To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges & the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon

[Eric Roberts]

9 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

 

Hi A Phoenix

 

"thanks" is hardly adequate. I've just taken a screen shot of your super-condensed precis of the current Baconian position, based on a diverse multitude of direct and indirect evidence. It could come in very handy if I'm discussing the Authorship question with someone. Hopefully, you will post it on your other sites - in bold 🙂. By way of a proper thanks, I thought the Preface of a book you are more than familiar with, I'm sure, would be appropriate, given recent Forum activity.

tragedyofsirfran00bayluoft.pdf 17.7 MB · 0 downloads

 

Apologies for duplication of last image which I can't delete.

[Kate]

19 hours ago, Eric Roberts said:

 

 

tragedyofsirfran00bayluoft.pdf 17.7 MB · 5 downloads

 

Oh my, this book is amazing Eric!

“An El Dorado of information awaiting disentombment”.  Thanks for sharing.  

[RoyalCraftiness]

On 9/10/2023 at 4:30 PM, Kate said:

Glad you liked the synchronicity RC. I read this and thought great, you have decided to continue to post. Super

Then I continued scrolling down your posts and saw the dig at people who believe in astrology and then the bit about " individuals who have already unconditionally accepted." 

I don't think the latter was aimed at me. I believe it was another of your digs at others on here, but that in itself was so disappointing.  I thought better of you. For the record I personally have not unconditionally accepted many things about Bacon or things posted on here, so please could you desist in publicly casting your views about those who post on this forum as if you know what is in others people's minds, and indeed that you know everything and are unequivocally right.

Did you know Dee personally? You write as if you did. I fear you are not acting like a much needed counterweight now, but more like a troll - one who is deliberately setting out to upset and rattle.

Re the astrology bit. It's perhaps vaguely analogous to the medical profession. There are quacks and charlatans who get basic qualifications and set themselves up as practitioners, and the GPs and surgeons who studied in med school for years are appalled at their lack of knowledge and skill, but no one tars a whole enormous profession based on the actions of some. Bacon, Kepler, Brahe, all of them practised astrology. Astrology and the study of cyclical activity far precedes astronomy. Read Isaac Newton's books. Please don't try and belittle me in that way again because I had called you out on your rudeness to others and rather curmudgeonly ways. Please consider self - reflecting and practicing loving kindness.

 

 

Nope, it's not you, but it could be what you say if there are any occasions of it being sufficiently unwarranted, ridiculous or based in the magical. This comes with the territory of being criticized for saying what one says. It is something we all invite upon ourselves by deciding to open our mouths with conviction. Opposing ideas have the ability to annihilate themselves when brought together. They can't exist in the same space as statements of fact. The people need not annihilate themselves. 

The suggestion that I am aiming digs is an ad hominem attack and a form of blaming the potential victim for being responsive to an attempt at recruitment. Opposing efforts at recruitment isn't really a dig. One has to imagine a personal dimension to it. I assume that is what you are doing with me. I do not perceive that the attempt at recruitment will work on me. I would not want it to work on others without a proper skeptical treatment. I'd love for there to be proofs of things. Don't get me wrong on that point.

I do not read every comment, and when I do read one that is next in line to one I do read I may, for whatever reason, be triggered enough to criticize. What I have observed is that since I have openly criticized the overly and incorrectly used word "proof" it has been thrown out even more often cavalierly. It may, or may not, be an attempt to prod or to plant a flag. It could be a defensive reaction that is based out of fear that not enough has been offered or that more of the same will surely help. It may just be that I am looking in the wrong threads if I do not want to encounter that. The current interactions on this site seems to be in a few threads heavy on the allegation of proofs, though, and that has meant that I have been exposed to what is there when I look. There may be many other occasions of people claiming proofs I seem to be unaffected by. It's not much to ask that you not obsess over what you see. And please, kindly stop speaking for the one without a voice. It's giving this place a decidedly cultish feel.

Where did I say I knew Dee personally? I have no such delusion. It's pretty easy to demonstrate he lived before my time, and that there is no way for him to be speaking to me, or me with him, from the dead. All I will ever encounter are people speaking for him or in his name. That's not a suggestion I made. Dee was a charlatan and a con man. He fumbled around with Enochian magic which is itself a massive delusion based in folk tales (if it was actually believed to be real). That is to say he used what he had to play with to convince people of things. More power to him if he succeeded. Among the gullible were no less than the non virgin Queen herself--a wonderful patron and a perfect mark. The same unfortunate reality existed with Queen Victoria and her friends like Constance Pott. You could have met them at a séance after all. Nice ladies, to be sure...except that Victoria really wasn't a nice lady when we look into it. Shades of King James...Nice people are a myth if you ask me. Just cross them...

We have the benefit of looking back to these people's actions to know some of their beliefs. Scientists eventually came to see a very large swath of the lingering hermeticists and alchemists as scientific impostors,  because in time it was shown that what they were speaking of and dreaming of was unattainable, and in some important instances, impossible to achieve. Those who lived long enough to know better may have changed their views, but for some old beliefs they persisted and kept finding a home despite the change in the state of the knowledge. The line in the sand, philosophically speaking, is Bacon's method. I do feel I must speak or Bacon here before he is made out to be a forever astrologer, an ancient hermeticist, a stuck in time alchemist, a seer and a prophet to serve the beliefs of some modern day mystics looking for an English speaking idol. If he were alive today would be teach at Liberty University in the good old US of A? 

Astrologer as a profession... That's a hoot. You mean like Joan Quigley who was the Reagans' astrologer? A fool and his money are soon parted.  A profession is a real thing. What one claims to do in one's profession need not be. The doctor is the gatekeeper of the prescription pad and some representation of a professed business rationale towards medicine. One can very easily distrust the business rationale for the existence of the doctor as a professor of the business faith. The Dee question is a whole other ball of wax isn't it? Determinism versus non-determinism.  The world in which we can know the future in fine detail and where things repeat like clockwork is a demonstrable fiction. Time travelling is not possible. There is no prophecy in our world that is not a self fulfilling prophecy. The dream is not a tool to know anything with certainty. It is the evidence of the power of our minds armed with imagination to synthesize narratives. Guessing right will always be possible.

Astrologer's produce belief, and producing belief is real enough. The power of the belief over the person is the magic in the wand. There is no other kind. This has led to a very troubling stating of the idea that one can make his own reality by controlling his beliefs. This is demonstrably horrible logic. There will always be the placebo effect to try and prop everything else with, I'm afraid. One impressive instance of a physiological consequence to the individual for its inner chemical response to a created mind state has been extrapolated to the non living with forces no one has demonstrated exist. Force isn't even the right word, because that would imply particles and there are none for that in the entirety of the energy spectrum. I suppose it all has to fall upon the photon and light. That, at least, has a long history of being used to demonstrate otherworldly action.

There can be no respect for certain ideas, and they should not be protected by insisting that one should love the person championing them. Love itself is too fuzzy a word to invoke. To love someone has meant in many a religious text that ideas needed to be beat out of a person violently. The tribe has always attempted to do information control. 

What there may be not enough of in this world is the sort of "shunning" that gets practiced by the small enclaves of strong believers (credit goes to the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses). They know how to protect ideas. We've collectively invited everyone to the party (freedom to speak as one wants publicly) in hopes that the mutual exchanges could be observable and that reason could prevail in the convincing of young minds before small factions reproduce their way into being large ones. You see this commendable attitude among the champions of reason (Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russel...). We're not supposed to want to silence anyone if we want there to be an arena were reason can interact with the unreasonable. What do you want Kate? Do you want there to be no backlash against some claims? Do you want me to coddle you and to allow you your beliefs around synchronicity and other examples of apophenia so you can feel comfortable? I would not do it to my child if I had one. How does the hierarchy of love work?  There has to be some recognition and expectation that statements are going to be challenged if we have a goal to get to what we can show and know. 

To the degree that the endeavor began to employ observation and empiric data Bacon, Kepler and others became proto scientists and fledgling astronomers based in reason.  Kepler was chasing a principle that he believed was fundamental (the constancy or immutability of something that was an imagined property of God). He numbered his Laws in three. There's ample evidence that even when he deduced correct physical realities he was giving them biased interpretations which favored ideas of musical harmony (a Pythagorean view of God). I hear your objections, and I agree with them to a certain point. Bacon and Kepler are not yet scientists. None of us are if we are honest. They were, and we are, still under the illusion that the science can come and sanction beliefs that we have an intuition about. Newton was no different. By the time we get to Darwin things got seriously threatening for some people's beliefs. Even today I find it interesting that some can compartmentalize the scientific method and believe in the unreasonable to the point of harboring both. That is only possible because of the inability to know and the power of suggestion. This will always offer a cornucopia of possibilities to people with vivid imaginations and strong biases. We have a long way to go if we value knowing. I still firmly believe that there are things that are unprovable that will follow us because they still seem possible. It is not helped by the fact that all our better explanations are getting harder and harder to grasp. The fact that Nature is bathed in complexity makes it hard for anyone to relate to it, especially the young and impressionable. That troubles those who would want to know Nature with simple rules, be it three of them or seven of them.

I can easily desist if I do not read. Is that what you want to have happen? I won't desist out of a feeling I must cower or earn your love. I will still continue to interact publicly to have reason and the unreasonable clash. It's what reasonable people want. Not sure how you're going to react to it...Should I care?

A lot of things can be avoided if some would get off their high horse and desist in using "proof" for effect. There is no proof that the authorship question is even warranted. I've seen it all when it comes to the suggestions. None of it adds up to a proof. There is a lot of proof that Bacon wrote things which are damaging to myths and bad syllogism. I would wager that I am on he right side of Bacon just from having read Bacon. If I am to know Bacon from reading Shakespeare then the desired end is already achieved for some.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

A lot of things can be avoided if some would get off their high horse and desist in using "proof" for effect.

Avoided to what purpose?

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

There is no proof that the authorship question is even warranted.

What is Warranted?

Said someone to someone, jesting I think, as we are doing right now.

My proof about that question is that at least one person who is alive today who can answer that question with at least some "quality" proof is me. This silly Authorship Discussion has been the passion of my life since the day I heard of it and is the second most important part of my life.

Number 1 was piercing my Veil on April "Fooles" Day 1978 as a kid tripping my brains on Purple Microdot. OMG, the experience of being One with everything, when the Universe assured me Love is the Key is a biggie and will change how you experience every day after if you ever be there. But you, CJ have not even touched that scientific subject. You deny it is real. I can prove it is. LOL

You can debate the question of whether the "Authorship Debate" is warranted or not, but you already know it is a very important debate. Ask the Town of Avon. Is it really big for them?

It is big for me, and I can prove it. 😉

It is worth at least One Million Dollars!

[Christie Waldman]

On 9/10/2023 at 3:41 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

Our "small group" of real life Baconians is not as small as you think. And we are not without an "abundance of evidence". Christie might offer that we have a ton of circumstantial evidence, which in court can be worthless, but as far as who wrote Shakespeare I will say Baconians have the most evidence.

Your argument, CJ, is that the entire Shakespeare Authorship topic is a waste of time because Bacon was just like you; very cold and methodical and anything that might involve creativity or inspiration is "Anti-Bacon". You are welcome to your views, and I have the utmost respect for things you know which I am sure has taken you many years of serious study.

You know what, I am fine with that. You admire Bacon for a slice of what you know him as. And when you speak that sliver of Bacon's legacy you present what no Strat or Oxie would in their best try would be able to do.

They should love you, but you could smash their arguments to bits and I am sure that no Strat or Oxie will attempt to bring you into their Castle of Cards. I am sure they fear they will get your attention after you "destroy the Baconian Myth".

We, who do what we do, the Baconians who are passionate and serious about researching, discovering, and ultimately proving Bacon wrote Shakespeare have to have thick skin, we have to know when to stand up to a claim against some of our work and when to "roll our eyes" with a grin on some rigid and possibly blind opinions. And no matter how much education and knowledge backs up some valid claims, none of us knows the real poop.

Whether it matters or not in the Whole Wide World as we know it, for a group which may indeed be small in scale to the rest of the world, we have collected a vast wealth of evidence that Bacon was Shakespeare. No other candidate has such a Pyramid of "circumstantial" evidence, the social connections, a vast collection of his own works, and some of our passion is the ciphers.

Any one of those countless pieces of evidence can be shot down in court. Even all of them combined can be beat down in a Court of Law. We have no proof.

Christie? Am I wrong?

CJ, did I just destroy a movement that gives so many of us a reason to even take another breath sometimes?

Of course not. Your argument, but maybe less important than basic legal proof, is more interesting sometimes when you are in better moods. I understand moods lately, even here sometimes because life is stressful sometimes.

In your defense, CJ, I may ask that are we as Baconians are trying to use the best Baconian teachings in trying to prove Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare by the method we are pursuing? But then how many layers of what Bacon teaches can we work with?

I believe that any true scientist has a hypothesis or "hunch" they want to investigate. You have to have a reason why you even ask. Maybe there is a need to find a solution for. "Why did everybody die after eating that potato salad that was left out all day?"

We got curious and the traditional TV and frozen dinner life after a 9-5 job doesn't do it for us. For whatever reason, we stumbled on Bacon. For me it was an immediate I "Knew" my life would never be the same. It was that fast, maybe less than an hour in all. I felt the ripples going back in time in fact that led me to that moment. CJ, maybe you don't know that kind of experience because it defies explanation.

You can beat and destroy every single Bacon as Shakespeare piece of evidence using your Baconian Scientific method, but it is already beat by less impressive logic. We already know that and we live it every day. We learned that when took Bacon 101 during the introductory course! LOL

Will that stop we who are so passionate to find more? No, never will.

Should you stop attempting to destroy the Authorship myth as you believe? Not if it is your passion!

But I will invite you to the be the one who in your Baconian method sets out to do exactly as you say and prove a Truth by ruling out everything else, by trying to disprove the ultimate goal. Or something like that. 😉

We pile up huge mountains of evidence and you destroy every single piece. One day you might get the result and say by Bacon's method, whether it has any value or not, that Bacon was Shakespeare.

 

 

 

Hi, Light-of-Truth,

Our best evidence so far, I think, is the Shakespeare play fragment manuscript fragment that the late Maureen Ward-Gandy, a highly respected British forensic expert analyzed and compared to the writing of other Elizabethans and determined that it was written in Francis Bacon's own handwriting.

That has not been refuted. Only ignored. No one else has a manuscript. Everyone says, oh, someday, maybe we will find a manuscript in Shakespeare's own handwriting. Well, we have it.

The Strats want to claim that Shaxpere wrote Hand D in the "Play of Sir Thomas More." The Shaxpere handwriting examples are too small of a sampling, making them worthless for proving authorship. But based on other factors, there is some agreement that it was likely Shakespeare's (I mean the real Shakespeare's). Didn't A Phoenix write about Bacon and Hand D? I apologize for having to ask.

People who have never read the beautiful language of Francis Bacon have no business saying that his style was different from Shakespeare's.  Read Francis Bacon because he will enrich your life, whether he was Shakespeare or not, I say! (Well, okay, being honest, I never read Bacon JUST to read Bacon. But he was such a good person and such a good writer, and he overcame so much. He's really inspirational.)

And then, there are those who do not want the truth to come out., those whose minds are made up, those who just don't care, those who don't care enough to do the work. It isn't for everyone.

And of course, the law in Shakespeare is huge.

This is also about the voice of the minority not being lost in the crowd. That is an important democratic principle.

We may never change the consensus opinion if the consensus cannot be woke up enough to care enough to make a change.

I don't think this is a thing that should ever be decided by any fallible human beings in any kind of tribunal. But we keep trying, don't we, to put it all together so that other people can see it as clearly as we do.  Because it is important to us. And I think we are making progress with our mountains of evidence, slowly but surely.  A lot of that is due to A. Phoenix.

 

Edited September 12 by Christie Waldman
typo & being honest

[Light-of-Truth]

27 minutes ago, Christie Waldman said:

Because it is important to us. And I think we are making progress with our mountains of evidence, slowly but surely.  A lot of that is due to A. Phoenix.

The Proof is in the Pudding, and we are that. 🙂

 

[Eric Roberts]

8 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Nope, it's not you, but it could be what you say if there are any occasions of it being sufficiently unwarranted, ridiculous or based in the magical. This comes with the territory of being criticized for saying what one says. It is something we all invite upon ourselves by deciding to open our mouths with conviction. Opposing ideas have the ability to annihilate themselves when brought together. They can't exist in the same space as statements of fact. The people need not annihilate themselves. 

The suggestion that I am aiming digs is an ad hominem attack and a form of blaming the potential victim for being responsive to an attempt at recruitment. Opposing efforts at recruitment isn't really a dig. One has to imagine a personal dimension to it. I assume that is what you are doing with me. I do not perceive that the attempt at recruitment will work on me. I would not want it to work on others without a proper skeptical treatment. I'd love for there to be proofs of things. Don't get me wrong on that point.

I do not read every comment, and when I do read one that is next in line to one I do read I may, for whatever reason, be triggered enough to criticize. What I have observed is that since I have openly criticized the overly and incorrectly used word "proof" it has been thrown out even more often cavalierly. It may, or may not, be an attempt to prod or to plant a flag. It could be a defensive reaction that is based out of fear that not enough has been offered or that more of the same will surely help. It may just be that I am looking in the wrong threads if I do not want to encounter that. The current interactions on this site seems to be in a few threads heavy on the allegation of proofs, though, and that has meant that I have been exposed to what is there when I look. There may be many other occasions of people claiming proofs I seem to be unaffected by. It's not much to ask that you not obsess over what you see. And please, kindly stop speaking for the one without a voice. It's giving this place a decidedly cultish feel.

Where did I say I knew Dee personally? I have no such delusion. It's pretty easy to demonstrate he lived before my time, and that there is no way for him to be speaking to me, or me with him, from the dead. All I will ever encounter are people speaking for him or in his name. That's not a suggestion I made. Dee was a charlatan and a con man. He fumbled around with Enochian magic which is itself a massive delusion based in folk tales (if it was actually believed to be real). That is to say he used what he had to play with to convince people of things. More power to him if he succeeded. Among the gullible were no less than the non virgin Queen herself--a wonderful patron and a perfect mark. The same unfortunate reality existed with Queen Victoria and her friends like Constance Pott. You could have met them at a séance after all. Nice ladies, to be sure...except that Victoria really wasn't a nice lady when we look into it. Shades of King James...Nice people are a myth if you ask me. Just cross them...

We have the benefit of looking back to these people's actions to know some of their beliefs. Scientists eventually came to see a very large swath of the lingering hermeticists and alchemists as scientific impostors,  because in time it was shown that what they were speaking of and dreaming of was unattainable, and in some important instances, impossible to achieve. Those who lived long enough to know better may have changed their views, but for some old beliefs they persisted and kept finding a home despite the change in the state of the knowledge. The line in the sand, philosophically speaking, is Bacon's method. I do feel I must speak or Bacon here before he is made out to be a forever astrologer, an ancient hermeticist, a stuck in time alchemist, a seer and a prophet to serve the beliefs of some modern day mystics looking for an English speaking idol. If he were alive today would be teach at Liberty University in the good old US of A? 

Astrologer as a profession... That's a hoot. You mean like Joan Quigley who was the Reagans' astrologer? A fool and his money are soon parted.  A profession is a real thing. What one claims to do in one's profession need not be. The doctor is the gatekeeper of the prescription pad and some representation of a professed business rationale towards medicine. One can very easily distrust the business rationale for the existence of the doctor as a professor of the business faith. The Dee question is a whole other ball of wax isn't it? Determinism versus non-determinism.  The world in which we can know the future in fine detail and where things repeat like clockwork is a demonstrable fiction. Time travelling is not possible. There is no prophecy in our world that is not a self fulfilling prophecy. The dream is not a tool to know anything with certainty. It is the evidence of the power of our minds armed with imagination to synthesize narratives. Guessing right will always be possible.

Astrologer's produce belief, and producing belief is real enough. The power of the belief over the person is the magic in the wand. There is no other kind. This has led to a very troubling stating of the idea that one can make his own reality by controlling his beliefs. This is demonstrably horrible logic. There will always be the placebo effect to try and prop everything else with, I'm afraid. One impressive instance of a physiological consequence to the individual for its inner chemical response to a created mind state has been extrapolated to the non living with forces no one has demonstrated exist. Force isn't even the right word, because that would imply particles and there are none for that in the entirety of the energy spectrum. I suppose it all has to fall upon the photon and light. That, at least, has a long history of being used to demonstrate otherworldly action.

There can be no respect for certain ideas, and they should not be protected by insisting that one should love the person championing them. Love itself is too fuzzy a word to invoke. To love someone has meant in many a religious text that ideas needed to be beat out of a person violently. The tribe has always attempted to do information control. 

What there may be not enough of in this world is the sort of "shunning" that gets practiced by the small enclaves of strong believers (credit goes to the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses). They know how to protect ideas. We've collectively invited everyone to the party (freedom to speak as one wants publicly) in hopes that the mutual exchanges could be observable and that reason could prevail in the convincing of young minds before small factions reproduce their way into being large ones. You see this commendable attitude among the champions of reason (Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russel...). We're not supposed to want to silence anyone if we want there to be an arena were reason can interact with the unreasonable. What do you want Kate? Do you want there to be no backlash against some claims? Do you want me to coddle you and to allow you your beliefs around synchronicity and other examples of apophenia so you can feel comfortable? I would not do it to my child if I had one. How does the hierarchy of love work?  There has to be some recognition and expectation that statements are going to be challenged if we have a goal to get to what we can show and know. 

To the degree that the endeavor began to employ observation and empiric data Bacon, Kepler and others became proto scientists and fledgling astronomers based in reason.  Kepler was chasing a principle that he believed was fundamental (the constancy or immutability of something that was an imagined property of God). He numbered his Laws in three. There's ample evidence that even when he deduced correct physical realities he was giving them biased interpretations which favored ideas of musical harmony (a Pythagorean view of God). I hear your objections, and I agree with them to a certain point. Bacon and Kepler are not yet scientists. None of us are if we are honest. They were, and we are, still under the illusion that the science can come and sanction beliefs that we have an intuition about. Newton was no different. By the time we get to Darwin things got seriously threatening for some people's beliefs. Even today I find it interesting that some can compartmentalize the scientific method and believe in the unreasonable to the point of harboring both. That is only possible because of the inability to know and the power of suggestion. This will always offer a cornucopia of possibilities to people with vivid imaginations and strong biases. We have a long way to go if we value knowing. I still firmly believe that there are things that are unprovable that will follow us because they still seem possible. It is not helped by the fact that all our better explanations are getting harder and harder to grasp. The fact that Nature is bathed in complexity makes it hard for anyone to relate to it, especially the young and impressionable. That troubles those who would want to know Nature with simple rules, be it three of them or seven of them.

I can easily desist if I do not read. Is that what you want to have happen? I won't desist out of a feeling I must cower or earn your love. I will still continue to interact publicly to have reason and the unreasonable clash. It's what reasonable people want. Not sure how you're going to react to it...Should I care?

A lot of things can be avoided if some would get off their high horse and desist in using "proof" for effect. There is no proof that the authorship question is even warranted. I've seen it all when it comes to the suggestions. None of it adds up to a proof. There is a lot of proof that Bacon wrote things which are damaging to myths and bad syllogism. I would wager that I am on he right side of Bacon just from having read Bacon. If I am to know Bacon from reading Shakespeare then the desired end is already achieved for some.

 

You just spent 1800 words talking to yourself. Please refrain!

[Light-of-Truth]

11 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The line in the sand, philosophically speaking, is Bacon's method. I do feel I must speak or Bacon here before he is made out to be a forever astrologer, an ancient hermeticist, a stuck in time alchemist, a seer and a prophet to serve the beliefs of some modern day mystics looking for an English speaking idol.

Bacon's method is a valid path in his teachings. It is part of what he left publicly for us all. Not as Shakespeare, but as himself as Bacon.

I'm totally in on the rest of your statement. And you have no "proof" those parts of Bacon's life are not as important. You have your favorite aspect, maybe a specialty of yours, but what you suggest outside your scope resonates in my mind and I thank you for the reminder!

Your line in the sand has been crossed many years ago. You stand up for his scientific method, but doesn't his philosophy expand beyond his scientific method? Bacon was a visionary as well.

Whether Bacon is a prophet to some is a non-issue. A freshly opened sunflower is a prophet on the right morning to some.

11 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I still firmly believe that there are things that are unprovable that will follow us because they still seem possible. It is not helped by the fact that all our better explanations are getting harder and harder to grasp. The fact that Nature is bathed in complexity makes it hard for anyone to relate to it, especially the young and impressionable. That troubles those who would want to know Nature with simple rules, be it three of them or seven of them.

The instant we as Baconions have that single "proof" that Bacon was Shakespeare, the entire debate will be over. In the mean time we keep building a beautiful monument of evidence far surpassing any other Authorship candidate. Your claim that the Authorship question is not important was easily destroyed because for some of us it is important.

As far as Nature, and Bacon's method, Quantum Physics is destroying everything we ever thought we knew. Time? Space? Locality is being redefined. Those concepts pierce a lot of veils and shatter a lot of walls. Maybe Dee can talk with us, not from the dead, but when he was alive as we are now across a thread of time/space we do not know yet. Bacon's method is on the way to accepting that could be real. In fact, physics is suggesting it.

[Eric Roberts]

7 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Bacon's method is a valid path in his teachings. It is part of what he left publicly for us all. Not as Shakespeare, but as himself as Bacon.

I'm totally in on the rest of your statement. And you have no "proof" those parts of Bacon's life are not as important. You have your favorite aspect, maybe a specialty of yours, but what you suggest outside your scope resonates in my mind and I thank you for the reminder!

Your line in the sand has been crossed many years ago. You stand up for his scientific method, but doesn't his philosophy expand beyond his scientific method? Bacon was a visionary as well.

Whether Bacon is a prophet to some is a non-issue. A freshly opened sunflower is a prophet on the right morning to some.

The instant we as Baconions have that single "proof" that Bacon was Shakespeare, the entire debate will be over. In the mean time we keep building a beautiful monument of evidence far surpassing any other Authorship candidate. Your claim that the Authorship question is not important was easily destroyed because for some of us it is important.

As far as Nature, and Bacon's method, Quantum Physics is destroying everything we ever thought we knew. Time? Space? Locality is being redefined. Those concepts pierce a lot of veils and shatter a lot of walls. Maybe Dee can talk with us, not from the dead, but when he was alive as we are now across a thread of time/space we do not know yet. Bacon's method is on the way to accepting that could be real. In fact, physics is suggesting it.

Not one of us, nor anyone on Earth, including CJ, can capture and comprehend his true nature and spirit. Beyond knowing. Perhaps this is why we have come together here, not to negate but to admire. There is a touch of wholiness in every selfless intuition.

Edited September 13 by Eric Roberts

[Christie Waldman]

3 hours ago, Eric Roberts said:

Not one of us, nor anyone on Earth, including CJ, can capture and comprehend his true nature and spirit. Beyond knowing. Perhaps this is why we have come together here, not to negate but to admire. There is a touch of wholiness in every selfless intuition.

 I like that. And this is poetry:

 

11 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Whether Bacon is a prophet to some is a non-issue. A freshly opened sunflower is a prophet on the right morning to some.

 

Circumstantial evidence is that "not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved. The proof of certain facts and circumstances in a given case from jury may infer other connected facts which usually and reasonable follow according to the common experience of mankind.  Evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of fact in issue may be inferred. Inferences drawn from facts proved." Black's Law Dictionary.

In other words, we don't have anyone with personal knowledge we can put on the witness stand and question. Do we have a smoking gun? We have the Shakespeare play fragment manuscript which Maureen Ward-Gandy gave her professional forensic opinion that it was in Bacon's own handwriting.

Well, I could go on and on, ad infinitum, with what we have.

We have acrostics. Historically, It was not uncommon to prove authorship of a literary work by acrostic. I gave an example in my book of a French work, Le Pelerinage de l'ame (The Book of the Pylgremage of the Sowle, by Guilliame de DeGuileville, established only by acrostic (p. 66). (translated 1413, first published by William Caxton in 1483. Check out this book, it has gorgeous illustrations from Egerton MS 615. Edited by Kathleen Cust (London, 1859). Hathitrust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015053684802. The section in my book on the "Four Daughters of God" and the tapestry that was once on display at Hampton Court depicting them: Mercy, Truth, Justice, and Peace." (my book, p. 62, fn 8, citing Hope Traver, The Four Daughters of God, a Study (Bryn Mawr, 1907), p. 163, n. 15. (Her 1925 work is The Four Daughters of God, a Mirror.)

In one of her papers, I remember Sophie Weeks talking about Bacon's method of working, how he doesn't express his whole thought on a topic in one place in his writings, but scatters it around among his various works.

My take on this (without looking up and re-reading Weeks' article) was that he seems to lead us around from one work to another to get the whole thought, with clues.  He is leading us on a treasure hunt. Bacon named one writing Filum labyrinthum, an allusion to Ariadne's thread that helped Theseus escape from the labyrinth after he killed the minotaur. Bacon includes the story in his Wisdom of the Ancients (as you know).

Tapestry, tapster. The play fragment that was found in binder's waste has been called the "tapster play" because it is an analogue to the tapster scene in Shakespeare's play, The First Part of Henry the Fourth. 

We can argue the "totality of the circumstances." One fact alone might not be enough to shift the balance on the scales for an open-minded person, but take all the facts together and see what you have. 

Two quotations I like:

Many literary critics seem to think that an hypothesis about obscure and remote questions of history can be refuted by a simple demand for the production of more evidence than in fact exists.—But the true test of an hypothesis, if it cannot be shewn to conflict with known truths, is the number of facts that it correlates, and explains.
—Francis MacDonald Cornford, The Origins of Attic Comedy (London: E. Arnold, 1914), 220. (quoted from my paper, "If Bacon is Shakespeare, What Questions Does That Answer?" this website, 11/27/2020.

And:

"The implication of a material fact is tantamount to a conclusion of law."

--J. H. Baker, ch 12, "Law Making," An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th ed. 202 (London: Butterworths, 1990), quoted in my book, Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand, 32).

(J. H. Baker, a British legal historian, is, however, on record, elsewhere, as a Stratfordian.)

A material fact is one essential to the case, necessary to determine the issue, without which it cannot be supported. Its proof would establish or refute one of essential elements of the case (Black's Law Dictionary). "Tantamount" means "just as good as, equivalent to, to amount to as much as."

Whether the statements of Heminge, Condell, and Jonson made in the First Folio can be taken at face value is a question of material fact. And so we try to show the evidence is not credible, that there are reasons for not taking it at face value.

I saw this on the internet: the truth welcomes questions. A lie does not like to be challenged (stated by Janice Dean, Instagram. I do not know anything more.).

Bacon: "A prudent question is, as it were, one half of wisdom." De Augmentis, Spedding 1:635.

 

 

 

[Allisnum2er]

1 hour ago, Christie Waldman said:

My take on this (without looking up and re-reading Weeks' article) was that he seems to lead us around from one work to another to get the whole thought, with clues.  He is leading us on a treasure hunt. Bacon named one writing Filum labyrinthum, an allusion to Ariadne's thread that helped Theseus escape from the labyrinth after he killed the minotaur. Bacon includes the story in his Wisdom of the Ancients (as you know).

Hi Christie,

I totally agree with you.

For the anecdote, here is the first slide of the video I am working on and which I hope to finish soon. 😊

 

[Christie Waldman]

Yann, we thank you for reading everything here in English. If I had to read everything in French, I could not be here.

[Allisnum2er]

2 minutes ago, Christie Waldman said:

Yann, we thank you for reading everything here in English. If I had to read everything in French, I could not be here.

Thank you Christie ! ❤️ Over time I find it easier and easier to read in English. In fact, what takes me the most time is writing in English. And the worst is my spoken English 😄.  I dread any Zoom Session in the language of Shakespeare. 😅

[A Phoenix]

Hi Christie,

I have not written on Hand D in the play Sir Thomas More, one of the more desperate Stratfordianisms.

As you know, the inference that the hand of William Shakspere of Stratford is found in this play is inferred from the six alleged signatures of the Stratford man. It has been repeatedly maintained that these six signatures are not written by the illiterate Shakspere (whose parents and children were illiterate) and were instead signed in his name by lawyers or lawyers clerks. 

I have reproduced below the chapter on the so-called signatures by Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence in his Bacon is Shakespeare (New York: The John McBride Co., 1910), pp. 35-39.

I would also recommend for those who wish to investigate the matter further that they consult two works by the agnostic and urbane Sir George Greenwood, Shakspere's Handwriting (London: John Lane, n.d.) and The Shakespeare Signatures and "Sir Thomas More" (London: Cecil Palmer, n.d.). 

I have also reproduced two very important pages by Jane Cox, Prinicpal Keeper of Public Records at the Public Records Office from Shakespeare in the Public Records (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office), pp. 33-34.

Finally, I have also reproduced from E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare A Study of Facts and Problems (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1930), I, opposite p. 508 a facsimile of Hand D in Sir Thomas More for those who wish to satisfy themselves by a comparison with the so-called six signatures of the absurdity of the claim that they are both written in the same hand.

See also facsimiles of Hand D in Sir Thomas More at the Folger Shakespeare Library: https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/shakespeares-handwriting-hand-d-booke-sir-thomas-more#:~:text=Hand D has been associated,S belongs to Anthony Munday.

[Christie Waldman]

Thank you so much, A. Phoenix, for going to the trouble of providing all these good resources.

 

[Eric Roberts]

16 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

Hi Christie,

I totally agree with you.

For the anecdote, here is the first slide of the video I am working on and which I hope to finish soon. 😊

 

Looks terrific, Yann! I can't wait to see how your new film might shed light on the workings of Lord Bacon.

[Allisnum2er]

6 hours ago, Eric Roberts said:

Looks terrific, Yann! I can't wait to see how your new film might shed light on the workings of Lord Bacon.

Many thanks Eric . I am looking forward to sharing with the community the fruit of my research. For now, the editing of the video is a true brainteaser 😅. Alert Spoiler : If Daedalus is the one who constructed the Labyrinth, he also " became the author likewise of that ingenious device of the clue, by which the mazes of the labyrinth should be retraced" (The Wisdom of the Ancients), and he is the one who taught his son Icarus that the Middle Way was the safest one. 😉 

[Lawrence Gerald]

On 9/12/2023 at 8:00 AM, RoyalCraftiness said:

Nope, it's not you, but it could be what you say if there are any occasions of it being sufficiently unwarranted, ridiculous or based in the magical. This comes with the territory of being criticized for saying what one says. It is something we all invite upon ourselves by deciding to open our mouths with conviction. Opposing ideas have the ability to annihilate themselves when brought together. They can't exist in the same space as statements of fact. The people need not annihilate themselves. 

The suggestion that I am aiming digs is an ad hominem attack and a form of blaming the potential victim for being responsive to an attempt at recruitment. Opposing efforts at recruitment isn't really a dig. One has to imagine a personal dimension to it. I assume that is what you are doing with me. I do not perceive that the attempt at recruitment will work on me. I would not want it to work on others without a proper skeptical treatment. I'd love for there to be proofs of things. Don't get me wrong on that point.

I do not read every comment, and when I do read one that is next in line to one I do read I may, for whatever reason, be triggered enough to criticize. What I have observed is that since I have openly criticized the overly and incorrectly used word "proof" it has been thrown out even more often cavalierly. It may, or may not, be an attempt to prod or to plant a flag. It could be a defensive reaction that is based out of fear that not enough has been offered or that more of the same will surely help. It may just be that I am looking in the wrong threads if I do not want to encounter that. The current interactions on this site seems to be in a few threads heavy on the allegation of proofs, though, and that has meant that I have been exposed to what is there when I look. There may be many other occasions of people claiming proofs I seem to be unaffected by. It's not much to ask that you not obsess over what you see. And please, kindly stop speaking for the one without a voice. It's giving this place a decidedly cultish feel.

Where did I say I knew Dee personally? I have no such delusion. It's pretty easy to demonstrate he lived before my time, and that there is no way for him to be speaking to me, or me with him, from the dead. All I will ever encounter are people speaking for him or in his name. That's not a suggestion I made. Dee was a charlatan and a con man. He fumbled around with Enochian magic which is itself a massive delusion based in folk tales (if it was actually believed to be real). That is to say he used what he had to play with to convince people of things. More power to him if he succeeded. Among the gullible were no less than the non virgin Queen herself--a wonderful patron and a perfect mark. The same unfortunate reality existed with Queen Victoria and her friends like Constance Pott. You could have met them at a séance after all. Nice ladies, to be sure...except that Victoria really wasn't a nice lady when we look into it. Shades of King James...Nice people are a myth if you ask me. Just cross them...

We have the benefit of looking back to these people's actions to know some of their beliefs. Scientists eventually came to see a very large swath of the lingering hermeticists and alchemists as scientific impostors,  because in time it was shown that what they were speaking of and dreaming of was unattainable, and in some important instances, impossible to achieve. Those who lived long enough to know better may have changed their views, but for some old beliefs they persisted and kept finding a home despite the change in the state of the knowledge. The line in the sand, philosophically speaking, is Bacon's method. I do feel I must speak or Bacon here before he is made out to be a forever astrologer, an ancient hermeticist, a stuck in time alchemist, a seer and a prophet to serve the beliefs of some modern day mystics looking for an English speaking idol. If he were alive today would be teach at Liberty University in the good old US of A? 

Astrologer as a profession... That's a hoot. You mean like Joan Quigley who was the Reagans' astrologer? A fool and his money are soon parted.  A profession is a real thing. What one claims to do in one's profession need not be. The doctor is the gatekeeper of the prescription pad and some representation of a professed business rationale towards medicine. One can very easily distrust the business rationale for the existence of the doctor as a professor of the business faith. The Dee question is a whole other ball of wax isn't it? Determinism versus non-determinism.  The world in which we can know the future in fine detail and where things repeat like clockwork is a demonstrable fiction. Time travelling is not possible. There is no prophecy in our world that is not a self fulfilling prophecy. The dream is not a tool to know anything with certainty. It is the evidence of the power of our minds armed with imagination to synthesize narratives. Guessing right will always be possible.

Astrologer's produce belief, and producing belief is real enough. The power of the belief over the person is the magic in the wand. There is no other kind. This has led to a very troubling stating of the idea that one can make his own reality by controlling his beliefs. This is demonstrably horrible logic. There will always be the placebo effect to try and prop everything else with, I'm afraid. One impressive instance of a physiological consequence to the individual for its inner chemical response to a created mind state has been extrapolated to the non living with forces no one has demonstrated exist. Force isn't even the right word, because that would imply particles and there are none for that in the entirety of the energy spectrum. I suppose it all has to fall upon the photon and light. That, at least, has a long history of being used to demonstrate otherworldly action.

There can be no respect for certain ideas, and they should not be protected by insisting that one should love the person championing them. Love itself is too fuzzy a word to invoke. To love someone has meant in many a religious text that ideas needed to be beat out of a person violently. The tribe has always attempted to do information control. 

What there may be not enough of in this world is the sort of "shunning" that gets practiced by the small enclaves of strong believers (credit goes to the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses). They know how to protect ideas. We've collectively invited everyone to the party (freedom to speak as one wants publicly) in hopes that the mutual exchanges could be observable and that reason could prevail in the convincing of young minds before small factions reproduce their way into being large ones. You see this commendable attitude among the champions of reason (Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russel...). We're not supposed to want to silence anyone if we want there to be an arena were reason can interact with the unreasonable. What do you want Kate? Do you want there to be no backlash against some claims? Do you want me to coddle you and to allow you your beliefs around synchronicity and other examples of apophenia so you can feel comfortable? I would not do it to my child if I had one. How does the hierarchy of love work?  There has to be some recognition and expectation that statements are going to be challenged if we have a goal to get to what we can show and know. 

To the degree that the endeavor began to employ observation and empiric data Bacon, Kepler and others became proto scientists and fledgling astronomers based in reason.  Kepler was chasing a principle that he believed was fundamental (the constancy or immutability of something that was an imagined property of God). He numbered his Laws in three. There's ample evidence that even when he deduced correct physical realities he was giving them biased interpretations which favored ideas of musical harmony (a Pythagorean view of God). I hear your objections, and I agree with them to a certain point. Bacon and Kepler are not yet scientists. None of us are if we are honest. They were, and we are, still under the illusion that the science can come and sanction beliefs that we have an intuition about. Newton was no different. By the time we get to Darwin things got seriously threatening for some people's beliefs. Even today I find it interesting that some can compartmentalize the scientific method and believe in the unreasonable to the point of harboring both. That is only possible because of the inability to know and the power of suggestion. This will always offer a cornucopia of possibilities to people with vivid imaginations and strong biases. We have a long way to go if we value knowing. I still firmly believe that there are things that are unprovable that will follow us because they still seem possible. It is not helped by the fact that all our better explanations are getting harder and harder to grasp. The fact that Nature is bathed in complexity makes it hard for anyone to relate to it, especially the young and impressionable. That troubles those who would want to know Nature with simple rules, be it three of them or seven of them.

I can easily desist if I do not read. Is that what you want to have happen? I won't desist out of a feeling I must cower or earn your love. I will still continue to interact publicly to have reason and the unreasonable clash. It's what reasonable people want. Not sure how you're going to react to it...Should I care?

A lot of things can be avoided if some would get off their high horse and desist in using "proof" for effect. There is no proof that the authorship question is even warranted. I've seen it all when it comes to the suggestions. None of it adds up to a proof. There is a lot of proof that Bacon wrote things which are damaging to myths and bad syllogism. I would wager that I am on he right side of Bacon just from having read Bacon. If I am to know Bacon from reading Shakespeare then the desired end is already achieved for some.

 

I have just caught up on this.

I’m not happy with the tone of  your posts RC. Good to have you as a ‘counterbalance’ as Kate said and happy for all points of view, but in a polite and respectful manner please. LG

[Eric Roberts]

17 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

Many thanks Eric . I am looking forward to sharing with the community the fruit of my research. For now, the editing of the video is a true brainteaser 😅. Alert Spoiler : If Daedalus is the one who constructed the Labyrinth, he also " became the author likewise of that ingenious device of the clue, by which the mazes of the labyrinth should be retraced" (The Wisdom of the Ancients), and he is the one who taught his son Icarus that the Middle Way was the safest one. 😉 

“Let me warn you, Icarus, to take the middle way, in case the moisture weighs down your wings, if you fly too low, or if you go too high, the sun scorches them. Travel between the extremes. And I order you not to aim towards Bootes, the Herdsman, or Helice, the Great Bear, or towards the drawn sword of Orion: take the course I show you!”
Ovid, VIII.183-235

https://www.thecollector.com/daedalus-and-icarus/

Thanks Yann. 

[Kate]

8 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

“

https://www.thecollector.com/daedalus-and-icarus/

 

Magnificent quote! Thanks Eric

[Eric Roberts]

On 9/13/2023 at 7:09 AM, Light-of-Truth said:

Avoided to what purpose?

What is Warranted?

Said someone to someone, jesting I think, as we are doing right now.

My proof about that question is that at least one person who is alive today who can answer that question with at least some "quality" proof is me. This silly Authorship Discussion has been the passion of my life since the day I heard of it and is the second most important part of my life.

Number 1 was piercing my Veil on April "Fooles" Day 1978 as a kid tripping my brains on Purple Microdot. OMG, the experience of being One with everything, when the Universe assured me Love is the Key is a biggie and will change how you experience every day after if you ever be there. But you, CJ have not even touched that scientific subject. You deny it is real. I can prove it is. LOL

You can debate the question of whether the "Authorship Debate" is warranted or not, but you already know it is a very important debate. Ask the Town of Avon. Is it really big for them?

It is big for me, and I can prove it. 😉

It is worth at least One Million Dollars!

"we don't need no pro-vo-cation" as Pink Floyd might have sung. A challenge is not a challenge unless it is specific and backed with references. I trust Rob completely, because he wears not only his heart but his soul on his sleeve. Thanks mate.

Edited September 15 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

On 9/14/2023 at 12:27 AM, Christie Waldman said:

 I like that. And this is poetry:

 

Circumstantial evidence is that "not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved. The proof of certain facts and circumstances in a given case from jury may infer other connected facts which usually and reasonable follow according to the common experience of mankind.  Evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of fact in issue may be inferred. Inferences drawn from facts proved." Black's Law Dictionary.

In other words, we don't have anyone with personal knowledge we can put on the witness stand and question. Do we have a smoking gun? We have the Shakespeare play fragment manuscript which Maureen Ward-Gandy gave her professional forensic opinion that it was in Bacon's own handwriting.

Well, I could go on and on, ad infinitum, with what we have.

We have acrostics. Historically, It was not uncommon to prove authorship of a literary work by acrostic. I gave an example in my book of a French work, Le Pelerinage de l'ame (The Book of the Pylgremage of the Sowle, by Guilliame de DeGuileville, established only by acrostic (p. 66). (translated 1413, first published by William Caxton in 1483. Check out this book, it has gorgeous illustrations from Egerton MS 615. Edited by Kathleen Cust (London, 1859). Hathitrust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015053684802. The section in my book on the "Four Daughters of God" and the tapestry that was once on display at Hampton Court depicting them: Mercy, Truth, Justice, and Peace." (my book, p. 62, fn 8, citing Hope Traver, The Four Daughters of God, a Study (Bryn Mawr, 1907), p. 163, n. 15. (Her 1925 work is The Four Daughters of God, a Mirror.)

In one of her papers, I remember Sophie Weeks talking about Bacon's method of working, how he doesn't express his whole thought on a topic in one place in his writings, but scatters it around among his various works.

My take on this (without looking up and re-reading Weeks' article) was that he seems to lead us around from one work to another to get the whole thought, with clues.  He is leading us on a treasure hunt. Bacon named one writing Filum labyrinthum, an allusion to Ariadne's thread that helped Theseus escape from the labyrinth after he killed the minotaur. Bacon includes the story in his Wisdom of the Ancients (as you know).

Tapestry, tapster. The play fragment that was found in binder's waste has been called the "tapster play" because it is an analogue to the tapster scene in Shakespeare's play, The First Part of Henry the Fourth. 

We can argue the "totality of the circumstances." One fact alone might not be enough to shift the balance on the scales for an open-minded person, but take all the facts together and see what you have. 

Two quotations I like:

Many literary critics seem to think that an hypothesis about obscure and remote questions of history can be refuted by a simple demand for the production of more evidence than in fact exists.—But the true test of an hypothesis, if it cannot be shewn to conflict with known truths, is the number of facts that it correlates, and explains.
—Francis MacDonald Cornford, The Origins of Attic Comedy (London: E. Arnold, 1914), 220. (quoted from my paper, "If Bacon is Shakespeare, What Questions Does That Answer?" this website, 11/27/2020.

And:

"The implication of a material fact is tantamount to a conclusion of law."

--J. H. Baker, ch 12, "Law Making," An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th ed. 202 (London: Butterworths, 1990), quoted in my book, Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand, 32).

(J. H. Baker, a British legal historian, is, however, on record, elsewhere, as a Stratfordian.)

A material fact is one essential to the case, necessary to determine the issue, without which it cannot be supported. Its proof would establish or refute one of essential elements of the case (Black's Law Dictionary). "Tantamount" means "just as good as, equivalent to, to amount to as much as."

Whether the statements of Heminge, Condell, and Jonson made in the First Folio can be taken at face value is a question of material fact. And so we try to show the evidence is not credible, that there are reasons for not taking it at face value.

I saw this on the internet: the truth welcomes questions. A lie does not like to be challenged (stated by Janice Dean, Instagram. I do not know anything more.).

Bacon: "A prudent question is, as it were, one half of wisdom." De Augmentis, Spedding 1:635.

 

 

 

Christie, you intrigue me. You have the mind of a lawyer, but the sensibilities of a poet - a special combination.

[Eric Roberts]

7 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

Christie, you intrigue me. You have the mind of a lawyer, but the sensibilities of a poet - a special combination.

...not unlike Lord Verulam...

[Christie Waldman]

That's probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. Thank you, Eric.

[Allisnum2er]

Hi everyone,

Today, 16/09, I would like to share with you my thoughts and the fruit of my research on " Of Truth", the First Essay of Francis Bacon in the 3rd Edition fo his Essays published in 1625, two years after the First Folio, an essay which (in my view) is linked to the First Folio and Shakespeare Monument.

Initially, it was to be a video for the 400th Anniversary of the First Folio, but I finally choose another subject.

Here are some of the slides that I prepared for the video.

I already shared with you the importance, for me, of the word "wit" that is the 33rd word of Ben Jonson's Poem at the beginning of the First Folio, indicating that BACON'S WIT was in play.

BACON'S WIT is also in play in "Of Truth".

(OF TRUTH = 103 = SHAKESPEARE - Thank you Rob 😊)

Notice that right in the middle (Mediocria firma) of "Of Truth" 

we have  : F. BAC. WIT that stands for Francis BACon WIT

The  letters F (6) B (2) A (1) C (3) provide us with the four numbers that we find in the year of publication of the First Folio Folio (1623) and of the Second Folio (1632).

The first word in Capital "WHAT"(1) and the three words in Italic  "Pilate is Truth"(6,2,3)

confirm the importance of these 4 numbers/letters.

I also revealed in my first video (1623) the Triangle concealed by Francis Bacon in this page, with four "FBAC" and the word FREE of FREE-WILL right in the center.

With F (6) = B(2) + A (1) + C (3)

(The Unity and the Trinity)

We know  that Free = 33 = BACON

And here, Free is the 33rd word by counting from "Of Truth" (Skipping the number I. that is not a word)

It makes "will" the 34th word and Free-will = 33 + 34 = 67 = FRANCIS

At the time of my first video I stopped here, but there is much more ...

 

From the Triangle we can draw a Circle.

And this first Circle allows to draw a second Circle, creating a Vesica Piscis.

And in the center of this Vesica Piscis appears a sentence that takes all its meaning :

"A BONDAGE TO FIX A WILL IN THINKING"

Notice the two points of intersection of the Circle "In" and "Pi" or "In Pi"

Interestingly, if we consider P as the greek letter Rho(R) , this gives us  INRI.

And here is what I found hidden vertically ...

THE AGED SWAN

To be continued ...