IN THE PREFACE to his book, Some Acrostic Signatures of Francis Bacon, William Stone Booth wrote:

It is ungracious to destroy a pleasing illusion, and this book is not written with that purpose. . . .

With full appreciation of Mr. Booth’s words, I have to be honest and state that it has been a great pleasure, even an honor, to be able to destroy an illusion — that illusion in which all Stratfordians and their supporters have comfortably basked for 43 years now, that the problem of the belief that ciphers and acrostics were concealed in the plays, poems and sonnets of William Shakespeare had been permanently and irrefutably laid to rest by Elizebeth S. and William F. Friedman in their book The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined. And I must confess, and it must seem awfully obvious, that I have with great enthusiasm written this book in order to destroy that “pleasing illusion,” and, further, that I have enjoyed every minute of the tedious “literary excavation” involved.

In fact, the “problem” had been conclusively solved a full fifty years before the Friedmans rolled the first sheet of paper into their typewriters to write and then publish their book. But William Booth’s full disclosure of the solution did not jive with popular sentiment, just as Ignatius Donnelly’s The Great Cryptogram had been greeted by derision and obloquy about twenty years previously. The Shakespearean establishment, supported by the masses, comfortably wallowing in another “pleasing illusion,” the Strafordian Myth, predictably refused to accept Booth’s work, or even to consider it. And, of course, it got the full Stratfordian treatment of rejection and vilification. Booth wrote:

I confess that I was daunted at the outset of my work by the personal obloquy that has been heaped upon scholar and charlatan alike by the men who are content with the inferential method of writing literary history; but, reflecting that life is short and that a little obloquy does not do much harm, I decided to make known these acrostics in the hope that their discovery might lead men to approach the problems of biography in a more scientific spirit.

A vain hope, as it turned out. Stratfordians still tenaciously cling to The Myth, scared to death that the Real Solution to that problem will ultimately be resolved, and not in their favor. And, in fact, the tide is turning. More and more people, including many fine scholars, have realized and accepted The Truth.

Certainly, it is not without some trepidation that I offer the present work to the public. I shall, of course, get a great deal of negative reaction from the predictable sources. But I adopt the same determination that Booth adopted: life is short and a little obloquy does not do much harm. And certainly not, if the message in this present work results in the successful reversal of the great damage inflicted by the Friedmans on the Baconian Cause.

I have often wondered why it is that people find it impossible to accept Truth; why it is that they prefer to believe the traducements by writers like Thomas Babbington Macaulay and Elizebeth and William Friedman, to name only three, and doggedly insist on perpetuating the untruths of these and other unethical scholars. Why do they not want the Truth? Why do they not search out and study all available material in an honest search for the truth, and then produce really valid, meaningful articles and books. Why?

One of the answers is: Fear. Fear of the Truth. The fear of having to admit that they just might be wrong in their thinking. The fear of letting go of long-ingrained beliefs in favor of some belief or action that is not of their past experience. The fear that their “authority” may be lost; that a lifetime of work might come to nothing. They willingly perpetuate old untruths for the simple reason that they are afraid to stand alone, proud with the truth, afraid of being the target of criticism, or perhaps even the loss of professional position. As Henry David Thoreau said (quoted by Franklin D. Roosevelt), “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

This is the kind of rigid, closed mind that controls millions of people today, just as it ruled the masses in centuries past. In many ways it’s getting worse instead of better. But hope does, indeed, spring eternal, and I firmly believe that with the immediate dissemination of information made possible by the Internet, great strides toward Truth can be made. For this reason, this little book is given freely to be posted on the internet.

The Truth is here, free for the taking, if people will just take a little time to consider it.

The frankly shocking “legerdemain” of the Friedmans, who unquestionably knew exactly what they were doing, is finally, completely and irrefutably exposed, through the simple expediency of merely comparing what they wrote with what William Stone Booth wrote. The Truth is here, for all to read, for all to understand. It is this:

William Stone Booth’s work proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that ciphers and acrostics lay undiscovered for at least 400 years in the works of Francis Bacon, known to the world through his nom de plume, or nom de guerre if you will, as William Shake-speare, waiting for such a scholar as William Stone Booth to discover them and reveal them to the world!

I am only too painfully aware that such a charge as I have brought against two very famous cryptologists is very serious, but the undeniable fact is, it’s all absolutely true! Those who hold dear the memories of Col. and Mrs. Friedman, who have had not the slightest suspicion that they could ever be accused of such things, will just have to accept the truth as revealed in this book and deal with it the best way they can.

I maintain that such an exposé is absolutely essential, considering that the damage done by the Friedmans has very seriously affected two generations of the world’s population who have looked to them for truthful expert guidance in matters pertaining to the Shakespeare Authorship “problem”; truthful, unbiased expert guidance which they promised in the introduction to their book. They even went so far as to state that anti-Stratfordians deserved a fair hearing instead of the derision they had suffered for many years. Then they turned right around and wrote the most derisive, dishonest swill imaginable!

Let the Stratfordians and all the others, including those eager to promote their own agendas of Shakespearean authorship or of a “Baconian” or other cipher systems, screech and scream their rejection, but they screech and scream in vain while they should be sitting down quietly in a reflective mood to study this irrefutable Truth, saying to themselves, like Lord Polonius in Hamlet, “This above all: to thine ownself be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” They should be asking themselves this question: How could the Friedmans have written such a book as this? And they should answer themselves: Because they were plastering more mud on the Stratfordian dam against any further advancement of the hated — and feared — Truth; and because vilification and deceit are the only weapons that Stratfordians can raise against it!

There can be no possibility that these ciphers and acrostics are “mistakes” or “natural occurrences” of letters falling in just the right place in just the right way, repeatedly, many in the same patterns in the approximately 900,000 words of the 1623 Folio, and almost all of them in the Latin genitive and ablative cases, as it turns out! Of Course, it cannot be said that nothing is absolutely impossible, but the chances against such a thing happening are incalculable. The repeated identical design of many of the acrostics prove it. The repetition of the name Francisci Baconi and Francisco Bacono in the Latin genitive and ablative (genitive = possession; ablative = by, from) in the acrostic signatures proves it. The only possible answer is this: They were intentionally placed there!

I would like to say that I expect a great deal of negative response from people who can’t accept the truth, who cannot cast off the blindfold of deep denial which blurs their perception.

I also expect quite a bit of positive response from people who either already know the truth, or are convinced of the truth through this little book, and who are grateful that the truth about The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined is now completely exposed and has been posted on the internet for the whole world to read.

Regardless of what harsh criticisms may greet this book, one fact remains: Friedman’s deceit has been fully exposed, and must be accepted, because the proofs given by comparison of Friedman’s and Booth’s written words cannot be denied. Aside from that, nothing else matters, i.e., my style of writing, or any unkind thing I say about the Friedmans. This book was not written as a study of the Friedmans’ great work as a cryptologists. Nor was it written as a scientific treatise for high-minded professors and scientists. It has been written in a hopefully easy-to-read style for everyone, especially high-school and college students, for housewives and office clerks as well as artists, writers, politicians and scientists.

I appeal to you, the reader, to open your mind. Be sure that you are being honest with yourself, that you are not holding fast to old prejudices or misconceptions. Let the obvious Truth flow in, like a cooling, soothing balm. Finally, I appeal to the British Government and to all Englishmen to rescue their immortal son from the now well-known unfair and wrong obloquy which he has suffered since 1620 — now 380 years! I appeal to all persons everywhere to reject the shamefully vilifying distortions and fabrications of Thomas Babbington Macaulay — and proudly to raise Sir Francis Bacon to the position of highest honor and esteem which is his by right.
Now is the time.

KEN PATTON
San Diego
September 3, 2000
Acknowledgements

The extracts from
The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined
are reprinted with the permission of
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
whose generosity is very much appreciated.

I am grateful to
LAWRENCE GERALD
for the gift of a copy of
Some Acrostic Signatures of Francis Bacon
which made it possibe for me to complete this book.

Also,

I am forever indebted to my friends

KEN AND VISAKHA KAWASAKI
Buddhist Relief Mission and Burma Relief Mission
www.brelief.org

for their generous gift of a computer
without which this book
could not have
been finished.

DEDICATIONS

I saw an injustice done and tried to remedy it. I heard falsehood taught, and was compelled to deny it. Nothing else was possible to me. I knew not how little or how much might come of the business, or whether I was fit for it; but here was the lie, full set in front of me, and there was no way round it but only over it. —John Ruskin

It is my great wish to do what I can, with my limited knowledge of Elizabethan literature, to help in the work of apportioning to that man, whose intellectual ability and wonderful genius simply astound me, the early works and the proper merit due to his name. We know how pathetically in his will he left his “name and memory to men’s charitable speeches and the next ages.” Nearly three centuries have passed, and I believe it is reserved to our present century to place the intellect and genius of Bacon in its truer fuller light. His character, too, shall be vindicated from such traducers as Macaulay and Pope, and from such repeaters of scandal as D’Ewes and Wilson and the Puritan Malignants generally. —Rev. Walter Begley in Bacon’s Nova Resuscitatio, 1905, Volume I, page 9

ONE hardly knows where or how to begin a book such as this as this. Considering not only the nature of the work at hand but also the possible ramifications, one always wants to be gentle and never to hurt anyone, neither the deceased nor their family, many of whom must still be living; never in any way to stoop to the low level of what is now traditional Stratfordian-style vilification. However, considering how nice I have tried to be in preparing this book, I fear that the reputations that Colonel and Mrs. Friedman have enjoyed are, sadly, going to be irreparably tarnished — not for their very excellent work as professional cryptolgists, for which they shall always deserve the highest praise. Of course, now, thanks to the Internet, the whole world is fortunately going to know that they stooped to the very lowest kind of intellectual dishonesty by writing and publishing a book such as "The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined" anyhow, whatever I write about the Friedmans is not nearly so bad as the traducing language with which they attacked their victims, which resulted in very serious damage to their reputations. While some of these people may have been deluded — to put it bluntly — it served no purpose to treat them so badly.

First, we should learn a little about Col. and Mrs. Friedman. The following extracts from their book will suffice.
Accompanied by a photograph of Mr. and Mrs. Friedman, the following "resume" reveals their very great professional status and the high esteem in which they were deservedly held. 

William and Elizebeth Friedman are distinguished American cryptologists, who have both spent many years in the service of the United States Government. Colonel Friedman, a retired Army reservist as well as a retired Civil Servant, is one of a very few people in the United States to win both Presidential decorations: the Medal for Merit and the National Security Medal. In 1956 Congress passed a special bill awarding him $100,000 in settlement of his commercial rights in certain inventions which, because of their importance in National Defence, could not be patented or marketed.

Though he had an early interest in ciphers, he began his career as an agricultural scientist. Before the First World War he was employed by Colonel George Fabyan (see within). On Fabyan's estate he met, and later married, Elizebeth Smith, who was a research assistant. With the outbreak of the war both entered Government service, and there, without a break Mr. Friedman remained for thirty-eight years. Shortly before the United States entered the Second World War he headed the U.S. Army cryptanalytic bureau that cracked the highest-level Japanese diplomatic cipher machine system, the so-called "Purple Code', which still plays such a prominent role in the story of the attack on Pearl Harbor and which during the ensuing war gave the United States not only vital diplomatic and military intelligence concerning Japanese intentions, but also similar intelligence concerning Hitler's intentions in Europe.

In 1938 Mrs. Friedman was made an honorary Doctor of Laws for her outstanding work for the United States and Canadian governments. After the Second World War she was chosen by the International Monetary Fund to establish its system of secret communications and to serve as consultant.

Cryptology has been not only the Friedmans' vocation but also their life-long hobby, and this book has occupied their leisure for several years. In a more extended form it won the Folger Shakespeare Library Literature prize in 1955. 

Proving that somebody else wrote Shakespeare has become a popular pastime. The layman listens too readily to the latest theories; the Shakespearean scholar too readily stops his ears to them, and often dismisses without examination claims that messages are hidden in works of Elizabethan literature. These claims deserve a fair hearing; and cipher systems at least can be investigated objectively. William and Elizebeth Friedman are professional cryptologists, and they have made a lifelong hobby of studying the ciphers that allegedly disprove Shakespearean authorship. As cipher experts, they have no preference for any particular author; they merely wish to examine the evidence.

In this book, intended for readers who enjoy the lucid presentation of a detailed case, the authors consider all the main systems. After explaining the rules to be followed and the tests which must be met, they apply them to each cipher system in turn.

The discussion begins with a varied catalogue of word ciphers, string ciphers, anagrams, acrostics and magic numbers. Cryptic messages are claimed to be hidden on gravestones, in old manuscripts, and in the texts of a hundred books or more; the suggested authors range from Spenser and Ben Jonson to Marlowe, the Earl of Oxford and a vast syndicate. Later chapters discuss in detail the use by Elizabeth Wells Gallup of the Biliteral Cipher, invented by Bacon and described by him in The Advancement of Learning. Mrs. Gallup's work has aroused interest and controversy for fifty years; and in 1938 it was approved by the French cipher expert, General Cartier. Readers everywhere will be interested to know the Friedmans' verdict on this and other claims based upon cryptography to the authorship of Shakespeare.

Only one comment do I have about the above. If there was, as indicated in the last paragraph, "a more extended form" I would love to see it, because the "more extended form" could only be a larger collection of misrepresentations and deceit. And it seems to me very strange that it received the Folger Shakespeare Library Literature prize two years before it was published.
Doesn't this tell you something?

I include for your information the following excerpts from the press releases which greeted the publication of The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined. Please note that they are all from very respected publications. Read them carefully, and keep them in mind as you work you way through Part II of this book.

Following are the press opinions, or a few excerpts of the reviews that The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined received — all from very respected sources. These were printed on the dust jacket of the book:

Two noted cryptographers, operating with professional wariness, vigorously re-examine the old question of who wrote Shakespeare's plays . . . the authors maintain an unruffled calm and lack of bias throughout, but they write with a wicked wit. — The New Yorker

Learned, scholarly, patient, courteous, deft, ordered, beautifully written and withal absolutely devastating. — The Spectator

Col. and Mrs. Friedman deserve our deepest gratitude for having struck a shrewd blow for sanity . . . a brilliant and witty performance which will delight the general readers as well as the specialist. — Washington D.C. Post

Anyone who enjoys a first-class "whodunit" must enjoy this first-class "whodidundoit". He will become something of a cryptographer for the Friedmans make their professionalism delightfully easy to understand. He will enjoy some excellent jokes and sly wit. He will find in it a rare quality of intellectual honesty and careful scholarship. — Economist

Well-written, clear, understandable to the non-cryptologist, sprinkled with anecdotes, frequently spiced with wit or a well-turned phrase. The authors have, for the first time, assembled virtually complete information on Baconian ciphers and discussed it with devastating throughness . . . crushing as an avalance. — The New York Times

Highly entertaining. Although lethal it is humane. — New Statesman

I am reserving comment on these "reviews". After you have worked your way through Part Two of this book, you will become more and more astonished that the Friedmans were able to dupe not only the venerable publishing house Cambridge University Press and their editors, but some of the best book reviewers in this country! When you have finished reading this article, and, hopefully, worked along with the complete instructions given verbatim from William Booth Stone's book, refer back to these press notices and I can almost guarantee you that you will be slapping your knee laughing. My comments are reserved until the final section of this article.

I FOUND a brief biographical sketch and the photograph here presented of William Stone Booth in the National Encyclopedia of American Biography.

BOOTH, William Stone, author, was born in Gloucester, England, Jan. 20, 1864, son of Abraham and Elizabeth (Watts) Booth. His father was an importer of fine lumber from Russia and Australia and his paternal great-grandfather, William Stone of Chatham, Chief Constructor of the British Navy, designed and built Nelson's flagship, "Victory" and other noted vessels. He was prepared for Oxford under private tutors and at the Cathedral College School in Gloucester, but ill-health prevented his entering the university. In 1885 he went to Australia in a sailing vessel to benefit his health and to further his father's lumber interests. Afterwards he traveled for three years in Brazil, Mexico, the West Indies and the United States, investigating the fibre industry, and returned in 1890 to the lumber business in London. In 1893 he came to the United States, spent a year in California, and then settled in the East. In 1894-97, he was a branch librarian of the New York public library. Thereafter Mr. Booth served as literary adviser to leading publishers, including G. P. Putnam's Sons (1897), the Macmillan Company (1898-1903), and then became a literary adviser and editor on his own account. During the World war period he labored for the Red Cross and in translating and summarizing medical treatises for the Psychopathic Hospital of Boston. As an author his favorite field was the literature and drama of the Elizaethan and Jacobean periods, especially the plays of Shakespeare and their authorship. On this subject he wrote Some Acrostic Signatures of Francis Bacon (1909), The Hidden Signatures of Francesco Colonna and Francis Bacon (1910); The Droeshout Portrait of William Shakespeare, an Experiment in Identification, (1911); Marginal Acrostics and Other Alphabetical Devices, a Catalogue (1920) and Subtle Shining Secrecies, Writ in the Margents of Books (1925). In these works he submitted new evidence and arguments on the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy, but his exhaustive knowledge and judgment prevented his espousal of the opinions of the extremists on either side. In his last-named book, dedicated "To the Inquisition of Truth," he drew the conclusion that the great plays were written not by Shakespeare the Actor, but by Shake-speare the Poet, the pen-name of Francis Bacon. He also wrote A Practical Guide for Authors and Playwrights (1907), and compiled and edited On Many Seas and Wonderful Escapes of Americans, each a collection of stories based on actual experiences. He was intimately acquainted with French and Italian as well as English literature. To his life-work Mr. Booth brought a scholarly equipment of wide range, a keen and open intellect, great enthusiasm, sanity and a trenchant individuality. He was of commanding physique, a picturesque and luminous talker, an incomparable letter writer, and an investigator of unflagging patience and courage. He was married (1) Oct. 1, 1897, to Mary, daughter of Elder Truman Brewster of Montrose, Pa.; (2) Nov. 29, 1904, his first wife dying in 1901, to Leonora, daughter of Maj.-Gen. Albion P. Howe, U.S.A., of Cambridge, Mass. He was the father of two daughters, Elizabeth McPherson and Emily Booth, and of one son, Robert Howe Booth. Mr. Booth died in Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 14, 1926. 

Some Acrostic Signatures of Francis Bacon was published by Houghton Mifflin Company (The Riverside Press Cambridge) in 1909. It's 606 pages are crammed with examples of acrostics in Shakespeare's works — the plays, poems and sonnets. If you take the trouble to spend an hour or two learning the rules (all which the Friedmans ignored) and working through the sample acrostics you can, with practice, become quite adept at Baconian cryptography and at finding the acrostics yourself. It is, of course, impossible for me to include very many of the acrostics with solutions, but I encourage the student to find a copy of this book and make a photocopy of it. If it is not in your city's or school's library, it is possible to get it through interlibrary loan.

Another book by William Stone Booth is severely trashed by the Friedmans — The Hidden Signatures of Francesco Colonna and Francis Bacon: A Comparison of their Methods. In their attempts to discredit Mr. Booth, the Friedmans resort to every kind of put down they can think of, and in the process make one of their most shocking detours around honesty.

The last of Booth's books to be hacked to pieces by the Friedmans is his Subtle Shining Secrecies. This is a very important book, and, as in the other books, Mr. Booth lays it all out for us to see. This book is really instructive, though here I have to say that in my opinion Mr. Booth allowed his enthusiasm to carry him a little off course, but he is honest enough to admit it and tells the reader to decide for himself.

This book takes its name from the fifteenth stanza of The Rape of Lucrece. I include this stanza here:

But she, that never coped with stranger eyes
Could pick no meaning from their parling looks,
Nor read the subtle-shining secrecies
Writ in the glassy margents of such books:      
      Nor could shee moralize his wanton sight,
      More then his eies were opend to the light.

Let's briefly examine these few lines. It is obvious, or should be obvious, to everyone that the third and fourth lines are quite simply an open statement for all to read, and are, indeed, Bacon's instructions as to what to look for to open ones eyes to the light, that is, The Truth! Further, observe that, as often pointed out by Baconian scholars, the unhidden acrostics writ in the glassy margents of such books, the initial letters of the first word of every line of the acrostic, read either up or down, often repeat or parody the information to be found in the plays included in the 1623 First Folio. Read the initial letters down, including the o after the C, and the whole word Writ.

B
Co
N
Writ

Some scholars suggest that the No, M of the last two lines suggest the Latin word "Nom" or "name". That is acceptable. For me, personally, the first four lines give us the message "Writ by Bacon". Further, I further suggest the fourth tells us that our eyes shall be "open'd to the light, if we simply follow these instructions. In his book, Subtle Shining Secrecies, William Booth Stone followed these instructions.

No one has yet explained why the poet would abruptly include a stanza that is in no way germane to the subject of the poem, the lines of which begin with such suggestive initial letters. As I see it, there is only one answer.

IN HIS VERY fine article, Scientific Cryptology Examined, published in Baconiana (No. 160, March, 1960, Page 43) Prof. Pierre Henrion takes the Friedmans to task for not being honest. He writes (page 43):

. . . The "Friedman" case exceeds even the "Gallup" case in complexity; for if we have before us a novel and intriguing work — one in which a great deal of purely destructive and pernicious criticism is always amusingly expressed — we have also, if I may say so, an extremely artful book.

Now since it is destructive without being vituperative, and is (written) in an easy and good-humored style, it presents a most interesting psychological problem. To anyone with real cryptological experience it is hard to reconcile the impartiality claimed by the authors with the skill and legerdemain by which certain danger-points have been avoided. It is these unexpected stipulations which have led me at times to suspect a "command performance". . . 

p.15

The professor and I are at a divergence of opinion. I cannot see that there is any "complexity" in the "Friedman case," for on close examinination and analysis, the truth is easily revealed. And regardless of what the good professor thought or wrote, it is my opinion that this book is indeed vituperative and is not written in an easy and good-humored style. The style is nasty, derisive and insulting. But I can certainly agree that the Friedmans' book is "an extremely artful book". It is well written. They present their thesis in a very cogent manner, and it does indeed read like a great scholarly work. Such was the Friedmans' talent. In truth, this book is probably the most astonishing collection of deceit and deliberately calculated falsifications that have ever been crammed between the covers of a book! Their words are "always amusingly expressed" in one context only — to make a laughing stock out of their victims. People love to laugh at "nuts", and the Friedmans took full advantage of their position to be as derisive as possible and make their victims look like "nuts." As a result, this book is amusing and entertaining only to anti-Baconians. It is galling to lovers of the truth, and an gross insult to the many fine Baconian scholars who have done such beautiful work during the last century and a half. It serves only one purpose admirably, and that is that, once exposed, it provides us with the most outstanding example of Stratfordian anti-Baconian tactics ever published!

I, too, have suspected a "command performance." I can only believe that some person or organization with a vested interest in the perpetuation of the Stratford myth commissioned the Friedmans to write this book! Of course, I have no proof of that, but that is my belief, my opinion. With their very fine reputation as cryptologists, it was someone's brilliant idea that the Friedmans' word would never be questioned; that their very reputation as cryptologists would guarantee the immediate and unquestioned acceptance of everything they wrote about ciphers in the works of Shakespeare. And, indeed, such has been the case for forty-three years!

Until now!

It is incredible that the Friedmans ignored the immortality knocking at their door and chose to prostitute their gilded reputation in order coddle the perpetrators of a ridiculous myth and their vested interests! They could have, literally with almost no effort at all, proved the existence of the ciphers in the works of Shakespeare and gained that immortality 

Chapter VI of the Friedmans' book, A Miscellany (Page 77), is devoted to a "full disclosure" of the rules of five of the cipher systems studied. To wit, the ciphers of Mrs. Natalie Rice Clark, Mrs. Gertrude Horsford Fiske, Joseph Martin Feely, Edward D. Johnson, and William More. They claimed that it was quite impossible for them to study and give a full analysis of all the cipher systems used by Baconians, but that five of them were most important. They then give full explanations of these five "most important" cipher systems. It is noteworthy that the three truly most important cipher systems, Ignatius Donnelly's cipher system and Bacon's system as discovered and used by William Stone Booth, were not even mentioned. They didn't even mention the Biliteral Cipher of Elizabeth Wells Gallup, the one cipher system that has gotten the most publicity and acceptance!

The five they did discuss in full I have never heard of ! This gives us a hint of the Friedmans' tactics — thoroughly examine the ciphers that could easily be proved not to be ciphers, but ignore the ciphers that work, or have a possibility of working, their rules and the facts, and resort to deceit and hypocritical accusations of dishonesty— while they are the ones being dishonest! — when the going gets tough, and they are determined to undermine the Baconian Theory.

It is interesting to note that the really important cipher discoverers — Donnelley and Booth — both received an inordinate amount of space in this book, and that in their attempted refutations, the Friedmans bared all fangs, all claws and got out all their butchery tools and really went to work — big time! Much to their disgrace, as it turns out!

Here is a good example of that. Referring again to Prof. Henrion's article, we read: 

It is good practical politics, when you cannot denounce an hypothesis as false, to confound it with another which is more doubtful. This tactic is applied to my friend, the late Melvrau — who was a much more dangerous man than myself. He is quoted in the index as a "follower of Cuningham". In the text he is presented as one of the "kindred spirits" and "imitators" of Cuningham. The poor Melvrau would hardly have been flattered, never having read a line of Cuningham! He believed only in the study of original documents. The Friedmans declare that these supposed signatures appear in books "neither written by Bacon nor by Bacon-as-Shakespeare". To me this is just another way of begging the question. The signatures exist, and since they were originally devised to give proof of authenticity (and are still considered to do so by the initiates of a certain Order) I must insist. In Melvrau's work, taken from Shakespearian plays (title-pages of Folios and Quartos: beginnings and ends of play, etc.), I note 11 groups of seals in the BACON-TUDOR-SHAKE-SPEARE category. They appear in 22 illustrations, while five others concern the preliminaries of the Folio. Let us now examine the Friedman tactics at this rather awkward pass. They cannot say that these seals are imaginary because some people know for certain (as part of the tradition of their craft) that they have actually been used, and were still used in the middle of the 20th century! So they draw a red herring across the trail by dealing at length with the inventor of a silly system, and by declaring that Melvrau is his imitator! By these means the unsuspicious reader is led to believe that the Melvrau system is equally valueless. And in case he remains too interested in these damning seals, the next move is to suggest that they do not concern the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy at all. And if the obstinate reader still persists another move is to give no references. . . . 

Here's how I think they did it. First, as mentioned above, their unquestioned authority in matters cryptological was sufficient to prevent anyone doing any research to see if they really had "solved the problem" once and for all. Their word was law, and no one questioned it. Second, they were apparently very confident that since the people they were traducing were all dead and their books long out of print, they could rest peacefully in the knowledge that no one would go to the trouble to check them out. Third, I do not at all believe that they were unbiased. This claim was just a ploy to try to assure everyone that they were truly disinterested scholars, that they dispassionately had arrived at the absolute truth about the matter, and simply published the results of their study.

As you shall see, that is not true. Direct extracts from the Friedmans' book are presented right along with direct quotes from William S. Booth's book Some Acrostic Signatures of Francis Bacon so that you can see for yourself that the Friedmans quite deliberately ignored important Baconian cryptological information that is vital to the solution of the acrostics — especially the one most important rule! Everything is quoted exactly. Nothing is taken out of context.

This little book is concerned only with Chapter IX , The String Cipher of William Stone Booth of The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, and while I maintain that the Friedmans' modus operandi applies to all the other sections of The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, we are here concerned only with proving absolutely and conclusively and irrefutably that the Friedmans were deliberately dishonest in their comments about William Stone Booth, and in completely rectifying the terrible injustice they did to this really fine ethical scholar.

 The Friedmans are by no means the only "experts" who have resorted to the fine art of personal traducement and character assassination in a desperate attempt to counter the flood of very profound scholarly information — even proofs! — that have been produced by devoted Baconian scholars in their support of the Baconian theory. These scholars include great writers and poets, doctors, lawyers, judges, members of parliament, members of Congress — people from every walk of life. And yet, the Stratfordian Establishment, with all its Shakespeare authorities, has made every attempt to insult Baconians and can only reply with vilification and accusations that Baconians are certifiably insane — all in their vain attempts to stop the progress of the Baconian avalanche.

The Question immediately arises: Why?

The answer is quite simple. It is known to all Baconians. It is this: Stratfordians cannot counter the awesome flood of really beautiful scholarly work done by Baconian scholars. They have no answer. So, forever backed into an indefensible corner, they can only lash out with insults and accusations that Baconians are stupid nuts, certifiably insane. Even though the known facts about William Shaxpur, the actor, can be written on a postcard, they adamantly refuse to accept the true facts of the matter, preferring to perpetuate their myth by churning out innumerable 700-page "biographies" of Shakespeare that are nothing but sheer fantasy fiction. This was even admitted by the late prominent Shakespeare scholar, Dr. S. Schoenbaum in his book Shakespeare's Lives, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991) a book that should be in every Baconian's library.

Stratfordians are very quick to point their fingers at the Baconian nuts, but professor Schoenbaum — who was definitely not a Baconian — reveals all about the Stratfordian nuts.

In his book, The Bacon-Shakespeare Anatomy, (New York, Russell F. Moore Company, 1945) by W. S. Melsome, M.A., M.D., tells of the rudeness shown by Sir Sidney Lee, and the impossibility of finding Baconian books in libraries: 

Pick up any book written by a professor of English literature and when you come upon a Chapter where an attempt is made to show some difference of opinion between Bacon and Shakespeare you can tell at once that not one of these professors has ever read Bacon's works with attention, otherwise they would not make the blunders they do. When Sir Sidney Lee tackled the subject it seems he was forced to ask other people their opinions, which is a sure sign that he had not studied Bacon's works. He shook hands with those who agreed with him, and turned his back upon those who did not, and yet those who disagreed with him knew far more about Bacon than his friends, but unfortunately their books are not to be found in many of our great municipal libraries, not even in the London library. Ask for the works of Judge N. Holmes, Mr. W. F. C. Wigston or Mr. Edwin Reed and they cannot oblige you. What should we think of a judge who refused to hear both sides of a dispute? (New York, 1945(?), The Bacon-Shakespeare Anatomy, Russell F. More Company, page 192)

One  of the very best examples of the Stratfordian tactics is presented in minute detail by Mr. Robert M. Theobald in The Ethics of Criticism (1904), a 31 page pamphlet in which is published the complete correspondence of Mr. Theobald, imminent Baconian, and Mr. Churton Collins, imminent Shakespeare scholar and of course, Stratfordian.

Mr. Collins had just published his Studies in Shakespeare, and on pages 342-4 made completely untrue statements about Mr. Theobald's book, Shakespeare Studies in Baconian Light. Mr. Theobald took great umbrage and demanded a public apology. Here is the accuser's, Mr. Theobald's, description of the situation :

.....For the accuser comes before the public— or certainly before the Shakespearean section of the public—with a damaged reputation; and the accused enjoys almost unlimited credit. The accusation is made by one who is already branded with the imputation of mania; he is crazy crank ; he is incapable of weighing evidence; he does not know what he is talking about when he presumes to pronounce an opinion on matters relating to Elizabethan literature; men of his class have been examined by experts in lunacy, and in every case a diagnosis of monomania has been arrived has been arrived at. How can the assertion of such a person obtain the least credit when leveled at a literary pundit of high repute?

There is no room here to give more details about this incredible confrontation, but it very succinctly describes typical Stratfordian nastiness, which fine Baconian scholars have had to endure for more than 150 years now.

So, in true Stratfordian style, the Friedmans do everything they can to make fools of their victims, and in the case of W.S. Booth, especially, they leave readers with the feeling that he was a charlatan hell-bent on passing off crazy and phony ideas on his unsuspecting "victims"! When they finally finish with the poor man, he has been reduced to the status of a sneaky, unprincipled charlatan!

And there are those who think this is amusing!

There is no room here for more examples of the Stratfordian Modus Operandi, but for those interested, it is a simple matter of continuing to read everything they can find about the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy. It doesn't take long to acquire a full knowledge of the Stratfordians' miserable tactics.

WHAT is scholarship? I ask and, unlike the jesting Pilate, I’ll stick around around and try to give a very simple but cogent answer. In spite of the simplicity of the answer, there seems to be some confusion about it in some quarters of every profession — especially those quarters in which both famous and unknown professionals deal with controversial subjects.

Dictionaries tell us that scholarship is 

(1) a sum of money or its equivalent offered (as by an educational institution), a public agency, or a private organization or foundation) to enable a student to pursue his studies at a school, college, or university . . . (2) (a) the character, qualities or attainments of a scholar as a scholastic achievement . . . (b) methods, attitudes, and traditions characterizing a scholar . . . (3) the body of learning and especially of research available in a particular field. . .

Items 2a, 2b and 3 are relevant here, and they point out the qualities required of a person who would be considered a scholar. In (2) we learn that the character, qualities or attainments of this person are to be considered: is he or she upright and honest, fair in the appraisal of test results? Most important. In (3) this person's methods and attitudes are revealed as being very important. Does he or she approach the study with well-thought-out and unbiased methods, with an attitude of honesty and fairness? Ah! Honesty! Truthfulness.

That is not mentioned as a specific quality and attitude of any person who would be a scholar, and I think it is right to assume, that honesty, or truth, is a very integral part of scholarship — and it doesn't take a Francis Bacon to understand it. This quality is perhaps the most important part. These qualities and attitudes, including truth, combine to give us a new and all-embracing term, and that is responsible, or ethical, scholarship. The underlying — or perhaps I should say the permeating — ingredient of this new term, ethical scholarship, is Truth! Truth in scholarship! And without that, the third part of the definition given above, cannot be concluded with any hope of rendering a meaningful solution, or of arriving at any unassailable conclusion.

Genuine ethical scholarship is complete, irrefutable and unfailing, because truth cannot be questioned. It cannot be put down. It cannot be altered. When completely and correctly conducted, ethical scholarship stands as solid as Gibraltar before any and all adversaries. But, sooner or later, unethical scholarship is completely discredited, and the scholar is, at best, simply corrected. But an irresponsible scholar stands the chance of being his own worst enemy, and, to his eternal shame, the source of his own professional demise.

William Stone Booth, in his preface to Some Acrostic Signatures Of Francis Bacon, wrote (Page viii): 

The man who allows his inferences to crystalise into an "orthodox opinion" is on the highroad to oblivion, or is courting the ridicule of posterity. No lasting history can be built on opinion, and no scholarship which is afraid of enquiry can retain respect. 

Truer words were never written. I will give you three examples, although I wish I had the space to give several, such as the case of at least one "scholar" studying the Shroud of Turin. The justly famous British politician, Thomas Babbington Macaulay, born in October, 1800, was a brilliant genius, and very much admired politician (Whig) and orator who rose to fame literally overnight for his skill as a writer. Unfortunately, he had some very bad problems. Among these faults is that from his childhood he had no respect for the opinions of others. He was the only one who knew, and he would shout down anyone who disagreed with him. Also, in his many "reviews" of books, or essays as they are called, he had no compunction whatsoever in traducing in the most severe manner anyone, living or dead, when it served his purpose, especially some very great historical English personage. In my very thorough study of Macaulay, it always seemed to me that his purpose was to put his great genius above all others, even Francis Bacon!

Sir Winston Churchill's ancestor, John, Duke of Marborough, was scurriously traduced by Macaulay in an article replete with insinuations, twisted facts and outright fabrications. The Honorable Winston Churchill, in a quiet, subtle way, published, with his introduction, John Paget's The New Examen,(Manchester (?), The Hayward Press, 1861) a collection of essays that proved Macaulay's traducing language as he raked Macaulay over the coals for his many transgressions.

William Penn, the famous founder of the State of Pennsylvania, was given the same treatment with the same kind of distorted information and outright lies. Bacon biographer William Hepworth Dixon severely took Macaulay to task for the Penn article (The History of William Penn, New Amsterdam Press, 1902). And nobody needs to be reminded of the invidious attack on Francis Bacon in his essay Lord Bacon, which, in a travesty of justice, totally destroyed the reputation of that glorious genius with unspeakable lies, a totally inaccurate and demaning character analysis, and a twisted interpretation of his whole professional life, apparently written with great glee and abandonment in totally destroying Bacon. Sadly, because of this essay, schools, after 200 years (!), still teach students that Bacon was a corrupt judge and an ungrateful friend who turned against the traitor, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex in order to try to enhance his own position in the government, all of which has been proved to be untrue by William Hepworth Dixon, who was not a Baconian, in his wonderful biography of Bacon (Personal History of Lord Bacon, London, John Marray, Albemarle Street, 1861)). It was Dixon who persuaded the British government to give access to the State Papers so that scholars woud be able to study them.

Macaulay and his sisters — for whom he had an almost abnormal love — much to the dismay of their father, loved to read novels, and much was their delight in discussing them. I maintain that Macaulay had a secret desire to write novels! Of course, his reputation would have been destroyed had he given in to this desire. And I have an idea that this secret desire had an unfortunate result in his final work.

Macaulay's great undoing — perpetrated by himself alone — was his History of England. It was his great ambition to write a history that would be "on every lady's night stand." And that's what he did. He wrote a great "historical novel"! He wrote history as he would have it and as it would suit his purpose. And, indeed, from the publication of the first volume, it was am immediate success. It is full of inventive rhetoric which is so evenly woven into his tale that it renders the whole work totally useless as history, misinformative and unreliable. Concerning this, interested persons should read Bryant's biography of Macaulay.

While he was still living, he was attacked by several writers, including John Paget, the author of The New Examen and Hepworth Dixon, the great Bacon biographer, both of whom exposed him for what he was — a liar. Long after his death, his essays and the History were declared unfit for historical research. That was his reward for his unethical scholarship, earning for himself, as William Stone Booth wrote, the ridicule of posterity.

If a so-called scholar has an "agenda", and is determined to "prove" his own pre-conceptions and beliefs concerning his agenda in whatever way he can, he, then, is no scholar, no matter how educated he may be, no matter how experienced he may be. In desiring to find the true answer to any problem, literary or scientific, one undertakes a study, gathers all available information, both positive and negative, and keeps at it until he arrives at the inevitable conclusion that cannot be disproved, even though that conclusion may be at variance with any preconceptions that he may have had! This procedure is, quite simply, the procedure taught by Bacon's inductive philosophy.

This is the great problem with "scholars" who write about Francis Bacon. There are so many sources of true historical information about Francis Bacon, but the only source they unfailingly rely on is Macaulay's deliberately scurrilous and outrageously misleading essay, and thus has it been for one hundred and seventy years! These scholars make no attempt to go back beyond Macaulay, even to the very available work of seventeenth century writers, or, worse still, to the more recent works like Dixon's biography, to find out the real truth about Francis Bacon. And thus will it continue until scholars realize that they are perpetuating terrible untruths about Bacon, and start occupying their time with truly ethical scholarship.

One "Macaulay Scholar", discussing Macaulay's Essays at length, simply mentioned his essay, Lord Bacon, without any comment at all! This scholar was of the opinion, expressed in so many words, that it is time to forget about Macaulays's "mistakes"!
I think not!

Truth in scholarship, as in all other things, is the paramount necessity. Truth is the glue that holds it all together. And Truth will inevitably expose and dismantle the errors and the falsifications of all those "scholars" past and present who, for whatever reason, were interested only in promoting their own insupportable pre-conceptions.

To the "Young Schollars of the Universities, the aurorae filii"— and all other "schollars" — I say: Bend your minds to unwavering truth in any scholarly undertaking. If you have preconceptions about any subject you may be studying, simply abandon them, because without Truth, all is in vain; all is lost. 

IT goes without saying that most of us know little, if any, Latin. So, since we shall be dealing with some Latin-form names for the rest of this book, it will scholars, help a great deal if I set forth the very simple Latin that we will be dealing with.

The registration of Francis Bacon's birth at St. Martin's in the Fields in London gives his name as Mr Franciscus Bacon. So his use of the name "Franciscus" is not artificial. It is valid. It was a simple one step further, for literary purposes, to Latinize the name "Bacon" to "Baconus", although we never see that in print. Nouns that end with -us are nouns of the second declension, these are the declension we see of Bacon's whole name The genitive, or possessive, case, in which the "us" changes to "I" , as in Francisci Baconi and the ablative case, in which the "us" changes to "o" as in "Francisco Bacono", which changes the meaning to "by" means "by" or "from". So when we see "Francisci Baconi" it simply means that the poem or play is Francis Bacon's. When we see "Francisco Bacono" it simply means that the poem or the play is by Francis Bacon, or it issues from Francis Bacon.

This Latin usage was to be found on the title pages of any book where the author's name was included. Francis Bacon used it mostly in his literary works as both hidden and exposed acrostics. That's what William Stone Booth's works are all about: the exposition of those acrostics.
Nothing to it!

WHAT IS TRUTH? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer. Certainly there be that delight in giddiness; and count it a bondage to fix a belief; affecting freewill in thinking as well as in acting. And though the sects of philosophers of that kind be gone, yet there remain certain discoursing wits which are of the same veins, though there be not so much blood in them as was in those of the ancients. But it is not only the difficulty and labor which men take in finding out of the truth, nor again that when it is found, it imposeth upon men's thoughts, that doth bring lies in favor; but a natural though corrupt love of the lie itself. One of the later school of the Grecians examineth the matter, and is at a stand to think what should be in it that men should love lies; where neither they make for pleasure, as with poets; nor for advantage, as with the merchant, but for the lie's sake. But I cannot tell; this same truth is a naked and open daylight that doth not show the masks and mummeries and triumphs of the world half so stately and daintily as candle lights. Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl that showeth best by day, but it will not rise to the price of a diamond or carbuncle that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure. Doth any man doubt that if there were taken out of men's minds vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds of a number of men poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves? One of the fathers, in great severity, called poesy the wine of evil spirits because it filleth the imagination, and yet it is but with the shadow of a lie. But it is not the lie that passeth through the mind, but the lie that sinketh in, and settleth in it, that doth the hurt, such as we spake of before. But howsoever these things are thus in men's depraved judgments and affections, yet truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth that the inquiry of truth, which is the love-making or wooing of it, knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it, and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign good of human nature. The first creature of God, in the works of the days, was the light of the sense; the last was the light of reason; and his Sabbath work ever since is the illumination of his Spirit. First, he breathed light upon the face of the matter or chaos; then he breathed light into the face of man; and still he breatheth and inspireth light into the face of his chosen. The poet that beautified the sect, that was otherwise inferior to the rest, saith yet excellently well: It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore and to see ships tossed upon the sea; a pleasure to stand in the window of a castle and to see a battle and the adventures thereof below; but no pleasure is comparabale to the standing upon the vantage-ground of truth (a hill not to be commanded, and where the air is always clear and serene), and to see the errors and wanderings and mists and tempests in the vale below; so always that this prospect be with pity, and not with swelling or pride. Certainly it is heaven upon earth to have a man's mind move in charity, rest in providence, and turn upon the poles of truth.
To pass from theological and philosophical truth to the truth of civil business, it will be acknowledged, even by those that practice it not, that clear and round dealing is the honor of man's nature, and that mixture of falsehood is like alloy in coin of gold and silver, which may make the metal work the better, but it embaseth it. For these winding and crooked courses are the goings of the serpent; which goeth basely upon the belly, and not upon the feet. There is no vice that doth so cover a man with shame as to be found false and perfidious; and therefore Montaigne saith prettily, when he inquired the reason why the word of the lie should be such a disgrace, and such an odious charge; saith he, If it be well weighed, to say that a man lieth is as much as to say that he is brave towards God and a coward towards men. For a lie faces God and shrinks from man. Surely the wickedness of falsehood and breach of faith cannot possibly be so highly expressed, as in that it shall be the last peal to call the judgments of God upon the generation of men: it being foretold that when Christ cometh, he shall not find faith upon the earth. 

WE NOW COME TO THE HEART OF OUR STUDY, IN WHICH THE UNFORTUNATE  modus operandi of the Friedmans is fully exposed for the world to see. I recommend that the serious student try somehow, to acquire a copy of The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, if possible, so they can read not only Chapter IX, but the whole book. Only then can the true attitude of the Friedmans be completely experienced and understood. Unfortunately, the book is out of print, so if your local used book stores don't have a copy, I would suggest having a book search to find a copy. Of, or course, your local library, or school library, just may have it.

WHEN we build a building, there is no argument that the foundation must be laid on absolutely stable earth, absolutely firm, and absolutely correctly laid. There can be no shortcuts, no substitution for the real thing. Nothing can be left out. A building built on a faulty foundation laid on unstable earth will eventually fall. Perhaps an earthquake will seriously damage it, or destroy it, Or erosion may send it crashing down a mountain. So the greatest care must be taken to be sure that everything is absolutely right.

Let us think of Friedman's book as a "building". The "foundation" upon which they base their arguments was developed with great care so that it could never fall; it could never be questioned or challenged; it could never be refuted. Of this they had to be very sure.

The five basic premises upon which the "foundation" for The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined was built are, as I see it, as follows: 

1. Their unquestioned knowledge of Twentieth-Century cryptology
2. Their powerful, and well-deserved reputation as undisputed masters of cryptography
3. The undeniable ignorance about cryptography of literally everyone everywhere
4. Their cocksure faith that all three of the above would guarantee a permanent place for The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined as the final and definitive refutation of any possibility of acceptable ciphers or acrostics in the works of Shakespeare.
5. The sheer guts to pull it off!

So, the first thing we have to do is inspect Friedman's foundation and see what we can find. Is it laid on stable soil, rock solid? Have any substitutions been made, or any necessary thing left out? Are there any cracks? Any termites?

Let's "inspect" the first and second premises:

William and Elizebeth Friedman ranked at the very top of the world's great cryptologists. Many years of experience — including working with Mrs. Gallup — earned them great respect and high authority in their field. Col. Friedman headed the cryptological team that cracked the Japanese "Purple Code" during World War II, and for many years thereafter they worked at the very summit of government security. So there is no question that they were tops in their field and deserved every bit of the great reputation they had. So that is a very good indication that this part of their foundation was firmly laid. But, sadly, when they wrote this book, they were not aware that their modus operandi was creating some serious cracks in their foundation wherein "termites" in some future time could tear it apart.

They were very well aware of — and very comfortable with — the fact that nobody anywhere knew anything about cryptography. And isn't that true? Whoever in the world even thinks about cryptology, let alone learn something about it. They were unwaveringly positive that no reader anywhere — including not only the interested public, but, amazingly, their publisher, Cambridge University Press, its editors and book reviewers everywhere — would question their conclusions — Ever!

But, unfortunately, there were flaws in their thinking. There were cracks in their tactics. They knew they were leaving out important ingredients; they knew they were substituting inferior ingredients for quality ingredients. They knew it, but were absolutely sure that they would never be caught. No one would ever know!

In other words, They knew they were being dishonest. They knew they were unfairly leaving out important details; that they were twisting and ignoring facts to enhance their argument; that their rhetoric was insulting, demeaning, and deliberately designed to permanently destroy the reputations of their victims. They knew it. They had to know it!

I am the building inspector. Friedman's method, attitude and dishonesty are the cracks and termites that have now totally destroyed their work and their reputation as Shakespeare cipher authorities.

They Themselves, like Thomas Babbington Macaulay and many other "dishonest scholars", built their foundations on lies, deceit and deliberate omissions of important information that would disprove their so-called "scientific" conclusions. How could they have been honest ?Honesty would have destroyed their argument. How did they do it, you ask.

First, this most important point: they criticized, or judged, Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century cryptography by Twentieth-Century cryptographic standards! This was most important, because they could then claim that "Booth's method" was completely invalid as cryptography. This is an unfair and completely wrong procedure which any ethical scholars would never employ. In any study of any aspect of an ancient culture, the scholar must put himself into that century as much as possible. How did they think? How did they talk? How did they communicate? And the scholar must understand — and this goes without saying! — that any society or culture in the distant past must necessarily be considered very naïve, even backward, when compared to our twentieth-century standards and advancements and must be studied with interest, not with derision. So, of course, their argument takes on an artificial authority, with no intellectual honesty.

But they were confident that no one would ever realize the importance of this fact. Further, they took full advantage of the fact that nobody anywhere knows anything about cryptography. They could, with impunity, state that such a procedure was "absolutely worthless as cryptography", and they would be both right and wrong.

They were right that in our twentieth-century world it would, indeed, be absolutely worthless. But they were wrong to state that it was absolutely worthless as cryptography in the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Centuries, for the very simple reason that that was all they had to work with, and some of the greatest minds had, for centuries, developed the cryptography of that time. And, what's more, it works beautifully! Friedman says it is worthless because it is too simple to hide a message well and could be deciphered too easily. Well, did Friedman think that the Japanese Purple Code was worthless as cryptography when they cracked it? And did they consider the fact that the Baconian ciphers had resisted detection for nearly 400 years, and then only when one man—William Stone Booth — discovered them?

So now, we have analyzed Friedman's basic tactic: Rely on the awesome demands of twentieth-century cryptography to criticize and judge naïve cryptography from four centuries ago! The word unfair is not strong enough to say how wrong and misguiding this tactic is.

In these few pages you are going to learn just how nasty people can be when they set out to "prove" their agenda, to make very sure that their "scientific analysis" "proves" their personal pre-conceptions or prejudices to be right! You will learn how these world-famous cryptologists used their unparalleled knowledge of Cryptography, their very solid reputation and the ignorance of the public to pull off the greatest cryptological hoax of the century — and maybe of the millennium!

William Stone Booth, in the first chapter of his book, informs us (page 2) that

The discovery of these acrostics was the result of study in the cryptography of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, that is to say, in the cipher codes which were the tools used by ambassadors, intelligencers, and men who were directly or indirectly in the services of the governments of those days.

From various comments made by Booth, I understand that he must have had a copy of the Seventeenth- Century book by Selenus, Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae, published at Luneburg in 1624. Of this book, he says (Page 7):

On page 63 will be seen one of the simplest methods of sending a message in cipher. It is from the first printed edition of Selenus's Cryptomenytices et Cryptographicae, published at Luneburg in 1624. This book is in large part an exposition of the Steganographia of Johannis Trithemius, and of the De Furtivis Literarum Notis of J. B. Della Porta, earlier and rarer works. We read in Mr. Logan Pearsall Smith's Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton that "Wotton vainly attempted to procure by means of bribery one rare manuscript for his patron Lord Zouche, the Steganographia of Trithemius, which was the earliest treatise on cipher writing, a dangerous book to possess, and therefore much prized.

Friedman mentions this book on page 117 in their discussion of the Sixteenth-Century "String Cipher" which name, "String Cipher" they severely criticize Booth for using. So we can state emphatically that they also certainly had access to this book and could easily have studied it to learn quite a bit about the cryptography of that time. But if they had written with an understanding of the Seventeenth- Century viewpoint, they couldn't have torn Booth apart as they did. They obviously were determined to stick to their Stratfordian agenda, i.e. using the standard Stratfordian tactics of insult, humiliation and character assassination in order to make all Baconians look like fools.

Baconians can take comfort in knowing that the truth is now out. And thanks to the internet, that truth is easily instantaneously available to millions of people around the world.

Friedman wastes no time in getting right down to business. Right away, (on page 114) they extract portions of a paragraph from Booth's book (Chapter III, p. 21, last paragraph.), in this manner, speaking of Booth:

He describes his method in detail; here are some of the relevant
extracts:
Let me illustrate what I mean by a hidden acrostic. Instead of making the acrostic so that it can be read down the initials of the first words of all the lines of a verse . . . let it be made so that . . . the interior letters of the acrostic run as they will through the verse. For instance, if you wish to write "Francis Bacon" into a piece of verse, you see to it that the initial letter of the first word of the first line is an F; and the corresponding letter at the bottom of the page is an N. Then . . . make sure that if after F you take the next initial R, and if after R you take the next initial A and so on, the last letter of the name will fall on the N which you have placed at the end of your acrostic.

The first thing we learn from the above "relevant extracts", and from §2 above, is that that they knew Booth had studied the old cryptography and that he described his method in detail. He did, indeed, describe his method in exhaustive detail. But Friedman chose to ignore it. The details would have destroyed their argument.

Now, there is nothing wrong with extracting paragraphs. There is nothing wrong with leaving out text and placing an ellipsis to indicate that there is an omission. But there is a great deal wrong if you deliberately leave out text that contains important information, or instruction, and worse still if you don't indicate any omission at all. And, of course, the extracted text must be quoted exactly as it is printed. But they used the term "relevant extracts" to hide the fact that they were omitting important information.

Friedman apparently decided that such accuracy was not all that important, and that leaving out a few informative sentences was quite all right. Such procedure suited their purposes to a T, as we say. Here's what they did.

First line of extract above should read ". . . making your acrostic" (Insignificant change.)

Third line should read: "So that the end letters only are visible, and let the interior. . ." (By "end letters Booth meant, of course, the first and the last letters of the name.)

Fourth line should read: " 'Francis Bacon' into a piece of prose or verse, . . ." (insignificant change)

Fifth line should read: ". . . and that the corresponding". (Insignificant change.)

Seventh line should read: ". . .A, and so on, reading the first line to the one hand and the next line to the other (in the manner of the primitive Greeks,. .." (This constitutes what can only be a deliberate omission of an important rule.)

Eighth line: And then, after the last word of the extract, acrostic, Booth continues: "Thus you will have allowed your name to wander where it will through the composition, as it were on a string, continuously, beginning and ending only in definite spots. This method is described in detail in my chapter on method; . . ."

Friedman is very careful to omit two very important points in the instruction given by Booth. First, on line seven they left omitted Booth's mention that the first line is read "to the one hand and the next line to the other." This was his way of saying that on the first line, or the beginning of the acrostic, the initial letters are read to the right, or to the left, and that the next line the initial letters are read in the opposite direction.

Second, on line eight, the omission of this entire sentence is revealing. Here Booth tells us that the cipher (your name) is allowed to "wander where it will through the composition, as it were on a string," etc. A little later, as you shall see, Friedman joyfully attacks Booth for using the term "string cipher" because there was a sixteenth-century "cipher" call String Cipher.

Then, immediately, comes two other extracts from Booth (Chapter IV, p. 35, third paragraph, and after the ellipsis, Chapter V, p. 49) which I quote exactly as Friedman extracted it (Page 114):

The device is simply that of a hidden acrostic, the end letters of which are visible and prominent in their position, but the inner letters of which are hidden and follow one another in their proper sequence from one visible end to the other visible end of the new acrostic. . . . The reader will observe that it does not matter how many letters may fall between the letters of a name, so long as they are not allowed to interfere with the spelling of the name itself, from point to point. . . .

But the reason why these omissions are important is this: Friedman correctly quotes Booth in the first extract above: "make sure that if after F you take the next initial R, and if after R to take the next initial A, and so on". But in the very next paragraph (Page 114), in a subtle but daring move, the word next is dropped:

 That is to say, Booth permits himself to use the initial letters of words anywhere, not just at the beginnings or ends of lines. Nor does his system demand that he should take one initial letter from one word in each successive line of a series; sometimes many lines are skipped altogether. All he has to do is find a page beginning with the letter F, follow along the lines until he finds an initial letter R, then an A, and so on, until the signature is complete. Provided it ends with the last initial letter of the last line, it is a "genuine hidden acrostic". Could anything be less plausible?

 And here we observe Friedman's greatest fall (so far — the worst is yet to come) from responsible scholarship. As you have just seen, they ignored the most important rule — the next R, the next A, etc. They wrote "an initial R, then an A and so on. However, they conclusively prove that they knew the next letter rule, and fully understood Booth's explanations, in their phony version of the cipher in the Threnos, The Phoenix and the Turtle (see Figure 4). But that was while they were deep into the deceit of their readers. You'll see what I mean.

Throughout the rest of this chapter on William Stone Booth, they never mention the word next again, and in so doing completely misinform their readers, because by now their readers have completely forgotten that the word next was used in the first extract quoted by Friedman.

Here's what Booth says in Chapter V, page 52: The italics are in the original:

It must be remembered that the string cipher-method (as I call it for convenience), which Bacon used, is not less definite in its aspect as a series of letters than is the method of the cipherer who uses such a series as, say the initial of every second word, or the initial of every fifth word. In Bacon's method, we find that he uses, say, the first F of the first line, then the next A; and so on. The next is, mathematically, precisely as definite in sequence as the second. Bacon does not use any following R, and then any following A; but he uses always the next R and the next A., etc. The result is then as certain as a stated mathematical sequence, when you remember that the sequence begins and ends on two fixed points.
It is also worth remembering that a mathematical series is no less subject to chance than the limited alphabetical sequence used by Bacon, though at first sight it seems to be so."

Thus do we learn how this very large crack in Friedman's foundation has caused their building to not only fall, but crumble, and by the time we finish this Examination, their building will be a pile of unrecognizable rubble!

At this point we leave the discussion of Friedman's ignoring of the next as one of the most important rules in Bacon's method, and discuss the "string cipher" method, as Booth said he called it for convenience. Friedman is thrilled to find this horrible plagiarism committed by Booth. It gives them a wonderful opportunity to slap Booth flat about something. This is a good example of how Friedman was determined to attack Booth for anything. The poor man couldn't win. No matter what he said, he was wrong; he was nuts.

A good 400 years ago there was a "string cipher" consisting of a flat board with 26, or 24 as the case may be, letters of the alphabet printed across the top, and lines drawn between the letters for the length of the board. Friedman wastes a whole page with an illustration of this board with 26 columns, each letter of the alphabet at the top and bottom of each column. The board is evenly notched on each side so that a string may be stretched straight across the board, then brought under the board and, in the next notch, stretched across the board again. So a person using this "string cipher" would simply put a colored dot on the string in the appropriate column, progressing along the string and spelling the words of a message. The string was taken loose and sent to the recipient who had an identical board. He would then stretch the string over the board, winding it down as far as necessary, and read the message by observing where the marks on the string fell under the letters at the top of the column. I can't supply this illustration, so I hope my description is clear.

Anyhow, Friedman severely criticizes Booth for using the term "String Cipher" because it was not original with Booth. It didn't matter to Friedman that this "string cipher" was more than 400 years old! They criticized Booth in this manner:

It is an old device to use an established and respectable name to sell new goods, though in most trades there is a law against it. There is no such law in cryptography. The original "string cipher" was described by August II, duke of Barunschweig-Lunenberg, who, writing in Latin under the pseudonym of "The Man in the Moon", explained it is a book called Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae (Lunenberg, 1623).

And here again we have Friedman omitting information that is important. They inform their readers that the Duke of Braunschweig-Lunenberg was writing under the name of "The Man in the Moon." Not so. He wrote this book using the name "Selenus". The use of the name "The Man in the Moon" gives the impression that the author was a nut. Further, according to Booth, this book is in large part an exposition of the Steganograhia of Johannis Trithemius, and of the De Furtivis Literarum Notis of J. B. Della Porta, earlier and rarer works.

In order to fully inform you, the full title of this book is: "Gustavi Seleni Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiæ, Libri IX. In quibus & planissima Steganographiæ à Johanne Trithemio, Abbate Spanheymensi & Herbipolensi, admirandi ingenii Viro, magicè & ænigmaticè olim conscriptæ, Enodatio traditur. Inspersis ubiquè Authoris ac Aliorum, non contemnendis inventis." An English translation of this work exists.

Booth was obviously aware of the old "String Cipher" when he called Bacon's cipher system a "String Cipher," because of the procedure in the Bacon method is best illustrated by describing it as "letters on a string"; In numbered paragraphs, he instructs us (page 36): Please note especially Paragraph (6).

(5) You will not read your acrostic into the text following its meaning as we now do, from left to right; but you will read alternately from left to right, then right to left, to the one hand on the first line, to the other hand on the next line, and so on, until you have completed your name. This affords you the facility that comes of treating your text as if it were a continuous string of letters. . . . Hence I shall always allude to this method as a "string" cipher.

(6) You may apply this string cipher to (a) initials; (b) terminals, i.e. letters beginning and ending a word; terminals of all whole words and part-words, i.e. parts divided by a hyphen; (d) all letters in the text; (e) outside letters of a page or side of a page; (f) initials outside of words of a page, or side of a page; (g) capitals.

(7) Whichever letters you choose to employ — initials, terminals, all letters, capitals, outside letters or initials, the method of employing them is the same. It is this:—

Having settled upon your visible ends, you follow your acrostic in the lines of the text, in alternate directions as if the letters were on a string, until it ends on the letter on which you have decided as the visible end of your acrostic.

One of Friedman's main criticisms of Booth is that there is no mathematical consistency in the selection of the letters. For instance, they complain that some of the letters are very close together, and then several lines have to be skipped to find the next letter. And they write this with the full knowledge that Booth wrote (as above) ". . . The result is then as certain as a stated mathematical sequence . . .". In the original string cipher, the letters are sometimes close, but mostly far apart, and always at irregular distances, but that is all right with Friedman.

And it is here that Friedman makes another misleading statement. They write (page 118) that

Booth simply "ploughs back and forth over the field" as he chooses. It is worth noticing, too, that the message in Wilkins' example is read off straightforwardly from left to right; the string, winding round the board, is always followed in the same direction. Booth, in contrast, make a great point of alternating the direction of reading for successive lines.

In the first place, "ploughs back and forth over the field" leaves a very wrong impression on the reader. It is inaccurate and untrue. ". . . as he pleases . . ." is outright misleading. This leaves the impression that one can just hop all over the place. To be correct, Friedman should have written:

"Booth simply follows the "string of letters", alternating direction after each line in the established direction, up or down, searching for the next required letter, all as is indicated by the rule."

In the second place, there is absolutely no reason why every cipher method should be the same, reading only left to right. It is a matter of the design of cipher procedure. The alternating line feature is Bacon's method is quite ingenious as it serves better to hide the acrostic. Friedman makes much out of this alternate reading of the lines simply because it's just one more thing they could continue to harp on.

We might also observe that Friedman is still referring to Booth as the originator of this method. He is not. As stated before, the method is Francis Bacon's. Booth did not originate it. But Friedman is very anxious that their readers should think that it is Booth's stupid invention! Friedman keeps saying that it is "absolutely worthless as cryptology," but it stands as a fact that for four hundred years nobody noticed that ciphers lurked in the works of Shakespeare. Worthless? I think not.

There is absolutely not one thing wrong with using an ancient name which best describes procedure. Friedman's criticisms of Booth on this account are ridiculous. This is only one of the many ridiculous criticisms to which Friedman resorts. In fact, there are so many of these criticisms that this book would be quite a few pagaes longer if I were to take the time and energy to comment on them. But one cannot include everything.

FRIEDMAN's complaints about Booth's using the name "String Cipher" are so many, and so ridiculous that I find it necessary to answer these criticisms. They are ridiculous in the extreme, as are so many of their complaints. But this was one of their criticisms with which they tried to undermine Booth's integrity, and in which they went to great lengths to magnify as much as possible, all for the purpose of vilifying Booth.

In my comments on the very first extract taken from Booth by Friedman, you will recall that I pointed out eight omissions made by Friedman. The seventh omission was "reading the first line to the one hand and the next line to the other". In more modern, clear language, this is what Booth was saying, as I have explained before: "Reading the first line to the right or left, and then, dropping to the next line (or going up to the next line), start reading from the left, or right, as the case may be. The following illustration will make this very clear. The directional signs on either side tell you which way to read. This is called "framing". Booth uses arrows as directional signals. "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. 

>When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes
I all alone bewail my outcast state <

Reading (checking) the initial letters from the left end of the first line, as indicated by >, the initial letters are

Reading from the right end of the second line, as indicated by <, the initial letters are

The beauty of this left to right, right to left system is this. If we reverse the direction of the reading, the order of the letters is, of course, reversed:

This may seem a minor point, but it is, in fact, very important. The letters, falling in a different order, affect the spelling of words and names. Also, by using the reversed directions, an entirely new cipher can be enfolded, and you will see in the study of the Epilogue from The Tempest and the Threnos from The Phoenix and the Turtle, both of which we "examine" below. In fact, by using the rules of initial letters, final letters and all letters, and taking advantage of reading to the right or to the left, multiple ciphers can be enfolded in any poem or any prose document.

So, I think we can now observe a string cipher at work. If you have studied Booth's instructions for this cipher system, (see Apendix) you will very quickly see how it works. If you haven't studied it, you may have a little difficulty understanding it. But, if you work through the ciphers as instructed, you will know what to look for in the Shakespeare works and how to decipher the acrostics. There are hundreds of them! Booth couldn't have found them all!

The following text is the epilogue of The Tempest, which is "Specimen D", page 60 of Some Acrostic Signatures of Francis Bacon. I have, of necessity, typed this using modern English characters. I designed a special font for use in typesetting Elizabethan English, and it works beautifully, but, of course, it won't work on the internet because nobody else has these fonts.

Friedman uses this Epilogue in their book, so we shall use it here, because I have quite a commentary about their commentary, so it will serve both purposes to use it.

In Figure 1, observe that the first initial letter of the first line is N, and that the letters b and f are the initials of the last two lines. Note that the letters FB are Francis Bacon's initials. There are several "secrets" in this Epilogue, and I'll point them all out. I have set the acrostic letters in bold italic caps, but do work through the cipher yourself.

Starting with the initial f of the last word (free) on the last line, and checking the initial letters starting on the right, read to the left, as indicated by <, then go up to the next line and read to the right, as indicated by >, check the initial letters of the words until you come to the next r, and continue up, reading to the left, then to the right, alternately, finding the next a, ending with the o of "ore-throwne" at the end of the first line.

Now, go back down to the right end of the next-to-the-last line, and start with the b in the word "be" and read to the right, and then up to the next line, to the left looking for the next a. Continue in this fashion, and you will spell Bacono, ending with the same o at the initial of the last word, ore-throwne, on the first line. You will have spelled francisco bacono — "by Francis Bacon." In this manner Bacon, or whoever invented the cipher, signed the play.

Now, I can proudly claim to have made a discovery. Start reading from the same b, but read to the left, and then up. Arriving at the initial N on the first word of the first line, you will have spelled BACON. I shall never know how eagle-eyed Booth failed to find this one! This is a great example o the flexibility of Bacon's String Cipher system, because, as you shall see, four names were enfolded in this Epilogue — Francisco, Bacono, Bacon and Ben Jonson!

FRANCISCO cannot be spelled by reading in the opposite direction. It almost works, but lacks the final C before the O.

The four columns of letters on the right of the Epilogue show the initials of the words in the Epilogue. Reading up from the bottom, first column is FRANCISCO, and the second column is BACONO. Anyone having difficulty checking the initials, or finals, of the words in any prose or poetry, can print out the letters in lines, as illustrated below.

Friedman set this arrangement in their book. I have added the third and fourth columns, which will be explained later. See Figure 1.

Figure 1

Explanation of Figure 1: Column 1, FRANCISCO, reading from the F in the word free on the bottom, from right to left and up. (When reading from left to right, it almost works, but there is no C between the S in Strength and the final O in Ore-throwne.

Column 2, BACONO, start reading from the B of the word be, left to right and up. Letters in Bold Italic spell BACONO. Reversing the direction of reading from the B, that is, from right to left, we spell BACON, ending with the N at the beginning of the last line. Thus did Bacon get both forms of his name in this acrostic. I can't understand how Booth missed this.

Column 3, BEN JONSON. This column is o be read in both directions. First, to the right and up. If Friedman thought there was a Ben Jonson acrostic, they were wrong. There is no initial J in this Epilogue. The only J in the Epilogue is in the middle of the word "project" on the 9th line from the bottom. Of course, it is not an initial letter. All the other letters shown above the (J) in parentheses are in place, but the lack of the initial J kills that cipher. But, start rading in the opposite direction (to the left), spelling BEN IONSON, cipher works beautifully. (All explained below)

Column 4, spelling BEN IONSON, (explained below) reading from left to right and up, we find that it works until we need the second O in IONSON. It has to fall between the S in strength, and the final N. But there is no O in that position. No cipher.

Here, you can very plainly see that the Baconian cipher system works. All of the cipher signatures included in Booth's book are there. Booth very clearly, very correctly, lays it all out, and anyone whose brain cells on rattle can see that the method works, and anybody with the same unrattling brain cells and a little personal integrity must admit it!

Of course Friedman, desperate to support the Stratfordian cause, can only knock it down, pooh-pooh it, criticize it and in the process makes not only incredible false statements, but makes some very bad mistakes.

Incidentally, as an aside, you might be interested to notice that there are two additional unhidden acrostics in the Epilogue quoted above. Starting at the top, with the N, the first letter on each of the following seven lines spell NAWIOSA, or, NAVIOSA, which is Latin for shipwreck. What more could you ask for to describe The Tempest, which starts off with a horrendous shipwreck! A little further down, you will find MUSA, or muse, which was a word often used by Bacon and other Elizabethans when writing or speaking about "poesy" or theatrical plays. This is the kind of thing that starts Stratfordians to quaking in their boots, and they don't want you to know these acrostics are there. There are hundreds of unhidden acrostics in the 1623 Folio, many of them spelling FR BACON, many of them followed by the word By or Author. A few of these will be included in PART III of this book.

In the following, Friedman abandons honesty completely. Hereinafter, it's go for broke! You will notice that there is an asterisk after the first C at the top of the bacono column of letters. This refers us to a footnote, which reads:

Booth fails to explain why he uses both the I and the C in the second traverse (for francisco) and only the C (for Bacono) in the first. 

To begin with, the francisco traverse is the first. The bacono traverse is the second.

Now that we've clarified that, why do you think Bacon "failed to explain why he uses both the I and the C for francisco and only the C for bacono"?

This is the best knee-slapper in the book. When you are spelling "francisco", you spell F, the next R, the next A, the next N, the next C, the next I the next S, the next C, the next O. Obviously, the C and the I are necessary to spell franCIsco. So, the letters are taken in their proper sequence, and both the C and the I are used, because when you get to that C, you are then looking for the next I. As Thomas Babbington Macaulay liked to say, any schoolboy would know that!

When you are spelling "bacono", you spell B, the next A, the next C, the next O, the next N, the next O. The Bacono name contains no I. When you arrive at the C in bacono, you are looking for the next o, so the I is passed over, disregarded, ignored. We're looking for an O, not an I. Does this suggest that Friedman really didn't understand the method? Did they not read Booth's instructions after all? If they didn't, why are they criticizing it? Or did they just not know how to spell? But I have a hunch this was one of their tactics to throw more mud in the already-confused reader's brain. I'm ashamed to admit that it even took me a few minutes to catch on! Oi vey!

Now, on with the The Great Restoration of Truth. Still commenting on the Epilogue as given above, Friedman writes (Page 121):

. . . It rather spoils the effect, however, if one notices that, starting from the same B as Booth does, one can find in a single "string" the signatures of BEN JONSON, using only initial letters, going in opposite directions on alternate lines, and ending with the N at the beginning of the first line. If one uses a variant of the method, which Booth himself sometimes employs, choosing the final instead of initial letters of words, it is possible to produce, among others, the names EDMUND SPENSER, FRANCIS DRAKE, SIR EDWARD DYER, WILLIAM STANLEY, and CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE.

AWWWE-some!

Now our task is to check out the information Friedman, being anxious to follow the rules, so kindly gave us in the paragraph quoted above. We are going to search for these names, using these finals of all the words, except that Jonson's name, spelled with a J, is to be found using initial letters. This Ben Jonson signature is represented in the third column of Figure 1. The framing on each side of that column, we read from the right to the left. The fourth column to the right of the Epilogue, given above, represents Ben Johnson's name, but worked to the right and up. And we shall see exactly what effect is rather "rather spoiled."

BEN JONSON (using initial letters)
EDMUND SPENSER
FRANCIS DRAKE
SIR EDWARD DYER
WILLIAM STANLEY
CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE. 

First let's review the simple rules:

(1) The first and last letters of the name are placed in a very visible position. The first or second line of the paragraph(s) or poems being searched can be considered to be in a prominent position. (Letters beginning or ending the 4th or 5th lines cannot be said to be "prominent".)

(2) The interior letters of the name can come anywhere along the string, in their proper order. always thinking "the next (letter)"

(3) We can use only the final letters (in this case), because Friedman says that by using the finals we can see that these names are to be found like Francisco Bacono was. So lets start.

The first name on the list is BEN JONSON. Consulting Figure 1, we see that, indeed, the first and last letters of the name are in prominent, visible places — the first letter b at the end of the next to the last line, in the word "be". So we have our prominent b. The last letter, N is to be found at the beginning of the first line, the word "Now", in the most prominent position. I have worked this out for all the world to see, and while reading you won't have to take the time to find the letters. But DO actually check the letters as though you were deciphering the acrostic. This is good practice.

Now, as we read above, Friedman indicates that we are still using initial letters, reading back and forth in alternate directions. However, they do not give complete directions. They didn't tell us which way to read the first line, to the left or to the right, so we did both, and found that reading left to right to begin posed a serious problem.

The third column to the right of the Epilogue above, shows the results of the attempt to reveal the cipher by reading the first (bottom) line to the left, and then up, to the right, etc. This one works, but not until a little surprise is revealed, as you will read below. The fourth column is the deciphered acrostic working first to the right..

Friedman is very concerned that we follow the rules, don't you see. So, sure enough, we have the letters (reading up column three). The bracketed (J) indicates that there is no initial J. BEN ONSON. But we need a J. There is no initial J, so there is no Ben Jonson acrostic when starting to read to the right, etc. The only j in the Epilogue is in the word project on the 9th line from the bottom, and it is the "next j" after the n in ben. But it's not an initial! It's planted solidly right in the middle of the word "project". No cipher. Such a Pity.

But wait! There is a solution to the mystery. The name would never have been spelled BEN JONSON, with a J. In the Seventeenth Century, the letter J had not yet been added to the alphabet! The letter I was used instead, as in "maiestie" for majesty, and, of course "Ionson" for Johnson. That's the way it is in the 1623 Folio. But very, very few of Friedman's readers know that! But Friedman knew it, or at least I assume that they did. Obviously. Because there is, indeed an I in just exactly the right place. So that the name Ben Ionson can be complete, thus showing that there is indeed, just as Friedman says, a "Ben Ionson" signature. Even Booth never found that, not that I can discover. This is significant because Ben Ionson apparently worked his tail off on the 1623 Folio, and it is further significant that The Tempest was the last play written, and the Epilogue is at the very end of that play. So it was quite logical for both Francisco Bacono and Ben Ionson to enfold their signatures at the end of these play. In the first paragraph on page 121, Friedman states that it "now ceases to be clear why the page has to begin with an N." A weird statement, considering the fact that they discovered the Ben Ionson signature, which ends with an n, and which acrostic is read from the bottom to the top, ending on that n! Or, maybe they didn't discover the Ben Ionson signature at all. Maybe they just used the j in the middle of the word "project" thinking nobody would notice. We'll never know, unfortunately.

The Ben Ionson signature is decoded by starting on the same b that bacono started on, on the last word of the next-to-the-last line, and reading to the left, and then up and to the right. Following the fourth column, find the letters of the acrostic. It works perfectly. The correct letters are shown in Column 3.

So, that answers Friedman's confusion as to why the poem started with a capital N. Further that N does double duty as the last prominent last letters of the names BACON, which I discovered, and IONSON. As a result, here we have a quadruple cipher. Can you now see how brilliantly this system of Bacon's works? What a piece of work that man was! It's all a really simple matter of being very sure that there are no intervening letters to throw the proper letters out of place so that the final letter will properly be found at the prominent end letter. This is all explained with painstaking care in Chapter IV of Booth's book, which is reproduced in the Appendix.

The fourth column Figure 1 illustrates the attempt to get a BEN IONSON signature by reading to the right. It doesn't work. There is no O between the S and the N. This column was included for illustration of how ciphers work.

Now, we are going to search for acrostics of all five names which Friedman informs us can be found in the Epilogue. Use the chart of Final Letters below, and work out the acrostic following directions.

Figure 2

The first thing we should do is to check the final-letter chart (Figure 2) for letter availability. We find that there are some letters missing. There is no A, no B, no C, no J, no K, no Q, no V, no X. We don't need the Q, V, X or J, but we do need the A, B, C, K.

The first name on the list using finals is EDMUND SPENSER. So we look for first and last letters of the name in prominent places. We have two prominent Es in the very last letters on the last two line in the words be and free. Now we need an R. The only two R's are the final letter of the word "praier", fifth line from the top, neither of which cannot be considered a prominent, visible letter.

A quick look Figure 1 reveals the sad news that EDMUND SPENSER needs a P; FRANCIS DRAKE needs two A's, a C and a K; SIR EDWARD DYER needs an A; WILLIAM STANLEY needs two A's; CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE needs a C, a P and an A. So what does all that mean? Simply that there are no acrostics for these names, working from any point in any direction. Friedman said they could be found by using the finals, and, again , they were absolutely confident that nobody would check them out. There are no acrostics for these names. 

More: We also discover that each of these names lacks the prominent first and last letters of the name: Edmund Spenser has no prominent last letter, R; Francis Drake has no prominent F; Sir Edward Dyer has a prominent S and what, with the exercise of charity, as Friedman says, an R that is sub-prominent on the fifth line. William Stanley has the most prominent first letter, a W, right at the beginning, but sadly no Y. Christopher Marlowe loses out, too, with no C but does have a prominent E, for all good that does.

How could two such brilliant people, cryptological geniuses, fail to check the finals of the words in the Epilogue and write such brazen untruths? Thus, once again , do we catch William and Elizabeth in a batch of unconscionable falsifications. Here again, gross deception. One gets weary pointing it out!

On page 122, Friedman barges on, full steam ahead, girded for the great battle, into another falsification, this one the worse of all (so far). After a brief digression, they write:

. . . we return to Bacon, and find his name hidden equally superfluously in various works known to have been written by him. Booth does not try to explain why Bacon should conceal acrostic signatures in the text when his name was there, for all to see, on the title page.1 

Please note the superior 1, which refers the reader to a footnote, as follows: 

Booth's failure in this regard does not stand alone — others have exhibited the same weakness. 

Not so. This hackneyed question has been answered a thousand times by many Baconian scholars. Friedman's statement in this regard is another exercise in futility and dishonesty.

Following is an extract from William Stone Booth's book, Some Acrostic Signatures of Francis Bacon, which Friedman had to have right under their noses when they concocted this miserable collection of misrepresentations. Not only does Booth explain, he quotes Francis Bacon's explanation, which he (Bacon) included in his dedication of the book of Essayes to his brother, Anthony. In Chapter XV, page 582 Booth begins: 

I now turn to the little volume by Francis Bacon which contains the three small books, each with an anonymous title-page, entitled, Essays, Religion Meditations, Places of perswasion and disswasion (published 1597). In his "Dedication" to "his deare Brother" Anthony, which is given in facsimile on pages 28-29, Bacon does not say in so many words that the three books had been going around anonymously in manuscript, "as they passed long agoe" from his pen; and by the phrase "retiring and withdrawing mens conceites" he may have meant simply "not printing." He does say, however, "These fragments of my conceites were going to print. To labour the staie of them had bin troublesome, and subiect to interpretation; and to let them passe had beene to adventure the wrong they mought receiue by vntrue Coppies, or by some garnishment, which it mought please any that should set them forth to bestow vpon them. Therefore I helde it best discreating to publish them my selfe as they passed long agoe from my pen."

It is a fair supposition that these essays had been anonymous in their manuscript form, though we have no direct evidence that they were. That the first printed edition is without name on its three title-pages leads one to suppose that Bacon had prepared them for anonymous publication and had inserted the signed dedication before going to press.

Be that as it may: I was curious to know if Bacon had put his mark of identification on the essays, in his usual manner, and by his usual method. There is no indication that he did so, until we come to the last essay in the first book, Essayes. Here we find that there is no word on the first page with an initial N except the world "Negociating" in the title. As the first word of the title begins with an initial O, we are on the track of a possible signature.

Booth then explains that the signature is not Bacon, which ends with an N, but Bacono, which ends with an O, and continues on to give instructions on decipherment.

But here we have undeniable proof that Friedman deliberately resorted to dishonesty. It is even more revealing when one reads the first half of the dedication:

Louing and beloued Brother, I doe nowe like some that haue an Orcharde ill neighbored, that gather their fruit before it is ripe, to preuent stealing. These fragments of my conceites were going to print, To labour the staie of them had bin troublesome, and subiect to interpretation; to let them passe had beene to aduenture the wrong they mought receiue by vntrue Coppies, or by some garnishment, which it mought please any that should set them forth to bestow vpon them. Therefore I helde it best discreation to publish them my selfe as they passed long agoe from my pen, without any further disgrace, then the weaknesse of the Author. And as I did euer hold, there mought be as great a vanitie in retiring and withdrawing mens conceites (except they bee of some nature) from the world, as in obtruding them: . . .

So, it is quite evident that Bacon feared that they might be stolen and published by someone else, so it is quite understandable that he would sign them with a cipher, and they were already in the process of being published anonymously, but he decided to dedicate the book to his brother, and had trouble "stopping the press" so he could do it. At least that's the way I read it. Please note that the title-page has no signature.

Forging bravely into the fray, Friedman writes (page 122):

In the case of signature 250, Booth demonstrates that his conception of the truth is as elastic as the method he employs. The text is Bacon's Essayes, and Booth "began to read from the capital F of the word "finis" at the end of the book and read back through all the capitals used in the book; spelling out FRANCISCO BACONO." This, he tells us, is "a signature written in the simple method of which we have an analogous example by the monk Francesco Colonna". If this is not a deliberate mis-statement, it is a remarkable piece of self-deception. The Colonna acrostic is based on the consecutive initial letters of successive sections of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili; every initial letter is used, in the correct order, from start to finish, and there are no initials left over. In contrast, there are 310 capital letters in the Essayes, of which Booth selects, according to no system whatever, the fifteen necessary to make up the name "Francisco Bacono", read backwards.

Now we shall see whose truth is elastic, and who is resorting to a remarkable piece of self-deception. This is how Friedman butchers the facts concerning signature 250.

To begin with, Friedman does not explain that the Essayes are not the 58 Essays we know and love today. At the time of this publication in 1597, there were only about 10. They also do not explain that the book under discussion was really three books in one volume. Further, they do not let their readers know that Signature 250 is not in the whole book of the Essays, as such, but is to be found in an essay named "Of the Coulers of good and euill a fragment." Or, "Of the Colors of good and evil, a fragment." which appeared in the first edition