In the News today : What-shakespeare-really-looked-like-the-only-portrait-painted-during-his-lifetime

[Eric Roberts]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:48 AM, Christie Waldman said:

From Eric, 16 hrs. ago, this thread: "Equally interesting is the fact that Northumberland House stood next door to York House, where Francis Bacon lived during the years he was Lord Keeper."

York House, also known as Bacon House, on Noble Street, in Aldersgate, was where the King's printer, Christopher Barker and son Robert, printers, lived and printed. "Noble Street," https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/NOBL1.htm/. Foster Lane, labelled here as Forster Lane, https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/FOST1.htm. Here is Fleetwood residence, "of Bacon House, Foster Lane and Noble Street," https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/fleetwood-william-i-1525-94. Foster Lane--I've seen a convoluted definition for why it was called Foster Lane. It couldn't have had anything to do with Bacon being a foster parent, could it.

"It has revealed to us also: first, that the
Barkers' printing house was in St. Martin's Lane, off
Aldersgate Street, and was known as Northumberland
House, and that it served as the King's Printing House
until Bonham Norton removed the office to Hunsdon
House, Blackfriars." Henry R. Plomer, "The King's Printing House under the Stuarts,"The Library, Volume s2-II, Issue 8, October 1901, Pages 353–375, 374, https://doi.org/10.1093/library/s2-II.8.353.

In this paper, I cited a Paul Kocher article which gave a wrong citation as to Fleetwood's account of Bacon's speech. I believe I gave the correct one. I certainly intended to. Essay, “Bacon’s Maiden Speech to Parliament and His Royal Birth,” June 15, 2020. https://sirbacon.org/archives/Bacons%20Maiden%20Speech%20to%20Parliament%20&%20His%20Royal%20Birth%20June%2015%202020-1.pdf.

See the entry for "Coachmakers' Hall, Coach Harness Maker's Hall" at  https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/dictionary-of-london/coach-and-horses-inn-cock#h2-0001.

The house had been bought by Charles Bostock, a Scrivener, in 1628 and used as Scriveners Hall, with ownership transferred to the Scriveners by Bostock in 1631. The Scriveners rebuilt the hall and eventually sold it to the Coachmakers. It was Scriveners Hall 1628-1720 (destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666 and rebuilt). After 1720, it was called Coachmaker's Hall. They rebuilt it in 1843 and 1870.

 

It was destroyed by bombs in WW II and there is a plaque there now, at Noble St. near Oates St., not far from the graveyard where the St. Mary Staining church burned down in the Great Fire and was not rebuilt.

 

I had this in my notes. I don't have any other references handy, but I can tell you that I found out a lot more searching Coachmaker's Hall or Scrivener's Hall than I did searching for Bacon House or York House.

Hi Christie. I just found the following extract about Bacon House from your article, "Bacon’s Maiden Speech to Parliament & His Royal Birth" June 2020, p. 2:

https://sirbacon.org/archives/Bacons Maiden Speech to Parliament & His Royal Birth June 15 2020-1.pdf

 Thanks so much for making me aware of this.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Eric Roberts

[Christie Waldman]

Both Elizabetha and Iacobus are in the Latin nominative case, used for subjects doing the action. Thus, the inscription is not saying Iacobus succeeded Elizabetha, if the Latin is being used correctly. The Latin verb succedo usually would take the dative when used in that sense of "coming after., according to Cassell's Latin Dictionary.  The dative of Elizabetha would be Elizabethae. None of the others use the word succedit.

On this topic, there is also Bacon's portrait appearing in Compton Holland's Baziliologia, A Booke of Kings (1618). From the FBRT essay, "Portraits of Francis Bacon," p. 2.

Eric, if you are citing from my book, would you please give the full citation with the page number, so I can find it.  Thanks!

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Christie Waldman

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Both Elizabetha and Iacobus are in the Latin nominative case, used for subjects doing the action. Thus, the inscription is not saying Iacobus succeeded Elizabetha, if the Latin is being used correctly. The Latin verb succedo usually would take the dative when used in that sense of "coming after., according to Cassell's Latin Dictionary.  The dative of Elizabetha would be Elizabethae. None of the others use the word succedit.

I wish I was on the level to understand what you said! LOL

I "kind of get it", whatever it is. But to be honest, that's what the response is I get using numbers! 🙂

Yet, I can take a nugget of yours and learn, study, and explore them. And I have.

I do want to share my experience on your other message, as an loyal friend:

Here on the B'Hive, we who all know each other, as best we can we should link to articles, pages, posts in the forum, whatever, from each other. We are building a community and a powerful presence on Google for the World of curious we do not know, yet. I am professionally and publicly most vocal about copyright and giving full "legal" references". However, here I am breaking my own rules on B'Hive justifying to myself because it is legally less restricted as a not for profit (as opposed to a "non-profit"). It's educational and available to anyone. You don't have to pay to read what we say. We teach.

I also am a total supporter of "respect" for intellectual property. Here on the B'Hive, I think we are already on the "link to/reference" page of thinking, but this is also our social hangout. We are having a conversation with each other, every day. The public there, but we are a community kicking around ideas. Writing the largest Bacon book in the Universe.

The reality is hard and cold; Once you put anything on the internet it can, and will be stolen and used for some entity you had no idea exists, and likely still do not. That Is the Way it goes. (A random Bluegrass song in the background just playing as I was typing.)

With paying clients I used to chase thieves who stole content to use themselves. I have chased dozens of photography thieves using my photos for websites that I would never allow. After ten years it became just more time consuming work and other than Google kicking a website off it was worthless time spent. Once it is on the internet, it is "out there."

Good news is that honest respectable people who may want to share something that you own will know how to do it. And their audience is probably exactly who you want to target anyway. It is possible the good people found a stolen reference on a poor location and did the diligence to find who you are and what you say.

Here on the B'Hive, we'll try to maintain a more serious "business-like" posting while also "dancing around celebrating" so happy in what it is we do among friends. We already support each other, and mostly remember to properly link or give a hint to whatever we share, but being consciously aware is very helpful and a very good thing. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Light-of-Truth

[Eric Roberts]

4 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Both Elizabetha and Iacobus are in the Latin nominative case, used for subjects doing the action. Thus, the inscription is not saying Iacobus succeeded Elizabetha, if the Latin is being used correctly. The Latin verb succedo usually would take the dative when used in that sense of "coming after., according to Cassell's Latin Dictionary.  The dative of Elizabetha would be Elizabethae. None of the others use the word succedit.

On this topic, there is also Bacon's portrait appearing in Compton Holland's Baziliologia, A Booke of Kings (1618). From the FBRT essay, "Portraits of Francis Bacon," p. 2.

Eric, if you are citing from my book, would you please give the full citation with the page number, so I can find it.  Thanks!

 

 Sorry Christie. The quote is from your article: 

"Bacon’s Maiden Speech to Parliament & His Royal Birth" (top of page 2)

https://sirbacon.org/archives/Bacons Maiden Speech to Parliament & His Royal Birth June 15 2020-1.pdf

 

[Christie Waldman]

OK, I understand, Light-of-Truth. We write as if we were just among friends, but the whole world can read it. Both are good to remember. I just wanted to be able to find the quotation. I didn't recognize it from my book. It makes a lot more sense, Eric, that you had found it in that article. Fleetwood knew whereof he spoke.

Maybe more explanation on the Latin would be good?  Latin is an "inflected language." That means they used endings on their words to convey information about the function of the word in the sentence. It helped them say a lot in few words--important when you are chiseling in stone!

So if you have a sentence, "I gave John a gift," you'd have different endings on the words for "I" (subject of the sentence, the person doing the action (called nominative case in Latin); the person you gave the gift to (indirect object, called "dative case" in Latin); and the thing that you gave (the direct object, in Latin called the "accusative case").

So Jacobus (James, the subject of the sentence) succeeded ("succedit") _______. You expect a name to follow that verb and fill in the blank. In a succession, something follows something. In Latin, that word to fill in the blank would have a certain case ending (in this case, it would be dative, because succedit "takes" the dative case). In the inscription, the word we would expect to find in that spot--with the right case ending--is not there. There is no word with the right case ending in the inscription.

All this, I think, reinforces the notion that the word we'd expect to find was deliberately removed. That is all I was saying. They didn't have to put in the word succedit at all. They hadn't done it for any of the others in that list. To use it deliberately pointed out the aberration in the natural line. Seems to me, anyway. But even without the Latin, it's pretty clear a word was removed, isn't it.