Though Christianity shattered the material organization of the pagan Mysteries, it could not destroy the knowledge of supernatural power which the pagans possessed. Therefore it is known that the Mysteries of Greece and Egypt were secretly perpetuated through the early centuries of the church, and later, by being clothed in the symbolism of Christianity, were accepted as elements of that faith. Sir Francis Bacon was one of those who had been entrusted with the perpetuation and dissemination of s the arcana of the superphysical originally in the possession of the pagan hierophants, and to attain that end either formulated the Fraternity of R.C. or was admitted into an organization already existing under that name and became one of its principal representatives.
"The most convincing evidence, however, is the fact that 17 is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the Latin form of Bacon's name (F. Baco) and there are 17 letters in the three words appearing in the illustration."
It was in recognition of Bacon's intellectual accomplishments that King James turned over to him the translators' manuscripts of what is now known as the King James Bible for the presumable purpose of checking, editing, and revising them. The documents remained in his hands for nearly a year, but no information is to be had concerning what occurred in that time. Regarding this work, William T. Smedley writes: " It will eventually be proved that the whole scheme of the Authorised Version of the Bible was Francis Bacon's." (See The Mystery of Francis Bacon.) The first edition of the King James Bible contains a cryptic Baconian headpiece. Did Bacon cryptographically conceal in the Authorized Bible that which he dared not literally reveal in the text--the secret Rosicrucian key to mystic and Masonic Christianity?
The DeVere Society overwhelmingly presents the case.
The name Shakespeare is in reference to Athena, said to shake her spear to exude her force.
DeVere's mother was Lady Oxford (Seymour) and his father-in-law (Terrell) became Sgt.-of-Arms as reward for kidnapping the dauphin twin contenders to the throne.
DeVere was offspring from an affair and so taken out of the official lineage position for the throne. This explains the vocabulary, worldly information and inside knowledge of royal inworkings shown by 'Shakespeare'.
Like Bacon, DeVere was an "Illuminate" in every sense of the word at the time.
Unlike Bacon, he was an accomplished playwright.
An early example of someone who was conscious of the power of the written word on the opinions of the public.
His plays were written on different levels for each to receive what was intended.
In effect, they operated as secret histories for the aristocrats to share and understand.
The notion that 'Shakespeare' was a given name of a practically illiterate 'unknown' is as ridiculous today as it ever was.
You might also be interested by the symbols decoding guy who pointed to Van Gogh and Isaac Newton both being composites, not real people. I don't think he finished his dig conclusively, but he had a few convincing arguments.
There are no authentic portraits of Shakspere in existence. The dissimilarities the Droeshout, Chandos, Janssen, Hunt, Ashbourne, Soest, and Dunford portraits prove conclusively that the artists were unaware of Shakspere's actual features. An examination of the Droeshout portrait discloses several peculiarities. Baconian enthusiasts are convinced that the face is only a caricature, possibly the death mask of Francis Bacon. A comparison of the Droeshout Shakspere with portraits and engravings of Francis Bacon demonstrates the identity of the structure of the two faces, the difference in expression being caused by lines of shading. Not also the peculiar line running from the ear down to the chin. Does this line subtly signify that the face itself a mask, ending at the ear? Notice also that the head is not connected with the body, but is resting on the collar. Most strange of all is the coat: one-half is on backwards. In drawing the jacket, the artist has made the left arm correctly, but the right arm has the back of the shoulder to the front. Frank Woodward has noted that there are 157 letters on the title page. This is a Rosicrucian signature of first importance. The date, 1623, Plus the two letters "ON" from the word "LONDON," gives the cryptic signature of Francis Bacon, by a simple numerical cipher. By merely exchanging the 26 letters of the alphabet for numbers, 1 became A, 6 becomes F, 2 becomes B, and 3 becomes C, giving AFBC. To this is added the ON from LONDON, resulting in AFBCON, which rearranged forms F. BACON.
How can you claim Shakespeare was a fraud? Stuff was written, and under the name or pin name/nom de guerre of whomever actually pinned Shakespeare. But a body of work exist under the name Shakespeare, so how can it be a fraud.
Isn't that like saying Poor Richard was a fraud. No Poor Richard was the real the pin name of Ben Franklin. That is a fact.
Is a rose, or prose for that matter, by any other name not as sweet
Say I start a company, but I use someone else as the stand-in to be the face and beneficiary of the organization.
If the organization fails, my own failure, I sustain no damages but the one who was the face does.
If you cared to read the document I posted, you'd see that's what occurred with Shakespeare.
It makes the case that Shakespeare was a peddler or even a money-lender who made a deal with Bacon to be the face of Bacon's literary works, so he had a degree of separation from his works which allowed him to avoid losing his status in high society should his opinions cross the ruling powers.
So, yeah, it's technically fraud -- not even just a pen-name. Shakespeare, according to this account, was likely a patsy.
Poor Richard was a pen name. Shakespeare was illiterate, and took credit for someone else's work therefore a fraud. It's like handing in a report written by someone else as your own.
"The most convincing evidence, however, is the fact that 17 is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the Latin form of Bacon's name (F. Baco) and there are 17 letters in the three words appearing in the illustration."
robert sepher thinks it was bacon .... however there are other theories
for example this youtuber might suggest another
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2wiooH5v40
The best story I heard was that William Shakespeare did not write the plays but it was someone else with the same name.
17th Earl : Edward DeVere
Yes, the 17th.
The debate is now moot.
The DeVere Society overwhelmingly presents the case.
The name Shakespeare is in reference to Athena, said to shake her spear to exude her force.
DeVere's mother was Lady Oxford (Seymour) and his father-in-law (Terrell) became Sgt.-of-Arms as reward for kidnapping the dauphin twin contenders to the throne.
DeVere was offspring from an affair and so taken out of the official lineage position for the throne. This explains the vocabulary, worldly information and inside knowledge of royal inworkings shown by 'Shakespeare'. Like Bacon, DeVere was an "Illuminate" in every sense of the word at the time. Unlike Bacon, he was an accomplished playwright. An early example of someone who was conscious of the power of the written word on the opinions of the public.
His plays were written on different levels for each to receive what was intended. In effect, they operated as secret histories for the aristocrats to share and understand.
The notion that 'Shakespeare' was a given name of a practically illiterate 'unknown' is as ridiculous today as it ever was.
https://deveresociety.co.uk/
It was during this time that taking names was required by the state.
Those surrounding the DeVere family were given the name O'Reardin, meaning "Of the King's Bard" as Shakespeare was known.
O'Reardin's pub still exists in Stratford-on-Avon.
Jane Seymour, the actress, is a descendant of Lady Seymour.
Fun facts
Good stuff.
You might also be interested by the symbols decoding guy who pointed to Van Gogh and Isaac Newton both being composites, not real people. I don't think he finished his dig conclusively, but he had a few convincing arguments.
If you have questions on the alchemy aspects of it, I'm standing by to clear up any confusion.
How can you claim Shakespeare was a fraud? Stuff was written, and under the name or pin name/nom de guerre of whomever actually pinned Shakespeare. But a body of work exist under the name Shakespeare, so how can it be a fraud.
Isn't that like saying Poor Richard was a fraud. No Poor Richard was the real the pin name of Ben Franklin. That is a fact.
Is a rose, or prose for that matter, by any other name not as sweet
Say I start a company, but I use someone else as the stand-in to be the face and beneficiary of the organization.
If the organization fails, my own failure, I sustain no damages but the one who was the face does.
If you cared to read the document I posted, you'd see that's what occurred with Shakespeare.
It makes the case that Shakespeare was a peddler or even a money-lender who made a deal with Bacon to be the face of Bacon's literary works, so he had a degree of separation from his works which allowed him to avoid losing his status in high society should his opinions cross the ruling powers.
So, yeah, it's technically fraud -- not even just a pen-name. Shakespeare, according to this account, was likely a patsy.
Understand, it always help for one to actually read a book before commenting on it, and I am guilty for of not reading very much of your input.
Poor Richard was a pen name. Shakespeare was illiterate, and took credit for someone else's work therefore a fraud. It's like handing in a report written by someone else as your own.
Understand. I am guilty for commenting with understanding what I was commenting on.
Happens to the best of us fren. :)