RoyalCraftiness

I suppose we could argue that 222/365=0.61 is an attempt to get to the golden mean of the year, so again visiting Plato's idea of the divided line which delineates between things under the Sun and under the influence of the "divine luminosity". It would do so while being in 2:1 proportion with 111 which is of course Agrippa's magic square constant for the Sun. If we took it for a frequency we would have one half of A4, so an octave below it. It's of course related to 666 and 444 by 3:2, the Pythagorean harmonic. Not too surprisingly, we can observe how close that is to the suggestion of the coordinates 44.4N and 66.6 W. When I mentioned Bacon had good reason to suggest this coordinate pairing if he wanted to stay true to some alchemical ideas it's along these lines of identifying numbers with high coincidence in the "Opera Omnia". Where I think we can get further insight is how this relates to eclipses. You can observe 222 synodic months between eclipses in the Saros cycle. The next month (the 223rd) will coincide with the next eclipse, so it becomes a tool to forecast them. The coming together of the Earth, Sun and moon in the syzygy is of high alchemical importance. The first observers of the Saros cycle eclipses were the Chaldeans in Babylonian times. It is rather humbling to think they had figured this out, but in fact it is quite easy to do if you do maths with continued fractions like they were prone to doing. it comes out of the ratio 484/223=2.1704 where 223 is synodic months and 484 is draconic months. Whenever you get an integer number of draconic and synodic months which work out to 2.1704 you will have an eclipse. This is fact an approximation which has been better refined, but it works fine in the small enough time scales (from one eclipse to the next few occurrences). Bacon's possible interest in the Saros cycle eclipse of 1651 would have been informed by this sort of very basic algebra. It's why the magi were eclipse chasers, among other things. Their ability to predict them gave them quite a reputation. Add to that all the meaning that was added to the events in the cases where they would use them to suggest the heavens were announcing things or confirming them and you have a recipe for having that appear like magic to mere mortals.

BTW, I don't know if you noticed but the work by Kunrath is 222 pages long. On page 180 you will find the last of the 365 entries in the 7th of his arguments. It's not uncommon for these esoteric works to number themselves symbolically. Bacon/Rawley did it in Sylva Sylvarum. There's a tradition in doing this that you can find in even Lewis Carroll, Thomas C. Haliburton or Herge. Your page numbering is a place where a symbolism can be riding/hiding. You'd have to have a nose for it to ever be tipped off in that direction. Its one of the places I first look when I consider a work on the esoteric.

I also came across that suggestion before. As with all suggestion it is our duty to not unconditionally accept them, less we be caught up in a belief. German Rosicrucianism had high esteem for Bacon, but he had much more careful words about it. He liked some of it and didn't like other parts of it so much. If Maier did in fact go to England and confer the title of Imperator to Bacon this is something that originates as praise in Germany and it is symbolic. Rosy Cross is similar sounding enough for many to think they are one and the same. I suspect there isn't one timeline with one main branch here. It is not the only example of some in a group who have made efforts to appropriate themselves with Bacon as a father figure by publicly calling him that or exalting him. It is up to us to determine if Bacon is the one making a similar claim. Some modern Freemasons have made that claim about Bacon's role in speculative Freemasonry. We have to consider whether Bacon would have said these things about himself. If Bacon has strong connections with the German Rosicrucians it would probably mean he had strong ties with Robert Fludd. You can look to see if you can find evidence of that. If we take the origin legends of Freemasonry as an example there are some different ones in almost all places where you find it. In France there are stories that go back to the Knights Templar, in Germany there are some which go through Germanic currents of History, in England there are some that go through York and the royal court, in Scotland you might discover legends that go back to Egypt and King Solomon and in America later there are sources that have it all beginning with Bacon. How can it be so different if all are the same? Well, I think it may help to think as these things as franchises where the franchisees are often men who favor one version of the unknown story over any other. Rosicrucianism is a philosophical current. Anyone anywhere could have found appeal in it. It was in fact quite faddish, so at the height of it I suspect one would have wanted to identify with it for its progressive/humanist nature. I'm not so sure anyone had to sign up with a headquarters in Germany to open up a franchise. It is enough for one to operate within this philosophy. In truth Rosicrucianism flowed through Germany into other places. The roots of it are elsewhere to the East in something not called Rosicrucianism. I am not prone to suggest it brewed up from the West of Europe or out of Bacon's kitchen. Something there could have sprouted based in what had been written in Italy. The reason why all this is tied to the Rose and the Cross may or may not be discoverable. Will it mean the same thing to all people? Probably not. There are cultural ties in this. There is probably a lot of nuance, and that makes it easy for people to not agree with generalizations. When historians say there is no evidence for this or that we must always take from it that there is no clear evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is always some evidence for things based on possibilities. You can find people clinging to possibilities in many places. To their benefit is the fact that it is just as hard to disprove their claims. When things are unfalsifiable until the suggestion is proven right we have no choice but to coexist with these suggestions. I'm not so sure the proof is going to be found reading books written by third parties to events which must remain unknown to them. It is a bit like trying to find the evidence for the truth in the Bible stories. Who would you turn to, and won't you find an opposing view somewhere else? How do we know things when we can't even trust our senses in the present? Never short sell the fact that there are magicians tying to get you to unconditionally accept their suggestions at all turns. Ultimately it must reside in you, and you should not be making the work to convince yourself either. I think it is about seeing the breadth of the possibilities and seeing how it is that many opinions can come from it. Know the landscape of what is suggested. In the end there will still be stars turning in the sky above your head if you want to find your bearings.

Well, that was fun. He keeps suggesting that Dee's symbol is being used, but it is not quite the Monas depicted by Dee.

That looks interesting. He's pointing to the Tetractys made up of the tetragrammaton symbols which sum to 72 and have the right side totaling 40 (like the Greek one). Jacob Boehme called this the flaming Trigon. It's picture here: Tetragrammaton-Tetractys - Tetractys - Wikipedia. It has a very relevant symbolism related to the precession cycle. 25920 years is divisible by 72. It's 360, that number which the sexagesimal numbering system is made to cater to so nicely. Go back far enough and you' ll find the year treated as 360 days out of convenience. 72 is also the number of solar years for the axial tilt plane to precess one degree (of 360 in a cycle). That is something which was observed in Antiquity. 72 was not a number chosen arbitrarily.

I second all of this. What we have as early empirical knowledge is almost all related to astronomical observation, and this is largely due to the fact that many of the Western cultures are coming out of the same group of people, nomads/travellers, who were originally star observers. The earliest religions were astronomical cults. We used our ability to anthropomorphize to craft stories. The number of lunations in a year is more than 12. More often than not there will be 13. The moon and Sun cycles are not in phase and it takes 33 years almost exactly for them to come back in phase (for new moon to realign with new year, for example). The Triple Tau is the emblem of the Holy Royal Arch, which some may know from Masonic references to it. You will get Christianized interpretations of the symbolism. For example, the concealed fourth T is the one which is upside down and defined by the other three. Some sources will attribute that to the cross St Peter was crucified on which he allegedly requested be upside down because he felt unworthy of dying like Christ. As is often the case, things that are not Christianized in 400AD got Christianized. A lot of this symbolism has roots in the Kabbalah which is itself a system of tying together natural observations in relationships using number which exploits patterns. In the Reformation period when the Protestant Church reestablished ties with the Jews in Europe we start to get what is called the Christianized Kabbalah appearing as more mainstream. It's especially prevalent in Germany where Jewish mysticism takes off and influences German mysticism greatly. Let's just say there's a renewed interest in the old Testament and the end Times prophecies at this time. It's a sort of return to what is predating the Church of Rome (the point of all this Reformation). 40 is the number eclipse seasons in the Ancient Metonic eclipse cycle. It is also the number of weeks in the human gestation period. This coming together of Sun and moon was seen as the main creative force. The 4th decad is the one which was associated with the Sumerian God Enki who as the "Good Lord of the Earth". He was so beloved that an evolution of him was eventually taken as the only one and true God by other groups. A thread can be woven through many aspects of this which would involve TT. There is no discounting the fact that TT may have been seen by some as a representation of pi either (irrational and infinite like phi) We can take inspiration in many areas. Bacon did considerable work to consider the "wisdom of the ancients". I like to think he was actively trying to detect what was worth saving and how we could possibly know what that was with the use of reason. The alchemists were certainly fishing from the Hermetic tradition, and there was no such thing as Christian surgeons. You could not go around cutting up corpses and writing books about that...a real problem for the accumulation of knowledge. The solar cross is a natural phenomena which predates Christianity. It's a result of diffraction (an optical phenomena). It is seen in "Sun dogs". Sun dog - Wikipedia. When we hit our heads and see stars they tend to branch off in 4 that way too. One can only imagine that the cross and the light were soon paired as symbols. And yes, the Sun was the original God. He returned to being God with the German philosopher Jacob Boehme. That would have made Christ a light being, and that was more than accommodated by that way of thinking. The Greeks saw it that way too. Chrysos is from the old root meaning emanating of golden light. You see Christ with a golden halo for a reason. A lot can be said about the history of number. What we have done in incorporating a meaning to numbers is truly fascinating. It's hard to believe that we were using a base 60 system 5000 years ago because it fit so well with the number 360. It seems so counterintuitive to us, but we still have MANY relics of that in our world. There's also a mathematical idea behind the cross which has to do with the distribution of Pythagorean triples, but it is doubtful that the observation of this was very early. I will include it because I think it is elegant, and it shows how we can take symbols from just about anywhere. Nature conspires to give us the same reoccurring patterns. It can make it look like we were aware of things much earlier than we were.

Rob and I have been talking about it privately for a while now. I think I first used it to show how 33 was being suggested with Sun and moon in the Hermetic disciplines, a thing you also highlighted. Heinrich Kunrath is the inspiration for the main character, Jonas Kunrath, in the German Netflix series "Dark"--read as "the Ark". The tattoo worn by one of the characters in that story is the depiction of the mountain that represents the Emerald tablet of Thoth. You have it shown in your post with all the illustrations which are included in this work. Kunrath is one of those "bright lights" from German Saxony that you' ll find reference to. He was a disciple to an alchemist I studied well when I was in University--Paracelsus. He's in the tradition of German Surgeons, like Michael Maier, who trained and influenced men like Robert Fludd. He was also a noted Kabbalist. Lots in common with John Dee with him. He is credited with being the philosophical bridge between Dee and Rosicruciansim. It makes him someone Bacon would have likely known of.

The symbol in the middle is likely a Gordian knot. Think of it as the symbol for Omnia. The R "O" S are sandwiched in between a more concealed C and S suggestion. You' ll also notice the large stylized R before it to the left for RC. The circular depiction what can be though of as the face of a compass or of a clock. The placement of the Ts in the text around it is not arbitrary. Two of them are opposite and on either end of a line going through the center. We can detect that a preferential spacing of letters is shown. The "crossing" of the Tees has something to say in this image, in my opinion.

The scene is layers deep in symbolism. This sort of representation of characters with funny animals is something that is seen in the Italian Renaissance. The dragon is carrying a pair of spectacles which are apparently lensing some of his wisdom back down onto the gentlemen in question, one of who is also wearing glasses and carrying a book which he is writing in. That character is also carrying a handbag of the sort we see the Gods carrying in the early Proto Indo European culture's depiction of them. The other one is apparently keeping the bugs (pictured as heresy) at bay and maybe putting out the flames which are burning around the natural world's descriptions on the left (the elements ignited by the Sun and moon's actions?). The inscription appears to refer to keeping the untruths at bay with song (carmina). The gentleman to the right has A.B.H IC (I0?) at the bottom of his coat. Anthony Bacon? That would be funny. Might be related to abhi from the old root for "of both ways". Perhaps these represent ambassadors, a word which uses that root. The point is probably to show something like a divine comedy.

From the time of Plato until the modern age of science a person's Liberal Arts education would have been rooted in the Trivium and the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, music and astronomy). Quadrivium - Wikipedia. You can rest assured that Bacon was well equipped in these areas if you had any doubts. Last time I looked 4x13 was 52. 13 comes naturally out of the fact we have settled on 4 seasons and 52 weeks in a year. You' ll find that this is true of cards and suits in a deck of cards which follow in the same fashion. In music it takes 13 frequencies to express 12 musical intervals. I can go on if you want more. As far as the stars go, cosmology was dominated by the work of Claudius Ptolemy for over a thousand years. His "Almalgest" meaning "The Magesti" was also called "Syntaxis Mathematica" in Latin. As it happens the work is in 13 volumes. Bacon's understanding of cosmology is not much different than Ptolemy's was. In fact, it is just as geometrically based as it ever was. Theology, not to be left out, had to also incorporate 13 into its stories to reflect the fact there were 13 stops in a 26000 year precession cycle made up of 12 astrological ages. The thirteen are accounted for by a unit of 12 apostles and 1 teacher, a herald, in the Christian stories. Christ was the herald of the age Pisces which began at the start of the common era. Part of his role was to define the Philosophy of the age, and that was to reflect the stoicism prevalent with the Alexandrian writers of the day. The story of number is the story of 1,2,3 and 4 from when they were mere mere dots and place holders. They account for the decad of Antiquity. It all started with a dot, in the same way Euclidian geometry did. The Roman era Hermetic knowledge symbolized itself by the sign of 4. Life and death, birth and rebirth and life and afterlife can and were symbolized by TT and TTTT and their equivalent 20 and 40. 40, especially, is the symbolic number most associated with a time period of transformation in the Bible. There is no one symbolism to account for all that T can mean, but you can work it back to basic ideas in the Proto Indo European group's cultures. The Twins are the male children of the Sky father. One must kill the other for the world to be created. This led to the idea than one life must be ended for another to arise. We must all be symbolically die and be born into better people. The twin Tees happen to be the root of the word "twenty" in English. T was ten when that was settled on. Tee can be Tau if you want. The twin Taus can be seen as Saint Anthony and Saint Paul, and they were. T.T. was how the very influential Jacob Boehme sometimes signed his work. That had a meaning of Teutonic Theosopher. Would you have guessed that? It always takes some context clues to refine our suggestions. Anyone who will show up and claim to have discovered one meaning for TT when he encounters it is not understanding of the possibilities. Symbols, or occasions of them, don't work that way. We don't happen to know that there is any added symbolism riding with the T.T., but there are good reasons to suspect it because it reappears elsewhere often enough. A symbol does not map back to one meaning if we do start off thinking we need to consider one. It makes them rather flexible things. This also makes them exploitable to induce wonder and mystery if we dare to see one and think there is only one meaning to discover. If you poke around long enough you will get a real sense of what "wisdom of the ancients" is riding with the stories you are presented with in Bacon's use of symbols. Since words are made up of symbols and are themselves symbolic we are going to be dealing in layers of intent when using them. A very old way of dealing with word creation was to make the letters in words sum up to values desired, meaning the point of a word was to carry a symbolism based in arithmetic. Humans have what is called "symbolic culture". We deal with symbols all the time to express the language of our minds. It is very hard for me to tell you how I am thinking unless I can relay a bunch of symbols to you which you can use your decoding abilities to produce a likeness of the thinking in your brain with. It is fraught with danger even when we have a large vocabulary. We are never as clear as when we use numbers if you ask me. Bacon, by some accounts wasn't much of a poet, but he did try his hand at it (examples of his poetry exist that are nothing like Shakespeare). Some here have convinced themselves he had an alter ego, one of many, that was the greatest of poets. I don't dabble in that suggestion much. I like to consider Bacon in terms of Plato, Thales of Miletus, Pythagoras, Euclid--much more in empirical terms. He is more about those men than he is about Dee or Paracelsus, but he has no choice but to come out of the alchemical tradition. Bacon is a proto scientist in terms of what we call modern science. I think you will find that he gets called a polymath by a lot of people. His contributions are philosophical and in the are of statesmanship. That he has inherited from men like Plato. The height of al this science is to manage men and to organize the accumulation of knowledge to make it useful to all.

This combination of a crook and a diagonal appears with the monad paired in another symbol where it has the meaning of "existens ante elementa" or existence prior to the elements. That's not an unlikely thing to find put inside of the ouroboros.

HK uses the circle with the cross in it as the symbol for Earth (planetary body). Will have to look more into this as an idea. Kunrath was a disciple of Paracelsus and an influence on Dee. One would think we could find a reference to this somewhere. Dee has fire there, so maybe this is also an element.

One must go forth from 1,2 and 3. The fourth T is concealed in the the T.T. when that is taken to be in reference to the Triple Tau. One ought to also go forth and try and figure out what that means. In the symbolic emblem of the Triple Tau each Tau has it's orientation. This evokes the spatial idea of the cardinal points with and the importance of the tetrad in the material world (something we can also take to be an eclipse cycle of 4 consecutive total eclipses, because that is also what a tetrad refers to). Tetrads were known to exist from very early times. The idea is extended to the tetragrammaton in how to represent God's name. In the case of the one we keep being presented with, it is the fist occurrence of it in the Old Testament from Genesis 2-4 where the heavens and the Earth are created. 1,2 and 3 are all elegantly accounted for in 11, 12 and 13. If you went forth to the fourth that might be 14, but it could also be 10. The four would sum to fifty in the case of 14, and 100 would represent the first harmonic of it (in one octave ratio of 2:1). Bacon would have identified with both 50 and 100, because the fundamental relationship of the square of 10x10 is that it is made up of 2 rectangles capturing 50 units of area. The half square is the representation of the human life which is only going to be completed in death. Freemasonry calls this the foundation stone and the perfect square ashlar. In life we are meant to polish our foundation stone. There is an extended Pythagorean mathematical idea here also. We could consider the fourth as either 10 or 14, and this might send us in the direction of noticing that 10^2 + 11^2 + 12^2 = 13^2 + 14^2 . The left side of the equation is 100+121+144=365, or one year in days. The left is 169 + 196=365 or one year in days. How could this be so? This, my friend, is how you start off a mystery in empirical terms and then move it into the figurative. Why does the simplest of all Maths using 1,2,3 and 4 come to capture so much in the Tetractys? Why do the 5 consecutive numbers 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 have this property? It goes further than that with the Sonnets. There are two triangles (two Ts) in the text of the dedication. One is 82 characters in number and the other is 64. If you omit the character in superscript in M^r W H by considering it may be alluding to an accent in Hebrew you have 81 and 64. Both are squares of 9 and 8 which multiply to give 72, which are the number of the names of God in Hebrew. Furthermore, 81 x 64 is 1/5 of the 25920 years which happens to be the length of the cycle of precession of the axial tilt plane of the Earth. That number is the average time for the appearance of the next pole star in years (there are 5 in the precession cycle which travels around the constellation of Draco). What's is going on here? Why are the Sonnets being dedicated to ideas of God who is a poet and to eternity and rewards in heaven which are potentially mathematically equated? The basic idea is that God's creation (his Sonnets) are given to us as a silent song of the harmonious spheres which have a basis in geometry. This sort of current idea works if we attribute it to 1609. Galileo and Copernicus will come and upset the ideas, but that is for later. Whoever wrote the Sonnets was highly taken by the apparent mathematical and harmonic beauty of the arrangement. In large part that is why Bacon was resistant in accepting heliocentricity, but that is another matter.

The hieroglyph is atop the arch that leads into the confines of the hermetic knowledge. The words atop the arch appear to be Latin for "I shall not wholly die". It's a message which is sympathetic to the Christian view. The road leading to the arch describes Mysterium: mystery, secret service, rite and worship. It is not hard to see how this could be the seed idea for something like Freemasonry. I don't quite know what to make of the diagonal "leg up" which in on the let side of the bottom of the hieroglyph. The other elements in it seem familiar and part of existing symbolism. It is usually seen as reflecting what is to the right to suggest fire/ignis (Sun and Moon operating on the elements to ignite). Maybe it is wanting to implicate Mars.

You shouldn't. Assigning meaning to a coincidence is fraught with peril. However, it's the sort of thing that people who are prone to giving causal significance to astrology might do. Rawley could be telling us Bacon is that sort of type. If you read Sylva Sylvarum there is evidence that Bacon may have prone to this sort of belief in the influence of things which are otherwise in harmony.

Bacon was born a few days before the penumbral lunar eclipse (Saros 97) of Jan. 31, 1561. Approximately one year later, on Jan. 20, 1562 a rare tetrad of lunar eclipses began. These are called tetrads because 4 successive lunar eclipses in the same cycle are total eclipses. There was a second tetrad that occurred in that century when he was 19. Bacon would have observed/experienced a total lunar eclipse on July 26, 1580. If it interests you, Bacon seems to have been particularly interested in the prognostication of the annular solar eclipse (Saros 128) of October 14, 1651. He appears to have been attracted by the date and location of it's first occurrence.

Shakespeare himself says In Macbeth, Act 4 scene 1: "Ditch-deliver'd by a drab, " ...to possibly suggest someone was symbolically still-birthed. That's included immediately after what appears to be very essential ingredients in the make up of a another aspect of this mystery: Slivered in the moon’s eclipse, Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips, Hobson in Hobson's Nose has an etymological meaning of "son of Robert". To get your copy of the book you must first go to the Great Turk's head.

The glass would need to be pointed to Cassiopeia for the Queen to see a likeness of herself (The constellation of the vain sitting Queen). In Persia Cassiopeia had long been portrayed holding the crescent moon in her hand. From Wikipedia: "She was forced to wheel around the north celestial pole on her throne, spending half of her time clinging to it so she does not fall off". Get yourself to latitude 33N and she is completely visible in the Northern sky year round. She is circumpolar to many observers in the British isles. Tycho Brahe's observed Nova of 1572 (the first of the famous 3 that preceded the Halley's comet occurrence of 1607) appeared at the tip of Cassiopeia on Nov. 11. It had the brightness of Venus for approximately 14 days (half the cycle of the moon) when it was visible with the naked eye. It surely must have something to say about Elizabeth to astrologers like Dee who were quick to use these events as either omens or as confirmations of fate. In 1572, "The Parliament was called, following pressure from the Privy Council, to discuss the consequences of the Ridolfi plot, a Catholic conspiracy which had attempted to put Elizabeth's cousin, Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots), on the throne of England in her place." She did indeed cling to her throne at times. With this we can see how it would have been possible to groom the Queen with all sorts of ideas and have them be confirmed by celestial events. It's a powerful way to control a vain woman. If you, as a monarch, function with the certainty that you are ordained to be great by God's stars then you will have the required confidence to be bold and lead the English to their manifest destiny. It is always a great story that creates the magic that forces individuals caught in those spells to act.

Synodic month=29.530588853 days. 12 of those are 354.367 days. I solar year is 365.242222 days. The ratio 365.2422222/354.367=1.0306889. The decimal part, 0.03068889, has to eventfully contribute 1 full cycle for the two to coincide again The reciprocal of 33 is 0.0303 (33x0.030303=1). There's a slight error of about 4 parts per ten thousand. New year would coincide with the new moon again if that was your starting reference point.

On the matter of 33, much of the ancient cyclical meaning (if not all) can be attributed to the lunar cycle which gets out of phase with the solar cycle at the rate of 11 days per solar year. It takes 33 years for the Sun and moon to come back in phase. This is one aspect the alchemical wedding of the Rosicrucians. The three cycles in a century and the 10 centuries in the millennium are important layers to those who have cyclical time-based ideas of the recurring events of past and future. The division of the Zodiacal age into two periods of 1000 years is part of the End Times arithmetic that greatly mattered to German Protestants whose Christianity began to reflect the flavor of a natural science. Men like Dee, and others, sought to interpret events within cycles and to foretell of events with the knowledge of cycles. We can only imagine how Bacon thought about his own particular letter to number relation to 33, 67 to and 100 and how that scheme could be worked to apply a geometry to the globe which also reflected the character of the cyclical body whose motion faithfully gives us time. It is all very reminiscent of the Proto Indo European culture's Sky father (Sun) and his consort (moon) who came together to give birth to twin sons (later Cain and Abel), one of whom kills the other and creates the world in the process. The daughter was Dawn (later Eve), and she is accounted for in the proto-Rosicrucian Philosophy of Jacob Boehme in his work "Aurora". The working towards a new dawn of man is the philosophical idea. The light of knowledge (Plato's divine luminosity) is to illuminate the 1000 year period ahead. That was in stark contrast to the idea that the End times were being foretold by the Novas of 1600 and 1604. The period around 1600 is one where there was much expectation of the eschaton in Protestant Europe. A similar craze hit North America in the years prior to 1843 with Millerism. It led to the "Great Disappointment". Someone's arithmetic did not pan out, as is often the case with the foretelling of the future. The idea, or expectation, of End Times is still found in the world's population today. Stories like this do not fade very easily. One can potentially attribute that to the human desire to attain that promised "great treasure" worth more than any sum of gold. The key to that treasure vault was, and is still said to be, in unconditional acceptance. You are supposed to get in line and work constructively as brothers in the Masonic ideal. Primitive attempts to "know" these recurring things were in the domain of astrology. I happens that our religions have forefathers who were astronomical cults. When we work back the stories we start to discover how much importance the cycle and the herald (a time traveler or prophet) had. Time always comes and gives us the answer because time was expected to come full circle, as attested by the visible part of the heavens. This was a widely held belief. The idea has lost a lot of steam, though... The two towers is an idea/motif from the Kabbalah, as is the central column (your spinal column of 33 vertebrae). The popularized Masonic stories are later 18th century adaptations of legends found in Hebrew texts. The character Hiram Abiff is a likely early adaptation of the the story of the Egyptian man-God Imhotep (the first great polymath/healer) who was the original stone builder of Egypt, builder of the Temple for the Pharaoh Djoser and architect of the first pyramid at Saqqara. Imhotep would later get Latinized by aligning him to Hermes (Trismegistus). The Egyptian spelling of that name was "hrm" (no vowels). He became Hiram which is phonetically similar. We can detect the influence of older stories in the crafting of the Masonic origin legends. Imhotep became a God by virtue of this actions which were informed by a knowledge that had reached him. So says the story. The curious marriage of Protestantism and Judaism in England, on the heels of a very long period of oppression (375+ years), is something that came out of the monumental rift between Catholics and Protestants. The English Church really had no standing, but it quickly adopted the position that it was in line with the Hebrew teachings which were older (Henry VIII consulted rabbis and sought ways to justify his actions), and therefore truer (a prima theologia), than the corrupted teachings which emanated from the Rome ca. 400 AD. Henry started promoting the idea that the English were the descendants of one of the 10 lost tribes. Eventually the Temple was finally allowed to return to London in 1656. Many important spies of Elizabethan England were Jews who had ties to Spain. We can detect in Shakespeare and in Marlowe a plea for the Englishman to see the Jew as his fellow man. The history of this period is the foundation of modern Zionism. This is one of the things we are meant to discover in examining all the symbolism we are presented with. The King James Bible is an example of what important Jewish editors contributed to the English Church in Bacon's time. The Bible was "De-Hellenized" by that editing (moved away from Roman names). That so many thing seem to point to Hebrew Psalms should not surprise us. The Psalms themselves were things that had been written to contain veiled references to other things by Acrostic and other forms of gematria. Anyway, it is much more than men having fun equating words to word values. It's about shaping a culture with the idea of an older one. The English were made to be seen as part of God's chosen people. Freemasonry is an initiation into the transformative processes of the Kabbalah. It all starts with one fundamental belief--that there is a supreme being. No one can go forward in that without the acceptance of that idea.

You do understand that for Dee, who was a Kabbalist, the Truth is not something you go and willfully try and produce, right? The Truth, with a capital T, is something that one must accept. It is why all the secrets in the Universe (and all those which are referred to in the Shakespeare works' little puzzles that revolve around ideas about God) hope for "reception". And what reception entails is that you stop searching and face up to the secret esoteric knowledge that has been passed down faithfully to each subsequent open generation by individuals who have accepted to not question it. The reason they do is because they accept that someone a long time ago had something revealed to him when he was not looking for answers. At that time it allegedly found him through nature as a revelatory experience. These things were faithfully catalogued and classified, and that is what ultimately has probably inspired Bacon to suggest the same for his Temple based scientific approach to the study of the natural sciences. My point, in case it cannot be detected, is that to start off with that simplest of suggestions and demand that it be accepted unconditionally (acceptance must be unconditionally accepted) is one of the most powerful forms of magic that can exist. It has the power of self reference that the irrational numbers who capture infinity have. "You cannot belong if you do not accept" becomes the mimetic sledgehammer which doesn't ever have to be wielded. This is so powerful a tool that many faiths (especially the Christian and the Islamic) use it to pin everything down on. Faith alone is the key to the treasure vault. The idea is appropriated from places where it has shown its worth. Factions that have adopted it have survived. In the hands of people who attach the "Good" to it, it has been a way to keep themselves in check at the deepest levels. If we, today, say that there is a truth with a minor T that we want to arrive to by laborious intent then we are not operating purely by acceptance of suggestions. We would be more than open to not accepting anything that Pott or others have said as soon as we can detect some serious logical problems. We would instead think of ourselves as people on some principled search using methods that are limited in some cases (a purely scientific approach) or unlimited in others (what is possible and feels appropriate to us). Whether or not Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is an important question is debatable. The answer seems to be yes and no. That is the nuanced opinion that would account for all the attempts at creating acceptance that I can detect. All are right, or all are wrong, because all use the same flawed approach. We are not time travelers. Incidentally , this is what I intuitively feel is the desired meaning of T T. Only the time traveler would be able to know. The ability to forecast is the ability to be in the future and report on it. Same with past events. The stars are treated as time travelers with the ability to inform us. The answer we most often find for the Shakespearean authorship question in the world is actually the one which requires no searching at all. The largest faction is the one that simply accepts that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. This, for good or bad, is using the most powerful of magic--something gets effortlessly accepted unconditionally. This isn't something that can easily be overturned. What else could be said that would appeal to such an effortless commitment? This may madden us, but the task at hand is to cast a more perfect spell (good luck). There really is only science that offers hope to counter that. And this is the significant rub. Science demands skepticism to the n th degree. It is not enough to say: I see what I think is evidence and then look to others to see if that is gaining traction. The Truth would have to function outside of anyone's opinion. There would be no room for bad syllogism or subjective takes on facts. What we see is not science. It is mainly highly informed speculations. These are trying to work themselves into a position where acceptance can be hoped for. I understand why. There's no getting to the Truth with anything that looks like a scientific approach. The way to gain what is wanted is to outdo the ease with which another suggestion has been accepted. And so on, and so on, until the end of time. Effort to create acceptance in others is grooming, and this is something that always has a very negative connotation, unfortunately. One thing that humans seem to be unwilling to accept is that they are being groomed from the minute they are in interaction with others. We like "young Will" are not the authors of our own lines. I have no problem having issues with Constance's efforts, but that only really says that I am unwilling to accept her conclusions for reasons that satisfy me. It would be he same if it were anyone else saying it, to be fair. There's nothing about Constance the individual that makes her unworthy of being accepted. Bacon has some degree of involvement in all this, but I would suggest (and hope it is not accepted) that this has something to do with with the existence of groups of men who, firstly, described themselves as being acceptors of things which were delivered by the Jewish tradition. Some would argue that this is actually Vedic "knowledge", but this is not the place to discuss that. So in many ways, I feel Bacon had that first drink of Kool-aid, and he is on a path of spreading some profound Ancient ideas which demand they not be blurted out openly, but instead be slowly put to people who are being formed. It is more than enough to foster curiosity and have men digging. Do not dig in the dust, though, because that will be a curse if you want to accept the Shakespearean epitaph. I also suspect there have been monumental initial efforts (which go back to the early 17th century) to put people onto a wrong trail. I think it is important that such a wrong trail exist to mask the covert nature of the initiation to the mystery. If the effort to spread the ideas was overt that would have been against the spirit of the teachings. Only open vessels ready for reception are required for the symbolism to work its magic. The road that goes to proving things is a road that leads to nowhere in the Kabbalistic sense. It was believed that no man had the ability to navigate that road. I see why that is said. We get tripped up by our own biases all the time. We will err on the side what we want to believe. Anyway it is truly "deep" stuff. I don't usually care who is pontificating about what the truth is. For any to exist requires acceptance. In my world there is only the fun that comes from dabbling in what cannot possibly inform me. There's a lot of fun to be had. Mental gymnastics are satisfying. Shakespeare is not as important as Bacon. Shakespeare is a vehicle. Who Bacon's parents were is even less important if you think you are merely a child of God. To pursue those things is not going to lead you to what was operating on Francis' end. His highly principled ideas are coming from elsewhere. He even tells you who has influenced him.

Facts are things which can be used to produce bad syllogism. In fact, bad syllogism is the use of two factual statements to produce a conclusion that is not appropriate. If it was using a dishonest statement then it would simply be a lie. I do not think Constance was out to promote a lie. If her life's work boils down to the equivalent of what we see from those who quote from the Bible and infer all sorts of things about the past from their explorations in it then that ought to be understood. She was clearly groomed by Bacon enthusiasts. We are always dealing in facts. Words and symbols on paper are factual things. What we make of them is not strengthened by their nature as facts. "Constance was honest and laborious" tells us nothing about her ability to deal with the facts. The zealot who is quoting from the Bible and producing conclusion about the world from it is honest and laborious. He cannot fail at what he is doing. I do not feel this is a discussion that can be had without involving the ancient idea of casting spells. Every idea that is out there in the world is operating on us. Some of these ideas are so potently crafted that they can induce unconditional acceptance (which is magic) in others. I have a deep aversion to magic, but I understand it exits in that sense. We can come to accept just about anything unconditionally. I will do well to go to my grave believing in nothing and knowing that we have been working only to deduce things which we cannot know. I find it odd that Constance never suggested that Shakespeare was written by God. This would seem to be what Bacon was implying about the natural world. It can't possibly have been Bacon doing the writing if Bacon truly was operating out of the Platonic tradition. The whole thing reminds me of when Bob Dylan was once asked how he could have come to write the songs he did. He said that he had no clue and that he did not think he was responsible for it. Would it surprise you at all if Bacon would tell you to go ahead and accept that Shakespeare was written by Shakespeare. It's what was written that matters isn't? It is all regurgitating themes from the Greeks and other sources. Who could possibly claim it was his own work, and why are people so obsessed with it? It's a lot about he cult of personalities I fear.

She was born into it. Her name is from the Latin motto Virtute et Constantia which is associated with the Knights of Malta. Constance was one of the virtues represented by the compass and square. He brother was named Francis. Her grandfather was the greatest architect and developer in Georgian England (James Haliburton, shortened to Burton). He was an Inigo Jones figure for that time. The entire family was well versed in the esoteric. James Burton is buried in a pyramid shaped tomb in England. His son was the well known Egyptologist James Burton. There's a reason why Constance was such a precocious pursuer of the ideas she had. She had been groomed to have them from early days. Her life appears to have been about trying to confirm held beliefs. This I would argue is not the same thing as studying something and making discoveries in a field. Everyone should be aware of this deeply rooted bias. When you seek to confirm things which you already accept the exercise is prone to succeeding. James Burton (property developer) - Wikipedia is a good read up for the entire London family. There are many literary and high society connections with this family. Studying the Burtons would be an excellent way to understand why it was that Constance came to have encountered some suggestions. Not a whole lot is known about her mother Jesse, but it is known that Thomas Chandler Haliburton stayed with the family when he visited London for an extended visit in the 1840s, just prior to his work which treats on the search for a treasure in Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia.

The suggestion in this thread seems to be to arm yourself with anything and everything you can to make a suggestion that can be useful to forward a preexisting idea. What seems to be happening, and I see a lot of it, is that people are collecting a very long lists of number to word/expression equivalencies them are generating from many translational schemes to then cite them as soon as they see an opportunity, irrespective of where it is found or the fact that there is no rhyme or reason to it being there. The game cannot be to think certain key words or expressions are being given and to find how to get them from treating any text or illustration. This is a belief that one knows exactly what should be found. You will find exactly what you are looking for with that approach. Every time you do find an example it will appear to confirm all others. On the road to getting a suggestion accepted it is the sort of trick that appears to produce the desired acceptance in the suggestible. When acceptance is produced that then becomes the external confirmation that the exercise has value. This sort of thing was treated very well in a purely statistical critique that was published at the time "The Bible Code" was all the rage after Oprah had recommended it. There's simply no end to what can be suggested if one wants to look hard enough and incorporate many schemes. This is especially true of word numbering/counting schemes. The end result, of course, was to want to prove that there is such thing as prophecy and magic. That was not proof even it created acceptance of the suggestion. Magic in ancient times, and still today, revolves around the creation of unconditional acceptance. It can be to produce it with your eyes, your senses or your mind. All methods of suggestion are acceptable. I don't know if any of you do cryptograms/cryptoquotes. Anyone who does them knows that you need at least a certain number of words having a certain amount of repetition within them for it to be useful. If only a word was given, there would be many thousands of substitution patterns that could produce a meaning. Well, the same is true in reverse. If you arm yourself with hundreds of ciphering schemes you can take a text which has no cipher within it, dissect it to exactly the right length until a very small sample makes something one likes appear over and over. When your parsing is done at the level of a few words its a matter statistical certainty that you will have success. What there isn't to be found anywhere here is a warning about getting overly enthusiastic with this sort of thing. When something of little to no value is done over and over, someone who does understand the overuse of it will comes to it and they will immediately see that the entire argument is a flimsy house of cards. Add that will offend all who have accepted that it ought to have been possible because it worked within a group of likeminded people to a high degree of satisfaction. Bacon was not a fan of bad syllogism. Why would he had used it so profusely to try and induce belief? Is it because he understood the true nature or magic?

It's nice to see the words, but I am very intrigued by the time on the timepiece. It looks like one line across to the 7 minute position. This is may be in reference to the 30 degrees here minus the axial tilt of the planet (30-23.5degrees). The words to the left are similar in meaning to the Mundus Intellectuallis that is on the Sylva Sylvarum globe. The other words have a meaning of wedding, union and proof or something to that effect. I'll read the article later, I promise. Suggests the coming together of thing such as cycles as a proof, perhaps. It is a proof it would likely have to involve Euclid.