The Hidden Baconian Acrostics and Anagrams in the Shakespeare First Folio

[Light-of-Truth]

10 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Rob,

Masterclass. Brilliant.

Thank you so much!

The anagrams and acrostics that were left for us intentionally have stories behind them. Of course leaving a name is part of the game they play with us 400 years into their future. But with number ciphers and reading plain text out of context with some hints in the back of our minds we can discover more about who Bacon was. Others as well.

We are still in Sonnet 111 which over the years is always a big thing. I just read 111 going into 112 and Bacon's tragic life is hitting me again. OMG, and he tells it from his heart and soul for anyone who takes the time to understand the Sonnets. He was cheated out of who he was, and so many people knew it. I'd suggest almost anybody who was anybody knew exactly who Francis Bacon really was. Yet, if anyone spoke it out loud their heads would roll off the block.

What does this line say to you?

"For what care I who calles me well or ill,"

To me, "well or ill" means "Will". Bacon was "Will"; William Tudor AND William Shakespeare. But these lines may be directed at Dee ("Pittie me then deare friend"). What I get out of the Sonnets was that perhaps Dee was the Director of Bacon's life. Dee could tell Bacon (and Elizabeth) how Bacon's life would go, whether Bacon was well or ill. Just like in Sonnet 14 (DEE is 14 Simple cipher) where Bacon speaks pretty overtly of Dee.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Sonnet014

NOt from the stars do I my iudgement plucke,
And yet me thinkes I haue Astronomy,
But not to tell of good,or euil lucke,
Of plagues,of dearths,or seasons quallity,
Nor can I fortune to breefe mynuits tell;
Pointing to each his thunder,raine and winde,
Or say with Princes if it shal go wel

Later in Sonnet 136 Bacon to his Mother who was kind of under Dee's spell:

Make but my name thy loue,and loue that still,
And then thou louest me for my name is Will.

Nothing against Dee, in some ways he has been the one to teach me these things. But Bacon's life was what it was, and he was not in control of it.

[A Phoenix]

OTHELLO

The Tragedy of Othello (written in 1604) first appeared in print in a Quarto edition in 1622 with another version of Othello appearing the next year in the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio. Astonishingly, a comparative examination of the 1622 Quarto edition and the version of Othello in the First Folio reveals that the latter is 160 lines longer and differs in wording in more than a thousand instances. Of course, the secret author of Othello was still very much alive in 1622 and 1623, which surely to any rational person is of some critical importance, whose mortality is conveniently evidenced in the hidden anagram of his name BACON: 

 

Comfort forsweare me. Vnkindnesse may do much,

And his vnkindnesse may defeat my life,

But neuer taynt my Loue.

                 BACON

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), Tragedies, p. 332; William Stone Booth, Subtle Shining Secrecies (Boston: Walter H. Baker, 1925), p. 264

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[A Phoenix]

KING LEAR

The True Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King Lear and his three Daughters first appeared in a Quarto edition in 1608 and just over a decade later in one of the falsely dated Pavier/William Jaggard Quarto editions in 1619. A third version of King Lear appeared in the 1623 First Folio which was subjected to substantial revision, cutting some 300 lines from the first Quarto and adding around a hundred new lines to the Folio version, with several speeches differently assigned, as well as numerous variations in language and wording. Our sublime dramatist also inserted his secret signatures here in the form of two anagrams of BACON:       

                    Glou.   Come hither fellow.

                      Edg.  And yet I must:

                 Blesse thy sweete eyes, they bleede.

                                        BACON

                Or ere Ile weepe: O Foole, I shall go mad.

                       Corn. Let vs withdraw, ’twill be a Storme.

                       Reg. This house is little, the old man an’ds people,

                Cannot be well bestow’d.

                       Gon. ’Tis his owne blame hath put himselfe from rest,

                  And must needs taste his folly.

                        Reg. For his particular, Ile receiue him gladly,

                 But not one follower.

                                       BACON

 

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), Tragedies, p. 301, 295; Edward D. Johnson, Shakespearian Acrostics (Birmingham: Cornish Brothers Ltd, 1942), p. 65; William Stone Booth, Subtle Shining Secrecies (Boston: Walter H. Baker, 1925), p. 259

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[A Phoenix]

MACBETH

The other great tragedy Macbeth (written in 1606) was first printed in the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio with the following hidden anagram of BACON secretly inserted into its text:  

                  

                        Conduct me to mine Host we loue him highly,

                      And shall continue, our Graces towards him.

                                         By your leaue Hostesse.                                                     

 BACON

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), Tragedies, p. 135

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[A Phoenix]

CORIOLANUS

The Roman history play Coriolanus (first written around 1608) was first printed in the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio and was also adorned with an anagram of BACON:

                                       Coniecturall Marriages, making parties strong,

                                       And feebling such as stand not in their liking,

                                       Below their cobled Shooes.

                                                             BACON

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), Tragedies, p. 2

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[RoyalCraftiness]

20 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

In a weird way I think you help me support my theories as it motivates me to speak my mind to an audience that might even be only myself at times. If someone reads the B'Hive forums it is because they are likely curious or already involved in the Baconian community. You present yourself as a "not very fun" kind of guy. I don't think of you as an enemy, and I try to not have enemies at all. You and I share personal and even intimate personal communications about what we are going through with our family and life in private, so I feel like I am getting to know you a little. I enjoy our friendship even though you are the public B'Hive antagonist on many days.

We do have lurkers who are Strats and Oxies, and Marlovians, and etc. They may enjoy you picking at us, but they fear you more than we do. I've suggested to others that you may be more Baconian than we know and you are merely attempting to help us get ready for the attacks by the total clueless masses who have nothing but ignorance to base their arguments. We can practice with someone who is not an idiot. LOL

I have said that, not lying.

Yet, maybe you are just a grouchy old fart sitting at his computer with his spoiled but certainly beautiful cat in his lap frustrated that we have so much momentum on this movement you despise. 😉

I am a fan of Peter Dawkins for sure. Amundsen I have not heard from for 20 years or so, and I may be a fan, but have questioned some of his theories. You are well aware A Phoenix is today's most prolific researcher and presenter of Baconian evidence and I am doing what I can to help support them. Most of us who are involved are very excited about their work and total dedication. I appreciate what they have time to do and they are blowing the walls off anything ever done before for the Baconian argument. We all know you want to critique their work and you make some good points. Again, for me it opens the dialog for Deeper understanding.

Lately your main focus has been that the Authorship debate is not important. That is a very weak position because it is so important to so many of us on all fronts. Your strong stance about "proof" is valid, I get it. We have evidence piled up like the mighty Rocky Mountain range, yet still missing the one single proof that will change the world. A Phoenix will likely find it. If not, me, Yann, Kate, or another Baconian will. We are close, and maybe you know it. Christie who has always been one of our "counter-balance" members shared how there is a point where even without a smoking gun enough evidence can indeed prove a case.

We are not trying to disprove Willy was Shakespeare because the only proof is a name on the plays that doesn't even make a perfect fit with Will Shakspur. There has never ever been any proof Willy of Avon wrote anything at all. Scholars acknowledge that authors used pen names back then, and they used ciphers as signatures. That is not being debated as far as I know. That has been proven. Ben Jonson is one who offers proof of anagrams. We are definitely seeking to prove Bacon was Shakespeare, with an end in mind. We are on that path with pleasure enjoying every moment we make yet another discovery.

Thank you for another opportunity for me to share a rant, CJ. 🙂

 

 

It is only "not important" to me, because I can live with not knowing if there is a need for an authorship question. There's more to Bacon than just that. He managed to make a name for himself with what he wrote rather poorly by the lofty standards he is held to. I feel I must say that to stress that I have no skin in the game and can therefore more clearly criticize. It makes me more useful to anyone who comes here and asks if they should or should not trust their lying eyes. It is useful to have criticisms be expressed. Everyone needs to be aware of them.

You can only prove a case to a jury with what is a circumstantial case when that manages to convince. There could be true proofs, but there aren't because nothing has changed to allow this Bacon suggestion any traction. Even irrefutable evidence would need the rubber stamp of the staunchest critics. Establishing a proof is not easy. Nothing that Einstein said in 1905 was a proof of anything. It had to, and it will forever have to, be nitpicked and revisited, in order that it may one day be established to what degree it is worth accepting. This is because no one has access to the whole truth. The people with Theories of Everything are trying to write such books in narratives that appeal to them and hopefully to you. Why they do that is part of what drives them, and there is no accounting for taste.

It is not about knowing that everything that reaches you is done by who it is claimed to be coming from. There is very little that you can know in that regard outside of your own first hand experience. It is about being ok with not knowing and taking what is of use to you. We are lucky in that we can actually view and listen to people saying things today. That adds to our experience of certainty of where certain ideas are coming from. There are still impostors at every corner. We have started to get a new idea about trustworthiness in he age of information. The idea of the lone expert is slowly vanishing.

Do you think there isn't doubt in any human being when one contemplates that Shakespeare had only a grade school education, if he had that? It is assumed he went to school because he lived near one. There's no proof of it.  Some have suggested that being in school until the age of 13 was enough of an education for him to be able to master Latin, Greek and Hebrew on his own later (that he had enough of a rudimentary exposure to it). That is trying to exploit the possibility that such a thing is possible, which it is. Shakespeare "could" have been the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart of the English language. It is possible that this was the point of a suggestion.

England had a very sordid cultural history up to that time. It was a backwater (a hamlet) of older Empires and Kingdoms and a barbarous unrefined land until culture came to the place via religion (in the 7th century) and with the Norman conquest. England as a nation of weight in global affairs had to wait for the Tudors to be established. Elizabeth's, and the nation's, financial success came at the hands of a wildly successful privateer. It followed the seizure of wealth that had occurred with the dissolution of the monasteries. Certain English figures were made larger than life. Henry VIII tried in vein to deify himself, but he was not successful. He did launch a British religion. However, Elizabeth was successfully packaged and marketed to the people. Of course, it is all a fiction that many people had an interest in believing. We know that from our modern politics.  The job of selling her narrative was someone's achievement. Whether Shakespeare, the author, existed or not it is worth considering that there are advantages in him appearing to have existed so that there would be these mythical creatures as symbols. His historical place as a symbol is more important than the truth if you ask me. The same could be said of Christ. You will not be allowed to touch certain creations that are meant to work as Suns which you gravitate around. Symbols that belong intimately to cultures will be defended. Their gravitational pull with not be weakened. The average Joe can be Shakespeare if he achieves his own transformation from nothing.

Out of all that is possible what would be more likely? Shakespeare appears to have been a low rate businessman in the  theater business. Did he purchase works and rebrand them? It's possible. Was he paid to present a specific body of work? Who knows? That sounds less likely. I see possibilities in him having him had beneficial relationships. No man is an island. No man is the sole architect of his own success. People in need of money, and Bacon was one of those, could have stepped up to the plate. However, that's not a romantic view. 

You'll notice that there are an infinite amount of things we cannot prove. I cannot prove that aliens exist. The way forward is not to allege they do exist and then to pile on with all the noise about them existing. What if I succeed in convincing you, or the masses, and it isn't true? Where are we then? What if it was the point of an intelligence community to have you be convinced of something without proof? There are many obvious reasons why one might want to convince when that has advantages. "We have proof that Sadam has weapons on mass destruction" comes to mind". Did we have proof? A poor proof it was, but who cares after the utility has been exploited?

The wool has been pulled over our eyes since the beginning of time with stories. To be fair, it was understood in ancient times that stories were to be taken to be symbolic first. Even if they were based in realities, the realities were sweetened to serve to impress. Symbolic culture requires symbols to operate with. Shakespeare can be the symbol of a deception to you. 

If you remember Neo in "The Matrix" he was powerless until he believed. You would be powerless in your Baconian quest if you did not believe. Were there is belief is where you find the will to action. If you instantly dropped your belief you would have to be fine with the taste of the steak you are being served. One has to assume that you aren't and that you have hope that some other reality offers you sanity.

For the record, the strike against me when I was a graduate student years ago is that I was too much of a fun loving guy and was not serious enough. There are factions everywhere that will label you too much and too little of what they have in mind. One has to be fine being who one is. It's never been a constant. I came to this world as a real trickster. There is real annoyance in having to del with tricksters. You never know exactly if they are pulling your leg or being serious. I can be both, and I enjoy being both.

Edited September 20 by RoyalCraftiness

[RoyalCraftiness]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:29 AM, Light-of-Truth said:

Alan Green promotes an Oxie-version of a calendar in the Sonnets and also a Pyramid design. I'm honored that the Oxie's obviously had him try to outdo my Pyramid design. But watching his attempts left me nauseous and chuckling a little because he did his best and I am sure he knew how ridiculous they were, yet Oxie's love them anyway.

Green is a master of pretending to be so smart nobody can understand him which allows him to talk nonsense as if it is real. But its not hard to see through.

CJ, if you haven't watched, you'd enjoy for sure. He won't be talking over your head at all. LOL

https://tobeornottobe.org/the-sonnets/

 

I'm going to push back a bit here. No one mentioned above has discovered that 364 is a tetrahedral number. It gets called something else. You and others may have fallen onto it, but that is just a matter of keen observation if you did grasp its property. This was already known to be a property of the number 364. In three dimensions it works to build a triangular based pyramid, so not a square pyramidal number (or akin to the Great pyramid) like some might think or have suggested. This means that there is a triangular base to the four triangular sided shape. In an attempt to involve only 4 triangles that is what you get. This, we could suggest, might be a 4 T reference if we wanted to associate the T with a triangle.

The tetrahedron is no slouch in physical reality. The angle between the points of the tetrahedron and it's center is 110 degrees if you want to allow rounding. The water molecule has this spatial alignment. It allows for strong Hydrogen bonds between molecules. 

The tetrahedron is an important shape in chemistry on account of there being a relationship of a point to 4 others. Carbon has the property of bonding 4 ways, so you will often get this resulting shape in molecular architecture.

Where I have to laugh out loud is when people make these observations and work out that they are discovering mathematical constants when they analyze the numbers. Well, yes. One will be able to extract a lot of useful ratios from triangle sides in a regular shape that fits within a circle. Pi is there, and so is its cousin Phi. The natural logarithm and the constant e can also be teased out. Because this is alien to a lot of people you can impress with it. It works like a magic trick for Graham Hancock and company. Some are clearly not able to follow, but some can, and these people still cannot fathom how it is possible. It looks mysterious and "intended" to have been made to appear by some all knowing intellect.

We can take any calendar and make a large pyramidal representation out of its first 364 days. That shape will have a certain number of steps or levels. There are twelve in the case of 364. That is akin to a month division for a year. Every level represents a triangle of its own.

Have you broken down the Sonnets by dividing them in twelve levels? You chose 2 dimensions and a visual Triangle  suggestion (364 is not triangular) and you divided 364 by 26 to get 14 levels in order that 14x11 would be equal to 154 (the number of Sonnets). Each 26 days is, for whatever reason, showed to be a smaller step in a pyramid as they are stacked. This has no basis in any physical representation. Each 26 days should represent the same area. This falls apart at that level of comparison. What you have built is a skyscraper posing as a triangle. I'm not sure why you suggest a 2-D triangle. Maybe you wanted to capture the triangle from freemasonry to help with the suggestion?

There is a potentially viewable pyramid that corresponds with the side view of the tetrahedron. Each level of the pyramid would necessarily involve a different number of Sonnets. Level 1 has 1, level 2 has 4, level 3 has 10...

I'm not asking that you walk back everything you've ever done, and I'm not interested in humiliating you in the least, but why are you so convinced you have anything of value there? You seem to require that a meaning come out what is interpreted in the Sonnets as a last step. The triangle shape you provide itself tells us nothing. There isn't a pyramid in the way you are suggesting it exists. The sum of the "discovery" amounts to 364/26=14=154/11 where that 14 is mirrored by the number of the lines in each Sonnet. 154 Sonnets of 14 lines yields 2156 lines. That number is not triangular either. 

A block diagram would have had different visual impact, but that is what you are dealing with. You are stacking 26 days, and I'm not sure why that should be seen as significant. I suspect it is because 365 doesn't divide by 26, but 364 does. 354 is a highly factored number. Nevertheless, 26x 14 is tantalizingly close to a 27x13.5 suggestion. In fact it is 0.5 days off (that half day goes a ways towards accounting for the 365th day). Your block of days should have been used to visually imply a similarity one half of the perfect stone ashlar of dimension 27x13.5 (the symbol of a human life's work) and retain a rectangular visual suggestion. That would do some of the lifting necessary to introduce a Masonic suggestion. The triangle, while it can be involved, isn't there in 2-D.

That's my criticism of that. It is up to you to consider it and see if there is anything of value there to you. I am submitting it humbly and hope that it will be taken humbly.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

It is only "not important" to me, because I can live with not knowing if there is a need for an authorship question. There's more to Bacon than just that.

Yea, I know. Been a few of you through SirBacon.org.

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

It makes me more useful to anyone who comes here and asks if they should or should not trust their lying eyes. It is useful to have criticisms be expressed. Everyone needs to be aware of them.

No argument here. I feel like you all are missing some really good stuff, but I get it.

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Do you think there isn't doubt in any human being when one contemplates that Shakespeare had only a grade school education, if he had that? It is assumed he went to school because he lived near one. There's no proof of it. 

It's always been the key question, at least out side of Bacon's contemporaries who seemed to know who Bacon was. The foundation of the Authorship debate is that the William Shakespeare has always been vague. Was it the guy who had an illiterate family who never wrote a letter or received a letter from anyone in his handwriting? Was Shakespeare only Bacon, De Vere, Marlow, or even Elizabeth? Or someone else or all of them as a team?

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Nothing that Einstein said in 1905 was a proof of anything. It had to, and it will forever have to, be nitpicked and revisited, in order that it may one day be established to what degree it is worth accepting. This is because no one has access to the whole truth.

E = mc2 is already considered right in some circumstances, right?

I'll say nobody knows a whole truth. 😉

My curiosity is Time and Space, is that even real? We have our limited means of trying to explain them, yet events happen that defy the tiny scope we have in our pea sized brains.

<-- 1881 -->

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

England had a very sordid cultural history up to that time ... The average Joe can be Shakespeare if he achieves his own transformation from nothing.

All of that!

You are at your best in this post. Bacon-Curious visitors from several perspectives would enjoy this dialog. I may come back in a while after some chores...

[RoyalCraftiness]

1 minute ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Yea, I know. Been a few of you through SirBacon.org.

No argument here. I feel like you all are missing some really good stuff, but I get it.

It's always been the key question, at least out side of Bacon's contemporaries who seemed to know who Bacon was. The foundation of the Authorship debate is that the William Shakespeare has always been vague. Was it the guy who had an illiterate family who never wrote a letter or received a letter from anyone in his handwriting? Was Shakespeare only Bacon, De Vere, Marlow, or even Elizabeth? Or someone else or all of them as a team?

E = mc2 is already considered right in some circumstances, right?

I'll say nobody knows a whole truth. 😉

My curiosity is Time and Space, is that even real? We have our limited means of trying to explain them, yet events happen that defy the tiny scope we have in our pea sized brains.

<-- 1881 -->

All of that!

You are at your best in this post. Bacon-Curious visitors from several perspectives would enjoy this dialog. I may come back in a while after some chores...

I see. I am "one of them" to you--the other. Ok, that's useful to know.

Please try and find he time to come back to me with some comments about the table taken from the StackExchange. I would like to know what you think about the statiscal nature of the observations. At some point in the future I may take a random and representative sample (use a random number generator) to examine the Sonnets. I don't know what the result will be. Any guess? Maybe 30-40 percent of the 14 line Sonnets will have a "con" word in them? Does that sound high or low?

[Light-of-Truth]

27 minutes ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Have you broken down the Sonnets by dividing them in twelve levels? You chose 2 dimensions and a visual Triangle  suggestion (364 is not triangular) and you divided 364 by 26 to get 14 levels in order that 14x11 would be equal to 154 (the number of Sonnets). Each 26 days is, for whatever reason, showed to be a smaller step in a pyramid as they are stacked. This has no basis in any physical representation. Each 26 days should represent the same area. This falls apart at that level of comparison. What you have built is a skyscraper posing as a triangle. I'm not sure why you suggest a 2-D triangle. Maybe you wanted to capture the triangle from freemasonry to help with the suggestion?

I have explained I call this design a "Pyramid" because that is how I drew it on September Eleven, Two Thousand One. I have since that instant in my miond called the design a Pyramid. But yes, indeed, it is a Table. I will suggest that it may have been one of the secret "Magic Tables" of for maybe centuries before the Sonnets. No proof or even any evidence that I have.

I don't remember doing 12 Tiers. I've played with 7, 11, 13, 14, 22, 26, 28, and 52 (52 "Weeks" of 7 "Days").

Today, I'd much rather become aware I stumbled on a number pattern "Table" commonly known to mathematicians than to be alone panicking that what I discovered would die with me.

364, and 365 is O.

[Light-of-Truth]

13 minutes ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I see. I am "one of them" to you--the other. Ok, that's useful to know.

LOL!

You are definitely "them" in many of my slices. Yet you are "us" in other slices maybe many more.

For me, which makes a lot of my friends "them" along with you is the core of who I am which is very strongly influenced by psychedelics when I was very young. If the bubble pops, it makes you different. We are us, who have had our bubbles popped, whoever we are. You are still in the bubble. That might sound silly? I am confident Bacon had his bubble popped many times maybe even as a youth.

Life is not us and them, at all. It is WE. Everything is connected and is One consciousness and we are all in it.

Black and blue
And who knows which is which
And who is who

Up and down
And in the end
It's only round and round, and round

 

Love Pink Floyd!

 

"Haven't you heard it's a battle of words?"

 

CJ, you are one of us in my mind, but you are one of them. LOL

 

[Light-of-Truth]

 

1 hour ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Any guess? Maybe 30-40 percent of the 14 line Sonnets will have a "con" word in them? Does that sound high or low?

That sounds "High" even to me. 😉

I did an Excel condition where a cell with "con" would be pink. I was using the original 1609 spelling to stay true to Bacon's time. There were 70 lines of 2,155 of the Sonnets that were pink (3.2482598607889%).

Synchronicity which is probably meaningless inside the bubble as I saw a 33 on the line after I sorted by pink.

What is that "33"?

It is the 33rd line from the end of the Sonnets, CJ.

Line 10 of Sonnet 152, "Othes of thy loue,thy truth,thy constancie,"

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/UC_Q1_Son/64/?work=son&zoom=500

What ARE the odds. CJ? The final Bacon visual hint of the Sonnets with your "con" on Line 33 from the end of the 2,155 lines of Sonnets?

I never saw this before? Thank you for the Deescovery! 🙂

TIP: Read those words by Bacon just for us.

EDIT: This screen capture might be helpful for interested viewers:

[Eric Roberts]

On 9/20/2023 at 4:44 AM, RoyalCraftiness said:

No, not really. It's like I said before. I am more interested in debunking ideas and seeing what can be conserved and what cannot be. In the end I would wish it to all be explained away, but I understand that it cannot. The uncertainty in it all allows for various suggestions to have a life. I don't have any regarding the Shakespeare authorship. I will always come off as the natural enemy of people with suggestions in that arena if I attempt to debunk those. I'm happy not publicly doing that if it helps you promote your theories by casting a net. I do find that I offer some things that may be of use to people with an eye for narrative creation. I can't dismiss that Bacon may have been tickled by Kepler and Andrea, and I cannot fail to see that there are things about the actual colonization scheme that have a counterpart in terrestrial and celestial navigation.

I don't want OI associated with Shakespeare or Bacon if it is not. It's a Morris/Philips endeavor as far as the historical record shows. I must stay open to the fact that these men ay have been operating with certain beliefs about Bacon. What they show may be related to what they believe What they believe need not be true. There's a lot to try and disprove that will not easily be disproved. I'm interested because it has been suggested by Amundsen, Dawkins and others. If I could pry that away from them I would be very happy. I don't have to be left holding anything. Simple explanations would delight me.

"I am more interested in debunking ideas..." - you are a long way off debunking anything because you never provide relevant references, only personal opinion. There are 17 personal pronouns ("I") in the 14 lines above. 

[Light-of-Truth]

2 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

TIP: Read those words by Bacon just for us.

I already know that nobody would notice these Bacon signature lines are on Christmas Day.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Day359

[Light-of-Truth]

57 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

"I am more interested in debunking ideas..." - you are a long way off debunking anything because you never provide relevant references, only personal opinion. There are 17 personal pronouns ("I") in the 14 lines above. 

Eric, the highlight of my day which has had a few long over due nice moments is enjoying you speaking up. 🙂

Hoping the coming equinox brings good vibes to us all. In a way I feel it, even if only a breezy day and cooler temperatures here on the Gulf Coast of Florida. 🙂

 

[A Phoenix]

THE WINTER’S TALE

The late play The Winter’s Tale (written c. 1609-10) which explored the political process of the union of England and Scotland reflected in a series of speeches and treatises written by Bacon in the years leading up to its composition, was first printed in the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio with the following BACO acrostic and anagram of BACON:

                                       By my regard, but kill’d none so. Camillo,

                                       As you are certainely a Gentleman, thereto

                                       Clerke-like experience’d, which no lesse adornes

                                       Our Gentry, than our parents Noble Names,

                                       In whose successe we are gentle:                        

                                                      BACO and BACON

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), p. 281

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[A Phoenix]

CYMBELINE

In Cymbeline, King of Britain first printed in the 1623 First Folio placed at the last of the tragedies the final drama in the volume Bacon conceals and reveals himself several times in one line in Act 2 Scene 5 where Posthumus refers to the false boast of Giacomo:

 This yellow Iachimo in an houre, was’t not?

  Or lesse; at first? Perchance he spoke not, but

  Like a full Acorn’d Boare, a Iarman on,

 Cry’de oh, and mounted; found no opposition                                                                     

The above is a very condensed and involved allusion to its author, Bacon. The name Bacon is of Germanic (‘Iarman’) origin, a boar is a wild pig from which bacon is derived, and for good measure ‘acorn’ phonetically sounds like Bacon, and with the initial letter from the next word ‘boar’ it yields the anagram, BACON, and when we add the letter ‘f’ from the word ‘full’, the anagram F BACON.   

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), pp. 389-90

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[A Phoenix]

TIMON OF ATHENS

The date when Timon of Athens whose eponymous character is a disguised dramatic portrait of Bacon was written and revised is uncertain. Some aspects of the play reflect circumstances and themes beyond Bacon’s fall in 1621. The play was first entered into the Stationers’ Register in 1623 and printed for the first time in the First Folio with the anagram

 F BACON:                    

For each true word, a blister, and each false

Be as Cantherizing to the root of o’th’ Tongue,

Consuming it with speaking.

       I Worthy Timon.

      Tim. Of none but such as you,

And you of Timon.

        F BACON

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Ed. Blount, 1623), Tragedies, p. 96. For more Baconian-Shakespearean acrostics, anagrams and secret signatures see both Yann Le Merlus, ‘Allisnum2er’ and Rob Fowler, ‘Light of Truth’ in ‘Baconian Acrostics, Anagrams, Monograms, & Secret Signatures in the Shakespeare Poems & Plays’, ‘Special Bacon-Shakespeare Title Pages & Emblems’, ‘The Baconian-Rosicrucian AA Headpieces in Editions of Shakespeare Poems, Quartos & Folios’, on B’Hive https://sirbacon.org/bacon-forum/index.php?/topic/93-the-baconian-rosicrucian-aa-headpieces-in-editions-of-shakespeare-poems-quartos-folios/page/9/#comment-7095 and for a collection of his ground-breaking videos see also Yann Le Merlus, ‘Allisnum2er’, at https://sirbacon.org/all-is-num2er/

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[A Phoenix]

Bacon is Shakespeare

Francis Bacon-Shakespeare was undoubtedly the greatest poet and dramatist of his age, of all time, who possessed a profound grasp of ciphers, codes, rebuses, emblems, symbolic head and tailpieces, and all other cryptic devices, and undoubtedly the greatest authorial anagrammatist, evidence of which is repeatedly and continually found throughout the First Folio revealing and confirming that Bacon is Shakespeare.

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

[Eric Roberts]

12 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I see. I am "one of them" to you--the other. Ok, that's useful to know.

Please try and find he time to come back to me with some comments about the table taken from the StackExchange. I would like to know what you think about the statiscal nature of the observations. At some point in the future I may take a random and representative sample (use a random number generator) to examine the Sonnets. I don't know what the result will be. Any guess? Maybe 30-40 percent of the 14 line Sonnets will have a "con" word in them? Does that sound high or low?

Supercilious, belittling, sarcastic, unnecessary. Again, no facts, just bombast!

Edited September 21 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

43 minutes ago, A Phoenix said:

THE WINTER’S TALE

The late play The Winter’s Tale (written c. 1609-10) which explored the political process of the union of England and Scotland reflected in a series of speeches and treatises written by Bacon in the years leading up to its composition, was first printed in the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio with the following BACO acrostic and anagram of BACON:

                                       By my regard, but kill’d none so. Camillo,

                                       As you are certainely a Gentleman, thereto

                                       Clerke-like experience’d, which no lesse adornes

                                       Our Gentry, than our parents Noble Names,

                                       In whose successe we are gentle:                        

                                                      BACO and BACON

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), p. 281

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

In poker I think they call that a "royal flush".

[Eric Roberts]

2 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

CYMBELINE

In Cymbeline, King of Britain first printed in the 1623 First Folio placed at the last of the tragedies the final drama in the volume Bacon conceals and reveals himself several times in one line in Act 2 Scene 5 where Posthumus refers to the false boast of Giacomo:

 This yellow Iachimo in an houre, was’t not?

  Or lesse; at first? Perchance he spoke not, but

  Like a full Acorn’d Boare, a Iarman on,

 Cry’de oh, and mounted; found no opposition                                                                     

The above is a very condensed and involved allusion to its author, Bacon. The name Bacon is of Germanic (‘Iarman’) origin, a boar is a wild pig from which bacon is derived, and for good measure ‘acorn’ phonetically sounds like Bacon, and with the initial letter from the next word ‘boar’ it yields the anagram, BACON, and when we add the letter ‘f’ from the word ‘full’, the anagram F BACON.   

Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies (London: printed by Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount, 1623), pp. 389-90

PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/106420304/The_Hidden_Baconian_Acrostics_and_Anagrams_in_the_Shakespeare_First_Folio

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wTR_gqloCWs

1 MINUTE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/C_1ffdeMvy8

Hi A Phoenix

As far as I can tell "lachimo" and "larman' are neither in my dictionary nor explained online.

Edited September 21 by Eric Roberts

[A Phoenix]

Hi Eric,

In the modern Arden Bible edition of Cymbeline (2017) edited by Professor Valerie Wayne the word 'Iarman' is changed to 'German' and 'Iachimo' or 'Giacomo' is an Italian name for which its editor provides some instructive commentary. I have sent the following interesting pages over for your perusal. 

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

16 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I have explained I call this design a "Pyramid" because that is how I drew it on September Eleven, Two Thousand One. I have since that instant in my miond called the design a Pyramid. But yes, indeed, it is a Table. I will suggest that it may have been one of the secret "Magic Tables" of for maybe centuries before the Sonnets. No proof or even any evidence that I have.

I don't remember doing 12 Tiers. I've played with 7, 11, 13, 14, 22, 26, 28, and 52 (52 "Weeks" of 7 "Days").

Today, I'd much rather become aware I stumbled on a number pattern "Table" commonly known to mathematicians than to be alone panicking that what I discovered would die with me.

364, and 365 is O.

364 and one day of atonement before you start on the mirrored "chiral" other half of your "Pauline" Christian journey into the afterlife symbolized by the other half of the perfect square.

The year is just what the year is. Trying to produce meaning from numbers leads us to seek parallels with other things which we may in fact invent by creating a narrative based in the similarity. There may be many works that have been made to have 365 pages (we spoke of one hermetic book here before) in length to try and hop on to the suggestion.  "What" is inspiring "what" is where we might find the answer to the "why" we are seeing some things. We can feel like we have discovered a rationale for a certain type of narrative. It's not out of place with the Sonnets. There's other number games that may be used to equate those to religious ideas in vogue with the Christian empiricists of the early 17th century. So, who wrote the Sonnets? Who's being bothered to frame it in some empiric number based scheme if that was intended?

It is not a code or a cipher. We cannot decipher a meaning from shape. We can only observe it and wonder if it all just happens to be coincidental to the fact that 364 and 154 have a common divisor which is also the number of lines in each Sonnet. The rest could just be your, or my, imaginative story telling. Someone else could waltz in and find a way to impose 14 onto DeVere and hijacking the whole elegant story. 

[RoyalCraftiness]

20 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

 

That sounds "High" even to me. 😉

I did an Excel condition where a cell with "con" would be pink. I was using the original 1609 spelling to stay true to Bacon's time. There were 70 lines of 2,155 of the Sonnets that were pink (3.2482598607889%).

Synchronicity which is probably meaningless inside the bubble as I saw a 33 on the line after I sorted by pink.

What is that "33"?

It is the 33rd line from the end of the Sonnets, CJ.

Line 10 of Sonnet 152, "Othes of thy loue,thy truth,thy constancie,"

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/UC_Q1_Son/64/?work=son&zoom=500

What ARE the odds. CJ? The final Bacon visual hint of the Sonnets with your "con" on Line 33 from the end of the 2,155 lines of Sonnets?

I never saw this before? Thank you for the Deescovery! 🙂

TIP: Read those words by Bacon just for us.

EDIT: This screen capture might be helpful for interested viewers:

Those 70 lines account for how many Sonnets? 70 out of 154 would be 45% and change. We know some Sonnets have more than one occasion of a "con" word.  I feel I am close in my estimate, but we'll see. Mind you, CON need not just come from a word with that prefix...I could be low.

The count is not a meaning. You cannot decode a count. You can only observe it. We've, together, observed counts that exist in the KJV Psalms 110, 111 and 117. They also appear to be Freemasonic in inspiration. You are relying heavily on the suggestion of the decodability of gematria again. How many possible meanings do you want me to give you for "con" or 33. A con is a confidence trick isn't it? Are we all being conned by observable manufactured coincidences? Are we forced to go down one avenue of meaning with 33? Do you want me to tell you that 33 has an obvious Masonic meaning? I don't think I have to say that. If I do you may counter that this is proof that Francis Bacon invented speculative Freemasonry. Freemasonry doesn't know that. I fear it is always going to be an interpretation that is consistent with what you wish to be found. 

Let's just focus on he fact that the "con"s appear often enough for them to not mean anything by their presence in any given Sonnet. If we cannot get to Anthony Bacon, DeVere or Francis then you have a count of 33 to explain which need not involve them. What forces 33 to be related to gematria, as opposed to just being that 33 of Freemasonry fame (which we would then have forever argue about the origin of). Is it 3x3=9, is it 3^3=27,  is it 99/3 or is it a Triple Tau suggestion? It is hermetic or alchemic in meaning? Or are we wildly off and is this the idea of 33 Egyptian dynasties of which he 18th is the Key? What is fueling the narratives?

What you do is heavy in observation and that is good. Make sure your syllogisms that seek to apply meaning are good too. It would be terrible if we observed something that was meant to be seen and ended up believing and convincing others with the wrong thing from it. 

All I wish to add is that there were men playing the Free and Accepted Masonry cosplay game at this time. As far as I know there's no one who has a list of the earliest membership of these Acception groups. They were small in number and secretive. They may have been patrons and they may have exercised some influence with the goal of promoting a religious view of life and death wirth a decidedly Protestant and scientific flavor.

Edited September 21 by RoyalCraftiness