London Prostitutes at the Trojan War: Facts and Documents [part 3 of 3]

The finale of the investigation into the problems and mysteries surrounding Shakespeare's play Troilus and Cressida. Where, along with finding answers, the common cause of most problems becomes clear. The reason lies in the fact that the author of this work (as well as other Shakespearean texts) is generally considered to be someone completely different.

At all previous stages of dealing with the mysteries of "the most problematic" among Shakespearean problem plays, we relied on hints from NSA historians to move forward. Now, however, to appropriately conclude this branch of literary-espionage investigations, it turns out that the facts and documents abundantly collected by Shakespeare scholars are quite sufficient.

All these testimonies, however, fit poorly or don't align at all with the reliable facts of Shakespeare's biography. But here, as usual, explanations personally from Francis Bacon, discovered and deciphered in 16th-17th century books thanks to Elizabeth Gallup, come to the rescue.

To phrase the same essence slightly differently, one could say this: the more facts science accumulates about the author of Shakespearean works, the harder it becomes to attach them to the personality of William Shakespeare. Simultaneously, from the same facts, the personality of Francis Bacon becomes increasingly evident.

In the context of our investigation, the validity of this general statement is particularly conveniently demonstrated by a specific example. By relying on documents and facts, we can show how London prostitutes (the "Winchester Geese") mysteriously found their way into the text of Shakespeare's play about the Trojan War.

The puzzling mention of the Winchester Geese, it can be recalled, occurs at the very end of the play Troilus and Cressida. Here, the bawd Pandarus, in his final monologue, addresses not just the audience of the play but the pimps, prostitutes, and other "brothers and sisters trading in human flesh" present in the audience, suffering from venereal diseases.

This strange, mockingly offensive monologue by Pandarus not only completely falls out of place in a play about the events of the Trojan War but also leaves behind the most challenging questions for literary scholars. How is this to be understood? Why did the author come up with such an apparently inappropriate epilogue for the finale of a "tragedy"?

It's not enough to say that modern science has no universally accepted answers to these questions. In addition to this historical mystery, another obvious problem immediately surfaces — the deeply unclear genre classification of the play. Is it a tragedy, or is it actually a comedy?

For Shakespeare scholars are well aware that the book with the first publication of Troilus and Cressida in 1609 (during Shakespeare's lifetime) contained such a preface:

Eternall reader, you have heere a new play, never stal'd with the Stage, never clapper-clawd with the palmes of the vulger, and yet passing full of the palme comicall. For it is a birth of the braine, that never under-tooke any thing commicall, vainely... So much and such savored salt of witte is in his Commedies, that they seeme (for their height of pleasure) to be borne in that sea that brought forth Venus. Amongst all there is none more witty then this.

Nowhere in the preface to the first edition is there even the slightest hint that this is a "tragedy." However, a decade and a half later, when preparing the First Folio of Shakespeare in 1623 (seven years after Shakespeare's death), the play Troilus and Cressida was placed in the Tragedies section. But why? Who decided this?

Of course, there is no universally accepted answer to this mystery in the scholarly community.

Shakespeare scholars do, of course, have various plausible explanations for this. However, since the explanations put forward here are different and do not fully agree with each other, we will choose the most convincing one. This is because it's based not on someone's conjectures and assumptions, but on solid documentary evidence.

By a convincing array of documents and testimonies, we mean the archives and publications available to historians related to the activities of London's legal corporations known as the Inns of Court. Strangely enough, these documents not only provide the keys to the mysteries of Troilus and Cressida, but also reveal something more substantial — the key to the mystery of the true author of Shakespeare's texts.

At the heart of the unique structure of the British judicial and legal system, which has been preserved from the Middle Ages to the present day, there are four professional associations for lawyers: Gray's Inn, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Middle Temple.

At a time when there were only two universities in England, Cambridge and Oxford, the Inns of Court were referred to as the "Third University." Any young man who wished to practice law had to become a member of one of the Inns of Court. There, he not only received a legal education and initial practice as an assistant to an experienced lawyer, but also constantly participated in the specific social life of the professional association.

One of the particularly interesting aspects of this social life for us is the so-called Inns of Court Revels, which is traditionally translated into Russian as "Christmas celebrations", but in reality, it was something different. Significantly different. Although it did indeed include celebrating Christmas in the middle.

To begin with, the name Revels comes from the Latin Rebellare, literally meaning "revolt, uprising." Having much in common with the winter festival of Saturnalia in ancient Rome, the English Revels also served as a kind of mechanism for relieving social tension. During these events, servants and masters would temporarily switch roles, slaves dressed in their masters' clothes, and their masters would symbolically serve them.

Since the original pre-Christian festival fell during the Christmas period, it uniquely intertwined pagan and Christian rituals. The fun and dancing, feasts and pranks associated with the Revels were so popular among all social strata that there was even a special court position, the Master of the Revels, at the English royal court.

From other, less aristocratic perspectives, the Christmas festivities merged with other church and folk festivities such as "Feast of Fools", when a "Lord of Misrule" was elected, and all sorts of merry mischief ensued, naturally accompanied by drinking and debauchery.

In short, the particularly long celebrations of the "lawyer corporations", Inns of Court Revels, which started in early November and ended in early February, were an extremely interesting phenomenon in the cultural life of 16th-17th century England.

During this long festivity, not only balls, banquets, and performances in the style of the royal court were combined, but also rampant drunken revelry in the spirit of Roman bacchanalia. (The specific spirit of modern "corporate parties", as you can see, has very deep historical roots.)

For literary and theater historians, these Christmas celebrations of the lawyers are particularly interesting because it was here that the first performances of a number of famous Shakespearean comedies took place. Starting with the very first, The Comedy of Errors, in December 1594.

Moreover, some literary scholars, well-versed in the intricacies of legal language and the peculiarities of legal conflicts characteristic of Shakespeare's plays, confidently assert and prove that these plays were specifically written for performance at the Inns of Court Revels. Not all Shakespearean scholars, of course, agree with this, but that's not the most important point here.

Much more important is the fact that the significant role of the Inns of Court in both the theatrical life of London and the growing popularity of Shakespeare's plays among the public has long been considered universally recognized. However, upon deeper examination of the subject, a rather remarkable problem emerges.

Virtually all biographers of Shakespeare, knowing reliably about the multiple performances of Shakespeare's plays at the Inns of Court, deduce from this the self-evident assertion that it was the troupe "Lord Chamberlain's Men" that performed these plays there. This is the theater in which Shakespeare served, where he was a shareholder, and where Shakespeare's plays were performed.

However, the archival documents of the Inns of Court from that time indicate that nothing of the sort could have happened in reality. In those days, the administrations of both universities, Cambridge and Oxford, as well as the leadership of the legal Inns, for a number of reasons, categorically did not allow professional acting troupes to participate in their events. All theatrical plays were performed by their own members.

In particular, the surviving financial documents of those legal corporations, where Shakespeare's plays were definitely and repeatedly performed, indicate the following fact. From the early 1590s (when Shakespeare's name became associated with the theater) until 1613 (when Shakespeare completely concluded his affairs in London and moved to Stratford), the Inns of Court never paid professional theatrical troupes for performances or playwrights for their plays.

Moreover, there is ample evidence that all such performances were carried out by amateur actors from the corporations and their own authors. Many well-known English playwrights eventually emerged from the Inns of Court, but Shakespeare was definitely not among them.

Furthermore, there is a very detailed account of the specific circumstances under which the Christmas premiere of The Comedy of Errors took place at Gray's Inn, the first, as it is believed, among Shakespeare's comedies. This humorous pamphlet titled Gesta Grayorum ("The Deeds of the Grays") describes in detail a wide variety of antics and amusements by the lawyers during their corporate Christmas celebration of 1594/95.

In the pamphlet Gesta Grayorum, unlike the financial documents of the Inns, it is detailed which day exactly The Comedy of Errors was performed at Gray's Inn — December 28, 1594. According to the records of the royal court, on this very day, "Lord Chamberlain's Men", including Shakespeare, were performing a different play for Queen Elizabeth and her courtiers.

The most intriguing detail is that the main producer (as we would say today) of all the festive events at Gray's Inn was a lawyer named Francis Bacon. Not only was he a permanent member of the corporation, but at that time, he was also the Deputy Treasurer (the elected head) of Gray's Inn. He managed the organization of events, wrote speeches for participants, and — according to long-standing specialist opinion — was also the author of the pamphlet Gesta Grayorum. Recent computational methods of textual analysis have now mathematically confirmed Bacon's authorship with a high degree of certainty. [o1]

Recalling the overall theme of our investigation, a particularly noteworthy aspect of the Gesta Grayorum text is the evidence of the participation of London prostitutes — as "invited guests" — at the closed corporate Inns of Court Revels (where, on other days, exclusively men, predominantly around 30 years old, resided).

Shakespearean scholars, who meticulously study any texts from the Elizabethan era related to the works of the Great Bard, have identified clear correspondences between the content of the Gesta Grayorum and the details of the play The Comedy of Errors. This indicates that the play was written specifically for the lawyers' corporate event and their invited guests.

In particular, one of the minor characters in the play is a courtesan, and the final scene of the comedy, ending with an invitation for everyone to a banquet, takes place in a nunnery with the active participation of its abbess.

In the humorous text of Gesta Grayorum, when listing the honored guests of the event, the third on the list is a certain Lucy Negro, Abbess of the Clerkenwell Nunnery, invited to conduct a "night service" and provide a Choir of Nuns, with burning lamp, to chant Placebo [I will please] to the Gentlemen of the Prince’s (i.e., the Lord's of Misrule) Privy Chamber.

According to the authoritative historical-linguistic research Shakespeare’s Words [o3], in Elizabethan times, the word "burning" had a meaning of "infected with a venereal disease", and the euphemism "light" or "lamp" referred to a immoral woman.

As for the important guest, "Abbess Lucy Negro", there is an entire research book about this once-famous London courtesan, titled Shakespeare Among the Courtesans. Prostitution, Literature, and Drama, 1500-1650 [o4]. To be more precise, the book is dedicated not only to this lady but to a broader topic — the role of courtesans and their influence on the literature and theater of the Renaissance in England and Italy in the 16th and 17th centuries.

In the last three chapters of the book, entirely dedicated to London courtesans and brothels during the times of Shakespeare and Bacon, Madam Lucy Negro — also known as Black Lucy and Lucy Morgan — occupies a central place. Not only as the owner of a popular brothel in Clerkenwell, located near the Inns of Court in the building of a former nunnery, but also as a regular attendee of theatrical premieres and a close acquaintance of Philip Henslowe, a well-known theatrical impresario who left invaluable diary entries for modern theater historians (where Shakespeare's name is notably absent, interestingly enough).

Based on Henslowe's diaries, which record his numerous dinners with Madam Lucy, and supported by many other documents from the era containing fragments of facts about this remarkable woman's biography, the book author Duncan Salkeld draws very interesting conclusions. These conclusions are not only that Black Lucy was an African woman (who began her career as a dancer at Elizabeth's court and had dresses gifted by the Queen in her wardrobe), but — most importantly — that she was the mysterious Dark Lady to whom a number of Shakespeare's sonnets are dedicated.

Other Shakespeare scholars, of course, have numerous other hypotheses and different candidates for this role. However, for the purposes of our investigation, the competing hypotheses are less important than the actual facts. Among these, the following can be mentioned.

The results of computer analysis of the texts indicate that Shakespeare's sonnets from 127 to 154 (where the Dark Lady is portrayed as a sexual object and symbol of the author's carnal love) were written in the early 1590s. During the same period, The Comedy of Errors was written and performed within the walls of Gray's Inn, where the Dark Lady and her ladies were invited to the Christmas festivities, including the play's premiere. Shakespeare couldn't have been present at this event, but Francis Bacon was definitely there, at least as the direct organizer of the event.

Furthermore, researchers have enough facts and documents showing that in the following years, Madam Lucy Negro, her "nuns" and representatives of other popular brothels were regularly invited to the "revelries" of corporate celebrations at the Inns of Court. There is also evidence that other Shakespearean comedies, such as Love's Labour's Lost, The Taming of the Shrew, Twelfth Night, and Troilus and Cressida, were specifically staged or first performed at the Inns of Court Revels. [o5]

In particular, concerning the play Troilus and Cressida, which is of special interest to us, according to the records of the Stationers' Register, it was first registered for publication in February 1603. That is, immediately after the end of the long Christmas celebrations at the Inns of Court. This means it was most likely following the "private premiere" of the play within the corporation's walls.

However, the play was not published at that time. Shortly afterward, in March 1603, Queen Elizabeth died, and the mood was not conducive to comedy. Thus, the time for the first edition of Troilus and Cressida — "the wittiest of Shakespeare's comedies" — came only in 1609. The preface to the book clearly hinted that this comedy had not yet been performed in theaters and was written for a select audience: "a new play, never stal'd with the Stage, never clapper-clawd with the palmes of the vulger"…

Concluding the review of the documents gathered by Shakespearean scholars, the following summary remains to be drawn. The facts available to science are already quite sufficient to provide clear and convincing explanations not only for the specific humor in the strange comedy Troilus and Cressida, but also for the even stranger mention of London prostitutes and pimps in the final lines of the play.

However, the documented fact of "closed corporate performances" at the Inns of Court, where professional theater troupes were not admitted, makes it extremely difficult to attribute many of Shakespeare's comedies to the actor Shakespeare. At the same time, it provides strong indirect evidence supporting Francis Bacon's authorship.

And since under these conditions Shakespearean scholars have no convincing explanations for why and at whose instigation Troilus and Cressida was placed in the Tragedies section of the First Folio, it's time to seek comments directly from Francis Bacon. More precisely, from the texts of his secret autobiography, deciphered thanks to Elizabeth Wells Gallup, which provides detailed explanations of why Bacon concealed his authorship of plays, poems, and sonnets under other names. [i1]

Along the way — thanks to Gallup's detailed explanations — the reasons for the numerous errors and confusion in the pagination of the First Folio also become clear. It can be noted that there is no continuous pagination at all; each of the three sections — Comedies, Histories, Tragedies — has its own numbering. Within the sections, page numbers are often out of place, and the play Troilus and Cressida, which opens the Tragedies section, has no page numbers at all.

In the introductory part of Gallup's book The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon [o6], the emergence of problems in deciphering due to this confusion is described as follows:

Here it's appropriate to pause Gallup's quotation to provide two additional explanatory notes. One is from Francis Bacon himself, commenting on the essence of the love storyline in the play Troilus and Cressida. The other is from the esteemed Shakespearean scholar (and military intelligence cryptographer) Charlton Hinman, famous for his meticulous, literally letter-by-letter — instrumental-optical — analysis of the texts in the First Folio. [i2]

So, what does Bacon's secret autobiography say about this? Specifically, in those fragments where encrypted explanations by the author about the hidden connections between the tragedy "Romeo and Juliet", the comedy "Measure for Measure", and the peculiar burlesque-tragicomedy Troilus and Cressida are woven into the texts of the "Shakespearean" plays.

The connecting thread for all these works turns out to be the youthful love of Francis Bacon for Margaret of Valois, the younger sister of King Henry III of France and the wife of King Henry of Navarre. This was a woman not only beautiful and intelligent, not only older and more experienced, but also surrounded by admirers and lovers. [i3]

In Bacon's encrypted text, hidden in the plays of the Tragedies, memories of the sufferings of a young lover who found himself in the diplomatic service at the court of the French King are laid out as follows (quoted from Gallup's book [o6]):

One of the most remarkable features of Bacon's secret autobiography is that he recorded it using his cipher throughout his adult life. From his youth to old age, he embedded encrypted fragments in the texts of printed books, both his own and those published under other authors' names. He often recounted the same episodes at different ages, in different moods, and with varying amounts of detail.

The texts of the plays in the First Folio were prepared for publication in 1623 when Bacon was already over sixty, having experienced all the highs and lows of his career. He had endured the shameful trial and imprisonment, as well as the most grievous tragedy of his life — the torturous execution of his brother, the Earl of Essex, whom he had essentially betrayed to maintain loyalty to his mother, Queen Elizabeth.

In the encrypted fragment of his autobiography hidden in Troilus and Cressida, the sorrowful memories of youthful love are intertwined with the harrowing details of the Earl of Essex's death. This makes it quite clear that this play, in the format of the First Folio, could not possibly be placed in the Comedies section. In this form, its natural place is only among the Tragedies...

Charlton Hinman, an extraordinarily meticulous Shakespearean scholar (and wartime cryptanalyst), during his analysis of numerous copies of the First Folio, reliably established that Troilus and Cressida in the original version of the book followed immediately after Romeo and Juliet. As a result, the last page of the latter play was originally numbered 77, and the second and third pages of Troilus and Cressida were numbered 79 and 80, respectively. [o7]

But then, for reasons still unknown (most likely due to unresolved issues with copyright), the already typeset play Troilus and Cressida had to be removed from the Folio. Thus, it did not make it into the final Table of Contents. However, at the very last moment, Troilus and Cressida was again included in the Folio. To achieve this, the publishers had to insert it at the very beginning of the Tragedies section, simultaneously composing a "Prologue" that "Troilus" did not previously have, which became necessary to fill the blank page created by the additional insertion.

Charlton Hinman, a staunch Stratfordian Shakespearean scholar, simply refers to the "Prologue" as padding and space-filler, not drawing readers' attention to the issue of who could have written it seven years after Shakespeare's death. The name of Francis Bacon is not mentioned at all in Hinman's monumental 1000-page work. [i2]

In short, Hinman's meticulously researched study The Printing And Proof-Reading Of The First Folio Of Shakespeare [o7] provides convincing arguments to understand many instances of page confusion in the book, but it also acknowledges that explanations for all problems could not, of course, be found.

Therefore, for a more complete picture, it's obviously useful to return once again to Elizabeth Gallup's book, which explains these same problems from the perspective of deciphering Bacon's cipher.

On this quotation from the book of the remarkable female cryptographer, who revealed many secret pages from the history of the 16th and 17th centuries, the branch of the investigation into the problems and keys of Troilus and Cressida can be considered concluded.

Therefore, it's time to return to the previously postponed branch of investigations — about the Rosicrucians and Freemasons… [i4]

Additional Reading

[i1] 4in1: Mask of Shakespeare, Mysteries of Bacon, Book by Cartier, Secrets of the NSA, chapter "Bacon and Shakespeare: Anatomy of Deception"

[i2] Ibid, chapter "The problem of Shakespearean authorship as an OSINT task"

[i3] Ibid, chapter "Bacon’s Cipher and Confirmation of Correctness of its Decryption"

[i4] NSA Hints for the Mysteries of Shakespearean Studies

Main Sources

[o1] Barry R. Clarke. Francis Bacon’s Contribution To Shakespeare: A New Attribution Method. Routledge Studies In Shakespeare Vol. 35. Taylor & Francis 2019

[o2] Gesta Grayorum: or the History of the High and mighty Prince, Henry. London: Printed for W. Canning, 1688

[o3] David Crystal and Ben Crystal. Shakespeare’s Words. A Glossary and Language Companion. Penguin: 2002

[o4] Duncan Salkeld. Shakespeare Among the Courtesans. Prostitution, Literature, and Drama, 1500-1650. Ashgate Publishing, 2012

[o5] William R. Elton. Shakepeare’s Troilus and Cressida and the Inns of Court Revels. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000

[o6] The Bi-Literal Cypher of Francis Bacon, Deciphered by Elizabeth Wells Gallup. Howard Publishing Company, 1901

[o7] Charlton Hinman. The Printing And Proof-Reading Of The First Folio Of Shakespeare. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1963. Vol 1, Vol 2