History has much to say about the unlikely playwright and struggling actor, William Shakespeare, and his contemporary, the Cambridge educated academic, Lord Francis Bacon. Books abound dissecting the mysteries and unanswered questions that connect the two men. According to popular narrative, their lives were worlds apart, Shakespeare emerging from peasantry while Bacon was born into luxury; Shakespeare a tradesman, Bacon a Lord; Shakespeare near illiterate and Bacon an eloquent poet.
Yet We the People are asked to believe that the bard of Avon overcame poverty and ignorance to be immortalised as the Swan of Avon, while Bacon’s literary excellence was left barren. It is said he was told to not promote himself but work from the shadows for an imperishable eternal plan. Bacon, it is also said, did not know of William Shakespeare nor did he speak the man’s name; yet there are references enough to have them at the same place at the same time. Bacon was born in 1561, and Shakespeare, 1564; and Bacon died ten years to the month after Shakespeare in 1626!
‘We all know that Shakespeare was termed the " Sweet swan of Avon." Compare the following deep reference by Bacon to swans as having imperishable immortality: — "For Lives; I do find strange that these times have so little esteemed the virtues of the times, as that the writing of lives should be no more frequent. For although there be not many sovereign princes or absolute commanders, and that states are most collected into monarchies, yet there are many worthy personages that deserve better than dispersed report or barren elogies. For herein the invention of one of the late poets is proper, and doth well enrich the ancient fiction : for he feigneth that at the end of the thread or web of every man's life there was a little medal containing the person's name, and that Time waited upon the shears ; and so soon as the thread was cut, caught the medals, and carried them to the river of Lethe ; and about the bank there were many birds flying up and down, that would get the medals, and carry them in their beak a little while, and then let them fall into the river: only there were a few swans,’ Bacon, Shakespeare and the Rosicrucians, 1888, W. F. C. Wigston, page 248
For arguments sake, as hard as it will be, the two men will be dealt with as separate individuals. They both had a gift for writing prose that almost duplicates each other’s thoughts and symbolic language. Both men held their religion close to their chests; and for centuries no historian can be quite sure whether they were Protestant Christians or Crypto-Catholics. Any astute man who valued his life in religiously polarised 17th century England, especially of the noble class would have done likewise.
As many as claim Shakespeare to have been a Catholic, the same number will counteract the claim. However, an Oxford Anglican Priest Richard Davies inherited papers written while Shakespeare was alive. They had belonged to a Gloucestershire clergyman, William Fulman, in 1688. In these papers were notes on William Shakespeare stating he died a papist. However, the truth might be better served by recognising the use of esoteric Gnostic Roman Catholic prose in both Shakespeare and Bacon’s respective poems and plays blurring religious discernment.
‘Perhaps the deeper underlying question which Wood’s book poses and which those who kneel at the grave in Stratford-on-Avon fear the most in their heart of hearts: Was the man from Stratford town simply far too Catholic ever to have been the real genius behind the works? Has not Wood’s high profile exposé of the Stratford man as a secret Catholic widened––not narrowed––the gap between this elusive fellow and the Shakespeare canon? Were the skeptics or anti-Stratfordians correct all along in arguing (since the 1850s) that we have had the wrong man?’ Was Shakespeare a Secret Catholic, 2003, Peter W. Dickson, page 126
Comparing parallels in their work, their pens do reveal an uncanny Rosicrucian esoteric knowledge presenting a deeper level of entertainment for an insider audience. For example, Bacon's New Atlantis knowledgably depicts a land governed by Rosicrucians. Certainly, his own movement for the advancement of learning conformed to Rosicrucian ideals. And coincidentally Shakespeare’s plays are liberally sprinkled with scholarly Rosicrucian under tones and coded language used by Bacon.
‘How is it that the first heir of Shakespeare's invention (if it was Shakespeare's 1) is found to be upon the subject of Venus and Adonis, the latter being the key figure, or myth centre round which the society of the Rosy Cross and their emblem revolve. How is it that these plays and poems still present a like mystery and question of authorship, that is thoroughly Rosicrucian in its silence, profundity, and inscrutability? "To come down hidden through the ages is sublime," writes De Quincey of them…There are parallels of date between the publication of the plays, the death of Shakespeare, and the society, which seem to stand out significantly when placed side-by-side with each other...In 1623, when the first folio edition is put forth, there is a great Rosicrucian meeting held in Paris, which made a great stir for two years in that capital. The year 1616 (Shakespeare's death), several of the manifestoes of importance are published. In fact, the entire rise of Rosicrucianism and the noise it made, commences early in the seventeenth century and expires about 1630, four years after Bacon's death ; and we hear no more about it, except through apologists like John Heydon, who borrow Bacon's Atlantis " to illustrate or identify the Society with his College of the Six Days.’ Bacon, Shakespeare and the Rosicrucians, 1888, W. F. C. Wigston, page 85
Both Bacon and Shakespeare, though married, were suspected homosexuals, not an unusual practice for Gnostic religious adherents of any Age. It was homosexual, James I reign of England (1603-1625), already king of Scotland in 1567 that launched Bacon’s political career, until he was dismissed!
‘Taking all of the evidence into account, Shakespeare’s works contain neither a strong nor a consistently overt Christian message…Samuel Schoenbaum, America’s foremost Shakespeare expert prior to his death in 1996, was justified in dismissing the efforts of those like Peter Milward to locate with precision the Bard’s theological convictions and where they appear in his literary works: The facts are ambiguous: too ambiguous to justify a recent Jesuitical commentator’s conclusion that the Bard felt a positive nostalgia for England’s Catholic past, although the same writer is on safer ground when he claims that Shakespeare shows much familiarity but little awkwardness in his treatment of Catholic customs and beliefs…Beyond these, the preoccupation with sexual identity deepens the old suspicions that some passages in the Sonnets of 1609 suggest the Bard himself might have had homosexual or bisexual tendencies.’ Shakespeare’s Use of Christian Dimension, page 140-141
Bacon was born to a life of 17th century privilege becoming renowned as an English philosopher and statesman who advocated for a scientific method of scientific research that removed God out of the mix, opening up the door for Darwinism to gain traction 200 years later; and on which the Fabian Society planned their Gnostic utopian Order. During the Stuart Restoration, placing the Stuarts back on the English throne in 1660, Charles II purposed Bacon’s scientific method as a blueprint for the Jesuit run (Counter-Reformation silent war) Gnostic Royal Society, founded by the king in the same year. The Protestant Christian church faltered, rejecting areas of scripture to align with the fraudulent scientific narrative, thereby achieving papal goals for the West. According to GOOGLE, The scientific method is a systematic process of observing phenomena, asking questions, forming testable hypotheses, conducting experiments, analysing data, and drawing conclusions [with no reference to God] to gain knowledge about the world, as was seen during the COVID scam.
It was the same James who had escaped the 1605 papal gunpowder plot led by Garnet.
0 blessed and wise Republic . . . how well she knows the way to preserve her liberty; for the Jesuits are the worst and most seditious fellows in the world. They are slaves and spies, as you know.' King James I
It was Garnet who applied equivocation for his defense but was convicted and executed for his treason. Although the papacy some years prior discouraged the use of equivocation, in Garnet’s trial they turned a blind eye, remaining quiet on the subject. By the time of the trial, a bigger picture for the nation England had been put into operation.
‘Equivocation, as an attack on meaning itself, is a more fiendish instrument than gunfire for overthrowing kings. This makes the Jesuits apocalyptic bringers of “confusion” (the work of the devil)! The Jesuit superior on trial, Henry Garnet, was “a Doctor of Five Ds, as: Dissimulation [equivocation], Deposing of princes, Disposing of kingdoms, Daunting and deterring of subjects, and Destruction.’ Number-mysticism was important to Revelation and language-as-natural meant that names of evil deeds were themselves evil.’ Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare’s Macbeth, 1995, Garry Wills, page 22
Rosicrucianism is Jesuitism by another name. Both have their roots in the same Gnostic Ancient Mystery Religion of sun worship, known today as the New Age and outworked through humanism.
‘Not surprisingly, the secret tradition of Templarism claims Shakespeare, at least the writer of his plays, to have been a Rosicrucian steeped in Medici learning: The philosophic ideals promulgated throughout 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.... Who but a Platonist, a Qabbalist, or a Pythagorean could have written… Macbeth… How could a play defaming Jesuits be of service to the Jesuit agenda? As we shall see, warfare in defense of the papacy requires extravagant measures. In fact, both the Gunpowder Plot, which failed, and the celebration of its detection, which lives on in Macbeth [and the movie Vendetta], served Rome abundantly. King James I, who declared himself the Plot’s divinely-illuminated discoverer, blamed the Plot on “Jesuits and papists.” But at the same time, James exonerated “less fanatical Catholics.”…In short, the Plot secured [Crypto-Catholics working for the pope to continue in] England.’ Rulers of Evil, 1999, F. Tupper Saussy, page 68
The Jesuit Order esoterically feature in Macbeth -
‘Since Jesuits were caricatured by Protestant polemicists as "massing crows," "the picture of the Jesuit 'black-robe' as a carrion crow was one which Shakespeare would himself use to dissociate from papist terrorism, when he wrote of the evil hour when 'the crow makes wing to th' rooky wood' (Macbeth 3.3.51–52) in denunciation of the Masses hosted by the conspirator Ambrose Rookwood at Clopton House, near Stratford, in the darkening days before the Gunpowder Plot".’ Secret Shakespeare: Studies in Theatre, Religion and Resistance (review), 2006, R. V. Young
Macbeth’s Gunpowder plot messaging was indeed a bold move. But, maybe not completely reckless in the light that the Jesuit Order always control both sides of an argument, thereby controlling and guiding thought.
‘The Porter's black jokes in [Macbeth] Act 1.3. about equivocators are generally thought to allude to the use of equivocation by the Jesuit, Father Henry Garnett, during his trial for complicity in the plot. Before his trial started, the Attorney General, Sir Edward Coke, said of the Jesuits: Their dissimulation appeareth out of their doctrine of equivocation... wherein, under the pretext of the lawfulness of a mixt proposition to express one part of a man's mind, and retain another, people are indeed taught, not only simply lying, but fearful and damnable blasphemy. Garnett was found guilty and was hanged.’ Shakespeare’s Use of Christian Dimension, 2003, Janet Mary Cockin, page 140-141
The Jesuit Order and Rosicrucianism and the theory of equivocation is not only used in Macbeth but also in Measure for Measure, iii.2. Pay with falsehood false exacting.
And also in King John, iii. I, Most forsworn to keep what thou didst swear. In England at this time equivocation was denounced as Jesuitical, so it was a courageous pen that looked to defend such heinous Catholic sly akin to treason and regicide.
‘…the theory of equivocation was denounced in Shakespeare's time as Jesuitical and vile, as much as it is now ; and it is remarkable that he should be again found defending the unpopular and Catholic side.’ The Religion of Shakespeare, page 36-37
Although there is only speculation that Bacon was a Rosicrucian and or a Freemason it is most certain that he would have been - it just went with the territory. And for Shakespeare to be Puffed up, he too would be a member of the Luciferian elite. du Maurier, Yates in their publications doubted he was a Rosicrucian, but evidence suggested he was involved in exclusive movements. Yates found he was involved in movement that had close connections with the German Rosicrucian movement. Bacon's aligned his reformation the Great Instauration with the Rosicrucian manifesto that was calling for a reformation of both divine and human understanding with the purpose of mankind's return to the state before the Fall.
Researchers have observed that Bacon's New Atlantis and German, Johann Valentin Andreae’s 1619 Description of the Republic of Christianopolis are two utopian works embracing Rosicrucian theosophy later developed by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Both fictional societies sat on the religion of scientific pursuing enlightenment and spiritual fulfillment in a technocratic governance over populations segregated into zone similar to the United Nations Human Settlements aims.
‘…as to the locality and direction from which Masonry sprang, viz., Egypt, Chaldasa, and particularly Phoenicia. Can we find any indications in the plays called Shakespeare's, to show us that the same localities are referred to? If Bacon wrote the plays, nothing is so probable, or so certain, that we should find something referring to King Solomon, or to his country, in these plays. For is not Bacon everlastingly quoting Solomon throughout his works, certainly oftener than any other authority! "How many times indeed, does Bacon iterate this in his works, as if to tell us he meant to take a like way, and imitate God, presenting us with an enigma for the ages to solve, and the wisdom of Solomon concealed therein. But what is the "New Atlantis," with its Solomon's House, and its frontispiece of the two pillars (which Hiram of Tyre made of brass, and set up with pomegranate and lily work on the tops, and which were set in the porch of the Temple), but Masonry, from beginning to end, without any aid from John Heydon, to prove it is Rosicrucian.’ Bacon, Shakespeare and Rosicrucianism, 1888, W. F. C. Wigston, page 120
Intellectual historian Paolo Rossi, an intellectual historian observed an occult influence on Bacon's scientific and religious writing. Stating he would have been familiar with early modern alchemical texts and Gnostic magical notions about science and the personification of nature implying man was indeed God. Bacon's quest in hidden meanings in myth and his desire to find wisdom in paganism, as Mithraic adherents of old did.
‘Charges of magic, idolatry, and witchcraft had long been leveled at the Jesuits in England because of their use of healing relics, icons, and exorcism…’ Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare’s Macbeth, 1995, Garry Wills, page 36
According to Rosicrucian philosophy, the Bible is read through an allegorical lens. It’s seen as a secret symbolic language holding esoteric truths and wisdom deeper than Christians interpret it. The elite turn scripture on its head, so their God is Lucifer and God of the Bible is Satan. It was up to the knowledge of the reader as to the take home message. Rosicrucian’s view biblical figures and events as symbols of universal principles and spiritual processes of self-transformation and enlightenment. They see Christ as the Inner Christ, the Cosmic Christ and the Bible as a map for spiritual transformation and "spiritual alchemy," where individuals can achieve personal enlightenment and a higher state of consciousness through the "inner Christ", drawing from Hermeticism and Kabbalalitic ideas. Rosicrucians seek to understand fundamental truths about nature, the spiritual realm, and human evolution as revealed through both ancient wisdoms. Bacon’s writing reflects this and Shakespeare’s plays brought the concepts to the masses, as a way of taking away the emphasis on the Protestant Creator God, to the creation. Even today people speak of the creation – the Universe, bypassing the creator of the universe.
Bacon and Shakespeare both fit well into the Rosicrucian worldview that aims to provide a comprehensive worldview that harmonizes art, performing art, religion, and science, which they believe is reflected in the Bible's deeper layers of meaning. Certainly, Shakespeare keeps alive Rosicrucian esoteric language and wisdoms. W. F. C. Wigston called the bard the phantom Captain Shakespeare, the Rosicrucian mask.
It is a hard ask when reading publications of serious historians, researchers and esoteric alumni to pin down the man Shakespeare without implicating Lord Francis Bacon. Was one man the face and the other the scholar? Did Occultist 33° Freemason, author, and Luciferian insider, Manly Hall tell the truth about the Bard of Avon in The Secret Teaching of All Ages? Elite’s who tell secrets usually end up dead let they reveal more - like Manly, found dead with some of his unpublished works stolen!
‘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…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 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.’ The Secret Teachings All Ages, Manly Palmer Hall. Page 552
The German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770-1831), comment to his students is applicable in the mystery of Shakespeare. Explaining that a person’s spiritual/social DNA will always be visible. When applied to Shakespeare in the believe that Bacon could be the writer of his ascribed works, Hegel said to expect a man to lay aside all that he is in his public persona would be as difficult as to ask him to jump over his own shadow. Was Shakespeare the only man in history who succeeded to jump over his own shadow?
‘The parallels between Bacon's writings and Shakespeare's are not only endless, but have been so fully treated by Mrs Henry Pott, and Mr Donnelly in his recent great work, that it seems superfluous to add anything further. It would be easy to fill another volume of fresh ones, and they will continue to be discovered the deeper both writers are studied.’ Bacon, Shakespeare and Rosicrucians, 1888, W. F. C. Wigston, page 240
It is not surprising that Shakespeare is required reading in the formation of a good education in the West. The Counter-Reformation is tireless in its aim to destroy Protestant West.
‘I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly…’ Jesuit Supreme Oath, still sworn in the 21st century
Please share this article with people you know who like this type of exposé
