Welcome to the first electronic edition of Baconiana! This is in fact the 197th issue of The Francis Bacon Society's (FBS) journal, but it marks a new beginning: henceforth, Baconiana will no longer be printed in hard-copy. The FBS is one of the oldest literary societies in Great Britain. The extraordinary work its pioneers accomplished, without mainstream support or recognition, was inspired by the spirit of fraternal cooperation, and a firm belief in the human value of great literature. Many Baconians feel strongly that information should be available to the public via the Internet. However, the opportunity to combine vast amounts of information from online searches is no substitute for intimate familiarity with relevant sources, deep thought, and dialogue with colleagues. A society is different from an aggregate of isolated researchers and merely to publish a writer's thoughts without acknowledging their context and intent would be a kind of theft. Shakespearean literature, like all great art, comes alive in gatherings of people in a way impossible when sitting at a computer terminal or researching in a library. The Information Revolution is no substitute for humanities in the true sense, and we believe that literary societies like the FBS still warrant the loyal support they have traditionally received.

The current issue's authors take Bacon's involvement in the Shakespeare Plays for granted - a very cogent conclusion for the few who take the time to read Bacon's matchless prose and absorb his thought. But this perception is only the beginning. Despite 150 years of dispute often characterized by disgraceful ad hominem polemics, ignorance and the fear of studying contrary evidence, the mystery remains. Was Shakespeare one author or several? Was Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon definitely the same man as the London actor? And so on. Once we have the honesty to accept that the traditional biographies of Shakespeare are mostly sheer nonsense and invention, where do we go? Yet the marvel of the Plays remains, and our authors each, in their different ways, address the question "why were they written?" Once Bacon's philosophy and its esoteric affiliates are absorbed, the likelihood of Bacon's involvement casts a keen light on the purpose of these dramas. The ancient Greeks saw poetry as akin to magic - the musician Orpheus was said to have made stones move through his song. Drama, in particular tragedy, as Aristotle noted, can cause Catharsis, through the fear and pity evoked, and Catharsis itself is the first stage in the Mysteries. Drama, combined with the incantatory power of word and music, can enlighten us and stir our psyche to its depths. Clearly, psychology, The Mysteries and magical drama are all connected, and our authors offer fresh approaches rather than definitive, conversation-stopping discourses.

Michael Buhagiar's article approaches Shakespeare from the perspective of depth psychology in a startling article that offers a totally original view of the connection between Bacon and Shakespeare. Whether or not they agree with the conclusions, most readers will surely want to investigate Buhagiar's book, from which this article is culled. Michael Taylor's contribution combines psychology and esoteric philosophy to posit the continuity between Bacon's philosophy and the work of Carl Jung.

Bacon's Special Use of Drama is the transcript of a beautiful lecture given by a long-standing member of the Bacon Society at a Society meeting some years ago. It exemplifies the light afforded by conscientious reading of Bacon, and shows sensitive appreciation of the purpose and effect of drama. Those readers wishing to gain a flavour of traditional Baconianism should start here, as the points discussed form a useful foundation for the other, more exploratory articles.

Andrew Lyell's article is an edited extract from a manuscript encompassing the author's lengthy researches as an Oxfordian and Baconian. Lyell reminds us of the tenuous nature of the Shakespeare Myth. Not all Baconians agree that this proves the actor Shakespeare wasn't the author, but Lyell rejects the man of Stratford. However he accepts the Oxfordian and Baconian cases on the strength of their key arguments and then demonstrates how one can begin to identify the probable author of particular passages in Shakespeare, with novel conclusions. "GC" by contrast sees no need to argue with Shakespeare's possible authorship, correctly pointing out that Baconians are those that perceive in the literature of Bacon and Shakespeare two expressions of the same mind. As Bacon is coming back into fashion, there will surely be an increasing number who see the connection, (however, and by whom, the Shakespeare plays were written). Some may argue that Lyell's approach is overly subjective. However, a large proportion of orthodox literary criticism is no less subjective, and for the same reason: the judgment of a well-read expert is more valuable than that of a beginner, their guesses more 'educated'. In recent years, interdisciplinary studies have found a home in the academic mainstream, and questions too hard for small independent researchers will surely be solved with the help of the resources and tools of academic scholarship. But the science of literary forensics is in its infancy, despite the hopes for computer-assisted textual analysis. Research into the dynamics of collective authorship and the practice of literary artifice are still lacking. There is no doubt that the materials collected by Baconians and Oxfordians are essential to the development of these future disciplines in literary studies.

Bacon lived in a well-read and 'interdisciplinary' age, hence the cliché of the renaissance man which he actually merited. Regrettably or not, renaissance men have been thin on the ground in the intervening centuries, especially among professional scholars: it has often been women rather than men who had the imagination and humility to see beyond the tunnel of their own specialty, within the Bacon Society and outside. It must be recognized that the Oxfordians deserve much of the credit for strengthening the connection between the 'heretics' and the mainstream, but also that all the main approaches to the Authorship Question were pioneered by Baconians. In his article, Andrew Lyell calls for increased collaboration between the Oxford and Bacon Societies. Many other people will second his call.

Francis Carr's lucid and concise piece Was Mozart a Baconian? is essential reading for those who wish to understand the role of Bacon's philosophy in the enlightenment project and the connection of both with Freemasonry. In view of the triviality of our contemporary arts, 'classical' no less than 'pop', it is important to be reminded that Opera was once seen as transformative, educational entertainment in a similar sense to the magical drama of The Tempest. John Michell's review of Joy Hancox' Kingdom for a Stage introduces a recent fascinating study of the possible use of hermetic philosophy in theatre construction, specifically that of the original Globe Theatre. Readers who haven't studied the work of Dame Frances Yates such as The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age and The Theatre of the World will find these an essential introduction to these pieces.

The editor's selected book is The Shakespeare Code by Virginia Fellows. This introduces the most exciting, or bizarre, incident in the history of Baconianism. At the end of the nineteenth century, American authors Dr. Orville Owen and Elizabeth Wells Gallup published lengthy tomes, claiming to have uncovered cryptic material encoded in Bacon, Shakespeare and other Elizabethan writings telling Bacon's secret history. The Shakespeare Code recounts this story in vivd and entertaining fashion. Controversial and fascinating, this book will appeal to believers and skeptics alike.

Future issues will be devoted to the history of cryptography, court life during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, literary forensics, and the current state of factual scholarship concerning William Shakespeare and the other actors in the Authorship drama. The editor is accepting submissions at present.