Francis Bacon's Private Notebook The Promus - Source for Hundreds of Parallels in his Shakespeare Works

[A Phoenix]

Sir Nicholas Bacon's Favourite Poet & Dramatist Seneca

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

Seneca and the Political and Philosophical Outlook of Sir Nicholas Bacon 

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[RoyalCraftiness]

20 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

For me, on a personal level, it is about Truth. There is a wealth of evidence Bacon wrote Shakespeare, and little to none that Willy wrote the works. For most people I know, it does not matter who wrote Shakespeare. It is important to me, I'm the oddball.

 

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.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

So as I read what you wrote, CJ, I'm like, "Sounds like you know what you are talking about." I can follow, in a way. But I'm at a loss as to what you are suggesting. 😉

Sometimes its like you are suggesting we "accept" what others tell us because they may be in some ancient line of secret holders. "Don't pay attention the guy behind the curtain, just listen to Oz and accept it fully!"

But I am a seeker, and in my life it has led to spiritual growth and learning, at least on some level. I rarely accept a belief system because someone tells me I should. Nor would you. Or maybe you are telling us not to accept, which may be your message.

It's hard to tell. 😉

4 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

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.

Nowhere in the kabbalistic sense, maybe, but in the scientific sense it is everything. We know the Earth is round and it revolves around the Sun as the planets do. That was science, not a secret passed down for thousands of years.

Yet I would expect that as our culture and humanity have evolved over tens of thousands of years some really great secrets have been learned and passed down that today most us are oblivious to. The nature of numbers may be one. A lot of our modern medicines came from knowledge shared by primitive witch-doctors and shamans.

It is understood I think that we know we are influenced by our beliefs, but I am yet to hear a single reason to not pursue a road or passion that has one interested and excited no matter where it goes. Serendipity can be as powerful as synchronicity. Any path should be educational if one is awake.

If I were to give up on my Bacon cipher story treasure hunt, because it does not matter and I should accept that someone can tell me whatever secrets I am worthy of, what would I do? Watch TV? Maybe even watch the news and accept what they tell me is going on without trying to verify whatever it is.

There's a hint where you bring up the "spread of ideas" that would be "against the spirit of the teachings." I do think of that. I am not sworn to any secrets. I've never been told a secret in the Bacon realm that I supposed to keep to myself. (Outside of personal conversations and relationships). So I share what I find, and over the years I may have found a few nuggets. Sometimes I do wonder if I should not describe my experience with certain numbers as if they work like I believe they may have some risk of being misused for the wrong purposes.

 

 

 

[Christie Waldman]

As a lawyer, I tend to think of truth as factual truth, as what can be proven, by facts and reasonable inferences, with legal standards and procedures in place. Francis Bacon helped establish modern standards for defining what a fact is, first in the legal profession, and then that carried over into science, as Barbara Shapiro wrote in her book, A Question of Fact (Ithaca: Cornell University, 2003). I see what you are saying, Light-of-Truth, that a "truth" can also mean a "belief.," as in: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." And to C.J., yes, we want to avoid false syllogisms, but the first step is to get the facts straight, as I see it.

To attack Constance Pott because ....? of her name? her upbringing? seems weak (and ad hominem). It seems to assume, disrespectfully, she did not do her own research before making up her own mind and taking a position. We can read the Promus online for free, as well as her team's commentary (for she had a whole team of researchers; it was not just one woman doing it all), as well as Edwin Durning-Lawrence's commentary in his book on the Promus. It is more difficult to gain access to the Oxford Francis Bacon vol. 1 with its editors' notes. I did get it from interlibrary loan once. I think it costs about $450 to buy it.  These are the three main ones that I know of, that go through the Promus entry by entry. I have not yet had a chance to read A. Phoenix's paper on the Promus.

It seems to me that finding the hidden ciphers and codes is part of the data gathering. It is beneficial for its own sake.  And why did Bacon do it? Because he was a genius and it was fun, and it kept his cryptological skills up that he used in intelligence work for the Queen? Because he was conveying secret information he was not allowed to say outright? Seems like all of the above are possibilities. Also, it was fashionable; there was great interest in cryptology in the 17th century.  A while back, Yann was showing us an example of a Bacon acrostic in a title page by Selden, here in this forum. Why did John Selden the legal historian and world-respected scholar even in his own lifetime do that? Doesn't it point to a need to investigate further into Bacon and Selden's relationship?

William Stone Booth admitted in Subtle Shining Secrecies that he might have gone too far in some of his examples, in his earlier books on acrostics and other such codes/ciphers he found in Shakespeare. In Subtle Shining Secrecies, he claimed to have presented his best examples. I don't see how the Friedmans could possibly have found nothing of merit in his whole book. I found in persuasive when I read it years ago.  That is the thing. How can the experts say there was no role for Bacon at all in Shakespeare authorship? At all?  Would that in itself not be strange, if one of the greatest literary figures ever to have lived did not play any role at all in the writing of the Shakespeare works, one of the greatest works of literature ever to have been written? It goes without saying, though, that the case for Bacon can be made independently of cipher evidence. N. B. Cockburn did it in The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Question Made Sane (1998) (not that I agree with him on that, for again, he rules out all evidence of ciphers, categorically, when there is evidence of them. But he did it because he felt that the emphasis on cipher evidence had weakened the case for Bacon).

A little while ago, I was looking up the phrase "time out of mind" which started out as a legal phrase. It's history dates back to 1275 A.D., to the Statute of Westminster, passed when Edward I was king. They passed a rule that, in dealing with certain cases in which a person was trying to prove his property rights, a cut-off for events that occurred prior to 1199. was imposed. Those events were too old to give you a right to bring an action.  The rationale was that no living person in 1275 could remember events that happened before 1199. I looked in Open Source Shakespeare and found the phrase was used just once by Shakespeare, in Measure for Measure. This does not seem to have been an expression in common use at the time.  But that is all the time I have for it today. And so it's back to work, and the page on which I was jotting down these notes (which happened to be p. 33) goes into the folder for later ....

Added 4:48 a.m. 1/29/2023. Measure for Measure is thought to have been first performed in 1604. It is assumed to have been written around 1603-1604. David Bevington, "Measure for Measure," https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measure-for-Measure.

I left out that "time out of mind" notably is linked to Bacon in the  Francis Bacon Act of 1601 in which the drafter (Bacon) observes that marine law has existed since "time out of mind." His "Speech on Bringing in a Bill Concerning Assurances Among Merchants" is at Spedding 10:34-35  (found in A.B. Leonard, "London 1426-1601: Marine Insurance and the Law Merchant," in Leonard, A.B. (eds.), Marine Insurance (London: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2016), 150-176, abstract with footnotes found online here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137411389_7). I have not looked for other uses of "time out of mind" in Bacon or other writers, in the EEBO English Corpora which however only includes printed materials and not all of Bacon's writings, or elsewhere.

In case anyone is interested in Bacon's contribution to the modernization of marine insurance law, the next paragraph is quoted from my book, Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, p. 127.

 

Quote

 

As Luke Wilson points out, marine insurance was available in sixteenth-century London. Even so, there was still a great deal of uncertainty in insuring marine risks,[1] a state much remedied, however, by the passage of the Francis Bacon Act of 1601. In this Act, Queen Elizabeth acknowledged the underwriting of ships by groups such as the Hanseatic League.[2] A special Court of Assurances was also established for the remediation of insurance cases. Francis Bacon was highly instrumental in the passage of this Act.[3]

---

^[1]  Luke Wilson, ch. 8, “Drama and Marine Insurance in Shakespeare’s London,” in The Law in Shakespeare, ed. by Constance Jordan and Karen Cunningham (Houndsmills UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 127-143, 128-130, 132.

 

^[2]  Withers, “The Rise of Insurance,” p. 672. For Bacon’s advice on risk management, see Alberto Feduzi and Jochen Runde, “Uncovering Unknown Unknowns: Towards a Baconian Approach to Management Decision-Making,” in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124, no. 2 (July 2014), pp. 268-283 (“building on ideas put forward by Bacon, 1620”); Why Cambridge Academics Believe that Francis Bacon (1561-1626) May Hold the Key to Business Success,” Brain Food, University of Cambridge, Aug. 27, 2014, https://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2014/why-cambridge-academics-believe-that-francis-bacon-1561-1626-may-hold-the-key-to-business-success.

 

^[3]  “The Evolution of Reinsurance,” Munich RE, https://www.munichre.com/site/marclife-mobile/get/documents_E1167439029/marclife/assset.marclife/Documents/Publications/Munich_Re_Evolution_of_Reinsurance.pdf (“Francis Bacon Act of 1601”); David M. Holland, “A Brief History of Reinsurance,” article from Reinsurance News, no. 65, Society of Actuaries (February 2009), pp. 4-29, 4-12, https://www.soa.org/library/newsletters/reinsurance.../rsn-2009-iss65-holland.aspx; see also Guido Rossi, ch. 6, and A. B. Leonard, ch. 7, Marine Insurance: Origins and Institutions, 1300-1850, ed. by A. B. Leonard, https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1137411384. For Bacon’s notes, “Speech on the bringing in of a bill concerning assurances among merchants,” see Spedding, X, p. 34, HathiTrust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3618245.

 

 

 

Edited January 29 by Christie Waldman
to add Francis Bacon Act of 1601

[Eric Roberts]

14 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

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.

 

Enlightenment

A certain man claimed to be God and was brought before the Caliph, who said to him, "Last year someone here claimed to be a prophet and he was put to death!" The man replied, "It was well that you did so, for I did not send him.                     (9th century joke)

A certain man claimed to be a prophet and was brought before the Sultan, who said to him, "I bear witness that you are a stupid prophet!" The man replied, "That is why I have only been sent to people like you”.                                                     (9th century joke)

(“The Sufis”, Idries Shah, 1964)

 

Inspired laughter and a limitless capacity to love and feel compassion for all sentient beings, not to mention the joy of experiencing life for the first time as a timeless, ever-unfolding synthesis of meanings all pointing to the ultimate source of everything… Nirvana, or the Albedo if you prefer, can only be embodied, not shared experientially.

I see where you are coming from, CJ. We like "young Will" are not the authors of our own lines. To use a bathroom metaphor, our contitioning from birth is like a plug preventing the dirty bathwater we call reality from draining so the bath can be filled with clean water. De-conditioning by whatever means can only work if genius (Spirit) and caritas (Soul) are already entwined and ready to conceive the rarest of births.

“In my world there is only the fun that comes from dabbling in what cannot possibly inform me.”

You can never be assailed from such a lofty position. Meanwhile, as a Buddha in the making, you might choose to target a plethora of more harmful activities than an intelligent discussion about a man who embodied the enlightenment you seek, i.e. the SirBacon B’Hive forums.

Edited January 29 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

7 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

As a lawyer, I tend to think of truth as factual truth, as what can be proven, by facts and reasonable inferences, with legal standards and procedures in place. Francis Bacon helped establish modern standards for defining what a fact is, first in the legal profession, and then that carried over into science, as Barbara Shapiro wrote in her book, A Question of Fact (Ithaca: Cornell University, 2003). I see what you are saying, Light-of-Truth, that a "truth" can also mean a "belief.," as in: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." And to C.J., yes, we want to avoid false syllogisms, but the first step is to get the facts straight, as I see it.

To attack Constance Pott because ....? of her name? her upbringing? seems weak (and ad hominem). It seems to assume, disrespectfully, she did not do her own research before making up her own mind and taking a position. We can read the Promus online for free, as well as her team's commentary (for she had a whole team of researchers; it was not just one woman doing it all), as well as Edwin Durning-Lawrence's commentary in his book on the Promus. It is more difficult to gain access to the Oxford Francis Bacon vol. 1 with its editors' notes. I did get it from interlibrary loan once. I think it costs about $450 to buy it.  These are the three main ones that I know of, that go through the Promus entry by entry. I have not yet had a chance to read A. Phoenix's paper on the Promus.

It seems to me that finding the hidden ciphers and codes is part of the data gathering. It is beneficial for its own sake.  And why did Bacon do it? Because he was a genius and it was fun, and it kept his cryptological skills up that he used in intelligence work for the Queen? Because he was conveying secret information he was not allowed to say outright? Seems like all of the above are possibilities. Also, it was fashionable; there was great interest in cryptology in the 17th century.  A while back, Yann was showing us an example of a Bacon acrostic in a title page by Selden, here in this forum. Why did John Selden the legal historian and world-respected scholar even in his own lifetime do that? Doesn't it point to a need to investigate further into Bacon and Selden's relationship?

William Stone Booth admitted in Subtle Shining Secrecies that he might have gone too far in some of his examples, in his earlier books on acrostics and other such codes/ciphers he found in Shakespeare. In Subtle Shining Secrecies, he claimed to have presented his best examples. I don't see how the Friedmans could possibly have found nothing of merit in his whole book. I found in persuasive when I read it years ago.  That is the thing. How can the experts say there was no role for Bacon at all in Shakespeare authorship? At all?  Would that in itself not be strange, if one of the greatest literary figures ever to have lived did not play any role at all in the writing of the Shakespeare works, one of the greatest works of literature ever to have been written? It goes without saying, though, that the case for Bacon can be made independently of cipher evidence. N. B. Cockburn did it in The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Question Made Sane (1998) (not that I agree with him on that, for again, he rules out all evidence of ciphers, categorically, when there is evidence of them. But he did it because he felt that the emphasis on cipher evidence had weakened the case for Bacon).

A little while ago, I was looking up the phrase "time out of mind" which started out as a legal phrase. It's history dates back to 1275 A.D., to the Statute of Westminster, passed when Edward I was king. They passed a rule that, in dealing with certain cases in which a person was trying to prove his property rights, a cut-off for events that occurred prior to 1199. was imposed. Those events were too old to give you a right to bring an action.  The rationale was that no living person in 1275 could remember events that happened before 1199. I looked in Open Source Shakespeare and found the phrase was used just once by Shakespeare, in Measure for Measure. This does not seem to have been an expression in common use at the time.  But that is all the time I have for it today. And so it's back to work, and the page on which I was jotting down these notes (which happened to be p. 33) goes into the folder for later ....

Hi Christie. Thank you for your impressive post. I liked what you said about Constance:

To attack Constance Pott because ....? of her name? her upbringing? seems weak (and ad hominem). It seems to assume, disrespectfully, she did not do her own research before making up her own mind and taking a position.

Subjectively, I feel you are right. As with Mrs Pott, so with Francis Bacon: an exceptional education in childhood surely equips one with the means and ability to penetrate and open important problems which affect Humanity. It does not necessarily brainwash a child into patterns of thinking they can never escape. Codswallop!

 

 

 

[A Phoenix]

Francis Bacon's Love of Seneca

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

Bacon, Seneca & His Shakespeare Plays

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

Seneca & The Shakespeare History Plays

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[Eric Roberts]

22 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Bacon, Seneca & His Shakespeare Plays

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lucius-Annaeus-Seneca-Roman-philosopher-and-statesman/Stature-and-influence

[A Phoenix]

Hamlet - The Ultimate Complex Revenge Drama

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

Seneca & The Shakespeare Tragedies

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

Seneca & The Later Shakespeare Plays

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[Eric Roberts]

21 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Seneca & The Shakespeare Tragedies

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

 

The Fiend-Like Queen: A Note on ‘Macbeth’ and Seneca’s ‘Medea - Inga-Stina Ewbank

Summary

Not everyone is, perhaps, prepared to say that ‘ Macbeth without Seneca would have been impossible’; but many would agree with Henry N. Paul when he calls Macbeth ‘the most Senecan of all of Shakespeare’s plays’. Scholars and critics have pointed out affinities with Seneca in the structural and rhetorical features of the play, as well as in those less easily definable aspects which are usually grouped together as ‘atmosphere’: the presence in action or language, or both, of night, blood and the supernatural. A number of verbal resemblances to lines in Seneca (both the original tragedies and the translations in the Tenne Tragedies) have also been pointed out, and especially Agamemnon, Hercules Furens and Hippolytus (or Phaedra) have thus been suggested as sources for Macbeth. Some critics feel that in preparation for writing Macbeth Shakespeare may have read, or re-read, at least part of Seneca’s dramatic works; and one of them thinks that, as most of the verbal echoes are from the Hippolytus and the Hercules Furens—both plays in which ‘the protagonist’s crimes are accompanied or followed by violent fear and remorse’—this indicates that Shakespeare, in turning to Seneca, paid particular attention to those plays which, compared with the others, he found ‘closer in spirit to the theme he had chosen for his next drama’. This may sound too deliberate an imitative process to those who like to think of the workings of Shakespeare’s imagination as being less conscious. 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/shakespeare-survey/fiendlike-queen-a-note-on-macbeth-and-senecas-medea/391BA7F176EE97FE935D07205E80A0CD

 

https://www.theoi.com/Text/SenecaHerculesFurens.html

Edited January 31 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

15 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hamlet - The Ultimate Complex Revenge Drama

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

https://uwlabyrinth.uwaterloo.ca/labyrinth_archives/the_performance_of_seneca.pdf

Although completely out of my depth in terms of classical Roman literature and theatre (having only spent an hour this morning on reading several papers on the subject) my first impression is that Seneca's tragedies (which I haven't read) were more static and declamatory than the Bacon-Shakespeare dramas. Francis Bacon's stage plays, and Elizabethan plays in general, seem to have been much more lively in terms of the characters' interactions with each other and plot development, i.e. more theatrical in the modern sense of the word. If this is so, then Bacon must be credited with advancing the dynamics of theatrical production in order to appeal to wider audiences, from the most educated few to the illiterate masses. Thank you A. P. for this illuminating discussion!

 

https://journals.openedition.org/pallas/1671

"Seneca’s Tragedies and the Theatres of their Time: Opportunities or Obstacles for Staging? The tragedies of Seneca and the theaters of their time: opportunities or obstacles to a staging?"

Christoph Kugelmeier

When thinking about enacting Seneca’s plays, at first sight, the magnificent, lavishly designed stage houses of the Roman theatres seem to come to mind naturally. For the drama’s action is often located in front of a royal palace the impressive scenery of which with its elaborately decorated scaenae frons is presented to the audience’s eye in a most ideal way, whereas the audiences of the classical Greek and even the later Hellenistic theatres had to push the imagination of their inner eye to a much greater extent. And yet the debate about whether or not the tragedies of the philosopher and statesman were intended to be staged has not ended to this day. 

 

https://www.press.umich.edu/5157777/dramaturgy_of_senecan_tragedy

"The Dramaturgy of Senecan Tragedy"

Thomas D. Kohn

"The Dramaturgy of Senecan Tragedy" makes a compelling argument for Seneca as an artist and a dramaturg in the true sense of the word: "a maker of drama." Regardless of whether Seneca composed his plays for full-blown theatrical staging, a fictive theater of the mind, or something in between, Kohn demonstrates that he displays a consistency and a careful attentiveness to details of performance. While other scholars have applied this type of performance criticism to individual tragedies or scenes, this is the first comprehensive study of all the plays in twenty-five years, and the first ever to consider not just stagecraft, but also metatheatrical issues such as the significant distribution of roles among a limited number of actors, in addition to the emotional states of the characters. 

 

Edited January 31 by Eric Roberts

[A Phoenix]

The Theatrical Allusion to Bacon's Secret Authorship of the Shakespeare Works

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

The Works of Ovid

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

The Works of Ovid in the Promus

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

Arthur Golding and the Cooke Sisters

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

The First Four Books Dedicated to Robert Dudley

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

The Fifteen Books of Ovid Dedicated to Robert Dudley

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[A Phoenix]

Francis Bacon and the Translations of Ovid

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

[Allisnum2er]

8 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

The Fifteen Books of Ovid Dedicated to Robert Dudley

#FrancisBacon #Shakespeare #Promus #ShakespeareSources #ShakespeareAuthorship

For the full story about ‘Francis Bacon’s Notebook’ see:

PAPER: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research

FULL VIDEO:   https://youtu.be/LTfUbKb7KqU

TRAILER: https://youtu.be/DQMzHdhXeXE

 "Ista repercussae, quam cernis, imaginis umbra est." ...  What a perfect choice of illustration !!!😊

And what a delight to discover each day, after a hard day work, your superb slideshows that restore with success unknown or little known historical truths. Thank you again A Phoenix for all your hard work and your relentless commitment !🙏❤️

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

 "Ista repercussae, quam cernis, imaginis umbra est." ...  What a perfect choice of illustration !!!😊

And what a delight to discover each day, after a hard day work, your superb slideshows that restore with success unknown or little known historical truths. Thank you again A Phoenix for all your hard work and your relentless commitment !🙏❤️

Well stated Yann! 🙂

For me it is mostly when I wake up and there are the amazing morning posts. Starts my day which is wonderful! Thank you A. Phoenix for all you do.

After work is fun too, hanging out more and relaxing. 😉