h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Baconian Cipher - A7407687
Author: phlook - U1344303

After reading several terribly clever books about Shakespeare and the authorship question, i became intrigued with the Baconian Cipher. This entry provides a basic guideline as to how to use the latter cipher, as well as links to other cryptography websites, information about its creator (Sir Francis Bacon) and about the Shakespeare Authorship question

What a cool story, phlook!

If I were you, I'd call the whole entry 'Sir Francis Bacon and the Baconian Cypher', and then remove the first header from the entry - h2g2 entries don't have a header at the beginning.

The queen is Elizabeth, with a 'z'.

You said you were going to touch on the authorship question, but you never do. Perhaps you should include a paragraph or two at the end that elaborate on how the cypher involves the authorship question (though personally I have no difficulty believing that William Shakespeare was the author of his plays, even if he didn't go to university).

Thanks for the input,

I had something written for the authorship question, but was waiting for prompt to add it in (as it was not a directly related subject), so i added it in to the end. It should give a basic background for the authorship question, some of the contenders and arguments for Bacon

However, of anyone, i would be most inclined towards De Vere

<>

I think not; it was quite routine for the aristocracy to both attend and write plays. Writing plays was considered quite the erudite thing to do in Elizabethan times - especially if you copied classical models. Shakespeare (though a member of the middle class) was actually an anomaly: just about all of his contemporaries, like Marlowe, Green and Johnson, had been to university and received funding in the form of patronage. Other even more well-to-do people, like the patrons themselves, could could conceivably have written plays, and most definitely wrote poetry.

It wasn't considered a common thing to go to the theatre - Queen Elizabeth certainly did, and if she did, by extension all her followers must have as well!

I'm a firm believer that Shakespeare was written by Shakespeare. He had certain life experience that enabled him and only him to write certain lines and speeches, and the authorship debate is just, in my opinion, both a way in which to cause new controversy over an important historical figure that's been settled, and a subtle doubt on the part of the educated (those who have been to university) that anyone with less formal education than them could have written such masterpieces. Neither of these, I find, are particularly legitimate excuses.

But I'll let you get on with it, then. Sorry for taking over the PR thread.

No problem mate

I remain also of the opinion that William Shakespeare is in fact the author, however am entirely interested in the authorship question and all it entails. While nothing is concrete, and our capability to jump back in time is somewhat limited, it is still impossible to tell who IS in fact the true author. While all original evidence has led to the man of Stratford, other theories were sure to appear.

Why would such a renound playwright never even have a portrait of himself. He is somewhat like Jesus, any portraits are from an artists perspective of him. The only known portrait of him was drawn seven years after his death. The artist was only 15 at the time Shakespeare died, and may not even have seen the playwright

Some of the other candidates seem to be more qualified for the job, but as you mentioned, education is no source of wisdom. Some of the greates minds in the world are undereducated anyways (for instance, einstein dropped out of high school).

Again, thanks for the comments

Nice entry, but I have a few comments:

"as Elisabeth I had never trusted Bacon." Should be 'as Elizabeth...'

"these particular philosopies" --> '...particular philosophies'

Footnote 4 is a bit misleading - some ciphers (ie the Caesar shift cipher) are actually quite simple to decrypt, expecially with modern computers.

All your footnotes should have full stops at the end.

"This are used to denote" --> 'These are used to denote...'

I don't think the Shakespeare authorship question really fits, it would be better with just that footnote saying some believe that Bacon really wrote Shakespeare's plays, and leave it at that.

Thanks for the suggestions,

I switched the last section to a specific authorship question entry, with a link in this entry

I hope to start more research on that particular subject in a couple of weeks, over winter break.

I'm still not happy with there being those sentences at the end about the authorship question. If you want to turn this into a biography that mentions the cipher, fine, but if not then the authorship question has nothing at all to do with the cipher and surely it doesn't need to be mentioned.

Besides, footnote 6 makes no sense - there are so many ways that Shakespeare could have been spelled, so why mention two of them?

Footnote 4 also seems unfinished.

Good work its a fascinating entry.

You may like to link to my entry on Oak Island here,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A6084399

I mention Francis Bacon and his fascination with the ciphers in my section on Oak Island Mysteries and Theories.

Just the latin names of his works? Both or neither.

Those are the titles given to each publication, an english title wouldnt be too much of an aid

Those attempting to find them will find them under their original latin title much more easily

It's more of a background than a reference however, showing some of his literary aptitude

Ah. I see.

What's happening with this? phlook?

Phlook doesn't appear to have been on since that post of his/hers/furrythingfromalphacenturis.

It certainly has been quite awhile since i've actually checked on my entry
I pop in to the site often enough, usually as a source of information for anything i need

Any ideas of amendments to my article? I'm drawing a blank as to what else could be added / modified

Good to see that you're still around, Phlook - this is a fascinating entry that definitely deserves to make its way into the Edited Guide. I'm sure our wonderful Peer Reviewers will be along soon to make some additional comments and suggestions about your entry.

Cheers!

Paully

Any ideas of amendments to my article? I'm drawing a blank as to what else could be added / modified

Yep, see above - I still think it would be interesting to know what they mean...

Thanks alot guys

I put in what the titles are more or less translated to (i'm still fairly new to latin, so my translating skills might be a bit off)

Hopefully not too far off the mark though

Thanks for the feedback!

Phlook

Danke Dude/Dudette!

Good Entry!

Is it ready? Are there any other comments?

*hovering*