Ben Jonson tells us Bacon is Shakespeare

[Eric Roberts]

59 minutes ago, Allisnum2er said:

Many thanks Rob ! I must admit that each time that I mention the number 102 I have a thought for you ! 😊

In fact, when I began my travel in the world of Shakespeare's authorship I had no preconceptions. From the very start I watched videos about Bacon , De Vere and Marlowe. And from the very beginning I watched Mr Waugh's videos. His videos provide good food for thoughts and are a good way to exercice our critical thinking. Regarding his last video, I really was in awe two-thirds of the time. When I told him in my comment that his comparative analysis of the passages of Ben Jonson and "Controversias" by Seneca was brilliant, I really mean that. But facing his claim that Domini Verulanus was by no means a reference to Lord Verulam , and that the "addition" of the word "noble" in the passage was another proof that all this was about De Vere I couldn't remain silent.

This is my first answer :

Here is only one of the 32 Elegies written in 1626 after the death of "NOBILIS BACONUS".

MANES VERULAMIANI (1626) - Translation By Father William A. Sutton, S.J.  -  Elegy  9

At Threnody on the Death of the Most Illustrious and Renowned Personage, Sir Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam.

Muses pour forth your perennial waters in lamentations, and let Apollo shed tears (plentiful as the water) which even the Castalian stream contains; for neither would meagre dirges befit so great a loss, nor our moderate drops the mighty monument. The very nerve of genius, the marrow of persuasion, THE GOLDEN STREAM OF ELOQUENCE, THE PRECIOUS GEM OF CONCEALED LITERATURE, the NOBLE Bacon (ah! the relentless warp of the three sisters) has fallen by the fates. O how am I in verse like mine to commemorate you, sublime Bacon! and those glorious memorials of all the ages composed by your genius and by Minerva. With what learned, beautiful, profound matters the Great Instauration is full! With what light does it scatter the darksome moths of the ancient sages! creating from chaos a new wisdom: thus God Himself will with potent hand restore the body laid in the tomb; therefore you do not die (O Bacon !) for the Great Instauration will liberate you from death and darkness and the grave. R. C., T. C.

Elegy 8 :  In obitum NOBILISSIMI Domini Francisci Baronis Verulamii.
(On the Death of the Most Noble Lord, Francis, Baron Verulam, etc.)

Elegy 12 : In obitum NOBILISSIMI doctissimiq; viri Dom. Fran: Bacon, Baronis Verulamiensis.
(On the Death of the Most Noble and Learned Lord Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, etc.)

Elegy 14 : In obitum NOBILISSIMI viri, Francisci Domini Verulam, Vicecomitis Sancti Albani.
(On the Death of the Most Noble Francis Lord Verulam Viscount St. Albans.)

Elegy 18 : In obitum literatissimi iuxta ac NOBILISSIMI viti Francisci Domini Verulam Vicecomitis Sancti Albani.
(On the Death of the Most Learned and Noble Francis, Lord Verulam, Viscount St. Albans.)

Elegy 24 : In Obitum illustrissimi & spectatissimi tum à literis tum à prudentia & nativa NOBILITATE viri, Dni Francisci Bacon,Vicecomitis Sti Albani.
(On the Death of the Most Illustrious Lord Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, Most Distinguished troth in Letters and Wisdom, as also for Innate Nobility.)

Elegy 27 : Ad Statuam literatissimi verque NOBILISSIMI viri Dni Francisci Bacon.
(To the Statue of the Most Lettered and Noble Lord, Lord Francis Bacon.)

Elegy 30 : In obitum NOBILISSIMI viri, Francisci Baconis, olim magni Sigilli Angliae Custodis.
(On the Death of the Most Noble Francis Bacon, Sometime Keeper of the Great Seal of England.)

Elegy 31 : In Languorem diuturnum, sed mortem Inopinatam, NOBILISSIMI Domini sui, Vice-Comitis Sti Albani.
(On the Languishing Illness, But unexpected Death of His most noble Lord, Viscount St. Albans)

You say "I would only add that Lord Verulanus is repeatedly described as 'noble'." I totally agree with you.
And as you can see " Lord Verulamus" is repeatedly described as "the most noble".

List of Lord Bacon's titles:

Francis of Verulam, Francis Bacon, 1st and last Viscount Saint Alban, Franciscus Bacon, Francis, Viscount St. Albans Verulam, Franciscus Baconus de Verulamio, Francis Bacon Verulam, Francis, Viscount St. Albans Bacon of Verulam, Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban, Francis Bacon of Verulam, Francis Bacon Saint Albans, Franciscus Bacon de Verulamio, Francis Bacon 1st Baron Verulam and Viscount St Albans, Francis Bacon of Verulamius, Francis Bacon de Verulamius, Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St. Alban, Francis, 1st Baron Verulam and Viscount St Albans Bacon, Francis, Viscount Saint Alban, Baron of Verulam Bacon, Francis Bacon St. Albans

https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJd8bpbFqrV7wt9H3TVpyd.html

[Light-of-Truth]

20 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

List of Lord Bacon's titles:

Francis of Verulam, Francis Bacon, 1st and last Viscount Saint Alban, Franciscus Bacon, Francis, Viscount St. Albans Verulam, Franciscus Baconus de Verulamio, Francis Bacon Verulam, Francis, Viscount St. Albans Bacon of Verulam, Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban, Francis Bacon of Verulam, Francis Bacon Saint Albans, Franciscus Bacon de Verulamio, Francis Bacon 1st Baron Verulam and Viscount St Albans, Francis Bacon of Verulamius, Francis Bacon de Verulamius, Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St. Alban, Francis, 1st Baron Verulam and Viscount St Albans Bacon, Francis, Viscount Saint Alban, Baron of Verulam Bacon, Francis Bacon St. Albans

https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJd8bpbFqrV7wt9H3TVpyd.html

That's a start. 🙂

Don't forget the Baconi versions.

I think Kate made a list a while back here. Of course no list will ever be complete. 😉

 

[Light-of-Truth]

1 hour ago, Allisnum2er said:

And from the very beginning I watched Mr Waugh's videos. His videos provide good food for thoughts and are a good way to exercice our critical thinking.

I'll try. I hope I have not become too much of a Bitter Baconian in my old age! LOL

[A Phoenix]

Hi High Wizard of B'Hive,

Yann, this is the best condensed demolition I have ever read. You absolutely comprehensively nailed it and by doing so completely demolished the deluded Waugh, Stritmatter, and all the other Oxfordians fools that nod along to their farcical Oxfordian fantasies.

 PS.

In my experience (and I have read many Oxfordian books and articles over several decades) Oxfordians know very little or nothing about the public or secret life of FB, nor his acknowledged, anonymous or psuedonymous writings, and moreover the enormous body of writing supporting and confirming his authorship of the Shakespeare works.  

These ignorant arrogant fools think they are in a position to lecture anyone about the truth of the Shakespeare authorship who is stupid enough to listen to them when they know little or nothing about the man who was our secret Shakespeare.

[Allisnum2er]

9 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi High Wizard of B'Hive,

Yann, this is the best condensed demolition I have ever read. You absolutely comprehensively nailed it and by doing so completely demolished the deluded Waugh, Stritmatter, and all the other Oxfordians fools that nod along to their farcical Oxfordian fantasies.

 PS.

In my experience (and I have read many Oxfordian books and articles over several decades) Oxfordians know very little or nothing about the public or secret life of FB, nor his acknowledged, anonymous or psuedonymous writings, and moreover the enormous body of writing supporting and confirming his authorship of the Shakespeare works.  

These ignorant arrogant fools think they are in a position to lecture anyone about the truth of the Shakespeare authorship who is stupid enough to listen to them when they know little or nothing about the man who was our secret Shakespeare.

Thank you A Phoenix !❤️ I tried and did my best to prove my point without any slides ! 😅 And yes, as I told him , I was completely dumbfounded by the comment of Mr Stritmatter saying that " Unlike Baconians, Oxfordians use many documents and many forms of evidence to establish their case." Such ignorance !

[A Phoenix]

Hi Yann,

The comments by Stritmatter are absolutely priceless and only serve to confirm his woeful ignorance about the Baconian-Shakespearean authorship canon and contemporary Baconian-Shakespearean scholarship.

[Light-of-Truth]

4 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Yann,

The comments by Stritmatter are absolutely priceless and only serve to confirm his woeful ignorance about the Baconian-Shakespearean authorship canon and contemporary Baconian-Shakespearean scholarship.

What makes my skin crawl is that some of them, hard for me to say which ones, but some of them Know the Truth and continue to spew forth their lies for reasons that are selfish or greedy.

I can see how "intelligent" Waugh is, yet I feel like I hear the deception in his voice at times as he is on camera feeding the ignorant seekers who actually look for Truth. UGH

Or maybe I should say...

WA-UGH

But maybe I am Wraughng? LOL

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

Lawrence Gerald

5 days ago (edited)

 @Ron Roffel  Pedigree is one thing but lack of character is another something Edward de Vere is missing. Alan Nelson makes this abundantly clear in "Monstrous Adversary." The Play "All's Well That Ends Well" also bears this out on DeVere's misogyny. https://sirbacon.org/oxfordallswell.htm

 

 

 

Roger Stritmatter

1 day ago

 @EMETH ALETHEIA  Unlike Baconians, Oxfordians use many documents and many forms of evidence to establish their case. It is quite true that the the 1632 memorials to Bacon are full of his praises. But it has also long ago been established that Bacon's prose style, his pattern of images, and his use of the Bible, are quite distinct from Shakespeare's. Whatever his role in "Shakespeare" was, beyond being Jonson's close friend and Oxford's "cousin" (as he refers to him in surviving correspondence), he did not write the plays and poems.

 

 

Roger Stritmatter

4 hours ago

 @Lawrence Gerald  Citing Alan Nelson about Oxford's character is like citing Donald Trump about constitutional law.

 

 

Lawrence Gerald

0 seconds ago

"Unlike Baconians, Oxfordians use many documents and many forms of evidence to establish their case." A most misleading statement made by someone in your position who should know better. The Bacon-Shakespeare Manuscript formerly known as the Northumberland Manuscript along with Bacon's Shakespeare Notebook The Promus are documents that establish Bacon's bond with evidence of his authorship. Bacon referred to himself as a " Concealed Poet." The 1626 Eulogies or memorials known as "Manes Verulamani" reveal what Bacon's peers (along with Ben Jonson) knew and thought by highly acknowledging Bacon's dramatic and poetic abilities. Years later the poet Percy Shelley said ‘Lord Bacon was a Poet’, apparently without ever having considered the authorship question. In case your not familiar with the Bacon Documents see : The Bacon Shakespeare Manuscript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDn8gdBqnIM and Francis Bacon's Notebook, The Promus, the Source for Hundreds of Parallels with his Shakespeare Works written in Bacon's hand BEFORE the plays were performed and published. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfUbKb7KqU

[Lawrence Gerald]

Another demonstration why people like Roger Stritmatter are not respected outside their "trump" like followers.

[Light-of-Truth]

Today in Bacon's New Atlantis, we have a partial victory on the side of Truth.

Fox lied, everyone knew it. They did it for ratings, and ratings are money. Playing to the vulnerable they still promote even today they are the "Most Trusted".

Dominion, unfairly was accused of crazy stuff that was a total lie. But the lie became the "tRUTH" of the New Atlantis.

Today the Strats are still the "Most Trusted". 400 years of a living lie. The Oxies are like the new crazy "Q". Ugh.

Did you know that Virginia is called the "Old Dominion"? Bacon's first permanent footprint is Jamestown in Virginia. The "Old Dominion."

How ironic.

787.5 million. They could have maybe landed two Billion or more. But the liars and the victims agreed to 787.5.

Lawyers will take 287 Million, a number everyone was happy with. Dominion gets 1/2 Billion plus 5 million and Fox News had to admit they lied.

Is that the end to the lies? No way. But it is one of very few rare wins for Truth.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

I'm treading carefully on the Dominion/Fox topic as it could be a trigger to problems. As long as this does not create stress, I'd like to play.

The Deal was made today. Today is April 18, Day 108 of the Year. It happens to land in Sonnet 46.

http://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Sonnet046

Add up the letters of the 14 lines of Sonnet 46 and we have 102 Simple cipher.

http://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#cipherSonnet046

46 is a number we Baconians know, Psalms 46 being a famous topic. Yann (Allisnum2er) brings up 46 occasionally as well.

ONE HUNDRED TWO is a Seal number; 157 Simple, 168 Reverse, 58 Short, and 287 Kaye ciphers.

http://www.light-of-truth.com/ciphers.html

Those are the same cipher numbers as:

WILLIAM TUDOR I

Yea, most people get really bored with numbers. But what about the words of Shakespeare? Does Sonnet 46 which contains April 18 reflect current events in Bacon's Dominion? Day 108 is highlighted yellow.

Funny they made a deal before the next lines could manifest, "And by their verdict is determined - The cleere eyes moyitie, and the deare hearts part."

MIne eye and heart are at a mortall warre,
How to deuide the conquest of thy sight,
Mine eye, my heart their pictures sight would barre,
My heart, mine eye the freeedome of that right,
My heart doth plead that thou in him doost lye,
(A closet neuer pearst with christall eyes)
But the defendant doth that plea deny,
And sayes in him their faire appearance lyes.
To side this title is impannelled
A quest of thoughts, all tennants to the heart,
And by their verdict is determined
The cleere eyes moyitie, and the deare hearts part.
  As thus, mine eyes due is their outward part,
  And my hearts right, their inward loue of heart.

 

Sonnet 46.

I suppose making the 6 a b is imagination...

 

MIne eye and heart are at a mortall warre,
How to deuide the conquest of thy sight,
Mine eye, my heart their pictures sight would barre,

😉

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

Roger Stritmatter  responds back : Lawrence Gerald       Mr. Gerald, my statement was quite correct and I am shocked that someone like yourself, with such an obviously incomplete and faulty comprehension of the Oxford case, should think it prudent to contradict me on such flimsy evidence. Unlike you, I will not try in this context to offer a summary that would require several books to complete. Most importantly, beyond the obvious discrepancy in the quantity and quality of evidence between the two theories, there is the small matter that compelling arguments against your theory, set forth in some cases more than a hundred years ago, by Robertson (style), Cole (patterns of Bible allusion), and Spurgeon (image patterns) all contradict your belief and have not to my knowledge ever been answered by advocates of it. Finally, would it be too much to ask you to stop making statements like "a person in your position"? That is really not, as I'm sure Alexander Waugh would say, "cricket." It is really just a disguised ad hominem, apparently compensating for a lack of research on your part. Good day.Write some books or articles. This matter will not be settled on youtube. https://shake-speares-bible.com/

[Light-of-Truth]

So Roger Schitmatter tells Lawrence Gerald, "Write some books or articles."

Or maybe Lawrence could host the most important Baconian website on Earth that contains more evidence for who wrote Shakespeare than smelly Oxen or rusty Struts combined could eVere dream to collect. And we have some fabulous articles written by the same Lawrence.

They avoid the Manes like a plague.

Edward DeVere is a poof in the wind. A foul poof at that.

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

4 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

7 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Today in Bacon's New Atlantis, we have a partial victory on the side of Truth.

The irony for me is that Dominion Voting Systems used to be called Diebold  Voting Systems. The machines were demonstrated to have extra software, or would set up to dsyfunction, easily hacked and were slanted to give George Bush Jr the Presidential  nod in certain voting districts. The CEO of Diebold  was outspoken about being a big Republican fundraiser. Diebold was sued, then changed their name to Dominion.

"Nathan Gibbs wonders, “Why would you buy a voting machine from a company like Diebold which provides a paper trail for every single machine it makes except its voting machines? And then, when you ask it to verify its numbers, it hides behind ‘trade secrets.’”

Maybe the Diebold decision makes sense, if you believe, to paraphrase Henry Kissinger, that democracy is too important to leave up to the votes of the people."

https://freepress.org/article/diebold-electronic-voting-and-vast-right-wing-conspiracy

    Suprisingly Fox didn't bring up Dominion's  nefarious past.

 

 

[Allisnum2er]

15 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Today in Bacon's New Atlantis, we have a partial victory on the side of Truth.

Fox lied, everyone knew it. They did it for ratings, and ratings are money. Playing to the vulnerable they still promote even today they are the "Most Trusted".

Dominion, unfairly was accused of crazy stuff that was a total lie. But the lie became the "tRUTH" of the New Atlantis.

Today the Strats are still the "Most Trusted". 400 years of a living lie. The Oxies are like the new crazy "Q". Ugh.

Did you know that Virginia is called the "Old Dominion"? Bacon's first permanent footprint is Jamestown in Virginia. The "Old Dominion."

How ironic.

787.5 million. They could have maybe landed two Billion or more. But the liars and the victims agreed to 787.5.

Lawyers will take 287 Million, a number everyone was happy with. Dominion gets 1/2 Billion plus 5 million and Fox News had to admit they lied.

Is that the end to the lies? No way. But it is one of very few rare wins for Truth.

 

Hi Rob,

I like the "coincidence" ! Did you notice the number 500 right above WILLIAM'S JUSTICE ?

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/500/?zoom=850

😉

 

[Allisnum2er]

A comment I posted yesterday on youtube as an answer to a very interesting post by Christie about Perseus/Persius and Timber, disappeared.

I think that it is because Christie modified her original post.

I said that I was agree with her regarding the possible link between the introduction of "Discoveries" by Ben Jonson talking about Sylva and and Francis Bacon's Sylva Sylvarum, and I added that the name VERULAN (instead of VERULAM) appeared in "Histoire naturelle de Mre FRANCOIS BACON Baron de VERULAN , vicomte de Sainct Alban,& Chancelier d'Angleterre." published in 1631 and that is the french translation of .. Sylva Sylvarum !!!

[RoyalCraftiness]

There is no truth for the masses. The masses always mimetically follow some suggestion made to them by some who claim to know.  What passes for the largest truths has always been very dubious things if history is a teacher to us. The truths have always recruited well, aided by convincing people with convincing arguments that disarm and satisfy. There are only those suggestions and the means to have them be put in front of you and appeal to your sensibilities. Machiavelli understood this and popularized it, but we act as if we had never been made aware about this sort of human behavior. It is a mistake to allow one's self to be recruited into a faction which is based in unconditional acceptance of ANY suggestion. If you are for the study of ANYTHING you must also be willing to accept, and welcome the idea, that you are wrong or that your position is unfalsifiable as given. It is easiest to show that someone may be wrong. It is hardest to satisfy all criticisms. The only truths we have satisfy all honest criticisms. That is to say, we don't have many that aren't empirical. To a certain degree all we seem to accept are the validity of numbers and logic as the framework for understanding.

On the Shakespeare authorship question all sides who make claims that are not well received by the largest faction (those who don't even think there's an authorship question to begin with) are being laughed at as heartily as DeVere and Bacon proponents are laughing at each other in their exchanges. You understand that, right? More are laughing at you than are not. It surely cannot be about who's being laughed at hardest, so why partake in it? Laughing at someone is a mimetic recruitment strategy. The view here is far from the mainstream view. Can we have quotes from those people who make fun of both Bacon and DeVere authorship theories, and of others, in order to stay humble?  To an outsider all sides are playing the same clever games, using the same sort of "evidence" which, to be honest, does not count as evidence in many people's idea of empirical science. As is often the case the entire thing can seek to elevate its prospects by institutionalizing itself to raise its profile and create beneficial perceptions. With religions they have gone as far as to create their own Universities and publications/journals to publish in.  It is the attempt to make the truth be one's truth.

I am reminded of Robert Frost's poem "The Road not Taken" and how there came to be two sides with views about whether of not the poet was expressing regret or satisfaction about the choice. All claim to be able to read the clues in between the lines. Everyone's argument seems reasonable. To Frost the distinction was never made. What do we learn about subjective takes in reading someone's words from that? How is it that we can all read the same thing and largely come out wrong about what we have read?

Who wrote Shakespeare? Why does it matter? The zealots behind the popularizing of the works of Shakespeare more than likely thought God wrote it. It wasn't Shakespeare, Bacon or DeVere; and even it was it would have been the same output because the words were believed to be willed by God if you believe their worldviews. They would also have you believe King James was just channeling God too. We are all just wearing a mask in that way of seeing things. It is God or the Devil at work. That is how foolish these people still were in these times. It's all imposture. Even the idea of British manifest destiny can be traced back to the same God delusions. 

Anecdotally, I came to study some recent aspects of this authorship suggestion game as an exercise in disproving what was being said by Peter Amundsen about Shakespeare (me doing the easy stuff in the face of his conjecture). In my mind there ought to have been more than was meeting the eye with his sleight of hand. It has led me to another type of question, though. There are things which show intent in some aspects of Bacon's known/accepted works. It is not clear what that intent was, but it appears to have been about modernizing the idea of God to allow for the coming scientific age.  Bacon, to me, was chasing and ideal of peace and harmony and writing overtly about how to achieve that politically.  He seems to have been taken by the idea of men self governing out their own morality which was to be founded in a unifying God concept (the placeholder of morality).  In the end I will never know, because I was not there as a witness to it all. Because this is history I am limited in my ability to know by what confidence I have about what I can show. The sum of what we can know is, sadly, quite small. We have to accept that. We have an unlimited ability to feel one way of another, though, but that is not the same thing. 

I should be able to be here and partake in this as well as I would anywhere else if it is an ongoing study. If it meant I had to first believe in something unconditionally and then be told what to believe then what is even the point of studying something? That would be the stuff of Bible study. Stop acting like all this has been determined already. In the spirit of Hermes you must be a clever witness to it. Hermes only "teaches" you something (the things that get carved in stone) when you have been duped.  That is to say, he has achieved a magic trick by having you believe you have knowledge. Hermes is at the gate of the Temple of wisdom that way. To enter there needs to be a magic trick operating on you. We all have this prankster in us wanting to create beliefs (what we think we know). 

When I encounter belief I get instantly discouraged. We ought to just deal in suggestions honestly.  There is so much to explore which is beneficial for us to work on in building our own experiences.

[Allisnum2er]

Hi everyone,

Here are more suggestions 😊 !

Even if I do not agree with his conclusion, Mr Waugh brillantly presented the analogy between two passages of "Discoveries" by Ben Jonson

with "Controversias" by Seneca.

The fact is that Ben Jonson writes openly on the subject of Contreversies in "Discoveries".

https://archive.org/details/workesofbenjamin00jons/page/n655/mode/2up?view=theater

On page 104 ( simple cipher of PALLAS ATHENA) , he tells us that most times theTRUTH IS LOST IN THE MIDST.

For me, "midst" is a reference to MEDIOCRIA FIRMA , Francis Bacon's motto, and I see a lot of connections.

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/195/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html

177 is the simple cipher of WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Interestingly, if we do not take in count the Title Page and the Introduction written in Latin, "Discoveries" runs to 46 pages.

That links "Discoveries" with the famous Psalm 46.

 

Moreover ...

AND WHAT A SURPRISE ON THE 33rd PAGE ! 😊

 

[Christie Waldman]

Quotation of Mr. Strittmatter: Lawrence Gerald       Mr. Gerald, my statement was quite correct and I am shocked that someone like yourself, with such an obviously incomplete and faulty comprehension of the Oxford case, should think it prudent to contradict me on such flimsy evidence.

I made a comment in response. I did not see it today so I posted a shorter version today, referencing, two of Sir George Greenwood's books made in direct rebuttal to J. M. Robertson, Is There a Shakespeare Problem? (1916) and Shakespeare's Law (1920), as well as the refutation right here on SirBacon.org to Carolyn Spurgeon's book, Shakespeare's Imagery and What it Tells Us (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935) of F.E.C.H. and W.S. M, "Professor Spurgeon and her Images," Baconiana Sept. 1969, pp. 43-57, https://sirbacon.org/spurgeon.htm. Looking at Brian McClinton, The Shakespeare Conspiracies, addressing  Robertson (pp. 68, 245) and Spurgeon (346-347). There is material in Cockburn as well.  I updated the references at my website's bibliography commentary page. There are probably more refutations of Robertson and Spurgeon we can collect. Mr. Strittmatter mentioned a "Cole" as well, but without further reference, I have no idea who that is.

Yann, I saw your comment in the notifications and had assumed it was still up. Thank you for making it!

[Light-of-Truth]

6 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

On the Shakespeare authorship question all sides who make claims that are not well received by the largest faction (those who don't even think there's an authorship question to begin with) are being laughed at as heartily as DeVere and Bacon proponents are laughing at each other in their exchanges. You understand that, right? More are laughing at you than are not. It surely cannot be about who's being laughed at hardest, so why partake in it? Laughing at someone is a mimetic recruitment strategy. The view here is far from the mainstream view. Can we have quotes from those people who make fun of both Bacon and DeVere authorship theories, and of others, in order to stay humble?

 

6 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I should be able to be here and partake in this as well as I would anywhere else if it is an ongoing study. If it meant I had to first believe in something unconditionally and then be told what to believe then what is even the point of studying something? That would be the stuff of Bible study. Stop acting like all this has been determined already. In the spirit of Hermes you must be a clever witness to it. Hermes only "teaches" you something (the things that get carved in stone) when you have been duped.  That is to say, he has achieved a magic trick by having you believe you have knowledge. Hermes is at the gate of the Temple of wisdom that way. To enter there needs to be a magic trick operating on you. We all have this prankster in us wanting to create beliefs (what we think we know). 

When I encounter belief I get instantly discouraged. We ought to just deal in suggestions honestly.  There is so much to explore which is beneficial for us to work on in building our own experiences.

CJ, I consider you a teacher in my life. I get what you say. But you have yet to offer me anything that is as much fun or as rewarding to me as far as my tiny life on the Gulf Coast of Florida being a caretaker for my elderly Dad and my wife with disabilities while I scramble to pay bills by being a programmer for this and that my clients need. At the end of my day, and also when I first wake up, I am a unique Baconian in my own collection of stars, dots, numbers, patterns, memories, and experiences. It's my fuel for Life, my Joy, my Passion. My own "Belief" system created and watered by my own take on everything.

If I were wealthy, with Free time to study all day to ponder life and its mysteries, I'd maybe be more serious about not being in my own personal Disneyland of Bacon. Yet, where I am at the end of the day is an exciting and invigorating reality. I am sure there are more Oxies like me than Baconians. I believe they are all Fooles. But the irony is I have known myself to be a total Foole for most of my life.

On some, maybe even most of my Deepest beliefs, I may be accurate enough to approach a real Truth. Or not. I know why I believe what I do. I also know I am limited to five senses with a little extra thrown in because of the reckless hilariously fun way I have lived my life.

Lawrence introduced me to Bacon at a time when I was ready. Only we who were introduced to Bacon at just right time would understand what that means. For me, it was so very much at the right time.

Lawrence was also the first to let me know my "Belief" system was something in myself, and my cipher direction and after some years of serious work the results I was seeing were "not" where the Baconian movement was moving back then. Yet he'd feed me with more and more Baconian food that only contributed to my path. Our friendship grew and continues to grow, he is my Brother and Best Friend.

I worked with Christie (Christina back then) for several months before the B'Hive was a thought as we finalized her book for SirBacon.org. Her Law background is not unlike your philosophy CJ. As our friendship grew she became yet another in many who challenged my "Belief" system. I like that, and need it. I have been shaped by a handful of people way more intelligent than myself. My wife, my mother and father, local friends, clients, etc., know I am a Baconian but smile and at best offer subtle suggestions that I should not bring up the subject in mixed company. LOL 😉

But I am still me, who I am. Maybe a bit wiser every day, I hope, becoming more careful how I phrase my beliefs online (sometimes).

"It's my opinion based on my work that Bacon may have been born as 'William Tudor' to Elizabeth I".

25 years in this game with my name and my ideas and artwork on Bacon websites, I have a few friends, but no public "following". On a given day more Oxies and Strats make fun of me than all my family, friends, and Baconian brothers and sisters ever Like or Wow anything I say. I accepted that by 2004. In 2003 I thought I'd Shake up the world. That was my crushing moment knowing my Truth fell silent on the World.

Back then when I got back online after a five year break, I jumped into the Authorship online discussions. Remember, Alt.this and Alt.that?

It was horrible. I was destroyed! Not by facts or any kind of truth, but by huge waves of pure mean obnoxious bullying by Strats. Those forums were piles of Poopoo made of lies guarded by the most vicious and bloodthirsty liars on Earth. I was a tasty nibble of Bacon for the Sharks of Avon who were, and still are, like starving primitive cave people with sharp teeth and dangerous claws.

This B'Hive was created to be a "Safe Zone" for we who are "Baconians."

In your defense CJ, being a "Baconian" does not 100% require one believes Bacon wrote Shakespeare. Bacon was worthy of attention 400 years after his death for his contribution to Law (Christie), his serious scientific and philosophy (you, CJ), and his Rosicrucian contributions. And more. There is a lot of overlap in all those realms, but every one of us is unique.

You said, "If it meant I had to first believe in something unconditionally and then be told what to believe then what is even the point of studying something?"

Our rules are showing respect number one. Debate is allowed. I have thick skin from being my own kind of Baconian. Some Baconians aRE softer than others, AND some Baconians can dance with Willy and Eddie sharks.

We've only had to ban two members in our first year or so (not counting a few SPAM members who disappeared very quickly before anyone saw them typically). One member who is a specific type of Baconian spewed out racist hate with personal attacks and terrorist threats and was permanently kicked out. Recently, a member who was no type of Baconian came in with wild crazy ideas and became threatening in private messages as if we owed that person some kind of free venue to promote their ridiculous non-Baconian ideas which is against our published Rules to begin with.

You, CJ, stand up for Bacon challenging me, and all of us, to be more scientific, "more Baconian." It is a valid Baconian position, even if not very fun sometimes. LOL

At the end of the day, your "Belief" system is out there for the world to see. Mine is as well. We all have our own "Belief" system, no two alike. Lawrence and I, before we agreed to give this a try, discussed the fact that no two Baconians agree on everything. That is a Truth. Right?

CJ, as with my other Esoteric/Baconian teachers, I listen and am silly putty being shaped by thoughts from those who I respect. Yet as I get older I am learning that as I head down life's super highway at a thousand miles an hour towards my end, having my personal Bacon Passion and Cipher Joy is some the most valuable possessions I hold onto.

 

 

[Eric Roberts]

18 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

There is no truth for the masses. The masses always mimetically follow some suggestion made to them by some who claim to know.  What passes for the largest truths has always been very dubious things if history is a teacher to us. The truths have always recruited well, aided by convincing people with convincing arguments that disarm and satisfy. There are only those suggestions and the means to have them be put in front of you and appeal to your sensibilities. Machiavelli understood this and popularized it, but we act as if we had never been made aware about this sort of human behavior. It is a mistake to allow one's self to be recruited into a faction which is based in unconditional acceptance of ANY suggestion. If you are for the study of ANYTHING you must also be willing to accept, and welcome the idea, that you are wrong or that your position is unfalsifiable as given. It is easiest to show that someone may be wrong. It is hardest to satisfy all criticisms. The only truths we have satisfy all honest criticisms. That is to say, we don't have many that aren't empirical. To a certain degree all we seem to accept are the validity of numbers and logic as the framework for understanding.

On the Shakespeare authorship question all sides who make claims that are not well received by the largest faction (those who don't even think there's an authorship question to begin with) are being laughed at as heartily as DeVere and Bacon proponents are laughing at each other in their exchanges. You understand that, right? More are laughing at you than are not. It surely cannot be about who's being laughed at hardest, so why partake in it? Laughing at someone is a mimetic recruitment strategy. The view here is far from the mainstream view. Can we have quotes from those people who make fun of both Bacon and DeVere authorship theories, and of others, in order to stay humble?  To an outsider all sides are playing the same clever games, using the same sort of "evidence" which, to be honest, does not count as evidence in many people's idea of empirical science. As is often the case the entire thing can seek to elevate its prospects by institutionalizing itself to raise its profile and create beneficial perceptions. With religions they have gone as far as to create their own Universities and publications/journals to publish in.  It is the attempt to make the truth be one's truth.

I am reminded of Robert Frost's poem "The Road not Taken" and how there came to be two sides with views about whether of not the poet was expressing regret or satisfaction about the choice. All claim to be able to read the clues in between the lines. Everyone's argument seems reasonable. To Frost the distinction was never made. What do we learn about subjective takes in reading someone's words from that? How is it that we can all read the same thing and largely come out wrong about what we have read?

Who wrote Shakespeare? Why does it matter? The zealots behind the popularizing of the works of Shakespeare more than likely thought God wrote it. It wasn't Shakespeare, Bacon or DeVere; and even it was it would have been the same output because the words were believed to be willed by God if you believe their worldviews. They would also have you believe King James was just channeling God too. We are all just wearing a mask in that way of seeing things. It is God or the Devil at work. That is how foolish these people still were in these times. It's all imposture. Even the idea of British manifest destiny can be traced back to the same God delusions. 

Anecdotally, I came to study some recent aspects of this authorship suggestion game as an exercise in disproving what was being said by Peter Amundsen about Shakespeare (me doing the easy stuff in the face of his conjecture). In my mind there ought to have been more than was meeting the eye with his sleight of hand. It has led me to another type of question, though. There are things which show intent in some aspects of Bacon's known/accepted works. It is not clear what that intent was, but it appears to have been about modernizing the idea of God to allow for the coming scientific age.  Bacon, to me, was chasing and ideal of peace and harmony and writing overtly about how to achieve that politically.  He seems to have been taken by the idea of men self governing out their own morality which was to be founded in a unifying God concept (the placeholder of morality).  In the end I will never know, because I was not there as a witness to it all. Because this is history I am limited in my ability to know by what confidence I have about what I can show. The sum of what we can know is, sadly, quite small. We have to accept that. We have an unlimited ability to feel one way of another, though, but that is not the same thing. 

I should be able to be here and partake in this as well as I would anywhere else if it is an ongoing study. If it meant I had to first believe in something unconditionally and then be told what to believe then what is even the point of studying something? That would be the stuff of Bible study. Stop acting like all this has been determined already. In the spirit of Hermes you must be a clever witness to it. Hermes only "teaches" you something (the things that get carved in stone) when you have been duped.  That is to say, he has achieved a magic trick by having you believe you have knowledge. Hermes is at the gate of the Temple of wisdom that way. To enter there needs to be a magic trick operating on you. We all have this prankster in us wanting to create beliefs (what we think we know). 

When I encounter belief I get instantly discouraged. We ought to just deal in suggestions honestly.  There is so much to explore which is beneficial for us to work on in building our own experiences.

Hi CJ.

Your homily (in the higher sense) has several flaws:

1. I "believe" that we are all old enough and wise enough to know the difference between conjecture, belief and historical facts. I don't know who or what this prankster is. 

2. From gathered information, insights are formed. Isn't informed conjecture permissible, providing it conforms to the known facts?

3. There is serious, cutting-edge scholarship and learning going on here in the B'Hive which, for my money, isn't the best place to present one's personal philosophies.

No offence intended. 🙂

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

12 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

 

CJ, I consider you a teacher in my life. I get what you say. But you have yet to offer me anything that is as much fun or as rewarding to me as far as my tiny life on the Gulf Coast of Florida being a caretaker for my elderly Dad and my wife with disabilities while I scramble to pay bills by being a programmer for this and that my clients need. At the end of my day, and also when I first wake up, I am a unique Baconian in my own collection of stars, dots, numbers, patterns, memories, and experiences. It's my fuel for Life, my Joy, my Passion. My own "Belief" system created and watered by my own take on everything.

If I were wealthy, with Free time to study all day to ponder life and its mysteries, I'd maybe be more serious about not being in my own personal Disneyland of Bacon. Yet, where I am at the end of the day is an exciting and invigorating reality. I am sure there are more Oxies like me than Baconians. I believe they are all Fooles. But the irony is I have known myself to be a total Foole for most of my life.

On some, maybe even most of my Deepest beliefs, I may be accurate enough to approach a real Truth. Or not. I know why I believe what I do. I also know I am limited to five senses with a little extra thrown in because of the reckless hilariously fun way I have lived my life.

Lawrence introduced me to Bacon at a time when I was ready. Only we who were introduced to Bacon at just right time would understand what that means. For me, it was so very much at the right time.

Lawrence was also the first to let me know my "Belief" system was something in myself, and my cipher direction and after some years of serious work the results I was seeing were "not" where the Baconian movement was moving back then. Yet he'd feed me with more and more Baconian food that only contributed to my path. Our friendship grew and continues to grow, he is my Brother and Best Friend.

I worked with Christie (Christina back then) for several months before the B'Hive was a thought as we finalized her book for SirBacon.org. Her Law background is not unlike your philosophy CJ. As our friendship grew she became yet another in many who challenged my "Belief" system. I like that, and need it. I have been shaped by a handful of people way more intelligent than myself. My wife, my mother and father, local friends, clients, etc., know I am a Baconian but smile and at best offer subtle suggestions that I should not bring up the subject in mixed company. LOL 😉

But I am still me, who I am. Maybe a bit wiser every day, I hope, becoming more careful how I phrase my beliefs online (sometimes).

"It's my opinion based on my work that Bacon may have been born as 'William Tudor' to Elizabeth I".

25 years in this game with my name and my ideas and artwork on Bacon websites, I have a few friends, but no public "following". On a given day more Oxies and Strats make fun of me than all my family, friends, and Baconian brothers and sisters ever Like or Wow anything I say. I accepted that by 2004. In 2003 I thought I'd Shake up the world. That was my crushing moment knowing my Truth fell silent on the World.

Back then when I got back online after a five year break, I jumped into the Authorship online discussions. Remember, Alt.this and Alt.that?

It was horrible. I was destroyed! Not by facts or any kind of truth, but by huge waves of pure mean obnoxious bullying by Strats. Those forums were piles of Poopoo made of lies guarded by the most vicious and bloodthirsty liars on Earth. I was a tasty nibble of Bacon for the Sharks of Avon who were, and still are, like starving primitive cave people with sharp teeth and dangerous claws.

This B'Hive was created to be a "Safe Zone" for we who are "Baconians."

In your defense CJ, being a "Baconian" does not 100% require one believes Bacon wrote Shakespeare. Bacon was worthy of attention 400 years after his death for his contribution to Law (Christie), his serious scientific and philosophy (you, CJ), and his Rosicrucian contributions. And more. There is a lot of overlap in all those realms, but every one of us is unique.

You said, "If it meant I had to first believe in something unconditionally and then be told what to believe then what is even the point of studying something?"

Our rules are showing respect number one. Debate is allowed. I have thick skin from being my own kind of Baconian. Some Baconians aRE softer than others, AND some Baconians can dance with Willy and Eddie sharks.

We've only had to ban two members in our first year or so (not counting a few SPAM members who disappeared very quickly before anyone saw them typically). One member who is a specific type of Baconian spewed out racist hate with personal attacks and terrorist threats and was permanently kicked out. Recently, a member who was no type of Baconian came in with wild crazy ideas and became threatening in private messages as if we owed that person some kind of free venue to promote their ridiculous non-Baconian ideas which is against our published Rules to begin with.

You, CJ, stand up for Bacon challenging me, and all of us, to be more scientific, "more Baconian." It is a valid Baconian position, even if not very fun sometimes. LOL

At the end of the day, your "Belief" system is out there for the world to see. Mine is as well. We all have our own "Belief" system, no two alike. Lawrence and I, before we agreed to give this a try, discussed the fact that no two Baconians agree on everything. That is a Truth. Right?

CJ, as with my other Esoteric/Baconian teachers, I listen and am silly putty being shaped by thoughts from those who I respect. Yet as I get older I am learning that as I head down life's super highway at a thousand miles an hour towards my end, having my personal Bacon Passion and Cipher Joy is some the most valuable possessions I hold onto.

 

 

I'm not really in possession of anything worthy of being guided by. Men in general have come to their conclusions which I must consider and possibly reiterate.  Attempts at programming me were made from a very early age, and they look a lot like just being raised by a father and a mother who wanted harmony in their household and despised being opposed or questioned by a young fluff.  What I may say is certainly not anything worth dividing the world into factions about.  We all suffer from having been trained to think in one way or another. I was, from an middle adolescent age, trained by non family members of the academic variety to tear apart arguments to see if they can bear the scrutiny of the look as a way of going about my craft. This is a great way to have a science in things, but it is a horrible way to build personal relationships between people who are more about protecting their way of thinking. Still, I would rather you questioned the things I say than have you accept them unconditionally. I think there is more to be gained by being honestly opposed and critical than by being cajoled by people who see something appealing in agreeing with you to grow a base of power.  The real taxing duality in the world is in between the condition of belief that is magically arrived to and the condition of knowing one has very real limitations in knowing. It is a monumental problem to know what it means to know. 

The situation is seldom helped by witnessing for one's salvation. If it was we would all by now be more prone to be labeled as Jehova's Witnesses who do witness dutifully as part of their rite.  People get helped by their beliefs in ways that have nothing to do with the veracity of them. How that works is the stuff of internal harmony. Your internal dialogue must at least be constructive to you and your selected loved ones. It would be futile for me to argue that having this or that belief has not helped people get on with their lives. It has. But it has not helped people to have belief pass as THE highest of virtues. This is exactly how the domains of things that hinge on belief would want you to see things. 

There are things even I would want to believe. I think I go through life hoping they will go away so I can be free of feeling I have to concede something which I cannot  support or defend. If I take these things to only be suggestions then I am not as ruffled by them. I can, if I wish, conditionally accept things and retain the peace of mind that I will gladly change my views (flip-flop) if that is warranted. It's helpful to be shown why we should not believe unconditionally. It is hard to not take this approach in a world with so many suggestions in it.

The saddest of realities is that we really do not have a science for what is not empirical. There are many things we are stuck only having feelings about. And we are not wrong to feel that we know what works for us. We often are greatly helped by simply being entertained. 

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The saddest of realities is that we really do not have a science for what is not empirical. There are many things we are stuck only having feelings about. And we are not wrong to feel that we know what works for us. We often are greatly helped by simply being entertained. 

One hundred years from now a few more things may be better understood. A few days ago, for fun, I researched some latest theories about Synchronicity. Quantum Physics is advancing by leaps and bounds. Google was offering a tidbit or two after several clicks and deletes. Not much new since books I read 20 years ago.

I'm under some friendly pressure from my creative/programming peers I work with to get better up-to-speed on AI. It's important for we who do what we do with Ones and Zeroes to know what is alive and well today expanding like a Big Bang into our daily lives. If we can't keep up, Truth as we know it, whatever Truth is, will become what a bank of processors will produce based on everything available online. On another thread deleted for breaking our rules, I mentioned a phrase I learned in the 70s at my first real full-time job programming and servicing the latest minicomputers.

"Garbage in, garbage out."

AI is learning from all the garbage on the internet, but it also is paying attention to everything we do today on our devices.

I had a short "dialog" with ChatGPT and it's more effective than Google. The term I was looking for is "nonlocality." The Quantum Physics theory is that events across the space of the Universe may be connected somehow. ChatGPT said what I wanted to share about the "space" part of the concept:

I suggest that not only Space, but I believe Time is nonlocal as well.

The day science can do an experiment and demonstrate how all that works, many, if not all of the ancient Esoteric doors will open up. Time and Space will Light up at once for Everyone.

I'm sorry, I started to dream...

 

[Allisnum2er]

The idea suggested by Christie that the latin quote by Pers. (Persius) on the title page of "Discoveries" could conceal a reference to Perseus, reminded me the famous Amsterdamum monogrammon by  Cornelii Giselberti Plempii  published in 1616, the year of William Shakspere's death.

https://archive.org/details/corneliigiselber00plem/page/123/mode/1up?ref=ol&view=theater

Indeed, I remind you that  on page 173 (R.C.) one Emblem represents a man(that could be Francis Bacon) on Pegasus.

I know that the Emblem 49 (WIT simple cipher) is about Bellerophon and that the Myths of Bellorophon and Perseus are not the same but both are related to Pegasus.

I took the fact that my thoughts bring me back to the monogrammon as the"sign" that there was something of first importance in that book that I had missed, something probably related to St alban(s), considering that in "Discoveries" by Ben Jonson almost all revolves around St Alban(s).

I think that I found it ! 😊

I don't know if someone already noticed it but here is I "believe" the origin of Francis Bacon's Statue by Sir Thomas Meautys, displayed in St. Michael’s Church in St. Albans.

33 is the simple cipher of BACON

157 is the simple cipher of FRA ROSI CROSSE, and as I tend to believe (based on Rob's Work), the simple cipher of WILLIAM TUDOR I. 😊

[Light-of-Truth]

Follow up on previous reply...

Eric, I apologize if this makes you uncomfortable. You have been vocal about the "AI vs. Human" potential, and I hear you Brother! But we are in a big AI takeover, good or bad. In just the past four months things have changed a lot.

I did sell out the other day and peeked at AI Logo ideas for my Light-of-Truth website. Wow, not shabby at all and I could never come up with over 90,000 examples in two minutes. Maybe I have enough new ideas from AI to create my own Human version. But hey, time in not something I have any extra, and if I did come up with something on my own AI has already fed me hundreds of fresh ideas so it would never be pure. 😉