Thursday, December 19, 2013

Bacon's Signature Ciphers in Shakespeare -80- Wats


45)  Then Theobald found that Gilbert Wats’ name (with only one “t”) in the Kay cipher added up to 259, numerically equivalent to “Shakespeare”. Now I’m not endorsing the whole of Theobald’s work as I haven’t read it. And the Friedmans may well have been logical in at least nearly all of their criticism of Theobald. I don’t know. But I do find it very interesting that his name was spelt with just one “t” and that led it to have the Shakespeare Kay value of 259.

G       I       L      B      E     R      T     W      A     T      S
33 + 35 + 11 + 28 + 31 + 17 + 19 + 21 + 27 + 19 + 18 = 259 = Shakespeare

Another early Baconian, William Francis Wigston, writing in 1890 some 40 years before Theobald, also became suspicious of this Gilbert Wats, but for entirely different reasons. He recognized Bacon’s “style, phraseology, and peculiarities of language” throughout the book and in his analysis of the “true” Bacon works mentioned by Bacon’s secretary William Rawley, who listed Bacon’s authentic works in a list at the end of his Resuscitatio, and which included this “Interpretation” by “Gilbert Wats” he concluded that it had to have been the original English version written by Bacon himself. This analysis can be read, beginning on page 111, of Wigston’s book Hermes Stella: or Notes and jottings upon the Bacon cipher. One caveat in all this is that Rawley listed the Interpreter’s name as Gilbert Watts, with two “t”s. One possible explanation for this is that Rawley had said he, at least partly, based his listing of Bacon’s authentic works on his recognition of Bacon’s clear style of writing, which elsewhere he had said could be recognized even if Bacon’s name was not on it. So he may not have given close attention to noting that the “Wats” in the preface had only one “t”.

If Bacon did write this 1640 version of the Advancement himself, and no Gilbert Wats had anything to do with it, then the many allusions in it, not all of which I’ve covered, to Shakespeare and the First Folio make additional sense. They can then be seen as hints or possible clues to Bacon’s authorship. To strike them all down as coincidences doesn’t seem plausible. The Friedmans did not try to demonstrate that they can be explained by randomness. They seem to have been far more concerned with the lack of definitely established rules for decipherment, rules to which Bacon’s allusions and word/number puzzles may not be easily applied.

No comments:

Post a Comment