724

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-198-129-90-39. 516-167-349-22 b & h-327-198-129-79-50+29-79 516-167-349-22 b & h=327-219-58. 284-58

39

The Curtain play-house was surrounded by a muddy ditch to keep off the rab ble, and doubtless the money paid to see the performances was collected at a gate at the drawbridge.

And then we have this striking statement:

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-248-79-10 b-69.

69

74:1

but

516-167-349-22 b & h=327-29 (73:2)-278-10 b― 268 516-167-349-22 b & h=327-283 (74:1 up)=44—

7 h (283)=37.

37

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-254-73. 508-73—

435+1-436+1=437.

516-167-349-22 / & /-327-27 (73:1)-300-284516-167-349-22b & h-327-284-43.

43+193

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-284-43-10 b-33.

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-284-43.

516-167-349-22 b & h=327-237 (73:2)=90. 284

-90-194+1-195.

516-167-349 - 22 b & h-327-248-79. 284-79

205+1-206.

516-167-349-22 b & h=327-219 (74:2)=108.

193-108-85+1-86+3b=89.

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-284-43-18 b & h

(284) 25. 219-25-194+1=195.

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-50-277-218-59.

516-167-349-22 b & h=327-28 (73:2)=299-284

-15. 248-15-233+1=234.

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-50-277-218-59.

284-59-225+1=226.

516-167-349-22b & h-327-237 (73:2)=90.

169

-90-79+1-80.

516-167-349-22 b & h-327-284-43-15b & h

(284)=25+218-243-2b & h=241.

516-167-349-22 b & h=327-30-297-169 (73:1)

-128. 237-128-109+1-110+36-113. 516-167-349-22 b & h=327-237 (73:2)=90. 284

-90-194+1-195+6 h―201.

516-167-349-22 b & h=327-50-277-219-58.

284-58-226+1=227.

516-167-349-22 b & h=-327–237 (73:1)-90–

11b & h=79.

And here let us pause, and—if any doubt still lingers in the mind of the reader as to existence of a Cipher narrative infolded in the words of this text - let us consider the words shak'st and spurre, and observe how precisely they are adjusted to the pages, scenes, and fragments of scenes; just as we found the words old jade and sens-ill to match by various processes of counting with the rootnumbers.

We have shak'st but once in many pages. It would not do to use it too often - it would arouse suspicion; hence, we will soon find Jack substituted for it, which, no doubt, was pronounced, in that day, something like shock or shack. I have heard old-fashioned people give it the shock sound, even in this country, where our sounds of a are commonly narrower and more nasal than the English. The word shak'st is found on the fourth line of column 2 of page 75 of the Folio:

Thou shak'st thy head and hold'st it Feare or Sinne, etc.

While the spurres are many times repeated in the first column of page 75, thus: He told me that Rebellion had ill luck

And that yong Harry Percies Spurre was cold.

And eight lines below we have it again:

Said he yong Harry Percyes Spurre was cold?

(Of Hot-Spurre, cold-Spurre?) that Rebellion
Had met ill lucke?

Here in twelve lines the word spurre occurs four times, and it does not occur again until near the end of the play.

Now let us see how these words match with the Cipher numbers. If we take 505 and deduct the modifier 30, we have 475 left; if we count forward from the top of column 2 of page 75, the 475th word is shak'st; that is, leaving out the bracketed and hyphenated words. But if we again take 505 and count from the same point, plus b & h, the 505th word is again shak'st. Why? Because there are just 30 brack eted and hyphenated words in column 1 of page 75, and these precisely balance the 30 words of the modifier in 74:2. But if we take 505 again, and deduct 29, the number of words in the last section of 74:2, we have left 476; and if we start to count from the end of scene 2 on 76:1, and count up and back and down, the 476th word is the same word shak'st; and if we take the root-number 506 and deduct 30 and count in the same way again, the count ends on the same word, shak'st.

And here, to save space, I condense some of the other identities. The reader will observe the recurrence of the very root-numbers we have been using:

505-219-286-193-93-15 b & h (193)—78-50 (76:1)=28 505-30-475-254 (75:1)-221-193-28.

28

Can any man pretend this came about by accident? No; for be it observed that every number which produces the word shak'st in the above examples, counting from the beginning or end of pages or fragments of pages, is a Cipher number. And this concordance exists not once only, but fourteen times!

And as the internal narrative must bring in some reference to Shakspere every one of these fourteen times, by these fourteen different counts, the reader can begin to realize the magnitude of the story that is hidden under the face of this harmless-looking text. And then, be it also observed, eleven of these fourteen references grow out of that part of the story which comes from the root-number 505; the word shak'st does not match once, nor can it be twisted into matching with 523 or 513. Why? Because Bacon only occasionally refers to Shakspere; his story drifts into other and larger matters than his relations to the man of Stratford. The only time when 523 touches upon Shakspere is when it alternates with 505, thus:

516-167-349. 447-349-98+1-99-6 -105. (105)

516-219-297-193-104-15 b & h-89. 193-89

-104+5-2b & h=107.

(107)

75:1

spurre

75:1

spurre

516-167-349-22 b & h=327-193-134-—15 b & h― (119)

Here are fourteen spurres to match the fourteen shak'sts. I have not the space to summarize the number of instances wherein more and low are similarly made to harmonize with the root-numbers and the scenes and fragments of scenes. I have already given two such instances.

Then let the reader observe that extraordinary collocation of words: The Contention between York and Lancaster, King John, and other plays; all growing out of the same Cipher number, 327. If there is no Cipher in the text, surely these pages, 74, 75 and 76, are the most marvelous ever seen in the world; for they contain not only the names of the old jade, Cecil, Marlowe, Shakspere many times repeated, but Archer, the Contention between York and Lancaster, King John, and all the many pregnant and significant words which go to bind these in coherent sentences — not a syllable lacking. While it may stagger the credulity of men to believe that any person could or would impose upon himself the task of constructing such an unparalleled piece of work, it is still more incomprehensible that such a net-work of coincidences could exist by accident.

But it may be said these curious words would naturally occur in the text of any writings. Let us see: There is the Bible; equally voluminous with the Plays, translated in the same era, and dealing, like the Plays, with biography, history and poetry. The word shake occurs in the Plays 112 times; in the Bible it occurs but 35 times. There is no reason, apart from the Cipher, why it should occur more than three times as often in the Plays as in the Bible. The word play occurs in the Plays more than 300 times; in the Bible it occurs 14 times! And remember that the word play in the Plays very seldom refers to a dramatic performance. Played is found in the Plays 52 times; in the Bible 7 times. Player occurs in the Plays 29 times; in the Bible 3 times. Jade is found 24 times in the Plays and not once in the Bible. Stage occurs 22 times in the Plays and not once in the Bible. Scene occurs 40 times in the Plays; not once in the Bible.

But it may be said that dramatical compositions would naturally refer more to play and plays and scene, etc., than a religious work. But in the Plays themselves there are the widest differences in this respect. In King John, for instance, the word please (pronounced plays) occurs but once; in Henry VIII. it is found 28 times! Play occurs but twice in the Comedy of Errors, but in 1st Henry IV. we find it 12 times; in Henry VIII. 14 times, and in Hamlet 35 times! Shake occurs but once each in Much Ado, 1st Henry VI., in The Merchant of Venice, Measure for Measure, the Merry Wives, and the Two Gentlemen of Verona; while in Julius Cæsar we find it seven times, in Macbeth 8 times, in Lear 8 times, and in Othello 7 times.

These differences are caused by the fact that in some of the Plays the Cipher narrative dwells more upon Shakspere than in others. But shake is found in every one of the Plays, and it is therefore probable that the Stratford man entered very largely into Bacon's secret life and thought, and consequently into the story he tells. It will be a marvelous story when it is all told, and we find out what the wrong was that Caliban tried to work upon Miranda.

But we go still farther with Cecil's reasons for believing that Shakspere did not write the Plays, and we carry the same root-number with us into another chapter.