Dear Reader,
In this second part of "History of Ciphers" I will be talking about the ciphers of Sir Francis Bacon, including:
– the two base Elizabethan ciphers, called Simple & Reverse;
– the Modern English ciphers;
– the Elizabethan and Modern Kaye ciphers;
– Francis Bacon's Biliteral Cipher (not related to Gematria);
– some thoughts on the two case-sensitive ciphers commonly called "Francis Bacon" and "Franc Baconis", and the possibility of those being based on Baconian Cryptography – not Gematria.
While doing this, I will also provide all fundamental bibliography and sources, so that you, my Reader, can do your own research, so that, if possible, we can exchange ideas and both of us learn. And like I did in the first part, I will also provide you with some personal investigations so that my text doesn't become too tedious and my Reader's thirst for knowledge and inquisitive spirit may be further encouraged.
Thus, let us further investigate these ciphers, and begin to join the pieces of some centuries-long puzzles...
History of Ciphers
by Luís Gonçalves
Part 2: The Baconian Ciphers
I only began to work with the Baconian ciphers several years after I started using the Illuminati Novice cipher. In fact, it was my research with the Illuminati cipher that eventually led me to the ciphers of Sir Francis Bacon, and it was after that that my work with the Illuminati cipher gained a new momentum, and my investigation became much more focused. Now you understand why I began this series of articles with the Illuminati ciphers, and now I'm focusing on the ciphers of Sir Francis Bacon.
In my search for clues about a possible historical use of the Illuminati cipher to encode certain correspondences and "coincidences" in the Great Seal of the United States, I came to discover a small but most curious book by Manly P. Hall called "The Secret Destiny of America". I must confess that Manly P. Hall was always one of my favorite authors in this kind of subject. I always had that "strange" feeling that the author knew more than he said, like when you're reading a text and you start to realize that it conveys more than it says. There are many precious little gems in Manly P. Hall's books, if we know why, how and where to search.
In this brilliant book Manly P. Hall explains how the colonization scheme of America followed a "Great Plan" destined to make the United States the "New Atlantis" of a New Age, a glorious Western Democracy which, like a lighthouse, would rise and prevail amongst "the ruins of a materialistic and selfish world". Hall also explains how this specific Plan followed the purposes of known (and unknown) Secret Societies which were established in America 150 years before the Declaration of Independence of the United States. This Plan was inspired, among other things, on Francis Bacon's work New Atlantis, an unfinished novel describing:
"(...) a utopian civilisation, living in peace, friendship and charity in an island called Bensalem (’Son of Peace’), and having, as its "lanthorn", an order or society of philosophers formed into a college "dedicated to the study of the works and creatures of God", and for the "finding out of the true nature of all things, whereby God might have the more glory in the workmanship of them, and men the more fruit in the use of them".
Basically the novel suggests a kind of morally decent and friendly utopian society, governed by a democratically elected parliament with a sovereign head of state, in which exists an organised body of science known as Salomon’s House, guided by divine Providence and dedicated to discovering the mysteries of heaven and earth, and to charitable purposes. The novel presents, in a semi-allegorical way, Bacon’s vision of how he thought or hoped his Great Instauration might work. This is summed up by a Father of Salomon’s House, who declares in the book that "the end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes and secret motions of things, and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible". [emphasis mine]
Basically the novel suggests a kind of morally decent and friendly utopian society, governed by a democratically elected parliament with a sovereign head of state, in which exists an organised body of science known as Salomon’s House, guided by divine Providence and dedicated to discovering the mysteries of heaven and earth, and to charitable purposes. The novel presents, in a semi-allegorical way, Bacon’s vision of how he thought or hoped his Great Instauration might work. This is summed up by a Father of Salomon’s House, who declares in the book that "the end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes and secret motions of things, and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible". [emphasis mine]
(From: Francis Bacon Research Trust).
But there's also a very curious detail in Bacon's novel that I think shouldn't pass unnoticed, and it is the fact that it is an unfinished novel. This is a very important detail and is of a great semiotic significance. Still drawing from the same source I previously linked to:
Rawley [Bacon's chaplain, friend and literary executor] informs us that "His Lordship thought also in this present fable to have composed a frame of Laws, or of the best state or mould of a commonwealth", but that the work was left unfinished because Bacon felt it more important to turn his attention first to putting together examples of his natural history. Interestingly, however, the background of the story references and uses Plato's account of old Atlantis given in his Critias and Timaeus, which was also left unfinished. Indeed, all of Bacon’s work was left unfinished; for, as Bacon said in a letter to his friend, Toby Matthews: "My great work goes forward; and after my manner, I alter ever when I add. So that nothing is finished till all is finished". [emphasis mine]
This is an extremely important detail. And it's curious that the last words in Lord Bacon's "New Atlantis" are "[the rest was not perfected]", meaning that this work towards Perfection is always incomplete, unperfected, until in the end everything is perfected. Remember what I wrote in my previous article, about the USA and Bacon's utopian "New Atlantis", in relation to the Great Seal of the United States? Notice that unfinished pyramid in the Great Seal? Maybe from now on you'll look at it with different eyes...
Hall's very explicit references to Francis Bacon and the influence of his "society of unknown philosophers" on the establishment of the first American democracy, inevitably led me to the conclusion that maybe I was missing the "big picture" by focusing only on the Illuminati and their cipher, and so I began studying the works and philosophy of Sir Francis Bacon himself, as well as his connections... if you know what I mean. Not only was this an extremely important step for me, it also clarified many interesting connections that I previously didn't know about. In fact, I discovered that there were patterns in all of this, all of which revolve around the Perfectibility of Man, which is the most sublime meaning behind Masonic rituals and doctrines, as well as the ultimate goal of the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross – which both had a very important, although sometimes underestimated, influence on the creation of the United States of America. And both were, one way or another, greatly influenced by that great English philosopher, scientist, and master of the English language, Sir Francis Bacon himself.
Reading Manly P. Hall's intriguing "The Secret Destiny of America" led me to immerge myself in reading his most powerful masterpiece, titled "The Secret Teachings of All Ages". This is where I found the ciphers of Sir Francis Bacon.
The two Elizabethan basic ciphers:
Simple & Reverse
In this book, Manly P. Hall devotes a whole chapter to Cryptography, explaining 7 different types of ciphers:
– The Biliteral cipher;
– The Pictorial cipher;
– The Acroamatic cipher;
– The Numerical cipher;
– The Musical cipher;
– The Arbitrary cipher;
– and the Code cipher.
A detailed description of all these ciphers is unnecessary at this point, but those of special interest for us will be the Numerical cipher (for obvious reasons) and, later in this text, Francis Bacon's own innovation in the field of Cryptography – the Biliteral cipher.
As was the case of the Illuminati cipher that we examined in the previous post, the main ciphers used by Sir Francis Bacon were based on the Elizabethan English alphabet with 24 letters, "I" and "J" being considered to be different shapes of the same letter, as well as "U" and "V". In the Simple cipher the letters are replaced by numbers in ordinal sequence, so that A=1, B=2, etc, counting both "I" and "J" as 9, and both "U" and "V" as 20, until Z=24. The Reverse cipher, as the name indicates, simply reverses this order, by counting "Z" as 1, "Y" as 2, until A=24 (also not forgetting the I/J and U/V equivalences).
These are the two basic Baconian, or Elizabethan, ciphers. In this article, whenever I refer to the value of a word according to a specific cipher, I will use (S) for the Simple cipher, and (R) for the Reverse cipher. Manly Hall explains that they can be used either as a substitution cipher – exactly like the Illuminati cipher was used originally – where the letters are replaced by their corresponding values, or as a system of Gematria, by calculating the total sum of those values.
There was also a third cipher, known as the "Kaye" cipher, which was not specifically mentioned by Sir Francis Bacon in any of his works, but was instead discovered or decoded by a certain Mr. Clifton while studying some works related to Shakespeare, Sir Francis Bacon, and the Rosicrucian Fraternity. I will refer to this cipher as (K). Its sequence seems to begin with "K" (the 10th letter of the Elizabethan English alphabet) being given the value 10, and then counting forwards from that letter. It is practically identical to the Simple cipher in the case of the letters from "K" to "Z", but the number 26 is added to the letters from "A" to "I/J", so that "A" becomes 27, "B" 28, etc, until "I/J"=35. The "gap" between Z=24 and A=27 is filled by two extra signs, "&"=25 and "et"=26, which were obtained by the discoverer of this cipher in the process of decoding it.
 |
| This table from Baconian-Rosicrucian Ciphers (PDF). |
I cannot ignore the fact that there was some controversy about this cipher in the past, and I encourage my Readers to read about it too, and for that I would like to recommend to my Readers issue 119 of Baconiana, the official journal of the Francis Bacon Society. It contains at least two articles mentioning the Kaye cipher, one criticizing it and the other one further exploring and explaining the logic behind it. I strongly believe that to know our ciphers, we should always compare all valid opinions about them, be they good or bad. Anyway, while the sequence in this cipher may seem strange at this point, its inherent imperfection can have a very important symbolical meaning, and we will talk further about this idea when we get to the Modern English ciphers.
The name of the title itself is strange. Bacon was given this title by King James I of England in 1618. Normally it would be simply "Baron Verulam" or "Baron of Verulam", referring to the Roman town of Verulamium. However, by adding an extra "Verulam" it indicates a description of the bearer of this title, and it's interesting to note that in Latin, veru means "javelin" (a light spear), while lam means "thrash". Thus, a Spear-Shaker, or Shake-speare. There is a lot of interesting symbolism to this and this will be dealt with later in another text. However, this is a very curious reference and I thought I should leave it here.
As a dedicated cryptographer that Lord Bacon was, these were the basic tools he used in order to conceal hidden messages and meanings, particularly his personal marks and special numbers. One of Lord Bacon's most special numbers was the number 33, since that's the value of the name "Bacon" in the Simple cipher, while in the Kaye cipher 33 is the value of the letter "G" (this will sound familiar to all those who study Freemasonry). In fact, there is a very curious particularity about the name of Francis Bacon, since in the Simple cipher the two words "Francis Bacon" divide their total value into thirds:
2/3 of 100 = 66,666 ≈ 67 = "Francis" (S)
1/3 of 100 = 33,333 ≈ 33 = "Bacon" (S)
It's curious to note that in various occasions Sir Francis Bacon used different forms of his name and titles, with specific hidden meanings based on their own numerical values. It wouldn't be surprising, thus, to notice that most of his works contain some type of gematrical signature, like in the example of his most emblematical novel, the "New Atlantis". In this novel a ship is blown off course and becomes lost, eventually arriving unexpectedly in an island called "Bensalem" (Hebrew for "Son of Peace"). In the Simple cipher, "Bensalem" = 67 = "Francis", while in the Reverse cipher, "Bensalem" = 133 matches the values of both "Baron Verulam" and "Rosi Crosse" in the Simple cipher, both titles associated with Lord Bacon.
There seem to exist certain curious patterns in Sir Francis Bacon's numbers, particularly some type of connection between numbers with a difference of 100 (one hundred) between them. We have seen that "Francis Bacon" equals 100 in the Simple cipher, and even Manly P. Hall mentions some of numerical connections in "The Secret Teachings of All Ages":
"In Baconian cryptograms, all page numbers ending in 89 seem to have a special significance. The 89th page of the Comedies in the 1623 folio of "Shakespeare" shows an error of type in the pagination, the "9" being from a considerably smaller font than the "8". The 189th page is entirely missing, there being two pages numbered 187; and page 188 shows the second "8" scarcely more than half the size of the first one. Page 289 is correctly numbered and has no unusual features, but page 89 of the Histories is missing. Several volumes published by Bacon show similar errors, page 89 being often involved."
Manly P. Hall's reference to the number 89 as being especially highlighted in the cryptograms of Shake-speare's "First Folio" is rather curious, as that is precisely the value of the name "Verulam", used as part of Lord Bacon's title as Baron Verulam of Verulam.
The name of the title itself is strange. Bacon was given this title by King James I of England in 1618. Normally it would be simply "Baron Verulam" or "Baron of Verulam", referring to the Roman town of Verulamium. However, by adding an extra "Verulam" it indicates a description of the bearer of this title, and it's interesting to note that in Latin, veru means "javelin" (a light spear), while lam means "thrash". Thus, a Spear-Shaker, or Shake-speare. There is a lot of interesting symbolism to this and this will be dealt with later in another text. However, this is a very curious reference and I thought I should leave it here.
In Bacon's novel "New Atlantis" the head of the government of Bensalem is called "Salomon's House", and alternatively, "Solamona's House", as well as the "College of the Six Days' Work" (note that "Six Days" conveys the idea of a perfected Creation). Note the strange forms of the otherwise more familiar name "Solomon". The numerical values of "Solamona's House" perfectly match those of "Unfinished Work" in both the Simple and Reverse ciphers, while the value of "Salomon's House" in the Illuminati cipher is 157, a well-known Baconian signature that matches the values of "Six Days' Work", "William Tudor I", as well as "Fra. Rosi Crosse" in the Simple cipher. These are all names that are deeply connected, one way or another, to Sir Francis Bacon. It is believed that Sir Francis Bacon was a legitimate son of Queen Elizabeth I, and that by 1574 Lord Bacon had become the head of the Rosicrucian Order – hence the title "Fra. Rosi Crosse", which can stand for either "Frater" (Brother) or "Francis" Rosi Crosse.
It's curious to note too that in the Illuminati cipher, the value of "Solamona's House" is 169 (13 x 13), the same value of "House of Solamona" in the Simple cipher, and of "House of Solomon" in the Reverse cipher, while in the experimental Illuminati Reverse cipher, "Viscount St. Alban" sums 169, as does "Elizabeth I". At this time you might want to give a look at my previous post on the ciphers of the Illuminati, particularly the section about the 1 Dollar bill.
If you've read my post on the ciphers of the Illuminati, you have seen my explanation of how the total number of letters in the reverse of the 1 Dollar bill is 141, which coincides with the values of "Francis Bacon", "New Atlantis" and "Newfoundland" in the Illuminati cipher. Well, that is true. But it is also true that if you add the four numbers "1" in the four corners of the reverse of the 1 Dollar bill to 141, you get 145, and that is the value of both "New Atlantis" and "Unfinished" in Bacon's Simple cipher. Remember that unfinished pyramid in the Great Seal of the United States? That's right.
Evolution of the English language and the Modern English ciphers
In Hall's "The Secret Teachings of All Ages", the chapter immediately before the one explaining the Simple & Reverse ciphers is called "Bacon, Shakespeare and the Rosicrucians", and contains a wealth of information on Baconian cryptography, Lord Bacon's influence on (or authorship of?) the Shakespearean plays, as well as the possibility of him being the editor of the King James Bible. Regarding this subject I should remember my Readers that there are no "absolute proofs" of any of this, even though some of them are pretty convincing; however, I can also say that from what I've studied about these issues, it seems quite likely that:
1. Bacon, and possibly others, had a very important role in the writing of Shake-speare's First Folio, published in 1623, even to the point of having very specific Baconian signatures in the form of numbers, seals, cryptographic designs, etc, appearing all over the Shakespearean First Folio, published in 1623;
2. Even if Bacon was not the sole editor of the King James Bible (which would be improbable in my opinion), I believe he did insert coded messages, as well as Rosicrucian and Masonic symbolism, into the 1611 publication of the King James Bible.
At this point I won't go into much detail about these two subjects, as I want this text to be more focused on the ciphers themselves. However, I can and will recommend some bibliography to my fellow Reader (besides Manly P. Hall's books), so that you can do your own personal investigation about this and achieve your own conclusions, independently from what I might say or believe.
– "The Lost Secret of William Shakespeare" by Richard Allan Wagner (link to author's website here), which also explores a possible Baconian influence on the King James Bible, among many other things;
– "An Enquiry into the Authorship of the Works of William Shakespeare" by Joel Dias-Porter (PDF here);
– The invaluable website of the Francis Bacon Society;
– All essays in the website of the Francis Bacon Research Trust;
– The website Light-of-Truth is very complete with examples of uses of Lord Bacon's ciphers and is very curious, to say the least, from the point of view of Gematria.
It's undeniable that both the King James Bible and Shakespeare's Plays marked a great transformation in the English language. English wouldn't be as it is today if it weren't these two great literary works. That being the case, this text wouldn't be completed too if we didn't explore the form into which the English alphabet developed – or, in other words, was perfected.
And with that, I present you the two Modern English ciphers that correspond to the Elizabethan Simple & Reverse ciphers, which are English Ordinal (EO) and Reverse Ordinal (RO):
While I tend to work more with the Elizabethan ciphers in the context of Baconian studies, the Modern ciphers should not be underestimated since that is the alphabet that we use nowadays, and we have plenty of examples of modern uses of these ciphers ("Gravity Falls" and Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol" come to mind). Also, sometimes these ciphers tend to show some interesting correspondences that escape us if we use only the Elizabethan ciphers. Like we did with the name "Francis Bacon" in the Simple cipher, noting its curious numerical pattern, we can do the same with the modern English Ordinal cipher:
In fact, just like it happened in the Simple cipher, in this case the two words "Francis" and "Bacon" also divide the total value into thirds:
2/3 of 105 = 70 = "Francis" (EO)
1/3 of 105 = 35 = "Bacon" (EO)
But more important than this, in this case, is the fact that the total sum, 105, equals 3 x 5 x 7, and these are key numbers in the first three degrees of Freemasonry, the origins of which could have been interlaced with the life, works, vision and knowledge left by Sir Francis Bacon himself. According to the Masonic Lodge of Education:
"3:5:7: These are the steps in Masonry. They are the steps in the Winding Stair which leads to the Middle Chamber and they are the number of brethren which form the number of Master Masons necessary to open a lodge of:
Master Mason: 3
Fellow Craft: 5
Entered Apprentice: 7
These are the sacred numbers."
Master Mason: 3
Fellow Craft: 5
Entered Apprentice: 7
These are the sacred numbers."
Other such examples can be seen in the names "Franciscus" (the Latin form of Bacon's first name), which hides one of the Baconian Seals, the number 157, as well as "William Tudor". Also, the name "Royal Society", which was founded in 1660 in England in order to "realise Bacon's vision of experimental science as a collective activity undertaken for the good of the state" (source) sums 157 in both Bacon's Simple cipher and the modern Reverse Ordinal cipher. This number 157, together with 287 (note that 157+287=444), are known as the two Baconian Seals, connected to the "Fra. Rosie Cross" (Fraternity of the Rosy Cross), and have been extensively explored in the two webpages Light-of-Truth and SirBacon.org, and I would also recommend the article called "The Fra. Rosie Cross Cipher 287" (direct link to PDF), by the Francis Bacon Research Trust. I highly recommend those links to my fellow Readers.
In "Shakespeare"'s First Folio printed 1623, "page 136, in the first scene of Act V of Love's Labor's Lost the long 27 lettered word honorificabilitudinitatibus appears on line 27 and is the 151st word in ordinary type. Adding 136+ 151 the sum is 287. In the Simple Cipher this word totals 287" (source). In Bacon's Reverse cipher, this is the value of both "F. Bacon W. Shakespeare" and "Fr. Christianus Rosencreutz" (the name of the mythical founder of the Rosicrosse as it appears in the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosencreutz). In the Kaye cipher, 287 is the value of "Fra. Rosi Crosse" and "William Tudor I":
You may have noticed that I referred to one "William Tudor". Who was this William Tudor? Actually the question is not "who was", but instead "who wasn't" ("to be, or not to be" comes to mind). According to the theory proposing that Sir Francis Bacon was in fact the son of Queen Elizabeth I, his true name wouldn't have been "Francis Bacon" as he was called, but instead "William Tudor I", or even "Francis Tudor". And it's curious, to say the least, that in Bacon's Simple cipher, "Francis Tudor" shares the same value as "Fra. Christian R+C" (the almost mythical founder of the Rosy Cross Fraternity), as well as "Franciscus Bacon", a signature that was used several times by Lord Bacon.
 |
| This reference to the number 141 may seem familiar... |
It is well known that Lord Bacon sometimes used different forms of words, even of his name, in order to convey secret meanings and correspondences. It's curious, then, that in a letter sent by Francis Bacon to King James I, for relief of his estate (source), Lord Bacon signed his letter "Fr. St. Alb.", standing for "Francis St. Alban" (he was Viscount St. Alban). Its values in the Simple and Reverse ciphers match exactly those of both "William" and "Tudor" in the same ciphers:
Also, in a Newfoundland stamp featuring a portrait of Francis Bacon and the words "The Guiding Spirit in Colonization Scheme" (this was already addressed quite superficially in the previous post), it is curious to note that the name chosen for that stamp was "Lord Bacon". In the modern Reverse Ordinal cipher, its value exactly matches that of "New Atlantis": You may recall from the previous post that in the Illuminati cipher, "Francis Bacon", "New Atlantis" and "Newfoundland" all shared the same value. The difference between 159 (the value of "New Atlantis" in Reverse Ordinal) and 141 (the value of "New Atlantis" in the Illuminati cipher) is 18, or 6+6+6. Can you spot the "6 6 6" in this stamp?
Do you recall my reference to the "College of the Six Days' Work" in this same text? I wrote "Six Days" three times then. 😉 And since we're talking about this, now is the perfect time to show you the other missing cipher in this text about the Baconian ciphers: the Modern Kaye (MK) cipher.
At this time it will become apparent to my Readers why I spoke about the Elizabethan Kaye cipher being imperfect, needing two extra signs ("&" and "et") to fill the sequence from K=10 to I/J=35. You see, it really makes sense to interpose two extra signs in the Kaye cipher, since those two extra signs left room for the two new letters of the English Alphabet, "J" and "V", after it was perfected to its present form. You can see that in the Modern Kaye cipher there is no need for extra signs, having the 10th letter of the alphabet (in this case, "J") being valued as 10, and following a perfect ordinal sequence until I=35. I have to thank my friend Casey for bringing this up to my attention.
So, in other words, in the way I perceive them, the Kaye and Modern Kaye ciphers can thus illustrate the process of Perfecting the Alphabet as an analogy of the Perfectibility of Man, a process that was so dear to the utopian, prophetic vision of Francis Bacon. And this is why I use so many times the terms "perfect", "perfected" and "perfectibility", as well as "imperfect" and "unperfected" or "unfinished". These terms are of extreme importance and are always used with a specific intention. If you, my dear Reader, have at any time studied the rituals and doctrines of Freemasonry, you will certaintly understand how this is connected to "building the Temple of Solomon", or the "Rough Ashlar" and the "Perfect Ashlar". These are architectural terms used symbolically. And this idea becomes increasingly significant if we remember the connection between the names "Francis Bacon" and "William Tudor I". Let's compare the two ciphers, Kaye and Modern Kaye:
You may recall at this time that the last words in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis were "[the rest was not perfected]". Not only is this a signature of Sir Francis Bacon, it also demonstrates that just like the Society he was trying to change, Francis Bacon was not perfected as a Man, since (according to this theory) he was born of Royal blood but never actually fulfilled his true purpose and vision during his lifetime. Also, notice on which ciphers deliver which results. In the 'imperfect' Kaye cipher (that is, "from an unperfected point of view") William Tudor I would be the Perfected Man. In the 'perfect' Modern Kaye cipher (which means, "from a perfected point of view"), Francis Bacon was not perfected. It actually fits the theory!
Now, a word or two about...
Reduction Ciphers
In Baconian studies I've come to watch some authors using what is known as Reduction ciphers. These ciphers are essentially the same as Ordinal ciphers, with the difference that the ordinal value of the letters is reduced to a single digit, for example, 19 is reduced to 1, since 1+9 = 10; 1+0 = 1.
As we have an Ordinal sequence for the Elizabethan English alphabet (the "Bacon Simple" cipher) and an ordinal sequence for the Modern English alphabet ("English Ordinal"), there are two Reduction ciphers that can be used for each of these alphabets. There are usually called "Bacon Short" (the Elizabethan version) and "Pythagorean Numerology" or "Full Reduction" (the Modern version).
As there are Reverse ciphers, so there are also their respective Reverse Reduction ciphers. The logic is the same as these, noting only that Z=1, and that in the Elizabethan cipher the letters "I" and "J" share the same value, as do "U" and "V".
I must make it clear to my Readers that I do not use Reduction ciphers. This is just a question of personal criteria, but I must resort to the laws of probabilistics and mathematics in order to defend my position. The question, which I have addressed already in another post, is that these ciphers use very small values, so it becomes really easy to find "significant" matching values... even if there aren't any real matches.
In terms of probabilities, the easier it is to get any number, the less significant it is in terms of real "match". Unfortunately, the Reduction ciphers fail miserably on this test, so in order to keep my findings as strong as possible, I prefer not to leave "loose ends" – so I don't use Reduction ciphers of any type. However, as in the Reduction ciphers the values of the letters are reduced to a single digit, it may be interesting to note the sequence of those values, and maybe not their total sum. Note for example how the letters in "CAVANI", the name of a well-known Uruguayan professional footballer, are reduced to 3-1-4-1-5-9 in the modern Full Reduction cipher, which are the digits of Pi to the 5th decimal house (3,14159):
This does't "mean" anything about Cavani himself, necessarily. But that specific name, or any other fitting that pattern or another, could be consciously used in strategic occasions in order to leave a specific "signature". This, of course, should always be done with caution, as those kind of "signatures" may not always be intentional signatures. I assume the Reader has enough good sense to distinguish one situation from another.
Now that I've explained to you all the major ciphers that can be used in Baconian studies... let's get to the funny part. =)
"Riddle, Riddle..."
In this section I am going to show you how these ciphers work in practice.
This example is a cryptographic riddle I found in Manly P. Hall's "The Secret Teachings of All Ages", involving both types of ciphers: Elizabethan and Modern. You see, since I first read Hall's books I always had that strange feeling that he knew more than he said, and that some specific ways of writing certains names seemed to show that he was using some kind of Gematria in order to conceal information in his works. In fact, it was while reading his book "The Secret Destiny of America" that I came across a possible clue that I already explained in Part 1 of this series of texts, regarding the "Order of the Quest" and the Illuminati.
In "Secret Teachings", Hall explains the Simple (Elizabethan cipher) in the following way:
"The most simple numerical cipher is that in which the letters of the alphabet are exchanged for numbers in ordinary sequence. Thus A becomes 1, B 2, C 3, and so on, counting both I and J as 9 and both U and V as 20. The word yes by this system would be written 23-5-18. This cipher can be made more difficult by reversing the alphabet so that Z becomes 1, Y 2, X 3, and so on. By inserting a non-significant, or uncounted, number after each of the significant numbers the cipher is still more effectively concealed, thus: 23-16-5-9-18. The word yes is found by eliminating the second and fourth numbers. By adding 23, 5, and 18 together the sum 46 results. Therefore 46 is the numerical equivalent of the word yes. According to the simple numerical cipher, the sum 138 is equal to the words Note carefully. Therefore in a book using this method, line 138, page 138, or paragraph 138 may contain the concealed message. In addition to this simple numerical cipher there are scores of others so complicated that no one without the key can hope to solve them."
Apparently there is nothing strange about this explanation. Hall explains the Simple and Reverse ciphers, how they can be used as cryptographic ciphers (used to conceal messages), and how they can be used as Gematria ciphers (calculating the total sum of the letters). As I like to confirm all correspondences that I find, especially in the case of Manly P. Hall, I went to confirm the values. The word "yes" really sums 46 in the Simple cipher, as Hall explains. However, the words "Note carefully" do not add to 138 like he says, neither in the Simple cipher nor in the Reverse cipher.
My intuition told me this was important. Someone who knew the Elizabethan / Baconian ciphers as well as Manly P. Hall did, would not make such a mistake in such a simple matter. If he missed any letter when calculating, it would not deliver the sum 138 either (I tested all possibilities).
The words with the wrong value invite us to pay attention. "Note carefully". It surely looked like a riddle, but what should I make of it? There seemed to be some type of clue about this in the paragraph immediately following this one, as in that paragraph Hall talks about Francis Bacon, his ciphers, his connections with William Shakespeare, and how certain specific pages in his works were wrongly numbered. He gives many examples of this:
"Authors sometimes based their cryptograms upon the numerical value of their own names; for example, Sir Francis Bacon repeatedly used the cryptic number 33 – the numerical equivalent of his name. Numerical ciphers often involve the pagination of a book. Imperfect pagination, though generally attributed to carelessness, often conceals important secrets. The mispaginations found in the 1623 folio of “Shakespeare” and the consistent recurrence of similar errors in various volumes printed about the same period have occasioned considerable thought among scholars and cryptogrammatists. In Baconian cryptograms, all page numbers ending in 89 seem to have a special significance. The 89th page of the Comedies in the 1623 folio of “Shakespeare” shows an error of type in the pagination, the “9” being from a considerably smaller font than the “8.” The 189th page is entirely missing, there being two pages numbered 187; and page 188 shows the second "8" scarcely more than half the size of the first one. Page 289 is correctly numbered and has no unusual features, but page 89 of the Histories is missing. Several volumes published by Bacon show similar errors, page 89 being often involved."
So if the words "Note carefully" were wrongly numbered in the Baconian ciphers that Hall explained, I wondered what would be their values in the Modern ciphers. And suddenly it made perfect sense:
You see, these are the two Baconian Seal numbers that we've talked about before, and these are specifically related to Sir Francis Bacon. Not only that, but the values of these words match those of "William Tudor" AND "Francis Bacon" in both of these ciphers:
So what did Manly P. Hall actually do here? This was a masterful "trick" by Hall. While he explained the Elizabethan ciphers and gave (willingfully) a wrong value to the words "Note carefully", he actually used the Modern ciphers in order to hide a crystal clear reference to Sir Francis Bacon himself. If we didn't use the modern ciphers the riddle would obviously pass unnoticed. As far as I know this is the first time that this riddle in Manly P. Hall's work becomes public knowledge. So this is just one perfect example of how sometimes authors use both the Elizabethan and the Modern ciphers.
This simultaneous use of the Elizabethan and Modern Gematria ciphers is further supported by the uses of another well-known Baconian cipher, which is used in Cryptography (not related to Gematria), and which also has two versions: one based on the Elizabethan English alphabet with 24 letters, and the other based on the Modern English alphabet with 26 letters. Both versions of this cipher are used to this day. I'm talking about Lord Bacon's magnificent Biliteral Cipher.
Baconian Cryptography – The Biliteral Cipher
In my studies about Sir Francis Bacon I came to know a very interesting cryptographic (actually steganographic) cipher that was invented by the man himself: the Biliteral cipher, also known as Bacon's cipher.
This cipher, not related to Gematria, is used solely to conceal messages within an apparently "normal" text. To use this cipher is necessary to use four alphabets: two alphabets with two different shapes for the capital letters, and other two alphabets with two different shapes for the small letters. Each specific shape of a letter corresponds to either "a" or "b", and it is this string of A's and B's that allows us to decipher the message. Kind of a binary code, but with letters instead of numbers. This is an example of a Biliteral Alphabet from Bacon's "De Augmentis Scientiarum", as used in the Biliteral Cipher:
And this is an example of a message that was enciphered with the Biliteral. Notice the different shapes of some letters, like the small E's, D's and O's.
Thus, in order to decipher one such message, one would need only to note which letters correspond to "a", and which letters correspond to "b". Being left with this string of A's and B's would allow us to decipher it, based on one of two tables. This is the equivalence between the letters and the sequences of A's and B's for the Elizabethan English alphabet (which Lord Bacon used):
And this is the same cipher for the Modern alphabet:
In this modern age it is more difficult to use this cipher since nowadays there is a much greater standardization of the types of letters and fonts than there was, say, by the time of "Shakespeare" and the printing of the King James Bible. There are many solutions to this, one of them being using capitals and small letters to stand for "a" and "b", like this example:
"tHIs fANcy tEXT CAN acTuAlLy Be a CIPHereD mEsSAge"
Another method, which is much more difficult to decode (and to encode too) is to divide the alphabet in two halves, with the letters from "A" to "M" (in the ciphered message) corresponding to "a", and the letters from "N" to "Z" corresponding to "b". With a little work it can be done, though.
In the example I gave above the ciphered message was encoded with the modern table of the alphabet. Assuming all capitals correspond to "a" and all small letters correspond to "b", we decipher the message by following these steps:
1. First, delete all spaces and punctuation marks:
tHIsfANcytEXTCANacTuAlLyBeaCIPHereDmEsSAge
2. Then, convert all letters to either "a" or "b" (capitals="A", small letters="B"):
baabbaabbbaaaaaabbababababbaaaabbbababaabb
3. Next, join those A's and B's in groups of five:
baabbaabbbaaaaaabbababababbaaaabbbababaabb
baabb.aabbb.aaaaa.abbab.ababa.bbaaa.abbba.babaa.bb
4. And finally, decipher the message (with the table for the modern alphabet):
tHIsfANcytEXTCANacTuAlLyBeaCIPHereDmEsSAge
baabbaabbbaaaaaabbababababbaaaabbbababaabb
baabb.aabbb.aaaaa.abbab.ababa.bbaaa.abbba.babaa.bb
T H A N K Y O U -
baabbaabbbaaaaaabbababababbaaaabbbababaabb
baabb.aabbb.aaaaa.abbab.ababa.bbaaa.abbba.babaa.bb
T H A N K Y O U -
If you were one of the lucky ones who saw this blog of mine in its very beginnings, you may have noticed that I too added a "test post" with Bacon's Biliteral cipher. I will leave that one for you to decrypt. 😋
Just note that in this example capitals are A's and small letters are B's, while the table used to decipher the message is based on the Elizabethan alphabet (as shown in the page from Bacon's "De Augmentis Scientiarum".
And now you may be wondering... why am I explaining this cipher, which is cryptographic and not related to Gematria, in this post and blog which are both dedicated to the ciphers of Gematria? Well, not only was this cipher created by Francis Bacon, it is also extremely relevant in the studies of his works (for obvious reasons) as well as in the studies of possible "Baconian" influences in Shakespeare's "First Folio", printed in 1623. About this subject I believe that, like I said in the case of the Kaye cipher, we should read all opinions about this subject, either in favor or against, so that we can have a more clear image of it in our minds and achieve our own opinions, after we study it ourselves. I invite you to read Elizabeth Wells Gallup's "The Bi-literal Cypher of Sir Francis Bacon discovered in his works" as well as William Friedman's "The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined". In my opinion, I believe there are good indicators that Francis Bacon may have had a large influence in the Shakespearean Plays (which does not depend on Bacon's Biliteral cipher), and he could even be the "brain" behind it, but I think it's quite improbable for Francis Bacon alone being "Shakespeare" – even though he was known as a "concealed poet". Besides, some ciphered messages in Shakespeare really do point to Sir Francis Bacon, as you can see in this summary of most convincing Bacon ciphers in Shakespeare.
This subject about Shakespeare and Francis Bacon is absolutely fascinating and surely deserves a deeper study. A study along those lines will be left for a future article, after I finish this series of texts about the History of Ciphers. It will also contain some extra details about:
– Baconian cryptography in his own works and in Shakespeare's works;
– The "Alphabet of Nature" and some curious numerical patterns it shows;
– The symbology of Athena-Minerva, the Knights of the Helmet, and the meanings of "William" and "Shakespeare";
– and possible Baconian influences in Freemasonry's rituals, doctrines and symbols.
– and possible Baconian influences in Freemasonry's rituals, doctrines and symbols.
For the time being, I can't finish this article without mentioning two Gematria ciphers that have been named after Francis Bacon, even without having any connection whatsoever with this man – or with any other person that I know of, in fact, except the one responsible for adding them to an online calculator.
The (bogus) ciphers "Francis Bacon" and "Franc Baconis"
When I first knew Derek Tikkuri's Gematrinator calculator, I noticed that it contained some ciphers that I had never heard before, and others that were either badly named or were being used out of their natural context – or both. I will dedicate some of my time to clarify some of these questions, since I strongly believe that in order to use ciphers in Gematria you have to know what you're doing as well as what you're using.
Two of those "mysterious" ciphers are called "Francis Bacon" and "Franc Baconis" and are in fact case-sensitive ciphers: that is, they give different values to the letters depending if those are capitals or small letters.
There are several problems with these ciphers:
– First of all, I have never ever known of any historical Baconian cipher used for the purposes of Gematria that differentiated capitals and small letters;
– Secondly, there are no clues whatsoever about who made up these ciphers, where or if they were published or talked about elsewhere, besides the "Gematrinator";
– After being questioned about the origin of these ciphers, the only reply I got from Derek Tikkuri (the owner of the "Gematrinator") was something like "I don't remember where I got them from", "there's definitely something to them", and "they're perfectly logical". He also claims to have built "lots of evidence" over time that they work. Well, they can be as logical as you want them to be, and you can build all the evidence that you want, but the question remains that no source was ever given for these ciphers, and whether they are really related to Lord Bacon or not. No book, no website, no author, no research, no sources, nothing. Derek doesn't know, and I don't know either. So why are people calling them that way? Or, even better, why did Derek Tikkuri add these ciphers to his "Gematrinator"? Is it because they're "logical"? And where's the logic in calling them "Francis Bacon" and "Franc Baconis", if there is not a single reference in any of Francis Bacon's works to any of these ciphers – at least that I know of?
– The fact that these are case-sensitive ciphers has originated all kind of variations in the manner of writing names, depending on the desired value (for example, writing common words with capitals if that fits the purpose). This may not be a problem if people are consistent in the use they make of capitals and small letters, otherwise it is total chaos.
In fact, there is a reason why I'm talking about these ciphers after I talked about Francis Bacon's Biliteral cipher. You see, after some time thinking about these ciphers, and reading the section about cryptography in Manly Hall's "The Secret Teachings of All Ages", I've come to understand how these ciphers came to exist. In fact, it seems to me that these two ciphers, "Francis Bacon" and "Franc Baconis", were inspired on Bacon's Biliteral Alphabet which is used with the Biliteral cipher – but with a twist, since the Biliteral cipher is a cryptographic cipher (used to conceal messages in ciphered texts), while these two bogus ciphers are used in Gematria.
Look at those ciphers again. Now look at Bacon's Biliteral Alphabet:
My most sincere advice to the Gematria community is, first, to be aware that the name of these ciphers is wrong and has no connection whatsoever with Sir Francis Bacon. If you want to use it, call it "Case-Sensitive Cipher Nr. 1" and "Case-Sensitive Cipher Nr. 2", but PLEASE don't call them "Francis Bacon" and "Franc Baconis". That's not a service to Truth. (Note to Derek: you're not promoting Knowledge by doing this, but in fact you're promoting disinformation. Please, do NOT help spreading disinformation.) In fact, I know of one webpage where this different name has been adopted – and with my full support. In this case, the "Francis Bacon" cipher is called the Case-Sensitive Classic Gematria. Which is a great name! Why call it by a name that has nothing to do with it?
Besides, and this is my personal opinion, in all of the occasions that I've read about ciphers used by Francis Bacon, all of those ciphers attributed a single value to a single letter, independently of whether it was a capital or a lower case letter. You have seen in this text that this was obviously the case. So, let it be clear that I have nothing against the use of these ciphers. However, I am strongly opposed to calling these ciphers by the names they are being called. "Case-Sensitive cipher" is a great name for them, and it doesn't fail in terms of being faithful to the Truth.
Some final words...
Contrary to what it may seem, I spent a lot of time writing this text. I actually didn't plan it before I started writing it (I almost never do), so in some cases I had to rewrite some sections and reorganize others. It isn't still as perfect as I wanted, but it contains a lot of information and sources already so as to make it possible to my Readers to do their own research and to extract more from what I've written. There is still much to explore, and with this text I actually intend to inspire my Readers to search further, not to take my words (or anyone's, in fact) as granted.
If you have found this text to be useful in your research, or if you have found anything related to these subjects and would like to share your ideas, please do share them. I will be delighted to hear what you have to say, dear Reader, and I hope to learn from you too.
In the next text of these series we will be talking about the Latin ciphers, which includes: the Agrippa cipher (mistakenly called "Jewish"), the Latin cipher used by Beatus of Liébana, some notes on Beatus' "Commentary on the Apocalypse", examples of traditional / historical uses of the Latin ciphers, as well as a very curious oracle that uses the Agrippa cipher, which I found in 1994 in a book about Numerology. I don't know of any English sources explaining that oracle, so... stay tuned! There will be something new. 😉
My warmest regards to all my Readers,
Luís Gonçalves
1 comment:
Splendid
Post a Comment