Leaderboard

https://archive.org/details/essaiesofsrfranc00baco/page/n5/mode/2up

https://sirbacon.org/bacon-shakespeare-secret-republican-father-of-the-modern-world/

Peter Dawkins nSdoproste4g3035ac1lmuc14fh5cy102m39g2i9a2 7tc2g41tJf34ulc4m · Sunday 24 September 2023 - 'The Silver Key to the Rosicrucian Mysteries & Labour of Love' - Talk given on Zoom by Peter Dawkins about the Shakespeare First Folio, twin to the 'De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum', which constitute the hierophantic golden and silver keys to the Rosicrucian Mysteries and were deliberately published in 1623, the year of a Great Conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, so as to act out the “As above, so below” Hermetic teachings. += https://www.fbrt.org.uk/.../the-rosicrucian-mysteries.../

FRANCIS BACON AND HIS FIRST PLAY LIKE WILL TO LIKE SEE A PHOENIX, 'THE EARLIEST PLAY WRITTEN BY FRANCIS BACON WHEN HE WAS ONLY SEVEN YEARS OLD LIKE WILL TO LIKE ONE OF THREE WORKS WRITTEN IN THE NAME OF HIS LITERARY MASK ULPIAN FULWELL AND THEIR LINKS TO HIS SHAKESPEARE PLAYS', pp. 1-133 (333 REFERENCES). It is revealed here for the first time in the academic research paper and accompanying video that Francis Bacon wrote the play Like Will to Like when he was seven years old. This morality play is about good and evil and its central character is Newfangle the Vice. The dichotomy of good and evil or the colours of good and evil was later written large across the much more expansive canvass of his Shakespeare poems and plays and as pointed out by orthodox editors and scholars the figure of the Vice is refracted through various Shakespeare villains and characters i.e. Lucrece, Aaron the Moor in Titus Andronicus, Richard III, Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, Iago in Othello, etc. From his early days until his last the subject of good and evil profoundly engaged his vast intellect. Over the period of his lifetime Bacon assembled a very large number of what he calls ‘Semblances or popularities of good and evill with their regulations for deliberacions’ in his Promus of Formularies and Elegancies (his private note-book) in which he jotted down thoughts and phrases some of which he later used in his acknowledged writings and his Shakespeare poems and plays. In the Promus there are around a hundred of his collection of colours of good and evil presented without any explanation indicating Bacon intended to publish a substantial treatise on the subject. However the first published version entitled Of the Colours of Good and Evil A Fragment printed in the first edition of his Essays includes only ten from the hundred in the Promus. When towards the end of his recorded life Bacon revised and greatly enlarged the Advancement for its Latin translation De Augmentis Scientiarum he reprinted the original fragment of the Colours of Good and Evil printed in the first edition of his Essays to which he added a further two colours. After the twelfth and final colour of good and evil he makes an astonishing admission: ‘I have by me indeed a great many more Sophisms [Colours of Good and Evil] of the same kind, which I collected in my youth’. And in the closing song of Twelfth Night or What You Will Bacon reveals that when he was a young boy he wrote the morality play Like Will to Like (see pp. 104-7). The play written by Bacon when he was only seven years old was registered on the Stationers’ Register in circa September 1568 ‘Recevyd of John alde for his lycense for prynting of a play lyke Wyll to lyke quod the Deuell to the Collyer …iiijd’. It was first printed towards the end of 1568 by the printer John Allde to give it its full title as An Enterlude Intituled Like Wil to Like quod the Deuel to the Colier, very godly and full of pleasant mirth. Wherin is declared not onely what punishment followeth those that wil rather followe licentious liuing, then to esteem & followe good councel: and what great benefits and commodities they receiue that apply them unto vertuous liuing and good exercises. In The Art of Flattery Bacon employed an anagram to conceal and reveal his authorship and in Like Will to Like he similarly marked its true provenance with another anagram on the very first page of its text. It commences with the name of Lady Bacon’s favourite author Cicero in its first six lines (3+3=6 which when the numbers 3 and 3 are placed together they yield 33 Bacon in simple cipher) in its first paragraph as follows: CIcero in his book de amicitia these woords dooth expresse, Saying nothing is more desirous then like is unto like Whose woords are moste true & of a certaintie doutles: For the vertuous doo not the vertuous company mislike. But the vicious doo the vertuous company eschue: And like wil unto like, this is moste true. It will be observed that the first letters commencing the first six lines are C, S, W, F, B, A which form an anagram. Due to the deliberate formatting four letters F BAC are separated by the indenting of the other two lines. If we rearrange the four letters they alone spell out F BAC evidently a contraction of F. Bacon. Yet we need not solely rely on this contraction. The other two letters required to spell out F. Bacon the O and N are printed next to the F and A in the fourth and sixth lines respectively thus yielding F BACON in full. The other two remaining letters W and S numerically represent the equivalent of 21 and 18: 21+18=39 F. Bacon in simple cipher. The first line (not including ‘de amicitia’ which is in different type) comprises 39 letters again F. Bacon in simple cipher and the last line 33 letters Bacon in simple cipher which is the sixth line: 33+6=39 F. Bacon in simple cipher. The six line paragraph contains 56 words Fr. Bacon in simple cipher. The whole page itself comprises the header ‘The Prologue’ and 32 full lines of text: 1+32=33 Bacon in simple cipher. When this is added to the 3 letters in the signature (B. ii) and the 3 letters in the tail-word ‘And’: 33+3+3= 39 F. Bacon in simple cipher. A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T U W X Y Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 B A C O N F. B A C O N F R B A C O N 2 1 3 14 13=33 6 2 1 3 14 13=39 6 17 2 1 3 14 13=56

FRANCIS BACON AND THE PHOENIX Hi Kevin, The mythical immortal bird the Phoenix that lives every four or five hundred years is a symbol of renaissance and rebirth and has long been associated with Lord Bacon and his Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood. Behind his pseudonym Shakespeare in Henry VIII Lord Bacon refers to himself as the Phoenix who was destined to become the Father of the Modern World and change the future direction of humanity. The Shakespeare play covers only a part of Henry VIII’s reign from the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 to the christening of Princess Elizabeth in 1533. Among other things it depicts the rise to the king’s favour of Anne Boleyn and the birth to Henry and Anne of a daughter, instead of the longed for son. A grand procession escorts the newly born royal infant before the assembled court where she is solemnly presented to the king by Archbishop Cranmer. Writing in retrospect in a play written years after Elizabeth’s death Cranmer presents a prophecy (a dramatic invention by Bacon) in which the phoenix-like Princess Elizabeth in turn gives birth to a phoenix-like son and heir. A star which the fullness of time would reveal to be as great in fame as she was, one who would found new nations (United States of America); who is likened in Rosicrucian metaphorical language to mountain cedar branches (reminiscent of the cedar used for the building of King Solomon’s Temple representing the symbolic or mythical beginnings of Freemasonry); who would like a slow growing vine, together with his Rosicrucian Brotherhood, secretly and invisibly build a new world for the future of mankind, which when eventually revealed the children of posterity will give thanks to heaven, and fully rejoice of him: For heaven now bids me, and the words I utter Let none think flattery, for they’ll find ‘em truth. This royal infant-heaven still move about her- Though in her cradle, yet now promises Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings Which time shall bring to ripeness. She shall be- But few now living can behold that goodness- A pattern to all princes living with her, And all that shall succeed. Saba was never More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue Than this pure soul shall be. All princely graces That mould up such a mighty piece as this is, With all the virtues that attend the good, Shall be doubled on her. Truth shall nurse her, Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her. She shall be loved and feared. Her own shall bless her; Her foes shake like a field of beaten corn, And hang their heads with sorrow. Good grows with her. In her days every man shall eat in safety Under his own vine what he plants, and sing The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours. God shall truly be known, and those about her From her shall read the perfect ways of honour, And by those claim their greatness, not by blood. Nor shall this peace sleep with her, but, as when The bird of wonder dies-the maiden phoenix- Her ashes new create another heir As great in admiration as herself, So shall she leave her blessedness to one, When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness, Who from the sacred ashes of her honour Shall star-like rise as great in fame as she was, And so stand fixed. Peace, plenty, love, truth, terror, That were the servants to this chosen infant, Shall then be his, and, like a vine, grow to him. Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine, His honour and the greatness of his name Shall be, and make new nations. He shall flourish, And like a mountain cedar reach his branches To all the plains about him. Our children’s children Shall see this, and bless heaven. [Henry VIII: 5:4:15-55]

FRANCIS BACON SECRET REPUBLICAN AND FATHER OF THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC WORLD Both Bacon and Shakespeare (obviously treated separately by orthodox scholars) have very largely been presented as conservative political thinkers whereas more recently several modern scholars have finally begun to partly recognize the republican themes running through both the canons, which completely revolutionizes and transforms our understanding of the first philosopher-poet of the modern world. See A. Phoenix, 'Bacon-Shakespeare Secret Republican Father of the Modern World', pp. 1-14.

Yours for only $1500: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30334475065&searchurl=fe%3Don%26sortby%3D17%26tn%3Dfrancis%2Bbacon%2Bverulam&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp2-_-title6 See also: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bsi=30&fe=on&sortby=17&tn=francis+bacon+verulam&prevpage=1

Be very careful with this suggestion. It's not an accepted idea. When you do an AI assisted search for this question you end up with a return that says that "it seems that some people have made this link". If you follow the links you will find that it works it back specifically to suggestions made by people who post here. It is worth noting that the AI ends by saying that this does not appear to be widely accepted. When you dive into the details you will notice that the theories revolve around Francis Bacon having one more alternate identity. A play called "Like Will to Like" written by Ulpian Fulwell is attributed to him (?) and it seems to be the origin of the suggestion when paired with the idea that the work fits in the greater conspiracy which in already in motion when Bacon is a boy. This is clearly not known. The Wikipedia page for this individual makes no such claim. Ulpian Fulwell - Wikipedia There are a few potential reasons why the Phoenix was associated with Rosicrucianism. It's a symbol of death and resurrection which is absolutely paramount in the Christian Empiricists views. Birds are a central theme in the stories. The Phoenix Nest - Wikipedia is an interesting work to look at if you like the literary suggestion in England. That work was set forth by " "R. S. of the Inner Temple Gentleman". It includes contributions by DeVere who others claim as a Phoenix. Equating Bacon to the Phoenix is a way to get him involved in the intrigue. It takes a few leaps of faith to get going. We cannot possibly conclude that any and all references to the mythical Phoenix which appear in literature points to Bacon. And we do not know that we should be involving him. Suffice to say, he can be made to fit as well as others. Francis may even have taken a liking to it as a metaphor for the implementation of his Novum Organum. Certain very old ideas had to be "burned" to the ground before new ideas could rise from the ashes. In this case it would not be Bacon who was the Phoenix, but mankind's quality of knowledge itself. Replacing superstition with reason while using a myth to symbolize it does appear strange on some level. Bacon may not have described it that way, but the literary minds of the day could have done that. Ideas relating to the Phoenix nesting in the Hesperides (a blissful garden in some far off part of the Western World) may make allusion to North America. In Ancient lore the place has an association with the Atlas mountains and the myths of Hercules. Heading for the Hesperides looking for the golden apples can be thought of as a quest. Atalanta, in Maier's Rosicrucian work, is known for her hunt of a boar. This is another way people inject Bacon into the mix. There's quite a bit of latitude in what can be suggested. Some people are often skillfully hunting for a boar with Bacon. When the British seized the French possessions in North America the myth of the Phoenix was evoked to speak of a vision of new Protestant society that would rise from the ashes of the burnt Catholic one. The plan to recolonize Nova Scotia involved rebuilding townships on the burnt ashes of the French villages, so it was very much a relevant metaphor to be using. It was language used by the New England Freemasons who made up the colonial military government. This appears to speak to their familiarity with the idea/theme. One can just as easily use it to speak of the 30 years wars in England. There were a lot of political currents that could have used this symbolism. To answer your question bluntly, we do not know that he is. Some narratives might want to do that.

I totally get that. I would want to be who I am too and not have that be seen as being an imbecile just trolling like so many empty vessels on the internet. I could, If I was asked to, steel-man you case for you. I prefer to not to. You should be able to do that for yourself. I also realize that to ask someone with a well established belief to reason it away is a very poor way to achieve the "deprogramming" of a belief in the world. I think of myself as a very, very weak deprogrammer. All I have to offer is grit, resistance or reasonable objections. I've not been able to get anyone close to me to shake off their strange beliefs no matter how hard I have tried (my family is full of them). My wife is obsessed with seeing meaning in things when they happen to me or other people. It drives me crazy. Her romantic belief that "we were meant to be" is something I constantly have had to push back against. If "we are" it is because the will to make it work is present, the alignment of the stars be damned. It could vanish tomorrow. There's a very deep rooted desire for humans to want to feel like they are in-tune what nature wants as the outcome. Nature couldn't care less. It doesn't feel like we owe it something either. Expressions of gratefulness towards nature are reflections of the fact we desire to be thanked for what we do that is perceived as good coming from our individual existence. If there isn't any of that we start to wonder about the point of "I". That finds an expression in the pursuit of valued "legacy". One wants to feel like he has made a contribution to the story of mankind. Having children isn't quite enough, apparently. In the case of the men who I term the "Christian empiricists" they also appear to have been obsessed with creating a lasting cultural inheritance. That is what great works try to do. They can be orchestrated. The goodness of the work may be mainly found in the fact that it binds and that it gives a sense of belonging. When it was dangerous to have certain scientific views it was beneficial for there to be identifiable symbols for those who wanted to still be Christians and who were willing to alter the beliefs to be in line with the observations. The atheists would not have been so interested in that. How Christian was Bacon? Was he Christian enough to please Rawley and the other members of the Great Council (Magnum Concilium)? Is there something in Bacon's legacy that had to be whitewashed to preserve the interests of the religious establishment? Why is it that so many vocal Baconians are of a religious bent? I have seen very few who are purely scientific or atheistic. There's a love for Bacon that seems to come out of an already existing religious community with deep ties to monarchy. I can't help but feel that Bacon is a symbol for them, and that bringing in Shakespeare solidifies the faction. In my heart of hearts I have always read Shakespeare thinking he was an impish scoundrel and an atheist. If Shakespeare is Bacon then that saves the works from being the product of a heathen. That's just a feeling, and I give not real weight to feelings,

That would would mean there's nothing special to have it be anywhere you looked. It could be worse. Ed DeVere could be there in every one too. Examining that possibility can explain away some apophenia. Keep in mind that if you ever came across a page 33 that had no B A CON in it you'd not think that was abnormal, and you'd probably not think of signaling out that the non occurrence had any meaning. When we look to confirm things we find things. When Peter Amundsen went looking for things associated with 53 he had an eye out for identifying certain things related to triangles, Rosy, Cross, RC and G. If my memory serves me well, I think he even found a B A CON occurrence. CON word occurrences in full pages may be quite common, so we do not instinctively know if one on a page numbered 53 is "special". What we do know of the human mind is that it is capable of finding patterns whether they were intended to be there or not. Determining if they were placed there or not is and what they mean is actually the hard part. Observing something is not doing any heavy lifting. If Bacon was so oblivious to the nature of things appearing randomly he could, presumably, have arranged for B A CON to appear somewhere. To his horror it may not be statistically significant. That means no clear signaling. One would have to assume that the signaling, if it existed, was more robust and that it also offered some decipherable aspect. Have you considered that there may be in these instances a very real cipher in the text there? It would be one where there would be no possibility of misinterpretation or subjectivity. By Bacon's own thinking, expressed in his own writing, the finding of the cipher is supposed to be difficult and the deciphering of it is supposed to be possible.

Cornelii Giselberti Plempii Amsterodamum monogrammon https://archive.org/details/corneliigiselber00plem/page/122/mode/2up So nice to look at Plempii's Emblems again. Surreal in the best sense. Here is one for the Phoenixes. A throne-commode? Printers at work: The self and the other... Lord Verulam? The real author will ascend and the mask will fall.