrostics appear frequently in Bacon’s acknowledged writings.

The tenor of the Shakespearian dramas politically is in harmony with the recognized viewpoints of Sir Francis Bacon, whose enemies are frequently caricatured in the plays. Likewise their religious, philosophic, and educational undercurrents all reflect his personal opinions. Not only do these marked similarities of style and terminology exist in Bacon’s writings and the Shakespearian plays, but there are also certain historical and philosophical inaccuracies common to both, such as identical misquotations from Aristotle.

“Evidently realizing that futurity would unveil his full genius, Lord Verulam in his will bequeathed his soul to God above by the oblations of his Savior, his body to be buried obscurely, his name and memory to men’s charitable speeches, to foreign nations, to succeeding ages, and to his own countrymen after some time had elapsed. That portion appearing in italics Bacon deleted from his will, apparently fearing that he had said too much.

That Sir Francis Bacon’s subterfuge was known to a limited few during his lifetime is quite evident. Accordingly, stray hints regarding the true author of the Shakespearian plays may be found in many seventeenth century volumes. On page 33 (Bacon’s cipher number) of the 1609 edition of Robert Cawdry’s Treasurie or Storehouse

Click to enlarge


From Alciati Emblemata.

The curious volume from which this figure is taken was published in Paris in r618. The attention of the Baconian student is immediately attracted by the form of the hog in the foreground. Bacon often used this animal as a play upon his own name, especially because the name Bacon was derived from he word beech and the nut of this tree was used to fatten hogs. The two pillars in the background have considerable Masonic interest. The two A’s nearly in the center of the picture–one light and one shaded–are alone almost conclusive proof of Baconian influence. The most convincing evidence, however, is the fact that 17 is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the Latin farm of Bacon’s name (F. Baco) and there are 17 letters in the three words appearing in the illustration.

Click to enlarge


From Bacon’s Advancement of Learning.

Lord Bacon was born in 1561 and history records his death in 1626. There are records in existence, however, which would indicate the probability that his funeral was a mock funeral and that, leaving England, he lived for many years under another name in Germany, there faithfully serving the secret society to the promulgation of whose doctrines he had consecrate his life. Little doubt seems to exist in the minds of impartial investigators that Lord Bacon was the legitimate son of Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Leicester.

p. 167

of Similes appears the following significant allusion: “Like as men would laugh at a poore man, if having precious garments lent him to act and play the part of some honourable personage upon a stage, when the play were at an ende he should keepe them as his owne, and bragge up and downe in them.”

Repeated references to the word hog and the presence of cryptographic statements on page 33 of various contemporary writings demonstrate that the keys to Bacon’s ciphers were his own name, words playing upon it, or its numerical equivalent. Notable examples are the famous statement of Mistress Quickly in The Merry Wives of Windsor: “Hang-hog is latten for Bacon, I warrant you”; the title pages of The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia and Edmund Spenser’s Faerie Queene; and the emblems appearing in the works of Alciatus and Wither. Furthermore, the word honorificabilitudinitatibus appearing in the fifth act of Love’s Labour’s Lost is a Rosicrucian signature, as its numerical equivalent (287) indicates.

Again, on the title page of the first edition of Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, Father Time is depicted bringing a female figure out of the darkness of a cave. Around the device is a Latin inscription: “In time the secret truth shall be revealed.” The catchwords and printer’s devices appearing in volumes published especially during the first half of the seventeenth century were designed, arranged, and in some cases mutilated according to a definite plan.

It is evident also that the mispaginations in the Shakespearian Folios and other volumes are keys to Baconian ciphers, for re-editions–often from new type and by different printers–contain the same mistakes. For example, the First and Second Folios of Shakespeare are printed from entirely different type and by different printers nine years apart, but in both editions page 153 of the Comedies is numbered 151, and pages 249 and 250 are numbered 250 and 251 respectively. Also in the 1640 edition of Bacon’s The Advancement and Proficience of Learning, pages 353 and 354 are numbered 351 and 352 respectively, and in the 1641 edition of Du Bartas’ Divine Weeks pages 346 to 350 inclusive are entirely missing, while page 450 is numbered 442. The frequency with which pages ending in numbers 50, 51, 52,53, and 54 are involved will he noted.

The requirements of Lord Verulam’s biliteral cipher are fully met in scores of volumes printed between 1590 and 1650 and in some printed at other times. An examination of the verses by L. Digges, dedicated to the memory of the deceased “Authour Maister W. Shakespeare,” reveals the use of two fonts of type for both capital and small letters, the differences being most marked in the capital T‘s, N‘s, and A‘s, (Seethe First Folio.) The cipher has been deleted from subsequent editions.

The presence of hidden material in the text is often indicated by needless involvement of words. On the sixteenth unnumbered page of the 1641 edition of Du Bartas’ Divine Weeks is a boar surmounting a pyramidal text. The text is meaningless jargon, evidently inserted for cryptographic reasons and marked with Bacon’s signature–the hog. The year following publication of the First Folio of Shakespeare’s plays in 1623, there was printed in “Lunæburg” a remarkable volume on cryptography, avowedly by Gustavus Selenus. It is considered extremely probable that this volume constitutes the cryptographic key to the Great Shakespearian Folio.

Peculiar symbolical head- and tail-pieces also mark the presence of cryptograms. While such ornaments are found in many early printed books, certain emblems are peculiar to volumes containing Baconian Rosicrucian ciphers. The light and dark shaded A is an interesting example. Bearing in mind the frequent recurrence in Baconian symbolism of the light and dark shaded A and the hog, the following statement by Bacon in his Interpretation of Nature is highly significant: “If the sow with her snout should happen to imprint the letter A upon the ground, wouldst thou therefore imagine that she could write out a whole tragedy as one letter?”

The Rosicrucians and other secret societies of the seventeenth century used watermarks as mediums for the conveyance of cryptographic references, and books presumably containing Baconian ciphers are usually printed upon paper bearing Rosicrucian or Masonic watermarks; often there are several symbols in one book, such as the Rose Cross, urns, bunches of grapes, and others.

At hand is a document which may prove a remarkable key to a cipher beginning in The Tragedy of Cymbeline. So far as known it has never been published and is applicable only to the 1623 Folio of the Shakespearian plays. The cipher is a line-and-word count involving punctuation, especially the long and short exclamation points and the straight and slanting interrogation points. This code was discovered by Henry William Bearse in 1900, and after it has been thoroughly checked its exact nature will be made public.

No reasonable doubt remains that the Masonic Order is the direct outgrowth of the secret societies of the Middle Ages, nor can it be denied that Freemasonry is permeated by the symbolism and mysticism of the ancient and mediæval worlds. Sir Francis Bacon knew the true secret of Masonic origin and there is reason to suspect that he concealed this knowledge in cipher and cryptogram. Bacon is not to be regarded solely as a man but rather as the focal point between an invisible institution and a world which was never able to distinguish between the messenger and the message which he promulgated. This secret society, having rediscovered the lost wisdom of the ages and fearing that the knowledge might be lost again, perpetuated it in two ways: (1) by an organization (Freemasonry)

Click to enlarge


From Ralegh’s History of the World.

Many documents influenced by Baconian philosophy–or intended m conceal Baconian or Rosicrucian cryptograms–use certain conventional designs at the beginning and end of chapters, which reveal to the initiated the presence of concealed information. The above ornamental has long been accepted as of the presence of Baconian influence and is to be found only in a certain number of rare volumes, all of which contain Baconian cryptograms. These cipher messages were placed in the books either by Bacon himself or by contemporaneous and subsequent authors belonging to the same secret society which Bacon served with his remarkable knowledge of ciphers and enigmas. Variants of this headpiece adorn the Great Shakespearian Folio (1623); Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620); the St. James Bible (1611); Spencer’s Faerie Queene (1611); and Sir Walter Ralegh’s History of the World (1614) (See American Baconiana.)

Click to enlarge


From Shakespeare’s Great Folio of 1623.

There are no authentic portraits of Shakspere in existence. The dissimilarities the Droeshout, Chandos, Janssen, Hunt, Ashbourne, Soest, and Dunford portraits prove conclusively that the artists were unaware of Shakspere’s actual features. An examination of the Droeshout portrait discloses several peculiarities. Baconian enthusiasts are convinced that the face is only a caricature, possibly the death mask of Francis Bacon. A comparison of the Droeshout Shakspere with portraits and engravings of Francis Bacon demonstrates the identity of the structure of the two faces, the difference in expression being caused by lines of shading. Not also the peculiar line running from the ear down to the chin. Does this line subtly signify that the face itself a mask, ending at the ear? Notice also that the head is not connected with the body, but is resting on the collar. Most strange of all is the coat: one-half is on backwards. In drawing the jacket, the artist has made the left arm correctly, but the right arm has the back of the shoulder to the front. Frank Woodward has noted that there are 157 letters on the title page. This is a Rosicrucian signature of first importance. The date, 1623, Plus the two letters “ON” from the word “LONDON,” gives the cryptic signature of Francis Bacon, by a simple numerical cipher. By merely exchanging the 26 letters of the alphabet for numbers, 1 became A, 6 becomes F, 2 becomes B, and 3 becomes C, giving AFBC. To this is added the ON from LONDON, resulting in AFBCON, which rearranged forms F. BACON.

p. 168

to the initiates of which it revealed its wisdom in the form of symbols; (2) by embodying its arcana in the literature of the day by means of cunningly contrived ciphers and enigmas.

Evidence points to the existence of a group of wise and illustrious Fratres who assumed the responsibility of publishing and preserving for future generations the choicest of the secret books of the ancients, together with certain other documents which they themselves had prepared. That future members of their fraternity might not only identify these volumes bur also immediately note the significant passages, words, chapters, or sections therein, they created a symbolic alphabet of hieroglyphic designs. By means of a certain key and order, the discerning few were thus enabled to find that wisdom by which a man is “raised” to an illumined life.

The tremendous import of the Baconian mystery is daily becoming more apparent. Sir Francis Bacon was a link in that great chain of minds which has perpetuated the secret doctrine of antiquity from its beginning. This secret doctrine is concealed in his cryptic writings. The search for this divine wisdom is the only legitimate motive for the effort to decode his cryptograms.

Masonic research might discover much of value if it would turn its attention to certain volumes published during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries which bear the stamp and signet of that secret society whose members first established modern Freemasonry but themselves remained as an intangible group controlling and directing the activities of the outer body. The unknown history and lost rituals of Freemasonry may be rediscovered in the symbolism and cryptograms of the Middle Ages. Freemasonry is the bright and glorious son of a mysterious and hidden father. It cannot trace its parentage because that origin is obscured by the veil of the superphysical and the mystical. The Great Folio of 1623 is a veritable treasure house of Masonic lore and symbolism, and the time is at hand when that Great Work should be accorded the consideration which is its due.

Though Christianity shattered the material organization of the pagan Mysteries, it could not destroy the knowledge of supernatural power which the pagans possessed. Therefore it is known that the Mysteries of Greece and Egypt were secretly perpetuated through the early centuries of the church, and later, by being clothed in the symbolism of Christianity, were accepted as elements of that faith. Sir Francis Bacon was one of those who had been entrusted with the perpetuation and dissemination of s the arcana of the superphysical originally in the possession of the pagan hierophants, and to attain that end either formulated the Fraternity of R.C. or was admitted into an organization already existing under that name and became one of its principal representatives.

For some reason not apparent to the uninitiated there has been a continued and consistent effort to prevent the unraveling of the Baconian skein. Whatever the power may be which continually blocks the efforts of investigators, it is as unremitting now as it was immediately following Bacon’s death, and those attempting to solve the enigma still feel the weight of its resentment.

A misunderstanding world has ever persecuted those who understood the secret workings of Nature, seeking in every conceivable manner to exterminate the custodians of this divine wisdom. Sir Francis Bacon’s political prestige was finally undermined and Sir Walter Ralegh met a shameful fate because their transcendental knowledge was considered dangerous.

The forging of Shakspere’s handwriting; the foisting of fraudulent portraits and death masks upon a gullible public; the fabrication of spurious biographies; the mutilation of books and documents; the destruction or rendering illegible of tablets and inscriptions containing cryptographic messages, have all compounded the difficulties attendant upon the solution of the Bacon-Shakspere-Rosicrucian riddle. The Ireland forgeries deceived experts for years.

According to material available, the supreme council of the Fraternity of R.C. was composed of a certain number of individuals who had died what is known as the “philosophic death.” When the time came for an initiate to enter upon his labors for the Order, he conveniently “died” under somewhat mysterious circumstances. In reality he changed his name and place of residence, and a box of rocks or a body secured for the purpose was buried in his stead. It is believed that this happened in the case of Sir Francis Bacon who, like all servants of the Mysteries, renounced all personal credit and permitted others to be considered as the authors of the documents which he wrote or inspired.

The cryptic writings of Francis Bacon constitute one of the most powerful tangible elements in the mysteries of transcendentalism and symbolic philosophy. Apparently many years must yet pass before an uncomprehending world will appreciate the transcending genius of that mysterious man who wrote the Novum Organum, who sailed his little ship far out into the unexplored sea of learning through the Pillars of Hercules, and whose ideals for a new civilization are magnificently expressed in the Utopian dream of The New Atlantis. Was Sir Francis Bacon a second Prometheus? Did his great love for the people of the world and his pity for their ignorance cause him to bring the divine fire from heaven concealed within the contents of a printed page?

In all probability, the keys to the Baconian riddle will be found in classical mythology. He who understands the secret of the Seven-Rayed God will comprehend the method employed by Bacon to accomplish his monumental labor. Aliases were assumed by him in accordance with the attributes and order of the members of the planetary system. One of the least known–but most important–keys to the Baconian enigma is the Third, or 1637, Edition, published in Paris, of Les Images ou Tableaux de platte peinture des deux Philostrates sophistes grecs et les statues de Callistrate, by Blaise de Vigenere. The title page of this volume–which, as the name of the author when properly deciphered indicates, was written by or under the direction of Bacon or his secret society–is one mass of important Masonic or Rosicrucian symbols. On page 486 appears a plate entitled “Hercules Furieux,” showing a gigantic figure shaking a spear, the ground before him strewn with curious emblems. In his curious work, Das Bild des Speershüttlers die Lösung des Shakespeare-Rätsels, Alfred Freund attempts to explain the Baconian symbolism in the Philostrates. Bacon he reveals as the philosophical Hercules, whom time will establish as the true “Spear-Shaker” (Shakespeare).

Click to enlarge


From Ralegh’s History of the World.

What was the mysterious knowledge which Sir Walter Ralegh possessed and which was declared to be detrimental to the British government? Why was he executed when the charges against him could not be proved? Was he a member of me of those feared and hated secret societies which nearly overthrew political and religious Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries? Was Sir Walter Ralegh an important factor in the Bacon-Shakspere-Rosicrucian-Masonic enigma? By those seeking the keys to this great controversy, he seems to have been almost entirely overlooked. His contemporaries are unanimous in their praise of his remarkable intellect, and he has long been considered me of Britain’s most brilliant sons.

Sir Walter Ralegh–soldier, courtier, statesman, writer, poet, philosopher, and explorer–was a scintillating figure at the court of Queen Elizabeth. Upon this same man, King James–after the death of Elizabeth–heaped every indignity within his power. The cowardly James, who shuddered at the mention of weapons and cried like a child when he was crossed, was insanely jealous of the brilliant courtier. Ralegh’s enemies, Playing upon the king’s weakness, did not cease their relentless persecution until Ralegh had been hanged and his decapitated, quartered, and disemboweled body lay at their feet.

The title page reproduced above was used by Ralegh’s political foes as a powerful weapon against him. They convinced James I that the face of the central figure upholding the globe was a caricature of his own, and the enraged king ordered every copy of the engraving destroyed. But a few copies escaped the royal wrath; consequently the plate is extremely rare. The engraving is a mass Rosicrucian and Masonic symbols, and the figures on the columns in all probability conceal a cryptogram. More significant still is the fact that the page facing this plate is a headpiece identical with that used in the 1623 Folio of “Shakespeare” and also in Bacon’s Novum Organum.

This sixth woodcut from the series in Basil Valentine’s Azoth of the Philosophers by Basil Valentine published in 1613 is the original Rebis image

The meaning of the Rebis number 43

The image to your left is the sixth woodcut from the series in Basil Valentine’s Azoth of the Philosophers. This the original Rebis image. The tendency of the uninitiated is to ascribe great antiquity to such enigmatic or cryptic symbolism. But this is clearly not the case with Rebis as this image was published in 1613. Double-Tau (T.T.) corresponds to the number 43 of the Abecedarium, which is to say that 43 is a reference to …

Excerpt from Baconian-Rosicrucian Ciphers: An introduction to the cryptography used by Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic fraternity by Peter Dawkins

We note also that Sir Francis Bacon was born on January 22, 1561 and was 43 years old at the time of SN 1604.

Shake-speare’s Sonnets

The Shake-speare’s Sonnets Quarto was published in 1609. Include Alan Green’s video here and best of breed analysis of the dedication page along with an explanation of TT and everywhere it is used. Make the point that the “Oxfordian” Alexander Waugh is stark raving mad is his analysis (clip from) Shakespeare was a fake (…and I can prove it) | Brunel University London and discuss the possibility that Bacon has created an encryption maze designed to trap the minds of such pretentious men. 

Who are the Rosicrucians?

Sir Francis Bacon, Ben Johnson, Sir Henry Nevil

Described by Peter Dawkins as the “main ones”:

  • Sir Nicholas Bacon
  • John Dee
  • Robert Dudley, the Earl of Lester
  • Sir Henry Lee
  • Sir Philip Sidney

And what is their connection to the Freemasons?

The Georgia Guidestones prove A. E. Waite was wrong in his contempt for the Freemasons. For although the Rosicrucians may be using the Freemasons as a front in the hidden 108 miles from the Georgia Guidestones to three different Freemason temples, surely the Freemasons at the very least must have cooperated in the endeavor.

I do not propose to discuss the origin of Freemasonry. That vexatious question has been perpetually debated with singularly unprofitable results. All I am concerned with proving is that there is no traceable connection between Masonry and Rosicrucianism. The former is defined by its initiates to be “a science of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols,” and again as “a system of doctrines taught, in a manner peculiar to itself, by allegories and symbols. . . . Its ceremonies are external additions, which affect not its substance.” The two doctrines of the unity of God and the immortality of the soul constitute “the philosophy of Freemasonry.” It has never been at any period of its history an association for scientific researches and the experimental investigation of Nature, which was a primary object with the Rosicrucian Brotherhood. It has not only never laid claim to the possession of any transcendental secrets of alchemy and magic, or to any skill in medicine, but has never manifested any interest in these or kindred subjects. Originally an association for the diffusion of natural morality, it is now simply a benefit society. The improvement of mankind and the encouragement of philanthropy were and are its ostensible objects, and these also were the dream of the Rosicrucian, but, on the other hand, it has never aimed at a reformation in the arts and sciences, for it was never at any period a learned society, and a large proportion of its members have been chosen from illiterate classes. It is free alike from the enthusiasm and the errors of the elder Order, for though at one time it appears to have excluded Catholics from its ranks, as at this day the Catholic Church excommunicates and denounces its members, it has been singularly devoid of prejudices and singularly unaffected by the crazes of the time. It has not committed itself to second Advent theories; it does not call the Pope Antichrist; it does not expect a universal cataclysm. It preaches a natural morality, and has so little interest in mysticism that it daily misinterprets and practically despises its own mystical symbols.

The Real History of the Rosicrucians by Arthur Edward Waite, 1887, CHAPTER XV, CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ROSICRUCIANS AND FREEMASONS, p. 403-404 [bold-red emphasis added]

There were only two Rosicrucian Manifestos

This is important to understand because I think it explains the May 22, 2015 release date of Tomorrowland, 400 years after the publication of the second Rosicrucian manifesto.

02:19 minute clip from Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians by Peter Dawkins Part 1 on The Francis Bacon Society YouTube channel

Furthermore, Johannes Valentinus Andreae, the purported author of the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz, describes his own work as a ludibrium.

Ludibrium is a word derived from Latin ludus (plural ludi), meaning a plaything or a trivial game. In Latin ludibrium denotes an object of fun, and at the same time, of scorn and derision, and it also denotes a capricious game itself: e.g., ludibria ventis (Virgil), “the playthings of the winds”, ludibrium pelagis (Lucretius), “the plaything of the waves”; Ludibrio me adhuc habuisti (Plautus), “Until now you have been toying with me.”

The term “ludibrium” was used frequently by Johann Valentin Andreae (1587–1654) in phrases like “the ludibrium of the fictitious Rosicrucian Fraternity” when describing the Rosicrucian Order, most notably in his Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz, published anonymously in 1616, of which Andreae subsequently claimed to be the author and which has been taken seriously, as virtually a third of the Rosicrucian Manifestos.[1] However, in his Peregrini in Patria errores (1618) Andreae compares the world to an amphitheatre where no one is seen in their true light.

Paul Arnold translated Andreae’s usage as farce,[2] but this conception has been contested by Frances Yates (Yates), who took Rosicrucianism seriously and who suggested that Andreae’s use of the term implied more nearly some sort of “Divine Comedy“, a dramatic allegory played in the political domain during the tumult which preceded the Thirty Years’ War in Germany.

Wikipedia, Ludibrium

The following translations are from The Real History of the Rosicrucians by Arthur Edward Waite on the Sacred Texts website

  1. Fama Fraternitatis (published 1614 in Kassel, Germany)
  2. Confessio Fraternitatis (published 1615 in Kassel, Germany)
  3. Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz (published 1616 in Strasbourg, Germany)

Wikipedia gets this wrong and says that there were three manifestos.

Rosicrucian manifestos


Between 1614 and 1617, three anonymous manifestos were published, first in Germany and later throughout Europe.[6] These were the Fama Fraternitatis RC (The Fame of the Brotherhood of RC, 1614), the Confessio Fraternitatis (The Confession of the Brotherhood of RC, 1615), and the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosicross anno 1459 (1617).

The Fama Fraternitatis presents the legend of a German doctor and mystic philosopher referred to as “Father Brother C.R.C.” (later identified in a third manifesto as Christian Rosenkreuz, or “Rose-cross”). The year 1378 is presented as being the birth year of “our Christian Father”, and it is stated that he lived 106 years. After studying in the Middle East under various masters, possibly adhering to Sufism,[7] he was unable to spread the knowledge he had acquired to prominent European scientists and philosophers. Instead, he gathered a small circle of friends/disciples and founded the Rosicrucian Order (this can be deduced to have occurred around 1407).

During Rosenkreuz’s lifetime, the order was said to comprise no more than eight members, each a doctor and a sworn bachelor. Each member undertook an oath to heal the sick without accepting payment, to maintain a secret fellowship, and to find a replacement for himself before he died. Three such generations had supposedly passed between c. 1500 and c. 1600: a time when scientific, philosophical, and religious freedom had grown so that the public might benefit from the Rosicrucians’ knowledge, so that they were now seeking good men.

Wikipedia, Rosicrucian manifestos, Origins [bold-red emphasis added]

As you can see in this last paragraph, Wikipedia also makes the profound mistake of assuming Christian Rosenkreuz is a real person. He is not. Sir Francis Bacon and his circle of friends founded Rosicrucianism and in the process invented Christian Rosenkreuz, as Peter Dawkins explains in a video clip below. 

error: Alert: Content is protected