Was Shakespeare really Sheikh Zubair? Part 3

In Summary
One of the most remarkable facts about Shakespeare’s writing is its profound knowledge of the culture, history, language, legal systems and politics of southeastern Europe, northern Africa and southwestern Asia, writes Philip Ochieng.

Part 1 can be reached by clicking here and Part 2 by clicking here

Did Bacon conspire with the authors of the Authorised Version to include those facts as a coded message?
Cox comments: “It is delightful to think that Shakespeare’s ‘ghost writer’ could have inserted this little joke.” Yes, of course, it is delightful. But does it answer any question?

What significance did Bacon — if he was the “ghostwriter” — attach to this “joke”? Who received the rough end of the stick of irony? The question is as puzzling as the New Testament’s “Judas Thomas Didymus.”
Judas, we know, was a brother of Jesus. Yet neither “Thomas” nor “Didymus” is a name.

Indeed, the expression “Thomas Didymus” is completely nonsensical because both words mean the same thing — Teoma (the Aramaic original) and Didymos (the Hellenic Greek equivalent) both mean “twin.” Thus scholars now affirm that Judas Iscariot was Jesus’s identical twin.

Was Bacon Shakespeare’s identical twin? Was the story of Shakespeare’s birth at Stratford-upon-Avon invented to draw a permanent wedge between him and his “ghost writer”? What’s more, as we have seen, Shakespeare belonged to the Rosicrucian worshippers of an African pantheon.

Cox writes: “Robert Langdon (a hero of Dan Brown’s fiction) knows Bacon to have been a Rosicrucian … (It) suggests that Bacon may even have been the legendary Christian Rosenkreutz, founder of the Rosicrucian movement…”

Indeed, both words mean the same thing, Rosenkreutz being but German for Rosicrucian — both translating as “Red Cross” — the term by which a descendant of the movement is known today. This suggests that, intellectually, Shakespeare and Bacon were identical twins.

Intellectually, then, the controversy over who is who is totally futile. The name “Shakespeare” might have been invented merely as a nom de plume for Bacon — or perhaps vice versa. Yet, emotionally, “Shakespeare” himself is clearly wrong to assert that “a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.”

That is why we — who have grown up to love William Shakespeare so profoundly — would protest vehemently if you changed his name to “Francis Bacon” (even if you didn’t remove a single comma from any of his inimitable works).

Concluded

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s