Jump to content

Lawrence Gerald

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lawrence Gerald

  1. I was going to comment that at least the Oxies who made this grumpy and inaccurate video about Bacon back on May 22nd were smart enough not to post it on youtube, but now all bets are off as they couldn't help themselves and posted it on June 20th. I thought the comments made in the comments section during their broadcast would have provided them with something to think about and reconsider how little they know about Bacon. But of course I underestimated how some Oxies prefer to regale in their ignorance then actually have an advancement of learning. Send in some comments on their youtube page if inclined.......
  2. It was clear that their shallow understanding of Bacon and Elizabethan history was based on Alan Stewart & Lisa Jardine's hack job, "Hostage to Fortune." aka Hostile to Truth. See Mather Walker's Book Review https://sirbacon.org/jardine.htm
  3. "There have been only two geniuses in the world, Willie Mays and Willie Shakespeare. But, darling, I think you'd better put Shakespeare first." Tallulah Bankhead
  4. p.95 From the Book by A. Phoenix : The Six So-Called Signatures of William Shakspere of Stratford and 'Hand D' in the Manuscript of the Shakespeare Play Sir Thomas More Written by Francis Bacon. THE ALLEGED HANDS/SCRIBES/COPYISTS IN THE SIR THOMAS MORE MANUSCRIPT "These writings can be classified into four categories: first, texts that Bacon wrote but not for public consumption; second, texts Bacon wrote to be circulated with his name; third, texts Bacon intended to circulate anonymously; and fourth, texts that were intended to circulate under another’s name." [Alan Stewart with Harriet Knight, eds., The Oxford Francis Bacon: Early Writings 1584- 1596 (Oxford Clarendon Press, 2012), p. xxviii] "So desiring you to be good to concealed poets." [Letter from Bacon to Sir John Davies dated 1603; Spedding, Letters and Life, III, p. 65] "As for my Essays, and some other particulars of that nature, I count them but as the recreations of my other studies, and in that sort purpose to continue them; though I am not ignorant that those kind of writings would, with less pains and embracement (perhaps), yield more lustre and reputation to my name, than those which I have in hand." [A letter from Bacon to Lancelot Andrewes, 1622; Spedding, Letters and Life, VII, p. 374] "For myself…I may truly say that both in this present work, and in those I intended to publish hereafter, I often advisedly and deliberately throw aside the dignity of my name and wit (if such a thing be) in my endeavour to advance human interests." [Francis Bacon, De Augmentis Scientiarum, 1623; Spedding, Works, V, p. 4]
  5. A NEW BOOK FROM A PHOENIX The Six So-Called Signatures of William Shakspere of Stratford and ‘Hand D’ in the Manuscript of the Shakespeare Play Sir Thomas More Written by Francis Bacon It's now time for Stratford and all Stratfordians to raise the white flag and surrender thanks to this explosive expose by the A. P. Team.
  6. Steve Fuller, "The Prophetic Bacon: Response to Garber," Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, Volume 58, Issue 3, 2021. DOI https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202158345 "A mark of Bacon's long-term influence is that his conception of knowledge makes more sense now than it did to his contemporaries," he said. "Most of Bacon's contemporaries regarded knowledge as a state of mind, namely, one aligned with reality, which typically bore some clear relationship to God as the creator. A secular version of this idea is still taken for granted by philosophers." "In contrast, Bacon believed that knowledge was basically something produced--say, in a laboratory as the result of an experiment," he added. "In this conception, the scientist does not possess knowledge as a state of his or her own mind, but as something external to the scientist's mind. Words like 'finding', 'discovery,' and 'invention' capture this rather objectified conception of knowledge." "Moreover, unlike the authority granted to ancient and holy books, which are also arguably 'objectified knowledge,' Bacon stressed that one should be able to produce the knowledge for oneself," Fuller said. "Hence the great stress he placed on the idea of a 'scientific method.'" Fuller concludes with his argument for Bacon as a prophet. "
  7. A. Phoenix, The 1623 Shakespeare First Folio: A Baconian-Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Illusion (2023), pp. 306-8 & 399n. 834. https://www.academia.edu/103102421/The_1623_Shakespeare_First_Folio_A_Baconian_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Illusion 403 pages of Meticulous Bliss!
  8. Good Call AP! You probably would have to show up in a Hazmat suit
  9. Thanks to Kate for giving me the heads up on this very informative video by Aleix Galvany who has used sirbacon.org as a resource referring to Dodd's Masonic Alpha-Bet Code and Francis Carr's book, Who Wrote Don Quixote? See : Also Aleix mentions a book Masonic Symbolism in Shakespeare by Robert Clegg and William McDaniel Anyone familiar with this book?
  10. https://www.folger.edu/research/use-the-library/#preparing-for-your-visit If you were to do research at the Folger Library in Washington D.C. which books would you request to call up?
  11. https://www.manturing.net/manufacturing-blog/2019/4/30/manchester-bees-spiders-and-ants The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes a middle course: it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and of the field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own. Francis Bacon, around 1620.
  12. The Lie said to the Truth, "Let's take a bath together, the well water is very nice." The Truth, still suspicious, tested the water and found out it really was nice. So they got naked and bathed. But suddenly, the Lie leapt out of the water and fled, wearing the clothes of the Truth. The Truth, furious, climbed out of the well to get her clothes back. But the World, upon seeing the naked Truth, looked away, with anger and contempt. Poor Truth returned to the well and disappeared forever, hiding her shame. Since then, the Lie runs around the world, dressed as the Truth, and society is very happy..... because the world has no desire to know the naked Truth.
  13. Well its safe to say last night at the Blue Boar Tavern aka "Grumpy's," more foam was served than beer. Having Oxfordians inform us who Francis Bacon was is like asking Vladimir Putin to talk about the benefits of NATO.
  14. Join us live TODAY, Wednesday 5/22 at 8pm E / 5pm P for Who Are Those Guys: Marlowe and Bacon, and Was One of Them Shakespeare? Blue Boar Tavern regulars Bonner Cutting, Dorothea Dickerman, Alex McNeil, Phoebe Nir and special guest bartender, Tom Woosnam, will discuss two more fascinating Elizabethan personalities as part of the series “Who Are Those Guys?” Poet, playwright, translator and suspected government spy, Christopher Marlowe lived large swaths of his life deeply hidden in the shadows. Francis Bacon, philosopher, lawyer and statesman, is considered today to be one of the founders of the scientific method of inquiry. Both of these accomplished men have been put forth by their supporters as the hidden face behind the pseudonym “William Shakespeare” and both were well known to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Join the Blue Boar Tavern discussion on how their lives wove in and out of his. We hope to see you there! Can’t make this episode live? We have you covered! Blue Boar Tavern replays get posted to our Youtube Channel and website for you to watch for the first time or again and again! BLUE BOAR TAVERN LIVE When: Wednesday, May 22 at 8 PM Eastern / 5 PM Pacific How to join: No need to register, simply click on the following link up to 5 minutes before the start https://us06web.zoom.us/j/96489269271?pwd=ZElZcWlSbVd1dituOURITGxaTlZHZz09 Passcode: 696360 International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/khfeXMRd1 Zoom Download https://zoom.us/download
  15. Congratulations to Christina for having her insightful foreword added to the new 2024 edition of The Bacon Shakespeare Question 1998 Edition from the Table of Contents https://sirbacon.org/cockburn.htm
  16. Customer Review Edwin R. Larson 2.0 out of 5 stars McShakespeare Reviewed in the United States on May 9, 2010 https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RAJ2KUV7TWQTZ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B003DXPTRA#RAJ2KUV7TWQTZ Verified Purchase On reading the prologue of Will Contested I prepared myself for truly researched history of the Shakespeare controversy. The last paragraph is a statement about the proper treatment of this tough subject but between the prologue and the last paragraph something else happened, James Shapiro succeeded in writing an interesting book, informative in many ways, though lacking thoroughness. Only Dr Shapiro knows why he left out information but it is not hard to guess. I will describe later. The dominant motive behind Will Contested was to make a stunning argument for the Shakespeare authorship and deliver it with shock and awe. Literary or military shock and awe is neither without fire power. The Stratford on Avon Shakespeare man regardless the colorful scenario Dr Shapiro places him is as flat an Ayn Rand character (Ayn Rand is a great writer). One cannot create a three-dimensional character when the aim is a factual biography of a fictional character as its basis. A biography can be fictionalized but not the other way around. Creating a fictional character who breaths and bleeds could be wonderful read but then old school scholars would have to give up the fantasy. However, a good fictional story would be better than what we have now. Stephen Greenblatt tried to find Shakespeare's character in the plays in Will in the World. After exhaustive research and painstaking analysis, and with clear devotion Dr Shapiro is apparently still perplexed by the doubters. I think he wonders why everyone isn't as passionate about his opinion as he is. This kind of fervor is effective in the classroom and with loyal followers but not for those who want the complete commonsense story. The doubters, for him, are like pesky mosquitoes for which one merely puts up netting to keep them out. Dr Shapiro must be perplexed by the non-scholars who examine the same material as he and then arrive at the opposite conclusion. This is because the theories formulated in isolation without the vigor of testing and open examination makes them seem right. "Our Shakespeare" is a phrase that suggests the plays are mine and not yours. It seems that much more is possible in the ivory towers than the real world. Who of those near him is going to tell him there are other conclusions. There is a rather nasty innuendo going about that the doubters discriminate against the possibility that a poor commoner could be a creative genius. To be sure the author was a genius. The innuendo is a self gratifying smoke screen intended to put the doubters on the defensive and conceal the bigotry or self serving interests about a genius that really existed. The Shakespeare myth is a belief in miracles, not genius. Common sense, not Santa Clause is what we need. Dr Shapiro believes that good fiction does not have to be autobiographical. I think he reads to much Steven King because the Shakespeare author would be as powerful in a good way as Kings monsters are in a bad way. Keep in mind that England's class system is rock solid and protecting ones fiefdom was often a class struggle. The history of dogma is history itself and Dr Shapiro by being so very sure of his thinking allies himself with the history of the powerful (who write the histories). The only winner here is confusion. Prior to the internet Shakespearean fought successfully to keep their story pure simply by ignoring information. Now they wage a strange war. It is a war against information so that the only safe haven for the Shakespeare myth is in the disinterest of the public, the bias of Shakespeare fans , the big cottage industry and financial interest of book producers. I don't want to put anyone out of a job. I only want the truth. When the truth is accepted there will be tons of money to be made by many people. Contested Will is condescending to some great thinkers in literature and psychology. Can one can claim to be a better judge of human nature than for example; Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud without risking the appearance of arrogance. Dr Shapiro arrogantly capitalizes on and attacks apparent character flaws that, to him, represents the flaw in the reasoning behind doubting. Dr Shapiro treads on thin ice in highlighting the Della Bacon story considering the prejudices against women and the use of psychiatry in the suppression of dissenters. The most troubling comment Dr Shapiro makes is generalizing about Freud Freud's claims, "like those of many others, it reveals more about the skeptic than it does about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays." Dr Shapiro applies this attitude to every example. I hope that attitude is never applied to you. It is an odd conclusion that since main stream publishers still accept and publish the same Shakespeare story decade after decade despite the information to the contrary the main stream story must be true. The true story behind the Shakespeare controversy is about power and influence. Please don't tell me that publishers are guided by the virtuous vision of the truth and the education of their readership. They will publish it if it makes money and they aren't sued. I need not press this point. Dr Shapiro's laughter at the deification of Shakespeare is interesting because deification is exactly what he does by adhering dogmatically to one conclusion. He finds the flaws in others that he is guilty of. It's obvious to any one that Shakspur is the author if you ignore and dismiss at whim. If Dr Shapiro writes a novel equal to Huckleberry Finn I will listen to him intently or if he makes a contribution to psychology that shapes a century of self-knowledge I will be his disciple. Or if he goes head to head with Frederick Nietzsche I will wear the Shakespeare mask. In the book I learned that Shakespeare had reached deity status in England at the same time Stratford-on-Avon became a sell-able item. Here-in is the cause of the controversy. Religion and profit make for ruthless and blind bed fellows. Here is a fun tid-bit. Go get your King James Bible and turn to Psalms 46 and count 46 words down and then go to the last word and count up 46 words. I will wait while you do that. .... Interesting, huh. There have been no claims that Shakespeare wrote the Bible. Why? Contested Will is a good title because a contest of wills is exactly what we have. If the old school literary critics through the years were also our scientists we would still be living in caves. I was surprised to read that Dr Shapiro felt compelled to bring up intellectual suppression in universities. He claims to be unaware of academic suppression but it has been a reality ever since there were teachers and students. Suppression can be overt or subtle and Dr Shapiro would be unaware of it unless maybe he was cooperative without question or he is part of the problem. In fact Contested Will gives a nice history of academic suppression by the examination of the Shakespeare controversy. More than in other Shakespeare promotion books, Contested Will seems to heavily emphasize the enormous number of candidates for authorship with more flocking in daily. Why stress that idea except to suggest "Our Shakespeare" is distinctly separate from all the wannabes and don't mess with my stuff. Avoidance of common sense. If reading Contested Will was my introduction to the controversy, I would have wanted to know that the Stratford on Avon man died in 1616 and the 1623 folio was published in 1623(I know). Do you see a problem with the math? Case closed? Not. Shakespeare's friends saved the plays for publication posthumously? Really? Why? Were the English at that time in history any were different from now? Those friends would have had the market and become rich by selling the portfolio. Human nature has not changed since Cro-Magnon. Common sense says the author was still alive in 1623. People were different from people today? Ridiculous. Life was harder then but people were no different. If they were different then Shakespeare would be unrecognizable and go unnoticed. If Dr Shapiro's Elizabethan England is different he cannot claim to know how Shakespeare thinks. He wants us to believe they were different and then explains his opinion and reasoning that assumes the cultures are the same. Dr Shapiro is not logical. "Shakespeare imagined it all(?)" is an astounding statement and if I didn't know he was a scholar I would assume he was an idiot. It is Dr Shapiro who has the enormous imagination but his claim is transparently self serving: Shakespeare is who I say he is. In addition, how is it that information about an event that happened after 1616 appeared in the 1623 plays? What does common sense say? Answer: The author was alive and writing in 1623 and Shakespeare is a myth. How is it that the Oxford people think that even though DeVere, who had no friends and died in 16o4 wrote the plays: Answer: DeVere is more of myth than Shakspur. At least the Marlow people claim he didn't die but continued to write somewhere else. The Stratfordians just ignore everyone but themselves. It is moot what the Oxfordians say because De Vere died Dr Shapiro makes a reference to Homer which I think means: If you reject Shakespeare you have to give up Homer too? Or was it that if you accept Pete Rose into the hall of fame you must accept Shoeless Joe Jackson? Dr Shapiro confuses me on this point. Did Dr Shapiro mention the Promus? The Promus was Francis Bacon's notebook that contain references to the plays and actual lines from the plays? Not a peep from the Stratfordian but he is not alone. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed none mentioned the Promus. Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name. Did Dr Shapiro mention the Northumberland manuscript, a possession of Francis Bacon that has the name, Mr Francis William Shakespeare written on the front? No. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed one mentioned the Northumberland Manuscript but failed to mention Bacon. A rather glaring omission. Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name. Does it matter that Ben Jonson was equally glowing with Shakespeare and Bacon but wrote to Bacon about the good times together: "And oh, the men," he said. Ben knew both men, right? Shakespeare was gay.Why wouldn't Ben talk about the men with Shakespeare? I'm not going to answer that one for you. I could offer you many good concrete examples of Shakespeare existing through Francis Bacon but the information is available on the internet and doesn't take much digging to find it. I do not aim to squash the pleasures of "mystery" because by recognizing the author we would be catapulted into literary blissful shock and awe. I was interested to read a quote from Sigmund Freud although Freud believed in DeVere. "No single intelligence could have encompassed such a literary and philosophical range; if Bacon had written the plays along with his great philosophical works, he, would have been the most powerful brain the world has ever produced." Well, it looks like that's what we have here. What a story. Critics like James Shapiro find the old school packaged Shakespeare story charming because they find their own spin about the plays charming. The story they have fed the public for centuries is no different than the prepackaged assembly line stereotyped selling of name brands. Stratfordian means McShakespeare. Edwin R. Larson 5.0 out of 5 stars A Breakthrough Reviewed in the United States on December 24, 2009 Verified Purchase Thank you Virginia Fellows. When there is an established body of knowledge with supporting institutions supplied by a steady flow of new talent that demonstrates, teaches and promotes an industry based on that body of knowledge change is not only unlikely it is resisted. Virginia Fellows and her publisher has crossed the line, has taken up the banner with a book that tells the most incredible and dramatic story that Dan Brown couldn't rival. She has challenged the Queens authority to tell the truth to open the private life of Sir Francis Bacon a genius for the ages. Superficially it hard to appreciate appreciate the significance of her well written and magnificently poignant biography that has been suppressed for 400 years. A wealth of knowledge has been available for well over 100 years about his life and writings but was not easily accessed until the internet. Many great authors have come and gone during that time but Virginia Fellows has been the one to roast the sacred cow of literature. She captures the emotional wars Francis Bacon must have waged within himself about his duty, needs and seeming arbitrary restraints and has brought him into the light of day after centuries of entombment by bias and pedagogy. You might think the authorship controversy is a religious war the way mud is slung. Gratefully, Virginia Fellows would have none of that. The Shakespeare Code is a passionate biography but also is an honest appraisal of a prominant and complicated man. Even though change is the only thing that doesn't change people fear change and institutions not only loath change but ignore it unless realistically threatened. Take American football, for example, There was the money and interest in new football teams in the major cities but for many years the National Football League refused expansion. Then the rival American football League was formed in 1960 which grew and soon played on an equal par with the NFL resulting in a championship game. NFL was forced to recognize the power of the AFC and merged with it. Examples like this could fill volumes, but the volume I want to fill is about the Bacon-Shakespeare problem. My amazement and astonishment that "Baconian spear-shaking" hasn't exploded on the literary scene decades ago has made me suspicious of censorship in higher institutions of learning. That;'s one reason "The Shakespeare Code" is a breath of fresh air. They are a lot of people involved in the Stratfordian bureaucracy but no one has wanted to challenge from within until now. Dominant Stratfordian-ism is unfortunate but understandable if you understand human nature and Virginia Fellows does. The average Stratfordian, I believe, loves the truth as much as the next person but to truly wade into the vastness that is Bacon they turn to the shiny Shakespeare Santa. Where-as William Shakespeare has mountains nay worlds of warm retoric, until now, the Bacon camp had offered the cold raw evidence and that's just about it. The average Shakespeare fan couldn't jump into an abyss without a bungi chord. Now we have a safety net to compete with Santa. "The Shakespeare Code" is a break-through biography because Virginia Fellows uses ALL the relevant and available information to create a coherent, new, and exciting biography of the man behind the Shakespeare mask. We need more people like Fellows to put their pen where their mouth is and analyze the plays from a Bacon point of view. We need more interest in Bacon-as-Shakespeare because I believe the staleness of the current Shakespeare standards will continue the marginalization of Shakespeare and literature. I fear Shakespeare will slowly fade away but not if Virginia has anything to do with it. For the public and Hollywood to ignore the incredible drama that went on in the last Tudor family shows true disinterest. For the publishers of textbooks to ignore the Northumberland Manuscript as well as the plain logic of Twain and others shows true disinterest. That there is a controversy at all shows true disinterest because of the lack of knowledge of the simple fact that for instance, Shagspur died to soon. DeVeres died way too soon and shouldn't be an after thought. That there is an abundance of information connecting Francis Bacon with the plays shows true disinterest. For a biographies filled with few facts and little relevant information and an abundance of distortion and for one to be considered a Pulitzer Prize finalist shows true disinterest. Education? In school we were introduced to the plays and the sonnets using old worn out concepts but did we care if we were taught falsely? It doesn't appear to be. Concerning the Sonnets, My son's teacher said to formulate his own interpretations. What else is she going to say? The Shakespeare plays are a must for every library but who reads them? Not many. Virginia Fellows aims to change all that. I believe the disinterest is caused not by the author but how the information has been handled. The Queen is dead. Long live a new Queen. Almost every American kid has played soccer but Americans don't watch soccer for the lack of scoring. The average educated American thinks Shakespeare is great as long as he/she doesn't have to read it because it's tedious and lacks scoring. Virginia Fellow scores. She has started the AFC of literature with a competitive product wthat may be the start of a new league, one that will score points and will make lots of money for the industrious. The NFL of Stratford will be forced to merge and then the Super bowl of Literature, Science and Art will result for everyone's benefit. The riches Virginia Fellows has uncovered is unfathomable and I hope many more of her books are forthcoming. Just thinking about it makes me hungry for a B.L.T.E. (Bacon, Leicester, Elizabeth Tudor and Essex - the last Tudor family).
  17. Dear reader, The original “Don Quixote” is an English book. The Spanish translations appeared in 1605 and 1615, much earlier than the original English publications in 1612 and 1620. Between these two periods, in 1614, a “false” Don Quixote was published under the name Avellaneda. The original English text was never released. Francis Bacon was the brain behind the three books of Don Quixote; he wrote the part of the hero. Ben Jonson took on the role of Sancho Panza, John Donne wrote the poems, “the two friends” Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher were assigned the task of writing loose stories. These authors made use of the library owned by Robert Cotton. The printer, William Stansby, inserted concealed clues into the text, in order for the reader to be able to draw conclusions… The Spanish translations were carried out by Thomas Shelton (DQI + DQII) and James Mabbe (the “bogus” DQ). Miguel de Cervantes was just a poor Spanish writer who had sold his name to survive. He had told his life-story to the English, so that it could be processed into the DQ. Ten people, sworn to secrecy about their collaboration in the writing of Don Quixote. Now in this book, after four hundred years, clarity is given as to the “who”, “what” and “why” of all this secrecy. If you are interested in reading my book (Digital or paperback) You can order “The Deciphering of the Don Quixote & the Unmasking of Avellaneda” isbn 9789080462748 by sending an email to : generalfeatures@home.nl Jettie H. van den Boom Geleen, Nederland
  18. Stratfordianism & Oxfordianism are Textbook Ornaments of Bacon's Four Idols. Great job A.P. in calling out the cowards and pulverizing them into dust.
  19. anyone want to join in and support A.P who is showing up the Stratfordian group known as "Oxfraud" after posting The 6 Primary Documents confirming Bacon is Shakespeare https://www.facebook.com/groups/oxfraud/posts/2702486646599490/?comment_id=2702730733241748&reply_comment_id=2702785026569652&notif_id=1713457125565350&notif_t=group_threaded_comment_reply
  20. London Library accused of hosting ‘anti-intellectual conspiracy theory’ that Shakespeare was a woman The institution is running a panel discussion with Elizabeth Winkler, the author of ‘Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies’ By Ewan Somerville ( has taken the uneducated hubris slant on the authorship) https://archive.ph/2024.04.13-150153/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/13/london-library-accused-hosting-anti-intellectual-conspiracy/
  • Create New...