Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 79

Thread: A Taste of Bacon Sir? - The Secret of Shakespeare

  1. #21

    Default For Charlie

    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  2. #22

    Default

    Will view, though likely not until tomorrow ... and tomorrow and tomorrow ...

    By the way, I've enjoyed this thread from the day it was launched.

  3. Default

    Charles and I disagree on Shakespeare. He is the Shakespeare scholar and
    I am not.

    But I do know a little about history, especially art history, of that era.
    Successful painters were big business back then. A popular painter
    would have many commissions to fill, and would have a studio with many
    apprentices. To turn out a high volume, the signature artist would supervise
    the early stages of a landscape or portrait; apprentices would do a lot of
    the grunt work, and the signature artist would add the refined finishing
    touches and sign his name. Even in the 1900s as an art director, I often
    worked the same way.

    In my opinion Bill Shakespeare was like other successful art entrepreneurs
    of the era. He was the Flo Zigfeld of his day. He was a successful producer
    of theatricals. He employed many apprentices and actors. They had production
    dates to meet. Plots and characters were discussed. Actors improvised dialog.
    Scribes took down conversations. Scripts were written and rewritten. Finally,
    rehearsals honed down the finished performances, the curtain rose and the
    audience was captivated. Hamlet uttered TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE
    QUESTION. Everyone said that Will Shakespeare can really write! But did he?
    Or was it "just another season, another show...there's no business like show
    business, no business I know."

    Jack

  4. #24

    Default

    Everything about your post is appealing Jack ... except you're too kind evaluation of my command of all things Shakespearean.

    I'm just a bit player. But thanks anyway.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Everything about your post is appealing Jack ... except you're too kind evaluation of my command of all things Shakespearean.

    I'm just a bit player. But thanks anyway.
    "Let's go on with the show!"
    ---Irving Berlin, successor to Bill Shakespeare

  6. #26

    Default

    http://www.sirbacon.org/links/notebook.html

    "If Bacon wrote Shakespeare, the Promus is intelligible - if he did not, it is an insoluble riddle."
    -Robert Theobald,
    Shakespeare Studies In Baconian Light, 1901

    From Edward D. Johnson: "The Shaksper Illusion," chapter:"Francis Bacon's Promus"

    FRANCIS BACON 'S Promus is by itself sufficient evidence to show that the man who wrote the Promus also wrote the "Shakespeare" Plays.

    Bacon kept a private memorandum book which he called The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies which from time to time he jotted down any words, similies, phrases, proverbs or colloquialisms which he thought might come in useful in connection with his literary work, gathering them together so as to be able to draw upon them as occasion should require. The word Promus means storehouse, and Bacon's Promus contains nearly 2,000 entries in various languages such as English, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and French.
    The Promus which was in Bacon's own hand-writing, fortunately was preserved and is now in the British Museum. It was reproduced and published for the first time by Mrs. Henry Pott in 1883. No one, of course, knows the date when he commenced to make this collection, it may have been written during the years 1594 to 1596. Folio 85 being dated Dec. 5, 1594(This is a sample page), and Folio 4 being dated 27 Jan. 1595. The Promus was a private note book and was unknown to the public for a period of more than 200 years after it was written.
    Now it is a significant fact that Bacon in the works published under his own name makes very little use of the notes he had jotted down in the Promus . What was the object of making this collection of phrases, etc.? The answer is that they were used in his dramatic works published by Bacon in the name of ''William Shakespeare.'' A great number of these entries are reproduced in the ''Shakespeare'' plays. An appendix to the book has a table illustrating the many entries which also appear in the works of Shakespeare.

    The Stratfordians try to get over this fact by contending that these expressions were in common use at the time, but Bacon would not be such a fool as to waste his time by making a note of anything that was commonly current. The words and expressions in the Promus occur so frequently in the ''Shakespeare'' plays that it is quite clear that the author of the Plays had seen and made use of the "Promus "and Will Shakesper could not have seen Francis Bacon's private notebook.

    The most important evidence in the Promus is the word ALBADA, Spanish for good dawning (Folio 112). This expression good dawning' only appears once in English print, namely, in the play of King Lear where we find "Good dawning to thee friend," Act 2, Scene 2. This word ALBADA is in the Promus 1594-96 and King Lear was not published until 1600's.If Will Shaksper had not seen the "Promus", and as he could not read Spanish, it would mean that some friend had found this word ALBADA, meaning good dawning and told Shaksper about it, and that Shaksper then put the word into King Lear, which sounds highly improbable. A part of one of the folios in the "Promus "is devoted by Bacon to the subject of salutations such as good morrow, good soir, good matin, bon jour, good day. From this it would appear that Bacon wished to introduce these salutations into English speech. These notes were made in the Promus in 1596 and it is a remarkable co-incidence that in the following year 1597 the play of Romeo and Juliet was published containing some of these salutations, and they afterwards appeared in other "Shakespeare" plays good morrow being used 115 times; good day, I5 times; and good soir (even), 12 times. These words are found in the ''Shakespeare'' Plays and nowhere else.


    The following show some of the connections between the Promus and the "Shakespeare" Plays.

    Promus (I594-96) "To drive out a nail with a nail.''
    Coriolanus, Act 4 Sc. 7 (1623) ''One fire drives out one fire; one nail, one nail."
    "One nail by strength drives out another."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Fire shall try every man's work."
    Merchant of Venice, "The fire seven times tried this''
    Act 2, Sc. 9 (1600)

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Conscience is worth a thousand witnesses."
    Richard III, Act 5, ''Every man's conscience is a thousand swords." Sc. 2 (1597)

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "A Fool's bolt is soon shot."
    Henry V, Act 3, Sc.7(1623) "A Fool's bolt is soon shot."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Good wine needs no bush."
    As You Like It,Epilogue (1623) "Good wine needs no bush."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "I had not known sin but by the law.''
    Measure for Measure Act 2, Sc. I (1623) "What do you think of the trade Pompey? Is it a lawful trade."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Gratitude is justly due only for things unbought."
    Timon of Athens, Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) "You mistake my love, I give it freely ever; and there's none can truly say he gives, if he receives.''


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "To slay with a leaden sword."
    Love's Labour's Lost, Act 5, Sc. 2 (1598) "Wounds like a leaden sword."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) 'If our betters have sustained
    the like events; we have the less cause to be grieved.''

    Lucrece (1594) ''When we our betters see bearing our woes, we scarcely think our miseries our foes.''

    * *
    Promus 1594-96) "When he is dead, he will beloved."
    Coriolanus, Act 4 Sc.6 (1600) "I shall be loved when I am lacked."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96)Suum cuique." (To every man his own).
    Titus Andronicus,Act I, Sc. 2 (1600) "Suum cuique is our Roman Justice."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Galen's compositions and Paracelsus' separations.''
    All's Well that Ends Well,"So I say both of Galen and Paracelsus." Act 2, Sc. 3 (1623)

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "He had rather have his will than his wish."
    Henry V, Act 5, Sc.2 (1623) "So the maid that stood in the way for my wish shall show me the way to my will."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "They have a better question in Cheapside, 'What lack you?
    King John, Act 4,Sc. I (1623) "What lack you?"

    * *

    Promus (1594-96) "Poets invent much."
    As You Like It, Act 3, Sc. 3 (1623) ''The truest poetry is the most feigning."


    * *
    Promus (1595-96) "He who loans to a friend loses double."
    Hamlet, Act I,Sc. 3 (1604) ''Loan oft loses both itself and friend."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "We think that a rich man is always right."
    Timon of Athens,Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) ''Faults that are rich are fair."

    * *

    Promus (1594-96) "Have recourse to a foreign war to appease parties at home."
    2 Henry IV, Act 4,Sc,5 (1600) "Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels.''

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) ''Always let losers have their words."
    Titus Andronicus, Act 1, Sc. I (1600) ''Losers will have leave to ease their stomachs with their bitter tongues."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "The prudent man conceals his knowledge."
    3 Henry VI, Act 4 Sc.7 (1623) "'Tis wisdom to conceal our meaning."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Things done cannot be undone."
    Macbeth, Act 5, Sc.i (1623) "What's done cannot be undone."

    * *.
    Promus (1594-96) "Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak."
    Hamlet, Act, I,Sc. 3(1604) ''Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) ''Leisure breeds evil thoughts.''
    Anthony and Cleopatra Act I, Sc. 2 (1623) "We bring forth weeds when our quick minds be still."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "A boy's love doth not endure.''
    King Lear, Act 3 Sc. 6 (1608) "He's mad that trusts in a boy's love."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "A cat may look on a King."
    Romeo and Juliet, Act 3,Sc.3 (1597) "Every cat and dog may look on her."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "He had need be a wily mouse should breed in a cat's ear."
    Henry V, Act 3 Sc. 7 (1623) "That's a valiant flea that dare eat his breakfast on the lip of a lion."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Our sorrows are our school-masters.''
    King Lear, Act 2, Sc. 4 (1608) ''To wilful men, the injuries that they themselves procure, must be their schoolmasters.''


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "To fight with a shadow."
    Merchant of Venice, Act I, Sc. 2 (1600) ''He will fence with his own shadow.''


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) ''Diluculo surgere saluberrimum est.''
    Twelfth Night (Act 2,Sc,2) (1623) "Diluculo surgere, thou knowest.''


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "To stumble at the threshold."
    3 Henry VI, Act 4, Sc. 7 (1623) "Many men that stumble at the threshold.''

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) ''Thought is free.''
    The Tempest, Act 3 Sc.2 (1623)''Thought is free.''
    Twelfth Night, Act I,Sc. 3 (1623) ''Thought is free.''

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Out of God's blessing into the warm sun."
    King Lear, Act 2, Sc. 2 (1608)"Thou out of heaven's benediction com'st to the warm sun."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Put no confidence in Princes"
    Henry VII, Act 3' "0, how wretched is that poor man, that hangs on princes' favours.''

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) ''Frost burns.''
    Hamlet Act 3 Sc.4 (1604) ''Frost itself as actively doth born."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Appetite comes by eating."
    Hamlet, Act I, ''As if increase of appetite had grown by what he feeds on."
    Sc. 2 (1604)

    * *

    Promus (1594-96) "Better coming to the ending of a feast than to the beginning of a fray."
    I Henry IV , Act 4, "The latter end of a fray and the beginning of a feast." Sc. 2 (1598)

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "He stumbles who makes too much haste."
    Romeo and Juliet,Act 2, Sc. 3 (1599) "They stumble that run fast."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Anyone can manage a boat in calm weather."
    Coriolanus, Act 4, Sc. I (1623) ''When the sea was calm, all boats alike show'd master-ship in floating."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Happy man, happy dole."
    Merry Wives of Windsor Act 3, Sc. 4(1623) "Happy man be his dole."
    Henry IV, Act 2,Sc. 2 (1598) "Happy man be his dole."
    The Taming of the Shrew Act I, Sc. I (1623) "Happy man be his dole."
    The Winter's Tale, Act 1, Sc. 2 (1623) "Happy man be his dole."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "An ill wind that bloweth no man to good."
    2 Henry IV, Act 5, "The ill wind which blows no man to good."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Seldom cometh the better."
    Richard III, Act 2,Sc. 3(1597)''Seldom comes the better."

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "A thorn is gentle when it is young."
    Henry VI, Act 5,Sc. 5 (1623) "What can so young a thorn begin to prick."


    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "He who has not patience has nothing.

    "Othello, Act 2, Sc. 3 (1622) "How poor are they that have not patience.''

    * *
    Promus (1594-96) "Know thyself."
    As You Like It, Act 3, Sc. 5 (1623) "Know yourself."
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  7. #27

    Default

    Jack, the following may be of interest:

    http://lordverulam.org/pott_emblem_research.html

    Mrs. Pott's Investigation
    Mrs. Constance Mary Fearon Pott (Francis Bacon and his Secret Society), began tracing the origins and their similarities of emblems and in particular to the emblem of the double AA on title pages in Bacon’s time, at various libraries. Though her research mentions nothing of the double AA, what she discovered is of interest:

    Sotheby’s Principia Typographica, (Brit. Mus. Press-mark 2050 G) which, for no apparent cause, breaks off at the end of the fifteenth century, and to which there is no true sequel, happens with likewise other manuscripts at the British Museum which was found an eight folio volume of blank sheets of water-marked paper. But these papers are all of foreign manufacture, chiefly Dutch and German, and the latest date on any sheet is about the same as that at which the illustrations stop in Sotheby’s Principia.

    After Mrs. Pott’s search at the British Library on further manuscript emblems and water-marks in connection to Francis Bacon, she stumbled upon “two loose sheets are slipped between the pages in two volumes. One is classified as Pitcher, the other as Vase. They are specimens of the one-handled and two-handled pots of which we have so much to say.

    “These are English, and we believe of later date than any of the specimens bound up in the collection. Their presence is again suggestive. They hint at the existence of an English collection somewhere.”

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Curabitur massa. Nullam enim arcu, adipiscing id, porta eget, consequat ut, lacus. Aliquam nibh. Etiam tortor ligula, facilisis sed, mattis sit amet, faucibus ut, turpis. In risus ipsum, pharetra eu, placerat id, mollis quis, justo. Mauris sollicitudin tincidunt justo. Sed suscipit tristique nulla. Suspendisse sit amet massa.

    Other Particulars
    Another particular points to the same conclusion. In Paper and Paper-making by Richard Herring, of which the third edition was printed in 1863 (Longmans), there are, on page 105, five illustrations of paper-marks. They are all specimens of the patterns used circa 1588 and later, and they are numbered 1418, 1446, 1447, 1449, 1450. These numbers evidently refer to a collection such as we have anxiously sought, but which we have been repeatedly assured is not known to exist. “That it does exist,” says Mrs. Pott, “we have not the slightest doubt; but where is it, and why is it withheld? Recently we have been told that the Trustees of the Bodleian Library at Oxford have secured a private collection of the kind, concerning which, however, no information is forthcoming to the present writer.”


    Some Background
    Richard Herring tells us that “The curious, and in some cases absurd terms, which now puzzle us so much, in describing the different sorts and sizes of paper, may frequently be explained by reference to the paper marks which have been adopted at different periods. In ancient times, when comparatively few people could read, pictures of every kind were much in use where writing would now be employed.

    Every shop, for instance, had its sign, as well as every public-house; and those signs were not then, as they often are now, only painted upon a board, but were invariably actual models of the thing which the sign expressed as we still occasionally see some such sign as a bee-hive, a tea-cannister, or a doll, and the like. For the same reason printers employed some device, which they put upon the title-pages and at the end of their books, and paper-makers also introduced marks by way of distinguishing the paper of their manufacture from that of others which marks, becoming common, naturally gave their names to different sorts of paper.” (Richard Herring: Paper and Paper-making, p. 103, 3rd edition, 1863. See also Dr. Ure’s Mines and Manufactures Paper-making).

    Unsatisfactions
    These conclusions are, really, in no way satisfactory. They are in direct opposition to facts, which present themselves in the process of collecting these water-marks facts such as these:

    ~That the same designs are often varied in the same book, some volumes containing as many as eight, twelve, or twenty-five variations of one pattern.
    ~That similar designs appear in books of widely different periods printed and published by various firms, whilst, so far as we have found, they appear in the MS., letters of only one limited period.
    ~That three kinds of water-marks (and so, according to Herring, paper from three different firms) are often found in one small book.
    ~That these water-marks, infinitely varied as they are, often contain certain initial letters which seem to connect them with private persons, authors, or members of a secret society.
    ~That, even in the present day, two or three firms use the same designs in their paper-mark.

    These points assure that it is an error to suppose either the most ancient or the most modern paper-marks to be mere trade-signs. True, that there are now some such, which have been used, since the revival, as a fashion, of the hand-made or rough-edged paper. But these are quite easily distinguishable, and those who follow us in this investigation will have no hesitation in deciding to which class each paper belongs.

    On the other hand, Mr. Sotheby arrived, from his own point of departure, at the conclusion: “I venture to assert that until, or after, the close of the fifteenth century, there were no marks on paper which may be said to apply individually to the maker of the paper.”

    With reference to any particular time or place at which this inestimable invention was first adopted in England, all researches into existing records contribute little. The first paper-mill erected in England is commonly attributed to Sir John Spielman, a German, who established one in 1588, at Dartford, for which the honour of knighthood was afterwards conferred upon him by Queen Elizabeth, who was also pleased to grant him a license for the sole gathering, for ten years, of all rags, etc., necessary for the making of such paper. It is, however, quite certain that paper mills were in existence here long before Spielman’s time.

    Shakespeare, in 2 Henry VI., (the plot of which is laid at least a century previously), refers to a paper-mill.

    In fact, he introduces it as ann additional weight to the charge, which Jack Cade brings against Lord Saye. An earlier trace of the manufacture in England occurs in a book printed in 1493; (De Proprietalibus Rerum, Wynken de Wordes, edition 1493) and then by Caxton, about the year 1490, in which it is said of John Tate: "Which late hath in England do make thy paper thine. That now in our English this book is printed in."

    In the dictum of the Freemason Cyclopaedia it says “A very minute difference may make the emblem or symbol differ widely in its meaning,” and of Bacon’s similar hint as to the necessity for noting small distinctions in order to comprehend great things: “Everything is subtle till it be conceived.” (Promus: p. 186-18).

    It is reasonable to attempt this explanation of the “little variations” that the symbol, whatever it maybe a bull’s head, unicorn, fleur-de-lis, vine, or what not illustrates some single, fundamental doctrine or idea. But the “little variations” may, as Mr. Sotheby agrees, afford pretty accurate information as to the country where, and the period when, the book was written or produced. They may even indicate the papermaker or the printer, or that the persons connected with the writing of the book were members of a certain secret society.

    Unknown Papermills
    If the paper used for printing books was usually made in the country where the books were printed (and this seems to be the most natural and reasonable arrangement), then we must inquire at what English mill was the paper manufactured which was to be the means of transmitting to a world then plunged in darkness and ignorance the myriad-minded and many-sided literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

    Tate's Papermill
    Tate’s mill was situate at or near Stevenage, in Hertfordshire; and that it was considered worthy of notice is evident from an entry made in Henry the Seventh’s Household Book, on the 25th of May, 1498: “For a reward given at the paper mill, 16s. 3d.” And again in 1499: “Given in reward to Tate of the mill, 6s. 3d.” The water-mark used by Tate was an eight-pointed star within a double circle. A print of it is given in Herbert’s Typis Antiquit., vol. i. p. 200. Tate died in 1514.

    Still, it appears far less probable that Shakespeare alluded to Tate’s mill (although established at a period corresponding in many respects with that of occurrences referred to in connection) than to that of Sir John Spielman.

    Standing, as it did, in the immediate neighbourhood of the scene of Jack Cade’s rebellion, and being so important as to call forth at the time the marked patronage of Queen Elizabeth, the extent of the operations carried on there was calculated to arouse, and no doubt did arouse, considerable national interest; and one can hardly help thinking, from the prominence which Shakespeare assigns to the existence of a paper-mill (coupled, as such allusion is, with an acknowledged liberty, inherent in him, of transposing events to add force to his style, and the very considerable doubt as to the exact year in which the play was written), that the reference made was to none other than Sir John Spielman’s establishment of 1588, concerning which we find it said: “Six hundred men are set to work by him. That else might starve or seek abroad their bread. Who now live well, and go full brave and trim, and who may boast they are with paper fed.” (Joel Munsell: A Chronology of Paper and Paper-making, fourth edition, 1870).

    The following is a list of the water-marks which Mrs. Pott’s research brought forth, found in books previous to the Baconian period, or in MSS., or other documents. The paper seems to be all foreign, from mills chiefly in Holland or Germany. Some of these figures were retained in the end of the sixteenth century and developed into other forms. Each figure seems to have been varied almost indefinitely. In her limited research she had seldom found two precisely alike, and there seem to be about sixty figures, not reckoning “nondescripts” and doubtful forms or variations:

    ANIMALS. Quadrupeds Ape or Monkey, Bull, Cat (or Panther?), Dog (Hound or Talbot), Goat, Horse, Lamb (sorue-times with flag), Lion (rampant or passant), Panther, Pig, Hog, Swine, Stag (head or passant), Wolf. Birds. Cock, Duck (or Goose?), Eagle (sometimes spread, or with 2 heads or 4 legs), Goose, Pelican, Swan. Fish. Carp, Dolphin, Tortoise or Dolphin. Reptiles. Lizard, Newt, Serpent. Mythical. Dragon or Griffin, Mermaid, Phoenix, Unicorn.

    FLOWERS. Bell-flower, Fleur-de-lis or Trefoil, Lily, Rose (five-petaled, or nondescript, four-petaled). Fruits. Cherries, Fig, Grapes, Pear, Pomegranate.

    MISCELLANEOUS. Anchor (sometimes in a circle), Angel or Acolyte, Anvil, Ark, Bars with names, letters, etc., Battle-axe, Bell, Bow and Arrows, Cross Bow, Bugle or Trumpet or Horn, Cap (see Fool’s Cap), Cardinal’s Hat, Cask or Water-butt, Castle or Tower, Chalice, Circle (sometimes with cabalistic figures), Compasses, Cords or Knot, Cornucopia (or Horns), Crescent, Cross (Greek or Maltese), Crown, Fool’s Cap, Globe, Golden Fleece, Hambuer, Hand, Heart, Horn, Bugle, Trumpet, Cornucopia, Key, Crossed Keys, etc., Ladder, Lamp, Lance or Spear, Letters (chiefly when alone, P and Y), Lotus (?), Mitre, Moon, Moose’s Head, Mounts (3 or 7), Orb, Pope Seated, Reliquary (for Pot?), Scales on Balance, Shears or Scissors, Shell (or Fan?), Shield, Ship, Spear, Spiral line or Mercury’s Rod, Star, Sun or flaming disk, Sword, Triangle with cross, etc., Trumpet (see Horn), Vine (see Grapes), Water-butt (see Cask), Waves or Water, Wheel (sometimes toothed).

    >>For more see Bacon's Dictionary

    There are three paper-marks, which seem to especially associate with Francis Bacon and his brother Anthony. They are to be seen throughout the printed books, which are ascribed to Francis, and one in particular is in the paper in which he and Anthony, and their most confidential friends, corresponded, whether in England or abroad. These marks are:

    1. The bunch of grapes.
    2. The pot, or jug.
    3. The double candlesticks

    The grapes and the pots appear, in somewhat rude forms, as early as the fourteenth century. The candlesticks seem in their earlier stages to have been towers or pillars. As candlesticks, even single, was failed to be found one earlier than 1580, and then in a MS., document.

    The candlesticks were the latest and least frequent of the three, being used in the double form only in editions of Bacon’s works published after his death. Even this example is rather suggestive of a castle than of a candlestick, and as castles and towers of unmistakable forms (and sometimes showing an affinity to the mounts) appear in books published in Italy as early as the fourteenth century, it is possible that here we have some of the many scattered links in the chain of continuity in designs as well as ideas.

    Sotheby had noted that grapes occur in books printed at Mentz, Strasburg, Nuremberg, Basle, and Cologne, and that they were produced by Caxton, but are not in any book printed in the Netherlands.

    A watch-candle is the emblem of “care and observation.” In a letter to King James I., on May 31st in 1612, Bacon says: “My good old mistress [Queen Elizabeth] was pleased to call me her watch-candle, because it pleased her to say I did continually burn (and yet she suffered me to waste almost to nothing).”

    In combination with the candlesticks are fleur-de-lis, trefoil, pearls, and other symbols of the Holy Spirit; sometimes an E C or C R; almost invariably grapes piled in a pyramid or diamond. The bunch of grapes, alone, or in combination with other figures, is the second great mark in Bacon’s books.

    The pitcher or pot is impressed not only on the private letters of Francis and Anthony Bacon or perhaps it is safer to say, of the Bacon family and their confidential correspondents, but on the pages of nearly every English edition of works acknowledged as “Bacon’s” published before the eighteenth century.

    There are certain accessories to the Baconian pitchers, one at least being always present: (1) a rising sun, formed by the cover or round top of the pot; (2) five rays; (3) pearls; (4) fleur-delis; (5) a four-petaled flower, or a Maltese cross; (6) a moon or crescent; (7) the bull’s horns in a crown; (8) grapes; (9) a diamond, triangle, ellipse, or heart.

    Sometimes there are two handles distinctly formed, as SS; often on the body of the pot are letters they maybe initials, as A B, and F B, often found in the correspondence of the brothers; or S S, Sanctum Sanctorum, etc.; R C, Rosy Cross; F or F F, Frater or Fratres; G G, Grand Geometrician God, according to Freemason books in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries paper marks were used throughout the works which were the products of the Renaissance.

    These paper-marks are not mere manufacturers’ signs, but that they have a mutual relation and connection, and that they were and are means of conveying secret information to the members of some widely-spread society.

    The society was not a mere trade-guild, but that it was moved by motives of religion, and, in its highest branches at least, was a Christian philosophical society, or a society for promoting Christian knowledge.

    The subject matter of the books does not necessarily affect the paper-marks. The three marks, the double candlesticks, the grapes, and the pitcher or pot, are notably “Baconian,” the pot especially being found in all Bacon’s acknowledged works, and throughout the correspondence of Anthony and Francis, especially when their correspondent was of the Reformed Church.

    Where any one pattern is varied many times in the same book, there is usually no other mark except in the fly leaves. The extraordinary but not unaccountable habit of tearing out the fly-leaves at the beginning and end of valuable books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries often makes it impossible to declare that the book in hand possessed no other mark besides those which we see. Mrs. Pott states “the fly-leaves were wont, in many of our Baconian books, to be very numerous: five or eight are common numbers for the sheets. They were probably intended for the making of notes, a practice which Bacon enjoins and so highly commends.”

    In old, untouched libraries there are usually some books where the fly-leaves have been thus utilised. Perhaps, when filled with notes, they were to be taken out, and forwarded to some central point of study, either to an individual or to a committee, who should by their means add to the value of any subsequent edition or collection, which might be published.

    It is certain that fly-leaves have been stolen for the sake of the old paper, for etching or for forged reprints; but this does not account for the fact that certain books, when sent, without any special orders, to be repaired by a Freemason binder, have returned with this large number of fly-leaves restored; in many of our public libraries such extra leaves in books rebound have paper-marks.

    In Bacon’s acknowledged works the changes are rung upon the three paper-marks, the pot, the grapes, and the candlesticks, the latter being apparently the rarest of the three. Usually one or two of these patterns are combined with one extra mark. With time enough and help to examine every edition of every book concerned in this inquiry, it is hardly to be doubted that a real scheme could be drawn up to demonstrate the precise method of the use of paper-marks.

    The pots seem to be in one edition at least of every work produced by Francis or Anthony Bacon, or published under their auspices. Two handles to the pot seem to mean that two persons helped in the construction of the book. Next, in republications, compilations, or collections of any kind, grapes prevail, and that the candlesticks only appear when the volume which includes them is to be considered complete. The Baconian pots have been found first in a book 1579-80, and not later than 1680 a period of one hundred years. They, like the rest of the marks, increase in size from about one inch to seven inches. The use of the Baconian grapes seems to have begun about 1600, and to have continued only in France after 1680. The double candlesticks appeared later still, after the death of Francis Bacon, and remained in use for about fifty years. The three marks all disappeared in England about 1680.

    Not only is the nature of the paper-mark thus varied in each book, but the forms of each figure are varied to a surprising extent. No two volumes, often no two parts of the same volume, treatise, poem, or play, contain marks, which are identical. For instance, in Ben Jonson, 1616, there are at least fifteen different forms of the pot, two of which are sometimes in one play. In Selderi’s History of Tithes, 1618, the variations are as frequent. In Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621, there are at least thirty half-pitchers, no two of which seem to be alike.

    “Again”, continues Mrs. Pott’s, “we have not succeeded in finding any form of mark precisely repeated in books of different titles, editions, or dates.” In the writing-paper of the Bacon family and their friends, there is almost as striking a variety in the representation of the same figure or pattern. It is certain that these marks were not of the same kind as the ornaments, etc., on letter-paper of the present day, in which crests, monograms, etc., are adopted by certain individuals and retained by them for some time at least.

    In letters in Baconian correspondence, written in rapid succession by the same person, the marks are found different, and on the other hand, different persons writing, the one from England and the other from abroad, occasionally used paper with precisely similar marks. It would seem that, in such cases, paper had been furnished to these correspondents from some private mill.

    There are, in combination with some designs, or apart from them, bars on which appear some times of paper-makers, as “Ricard,” “Rapin,” “Conard,” “Nicolas,” etc. These seem to be chiefly in the foreign paper. But often these bars are as cabalistic as the rest of the designs, or they seem to contain the initials of the producer of the book, not, of its true author. The pots have no bars in connection with them; perhaps the letters upon them render further additions unnecessary.

    In Conclusion
    Mrs. Pott’s conclusion was that further investigation be made into the following:

    which were the very earliest paper-mills in England
    to whom did they belong
    what were the water-marks on the paper produced there
    which was the first printed book for which the paper was made in England
    from what foreign mills did our English printers import paper
    at what date did the papers with the hand and the pot receive the distinctive additions which, for want of a better name, we have termed Baconian
    in what books may we see the very latest examples of the candlesticks, the grapes, and the pot in the paper
    when and why was the use of paper-marks in printed books discontinued
    was the discontinuance simultaneous and universal? Was there truly a discontinuance of the system of secret marks, or, rather, did a change or modification take place, in order to adapt these secret marks to the exigencies of modern requirements in printing and book-making?
    when Sir Nicholas Bacon, in his youth, resided for three or four years in Holland, did he visit and study the manufactories of paper? Does any record show him mixed up in any business relations with paper manufacturers?
    what part did the old printers and publishers play in the secret society? For instance, John Norton (Lady Anne Bacon’s cousin) and the Spottisworths (both families in which these trades have in an eminent degree flourished ever since).
    did the Baconian water-marks remain in use until circa 1680, in fact, for just one hundred years from the time when the first document of the Rosicrucian society was published.
    was it intended that, by the end of the period of one hundred years, all the posthumous works of Francis Bacon, “My cabinet and presses full of papers,” should have been published by his followers, and did the system of water-marks in printed books cease at that period.
    are printers and paper-makers, as a rule, Freemasons and do they mutually co-operate and understand each other’s marks
    if not, what reasons do they adduce for the mystery which is still cast over simple matters connected with their useful and beneficent crafts, and for the unusual difficulties which are met with in obtaining any good books or any trustworthy information upon the subjects which we have been considering
    is there any period at which modern Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism propose to clear up and reveal these apparently useless and obstructive secrets or, what is supposed to be the advantage, either to the public or to individuals, in keeping up these or other mystifications, historical or mechanical.
    Once, doubtless, helpful and protective, guides as well as guardians, they now seem to be mere stumbling-blocks in the way of knowledge. But who are they who have the right and the power so to manipulate the printed catalogues of our public libraries as to enable them to convey hints to the initiated of books specially to their purpose; and to repress open references to certain books or documents which would tell the uninitiated too much?

    I must close this subject with my own experience in researching Bacon’s well-known pyramid letter at the British Library and at the British Museum Library. I add their answer to my investigations, without naming the person; this allows me to protect this source, which I deem necessary, in case this document springs forth in future ages and becomes a beacon of light to those Mrs. Pott states above:

    17 March, 2008
    Dear …

    My apologies for the delay in this reply. Further to my last message, our Manuscripts curator has just contacted me to say that she has consulted colleagues here, and at the British Museum, who consider that it is one of those mythical sources which are alleged to be in the British Museum / British Library but are not here and probably don't exist.
    Apparently we do get asked for it from time.
    Best wishes.
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  8. #28

    Default

    I've just started looking into this subject (god help me) and it is truly fascinating. There is some excellent information in this thread as well.

    At the moment I am not completely convinced by the case for any one alternative candidate but the theory presented here is intriguing:




    I also found this video to be a useful, even-handed introduction to the subject:




    Any critique of the Bassano theory is welcome as I haven't yet done enough research to substantiate or dismiss the key claims.
    “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
    ― Leo Tolstoy,

  9. #29

    Default

    I'm sure David will have some thing to say about Bassano when he returns from his adventure.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  10. #30

    Default

    My own view is Bacon was a major contributor, but also editor in chief of Shakespeare's work. I say editor in chief, because it is thought that he used several "pens" - that is to say other contemporary writers in the composition of the collected work. In other words it is not the output of one person, but several, and as a consequence I can see no reason why Emilia Lanier couldn't have been one of these too.

    The other thing is that there are some quite strong indications that there are occult meanings hidden in the work.

    A good resource on the subject is www.sirbacon.org
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •