The consequence was that travellers began to make the long and arduous journey to Stratford to satisfy their eyes and imaginations with whatever relics might be preserved relating to its illustrious citizen. But the town had been taken by surprise, and apart from the monument in the Church, there was little to be seen, as New Place, the house in which Shakespeare died in 1616, had been pulled down in 1759.
As to the date when the " Birthplace " was first on show no record exists, but it was shortly after the demolition of New Place and was, no doubt, intended to take its place as an attraction to visitors. There is an account by a visitor to Stratford in The Gentleman's Magazine in 1760, and it is significant that no birthplace is mentioned among the buildings of note.
When David Garrick made a pilgrimage to the town in 1769, in preparation for his forthcoming "Jubilee" at Stratford, he described it as "the most dirty, unseemly, ill-paved, wretched looking town in all Britain " The Shakespeare industry had not yet been started as "a going concern " but his Jubilee, which lasted three days, was a means of arousing local interest as to the possibilities of exploiting Shakespeare. The enterprising inhabitants set to work searching out old furniture or manufacturing "relics" which they considered might prove remunerative attractions. A search was made for a house which could be shown as the "birthplace ."
The owners of three different premises put forward claims, but this difficult situation was relieved when the Town Clerk ordered one of them to be demolished as unhabitable. The site ultimately selected as "the most likely abode" was in Henley Street because it was found to be in the same street as another small property once held by his father, John Shaksper, though the exact location could not be identified. It was found also that John had purchased the copyhold of another house in the same street in 1556, and that he was occupying another as late as 1597 for which he paid rent to the lord of the manor of 1 s. per annum. These three cottages were stated to have had thatched roofs and mud walls. As we shall show it is doubtful if the fine detached house now shown to visitors at an admission fee of 2s. 6d. (and which attracts a "gate" of over 350,000 yearly) has any entitlement to be called "the Birthplace of Shakespeare ."
I have been searching the volumes of The Gentleman's Magazine for allusions to the "Birthplace" and the first I found was by a visitor in 1769 who described the cottage as "a dilapidated hovel ." There were three contributions to the magazine between 1791 and 1807, giving amusing information as to the early profiteering in "relics", particularly "the old oak chair in which Shakespeare sat."
A visitor who signs himself "T.T.S.", writing in 1791, said: "An old oak chair, or more properly I might have said the remaining part, which tradition has handed down as having been the property of the immortal bard, and which stood in the very house in which he was born, was sold on November 28th, 1790 by Thomas Hart, the present occupier of the house, to Major Orlowski (secretary to Her Serene Highness Princess Czartoriska) who, accompanied by an interpreter, a native of Poland, came to Stratford purposely to purchase it." Hart was happy in receiving for the relic twenty guineas.When I first visited Stratford, now some time since, I was shown this chair and had the honour of sitting in it, and the people of the house cut from one of the feet and presented to me a small chip which I was not virtuoso enouth to preserve as there appeared to me a degree of improbalitly in supposing this chair should have continued there for nearly two centuries, though fixed to the wall and bearing marks of antiquity; or that it was the one, as some have supposed, in which our great poet first reposed.
But to return to my information. "In February last the interpreter again visited Stratford and said a doubt had arisen that it was the same chair which she had seen and sat in in the summer of 1790, and requested a certificate that it was." A certificate was granted signed by Thomas Hart and John Jordan..
Hart was not a credit to the descent from which he claimed. Jordan, who signed this certificater, was a local forger of ballads, which he said he had "discovered" and which he passed off as having been written by Shakespeare. His various forgeries were too apparent to be taken seriously.
His "discovery" of Anne Hathaway's Cottage turned out to be his one lasting success. Samuel Ireland and his son, William Henry, [both famous forgers of Shakespeare plays] were visiting Stratford in 1794, preparing Samuels book, Picturesque Views on the Warwickshire Avon, published the following year. Jordan led them to the cottage and Samuel's sketch was reproduced. He was not altogether impressed by Jordan and observed, "I doubt the truth of the relation."
Ten years after signing his certificate that the chair sold to the princess was a genuine Shakespeare relic, Hart had replaced it and was then showing "an old armchair in which Shakespeare used to smoke his pipe."
The next allusion to the much resurrected chair occurs in 1801 under the name of J. Collett: " For the information of those who have never visted the house I shall just add that it is a shabby, mean, lath-and-plaster building. . . but I am apt to believe the house occupied by the butcher [Hart] is only a part of the original dwellinghouse which formerly comprehended the adjacent building, which seems to have been separated for the convenience of making smaller tenements for the habitation of different families"
"As to the furniture, there remains an old armchair in which they tell you he used to smoke his pipe, as also the identical tobacco stopper which he used on this occasion; but I doubt very much the identity of this article or of the chair, which latter, I have been informed has been sold and replaced at least twenty times. Yet there are still not wanting curiosi weak enough to give from five shillings to a guinea for a chip off the old block no bigger than may be contained in a snuffbox."
Finally we have Mr. D. Parkes who was a visitor in July 1807. From his account we learn that Hart was still trading as a butcher while dealing in "chips of the old block."
The house is situated in Henley Street and is now divided into two dwellings, one of which is occupied by a descendent of Joan Hart, sister to the poet, who pursues the humble occupation of a butcher. The adjoining dwelling has been many years used as a public house known by the sign of The Swan and Maidenhead. In the chimney corner is an old oak chair, said to have belonged to the poet, but so much mangled by the knives of virtuosi that little of the original form remains.
Mr. Collet's description of the premises as "shabby" and "mean" is confirmed by a German visitor named Moritz in 1782 who described the "birthplace" as being "the worst, and one that made least appearance of all the houses in Stratford." It is only in recent years that the present "Birthplace" Trustees have refrained from exhibiting "an old oak chair" in which Shakespeare was said to have sat when carousing at the Falcon Inn at Bidford, in spite of the fact that no proof exists that he ever entered the inn. There was also a desk from the Grammar School called "Shakespeare's desk", although no record exists that he attended the school, or where he sat if he did. Washington Irving was a visitor to the "Birthplace" in 1815. He saw "a small and mean looking edifice of wood and plaster." The rooms he found to be "squalid." More spurious "relics" had been added, even "the sword with which he played Hamlet", though the part was really played by Richard Burbadge. The lantern with which Friar Laurence discovered the dead Romeo was also shown.
No wonder Mr. Joseph Skipsey, who was custodian from July 1889, to October 1891, resigned his position because of the several frauds to which he found himself committed.
What is now on show as "The Birthplace" bears no resemblance to what previously stood on the site. The property, much decayed, was practically demolished, and the present detached and imposing house arose on its foundations between 1857 and 1860. Tradition, dating from the middle of the eighteenth century, claims the western premises as the birthplace, though there is no proof as to where, in Stratford, Shakespeare's birth took place. Briefly, the history of this event is as follows:
1556. John Shakspere (as the family name was spelt then), who eight years later was to become the father of William, was fined for having an offensive heap of offal outside his shop in Henley Street. Here he traded in meat, skins and wool. It has not been established if he actually resided there or, if he did, whether as owner or tenant. In this year he purchased a house in Greenhill Street described in a legal document as having "garden and croft." It was, therefore, a more "desirable residence" than the malodorous premises in Henley Street. This purchase was in the year before he married and, presumably, this was the house to which he took his bride. In this year also he bought a house in Henley Street generally referred to as "the woolshop"
1564. William, the eldest son, was born. The actual date is unknown as births were not registered, but he was baptised on 26th April. He could either have been born in Greenhill Street or in Henley Street (the woolshop).
1575. When William was eleven his father bought the adjoining cottage on the western side of the woolshop. By an unfortunate mischance it was this western and not the eastern one which was chosen for the birthplace, but his father certainly did not own the western premises at the time. Nevertheless, a room over the butcher's shop was selected for the room in which Shakespeare was "born"
1579. An entry occurs in the Stratford Church Register of a marriage between "William Willsonne and Anne Hathaway of Shotterye." This took place on 17th January.
1582. On 27th November a licence was issued in the Registry of the Bishop of Worcester authorising the marriage of William Shaxpere to Anna Whateley of Temple Grafton.
1582. On 28th November the Bishop of Worcester insisted upon a marriage bond exempting him from all liability should there be any irregularity in the speedy marriage of "William Shagspere and Anne Hathwey of Stratford in the Diocese of Worcester. maiden..." There is no record as to when or where the marriage took place. Though not mentioned it is sheer assumption that Anne ever lived at Shottery. As Professor George Saintsbury observed in The History of English Literature (Vol. v, page 165) "we are by no means certain of the identity of Shakespeare's wife." However, in 1795 the famous cottage became "Anne Hathaway's Cottage", and now attracts over 250,000 visitors annually at 2s. 6d.
1603. About this time the eastern house was let as an inn and was known as The Swan and Maidenhead.
1616. In April Shakespeare died at New Place. He had bought the house for 60 pounds from William Underhill in 1597. The house was demolished in 1759.
1769. The "birthplace" was inaugurated and the "birthroom" put on view, for the "Jubilee" arranged by David Garrick in September.
1806. The property was sold by the occupier, Mr. Hart, for £210 to Thomas Court. Its condition was said to have been "very decayed"
1847. At a meeting held at Stratford, following the death of Court's widow, a circular was prepared appealing for funds with which to acquire the "Birthplace of Shakespeare." One speaker moved to amend the wording by the insertion of the word "probable", but this sally was received in uproar and the motion was lost because, if the public were doubtful, the money might not be forthcoming.When the property was auctioned in London it fetched 3,000 pounds in spite of its being in a "deplorable condition." It was bought by the newly formed Birthplace Committees of Stratford and London and, after extensive alterations and enlargement, together with the demolition of adjoining properties, was opened for public exhibition. Only the cellar of the original house remains as it was.
1891. An Act of Parliament incorporated the Trustees and Guardians who, later in this year, bought the cottage at Shottery for exhibition as having been the home of Anne Hathaway. This, together with the "Birthplace" has a total yearly "gate" of over half a million at an admission fee of 2s. 6d. About two thirds of these visitors are from overseas.
As the evidence shows that reasonable doubts exist as to the authenticity of both showplaces a public enquiry is long overdue.
Roderick L. Eagle, 1970
THE SECRET SERVICE IN TUDOR TIMES
By R. L. EAGLE
THE well established fact that Marlowe was an agent employed by Sir Francis Walsingham from 1587 while an undergraduate at Cambridge, and after he had taken his M.A. degree, until Walsingham's death in 1590, may serve to kindle interest in those who directed and those who served under them in the secret service. That Sir Thomas Walsingham, cousin of Sir Francis Bacon, carried on in an unofficial capacity after the latter's death, and was employing the same men including such as Ingram Frezer, Robert PoIey, Marlowe and Nicholas Skeres (all present at the "liquidation" of Marlowe at Deptford at the end of May, 1593) is also well attested.
The Walsingham cousins had very close ties of affection and interests. One has only to study Thomas Watson's "Meliboeus," described on the titlepage as "An Eglogue upon the Death of the Right Honorable Sir Francis Walsingham Late principall Secretarie to Her Majestie, and of her Honourable Privie Councell." It was printed in 1590 in Latin and English. The Latin version is dedicated to Sir Thomas Walsingham, and the English version to Lady Frances Sidney, the daughter of Sir Francis. In the "Eglogue" the Queen is Diana, Sir Francis is "Meliboeus", Sir Thomas speaks as Tityrus, and Watson as "Corydon". Both Sir Francis and Sir Thomas are declared to be patrons of learning and literature.
In 1581, Sir Francis Walsingham was sent to Paris to negotiate a treaty with France which was calculated to destroy any agreement between France and Spain which would be dangerous to England. Watson's "Eglogue" makes it clear that Sir Thomas accompanied his cousin, and that Watson was also there, e.g.: Tityrus (i.e., Sir Thomas)
Thy tunes often pleas'd mine eare of yoare,
When milkwhite swans did flocke to heare thee sing,
Where Seine in Paris Makes a double shoare,
Paris thrice blest if shee obey her King.
Why was the poet Watson in the company of the Walsingham cousins? Was he, like Marlowe, assisting in the secret service? Were there still more poets and dramatists using their intelligence as agents in return for patronage? This appears to be highly probable for there is proof of yet another poet and playwright, Anthony Munday, being similarly engaged. One fact which has come to light is that in 1582, Munday had been hunting Catholics with success. We can learn that from his publication, "A Discoverie of Edmund Campion and his Confederates." There is no evidence known as to Munday's employer, but he went to Rome to spy on English Catholics, and to learn what he could to their detriment, and then betray them (see Dictionary of National Biography).
Literature was not a profession in those days. There was no living to be made from the writing of books or poems. There was no such thing as a "reading public" for those who could read were an extremely limited and favoured few. Even the writing of plays was miserably rewarded as we can see from Henslowe's diary. But the authors were intelligent and welleducated men, and what is more likely than for them to use their talents in employment for gathering political information? No doubt it was the Privy Council who employed Munday to carry out his successful detection of the Popish conspiracy in 1582, and who had previously sent him to Italy to spy on the English Catholics residing in the northern cities. On his return journey Munday had exhausted his funds while passing through France and had to make a diversion to Paris where he was given money by the British Ambassador to enable him to reach England. He would not have been so favoured had he not been on official business.
We do not know the names of all those who collected information for Walsingham from France, Italy, Spain and the Low Countries. Naturally, as secret service agents, they did not come into prominence. but from 1567 onwards Walsingham was supplying Burleigh with lists of names of those hostile to the Queen and the Government. In 1568, he put the secret service on an organised basis. The chief cipher expert was Thomas Phelippes, but another cipher expert employed by Walsingham was Anthony Standen, who worked for Essex after his patron's death.
So clever was Standen that he was knighted and Walsingham procured for him from the Queen a pension of £100 yearly. i.e., at least £8oo today. Standen's information for Essex was sent in letters to Anthony Bacon and he used numerals for letters. Some of these are preserved at Lambeth Palace and were printed in "Memoirs of The Reign of Queen Elizabeth" by Thomas Birch, D.D., in two volumes printed in 1754. I would particularly refer to Vol. I, p. 139. in the hope that somebody may be able to find the key to the cipher. All I can gather is that the Queen is 6589, Essex is 7! Besides Robert Poley, Walsingham employed Gilbert Gifford (a Catholic traitor) and Thomas Harrison in the discovery of the Babington plot. There were probably others. Walsingham was kept well informed by his agents in Spain as to the preparations for the Armada and the invasion of England--even to the minutest details of men and armaments.
Anthony Bacon began his travels in 1579, and was sending intelligence to Burghley from Paris in 1580 as to the state of France.. There was an agent named Edward Burnham assisting Anthony. He had contacts with Nicholas Faunt who was Walsingham's secretary, and advised him as to the state of affairs abroad. Anthony travelled into Northern Italy, afterwards residing in the South of France, principally Bordeaux, where he was favourably placed to pass instructions and receive information with regard to agents passing to and from Spain. The news he received was passed as rapidly as possible to Essex.
Bacon's scrivenery at Twickenham was evidently used for the .purpose of ciphering and deciphering political documents, as well as the copying of literary works and translations. Both Anthony and Francis were maintaining it. The house had been presented by Essex. In the correspondence of Francis and Anthony, allusions to the kind of work carried on are fairly frequent. Thus Standen writes to Anthony in 1592:
"By Mr. Lawson I send you my travels of Turkey, Italy and Spain, as dear to me as you may imagine; yet nothing of too high a price for you. Having taken a copy, I desire the original might be delivered to my brother, which I entreat unto you; as also having taken what you best like out of the Zibaldone, if you commit them both to my brother's custody, he will have a care of them. For by my tossing to and fro in the manner I live, I might be deprived of such things, as at the time of my last trouble I left behind me in this town, and among others the discourse of the Spanish state which, when I may recover, you shall have."
I cannot trace anything about Standen's brother Edward, to whom he is referring, except that Standen, in the same letter, asks Anthony Bacon to introduce Edward to the lord treasurer. It appears, therefore that Edward Standen was also working for the secret service.
The "Zibaldone" is presumably a manuscript. Is anything known of it, and where is it, if it survives?
In 1595, Francis wrote to Anthony Bacon from Twickenham on 25th January: "I have here an idle pen or two specially one that was cozened, thinking to have got some money this term. I pray you send me somewhat else for them to write out beside your Irish collection, which is almost done. There is a collection of Dr. James (Dean of Christchurch) of foreign states largeliest in Flanders which, though it be no great matter, yet I would be glad to have it."
In 1596, Essex sent by his secretary, Henry Cuffe, "a true relation of the action at Cadiz." Cuffe writing to Anthony: "The original you are to keep because my Lord charged me to turn either the whole or the sum of it into French, and to cause it to be sent to some good personage in these parts under a false name or anonymously."
The reason for this secrecy was that the Queen had disapproved of Essex going on this expedition, and was further disgruntled on his return. Although he was victorious over the Spanish fleet, there was no loot to compensate for the expense. Cuffe had drawn up an account of the expedition, but was commanded by the Queen, on pain of death, not to set forth any discourse of this service without her permission. Anthony Bacon tried through influential channels to get such permission and not meeting with success resolved to get copies sent abroad secretly. Copies were, indeed, made and were sent to the Courts of Scotland, France and the Low Countries.
The question has often been asked as to what Francis Bacon was doing the first forty years of his life Apart from concealed literary work especially in the composition of plays, there can be no doubt but that he was engaged in assisting Essex and his brother Anthony in the examining and deciphering of secret service reports. I wish we knew more about the purpose of a letter sent by Standen to Anthony Bacon in which he informed him that, according to his order, he had immediately upon his arrival there (i.e., the Earl of Essex's house) "moved Mr. Francis Bacon for the cypher," who answered, that within a few days might be offered some occasion by hearing from Dr. Morrison; "for which reason he thought it not so well to send it till then; but that he would the next day write his mind to his brother."
This letter is at Lambeth among the papers of Anthony Bacon in Vol. IV, folio 16. There is much to be discovered at Lambeth for anybody who has the time, and who is used to reading the handwriting of that period.
It is an interesting fact that those who employed their own agents: Burleigh, Walsingham, Essex, all died bankrupt. They provided the expense over and above that allowed by the parsimonious Queen.
R. L. Eagles, 1956
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Eagle is an authority on Elizabethan literature, and all Baconians should be familiar with his books, details of which are advertised elsewhere in this issue.
The following is from Baconiana, June 1956, by T. Wright:
There is some remarkable evidence in that mysterious book on Cryptography published on the Continent at Luneburg in 1624, and attributed to Gustavus Selenus, alias Trithemius, alias Man in the Moon. This book (Cryptomenticies) was fathered by the Duke of Brunswick and dedicated to "Dr. Francisco, Antonio, London, Anglo, Seniori," which fully identifies Francis and Anthony Bacon. The author refers to Camden's Remains and to Francis Bacon's part in the production of Annals of Elizabeth; but it is the titlepage that is of greatest significance, for there is disclosed the truth concerning the authorship of Shakespeare.
This titlepage consists of four pictorial panels, each drawn in great detail, not at the whim of the engraver, but under the precise directions of the Duke of Brunswick, and thus they were intended to serve a definite purpose. J. Phinney Baxter states in The Greatest of Literary Problems that these instructions are still extant and have been read by him. If my reader would enjoy the fascination of profitable detective investigation, let him give this titlepage his close attention and arrive at his own solution.
It is suggested that there will be detected the Duke of Brunswick placing the cap of maintenance upon the head of Francis Bacon, who is seated and writing some document of Folio size; and Bacon in a rural setting, handing some document to the rustic actor Will Shakspere, who is seen jounrying on foot to some city. Also to be seen are the long-sword, broad-spear, shotbolt, wagstaff and walking staff, all of which are mentioned in that one paragraph in Camden's Remains. Yet further will be seen, the actor now well-mounted on horseback, but with a spur exaggeraedly drawn.
Why should a foreign prince thus devote the titlepage of his serious work on Cryptography, printed and published abroad, to the authorship of the English "Shakespeare?" Why refer to an insignificant work, not on Cryptography, by the Englishman Camden, and mention that the latter's most important work was finally edited by Francis Bacon? The explanation is, of course, that the Duke of Brunswick and Camden were members of that secret society which Bacon had created for the working out of his life's ideal, the advancement of learning, of which "Shakespeare" was an integral part. In BACONIANA, No. I37, above referred to, is shown a remarkable composite portrait, which is in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.
![[Droeshout Engraving]](gifs/DROUS.GIF)
Ostensibly, it is a variant of the authentic portrait of the Duke of Brunswick, having the same setting and surrounds, but only half of the face and body represent the Duke. In the other half (the righthand side) the face is that of Francis Bacon, as seen in the Van Somer portrait of him, while the body is clothed in an impossible 'lefthanded' coat, as in the socalled portrait of William Shakespeare by Droeshout, in the Shakespeare Folio. The opinion of an expert iconographer, John Clennell, is that this composite picture was done by one or more of the Dutch artists, the Van Somer brothers or Daniel Metteus, and engraved by the Droeshout group. Such infinite trouble would not have been taken without some definite purpose, and that could only have been to direct attention to the close liaison that existed between Francis Bacon, William Shakespeare and the Duke; and to the lastnamed's book, where Camden also is introduced, and the titlepage reveals Francis Bacon's use of Will Shakspere as a mask.
Regarding the Droeshout engraving of Shakespeare:
"The tunic, coat, or whatever the garment may have been called at the time, is so strangely illustrated that the right hand-side of the forepart is obviously the left-hand side of the backpart, and so give[s] a harlequin appearance to the figure, which it is not unnatural to assume was intentional and done with express object and purpose" (Gentlemen's Tailor Magazine April 1911)
"It will be seen that the eyes are both drawn as right eyes instead of the normal right and left. This was discovered some years ago by Lord Brian, the eminent Harley Street Neurologist, who pointed out that the angle made by the lids of an eye where they meet nearest the nose is less acute than the angle at the inner half of the upper lid itself is narrower than the outer half.
The nose is out of alignment, as the middle of the upper lip is under one nostril"
Some time ago I ordered from the Bodleian a Xerox of the only existing copy of Marlowe's "Ch. Marl. THE TRAGICALL History of D. Faustus" Printed by V. S. for Thomas Bushell. 1604. The pages are not numbered but I have numbered them myself. Here on my page 15 are five lines copied from the dreadful English Gothic typeface:
Now will I make an ende immediately.
Me. O what will not I do to obtaine his soule?
Fau. Consummatum est this Bill is ended
And Faustus hath bequeath'd his soule to Lucifer.
But what is this inscription on mine arme?
The initial capital letters of each line are in opentext. No ciphers here,
no odd spelling to bother us, if we can read this "inscription" from bottom
to top.
BACON!
Then on my p. 6 we see:
Val. Then haste thee to some solitary grove
And Beare wise Bacons and Albanus workes
We are reading from a book published in 1604 but Christopher Marlowe
(despite other claims) died in 1593. Bacon published nothing under his
own name until 1597, being the Essays and Law Maxims. If Marlowe was dead
but wrote this play before 1593, this 1604 publication would not be
referring to Francis but to long deceased Roger Bacon.
However, what has Roger to do with Albanus? Nothing. But Francis lived many years of his life at St. Albans where he was raised and where he retired.
On my p. 22 we read:
O I come of a royall parentage my grandfather was a gammon of bacon, my grandmother a hogshead of Claret wine.
Shortly after Marlow's death, and in 1594, there was published, under the name of Robert Greene, Maister of Arts, THE HONORABLE HISTORIE of frier Bacon, and frier Bungay.
At the end of the book, eleven lines above "Exeunt omnes," are these lines:
Iuno shall shut her Gilliflowers vp,
And Pallace bay shall bath her brightest greene,
Ceres carantion in consort with those,
Shall stoope and wonder at Dianas rose.
Henrie. This Prophesie is mysticall,
But glorious commaunders of Europas loue,
The ciphertext, the initial capitals of each line, is:
B T S C A I
The plaintext, +4, is:
F B A G E N
Not quite F. Bacen, but close. Not as close as "frier Bacon," however, but still "mysticall."
About the middle of this play we find these lines:
Did I vnfould the passion of my loue,
And locke them in the closset of thy thoughts,
Wert thou to Edward second to himselfe,
Sole freind, and partner of his secreat loues,
And could a glaunce of fading bewtie breake,
The inchained fetters of such priuat freindes,
Base coward, false, and too effeminate,
May we be suspicious of the words "secreat" and "priuat"? If so, then, reading from bottom to top, the ciphertext of all the capitalized letters is:
B T A S W E A I D
Plaintext, +4=
F B E A I C E N
(Penn Leary)
ShakspereBacon's Cipher, by Walt Whitman
I doubt it not----then more, far more;
In each old song bequeath'd---in every noble page or text,
(Different---something unreck'd before---some unsuspected author,)
In every object, mountain, tree, and star---in every birth and life,
As part of each---evolv'd from each---meaning, behind the ostent,
A mystic cipher waits infolded.