BACON IS SHAKE-SPEARE
SIR EDWIN DURNING-LAWRENCE, BT.
"Every hollow Idol is dethroned by skill, insinuation and regular approach."
Together with a Reprint of Bacon's Promus of Formularies and Elegancies.
Collated, with the Original MS. by the late F.B. BICKLEY, and revised by F.A. HERBERT, of the British Museum.
TO THE READER
The plays known as Shakespeare's are at the present time universally acknowledged to be the "Greatest birth of time," the grandest production of the human mind. Their author also is generally recognised as the greatest genius of all the ages. The more the marvellous plays are studied, the more wonderful they are seen to be.
Classical scholars are amazed at the prodigious amount of knowledge of classical lore which they display. Lawyers declare that their author must take rank among the greatest of lawyers, and must have been learned not only in the theory of law, but also intimately acquainted with its forensic practice. In like manner, travellers feel certain that the author must have visited the foreign cities and countries which he so minutely and graphically describes.
It is true that at a dark period for English literature certain critics denied the possibility of Bohemia being accurately described as by the sea, and pointed out the "manifest absurdity" of speaking of the "port" at Milan; but a wider knowledge of the actual facts has vindicated the author at the expense of his unfortunate critics. It is the same with respect to other matters referred to in the plays. The expert possessing special knowledge of any subject invariably discovers that the plays shew that their author was well acquainted with almost all that was known at the time about that particular subject.
And the knowledge is so extensive and so varied that it is not too much to say that there is not a single living man capable of perceiving half of the learning involved in the production of the plays. One of the greatest students of law publicly declared, while he was editor of the Law Times, that although he thought that he knew something of law, yet he was not ashamed to confess that he had not sufficient legal knowledge or mental capacity to enable him to fully comprehend a quarter of the law contained in the plays.
Of course, men of small learning, who know very little of classics and still less of law, do not experience any of these difficulties, because they are not able to perceive how great is the vast store of learning exhibited in the plays.
There is also shewn in the plays the most perfect knowledge of Court etiquette, and of the manners and the methods of the greatest in the land, a knowledge which none but a courtier moving in the highest circles could by any possibility have acquired.
In his diary, Wolfe Tone records that the French soldiers who invaded Ireland behaved exactly like the French soldiers are described as conducting themselves at Agincourt in the play of "Henry V," and he exclaims, "It is marvellous!" (Wolfe Tone also adds that Shakespeare could never have seen a French soldier, but we know that Bacon while in Paris had had considerable experience of them.)
The mighty author of the immortal plays was gifted with the most brilliant genius ever conferred upon man. He possessed an intimate and accurate acquaintance, which could not have been artificially acquired, with all the intricacies and mysteries of Court life. He had by study obtained nearly all the learning that could be gained from books. And he had by travel and experience acquired a knowledge of cities and of men that has never been surpassed.
Who was in existence at that period who could by any possibility be supposed to be this universal genius? In the days of Queen Elizabeth, for the first time in human history, one such man appeared, the man who is described as the marvel and mystery of the age, and this was the man known to us under the name of Francis Bacon.
In answer to the demand for a "mechanical proof that Bacon is Shakespeare" I have added a chapter shewing the meaning of "Honorificabilitudinitatibus," and I have in Chapter XIV. shewn how completely the documents recently discovered by Dr. Wallace confirm the statements which I had made in the previous chapters.
I have also annexed a reprint of Bacon's "Promus," which has recently been collated with the original manuscript. "Promus" signifies Storehouse, and the collection of "Fourmes and Elegancyes" stored therein was largely used by Bacon in the Shakespeare plays, in his own acknowledged works, and also in some other works for which he was mainly responsible.
I trust that students will derive considerable pleasure and profit from examining the "Promus" and from comparing the words and phrases, as they are there preserved, with the very greatly extended form in which many of them finally appeared.
II. The Shackspere Monument, Bust, and Portrait
III. The [so-called] "Signatures"
IV. Contemporary allusions to Shackspere in "Every Man out of his Humour"; and "As you Like it"
V. Further contemporary allusions in "The return from Parnassus"; and "Ratsei's Ghost"
VI. Shackspere's Correspondence
VII. Bacon acknowledged to be a Poet
VIII. The Author revealed in the Sonnets
IX. Mr. Sidney Lee, and the Stratford Bust
X. The meaning of the word "Honorificabilitudinitatibus"
XI. On page 136 of the Shakespeare Folio of 1623, being a portion of the play "Loves labour's lost," and its connection with Gustavi Seleni "Cryptomenytices"
XII. The "Householder of Stratford"
XIII. Conclusion, with further evidences from Title Pages
Addenda et Corrigenda
Introduction to Bacon's "Promus"
Reprint of Bacon's "Promus"
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
I. Frontispiece. Portrait of Francis Bacon, from his "Sylva Sylvarum," 1627.
II. Portrait of Francis Bacon, by Van Somer. Engraved by W.C. Edwards.
III. The original "Shakespeare" Monument in Stratford Parish Church, a facsimile from Dugdale's "History of Warwickshire," published in 1656.
IV. The Shakespeare Monument as it appears at the present time.
V. The original Bust, enlarged from Plate III.
VI. The present Bust, enlarged from Plate IV.
VII. Reduced facsimile of the title page of the first folio edition of "Mr. William Shakespeare's" plays, published in 1623.
VIII. Facsimile, full size, of the original portrait [so-called] of "Shakespeare" from the 1623 Folio.
IX. Verses ascribed to Ben Jonson, facing the title page which is shewn in Plate VII.
X. The back of the left arm, which does duty for the right arm of the figure, shewn on Plates VII. and VIII.
XI. The front of the left arm of the figure, shewn on Plates VII. and VIII.
XII. The [mask] head from the [so-called] portrait by Droeshout in the 1623 Folio.
XIII. Portrait of Sir Nicholas Bacon. By Zucchero.
XIV. The five [so-called] "Shakespeare" Signatures. [The sixth is shewn in Plate XXXVIII., Page 164].
XV. Francis Bacon's Crest, from the binding of a presentation copy of his "Novum Organum," published in 1620.
XVI. Facsimile of the title page of "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus."
XVII.-XVIII. Facsimiles of pages iii. and iv. of the same.
XIX. The original "Shakespeare" Monument in Stratford Parish Church, a facsimile from Rowe's "Life and Works of Shakespeare," Vol. I, 1709.
XX. Reduced facsimile of page 136 of the first folio edition of the plays, 1623.
XXI. Full size facsimile of a portion of the same page 136 of the first folio edition of the plays, 1623.
XXII. Full size facsimile of page F4 of "Loves labor's lost," first quarto edition, published in 1598.
XXIII. Facsimile of a portion of a contemporary copy of a letter by Francis Bacon, dated 1595.
XXIV. Facsimiles from page 255 of Gustavi Seleni "Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae," published in 1624.
XXV. Facsimile from page 2O2b of "Traicte des chiffres ou secretes manieres d'escrire," par Blaise de Vigenere, published in 1585.
XXVI. Ornamental Heading, from William Camden's "Remains," published in 1616.
XXVII. Reduced facsimile of the title page of Gustavi Seleni "Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae," published in 1624.
XXVIII.-XXXI Various portions of Plate XXVII. enlarged.
XXXII. Scene from "The Merry Wives of Windsor," from a painting by Thomas Stothard.
XXXIII. Facsimile of the title page of Bacon's "De Augmentis Scientiarum," published in 1645.
XXXIV. Facsimile of the title page of "New Atlantis, begun by Lord Verulam and continued by R.H., Esquire," published in 1660.
XXXV. Facsimile of the title page of Bacon's "Historia Regni Henrici Septem," published in 1642.
XXXVI. Nemesis, from Alciati's "Emblems," published in 1531.
XXXVII. Nemesis, from Baudoin's "Emblems," published in 1638.
XXXVIII.-IX. Portion of the MSS. mentioning Shakespeare, discovered by Dr. Wallace.
XL. Facsimiles of three examples of law clerks' writing of the name "Shakespeare."
XLI. Facsimile of the Dedication of "The Attourney's Academy." 1630.
XLII. Facsimile of portion of Folio 85 of the original MS. of Bacon's "Promus."
XLIII. Portrait of Francis Bacon, from painting by Van Somer, formerly in the collection of the Duke of Fife.
The Ornamental Headings of the various Chapters are mostly variations of the "Double A" ornament found in certain Shakespeare Quarto Plays, and in various other books published circa 1590-1650.
A few references will be found below:—
Title Page, and To the Reader. Shakespeare's Works. 1623.
Contents. Page ix. North's "Lives." 1595. Spenser's "Faerie Queene." 1609, 1611. Works of King James. 1616. Purchas' "Pilgrimages." 1617. Bacon's "Novum Organum." 1620. Seneca's Works. 1620. Speed's "Great Britaine." 1623. Bacon's "Operum Moralium." 1638.
Page 1. Heading of CHAPTER I. "Contention of Yorke and Lancaster," Part I. 1594. "Romeo and Juliet." 1599. "Henry V." 1598, 1600. "Sir John Falstaffe." 1602. "Richard III." 1602. "Regimen Sanitatis Salerni." 1597.
Page 6. Heading of CHAPTER II. Hardy's "Le Theatre," vol. 4. 1626. Barclay's "Argenis." 2 vols. 1625-26. Aleman's "Le Gueux." 1632.
Page 35. Heading of CHAPTER III. Mayer's "Praxis Theologica." 1629. Ben Jonson's Works, Vol. 2. 1640.
Page 40. Heading of CHAPTER IV. "The Shepheard's Calendar." 1617. "The Rogue." 1622. Barclay's "Argenis." 1636. Bacon's "Remaines." 1648. "The Mirrour of State." 1656.
Page 47. Heading to CHAPTER V. Preston's "Breast-plate of Faith." 1630.
Page 51. Heading to CHAPTER VI. "Venus and Adonis." 1593. "Unnatural conspiracie of Scottish Papists." 1593. "Nosce te ipsum." 1602. The ornament reversed is found in: Spenser's "Faerie Queene." 1596. "Historie of Tamerlane." 1597. Barckley's "Felicitie of Man." 1598.
Page 55. Heading to CHAPTER VII. James I. "Essayes of a Prentise in the Art of Poesie." 1584, 1585. De Loque's "Single Combat." 1591. "Taming of a Shrew." 1594 Hartwell's "Warres." 1595. Heywood's Works. 1598. Hayward's "Of the Union." 1604.
Page 55 (continued). Cervantes' "Don Quixote." 1612. Peacham's "Compleat Gentleman." 1622.
Page 69. Heading of CHAPTER VIII. "Richard II." 1597. "Richard III." 1597. "Henrie IV." 1600. "Hamlet." 1603. Shakespeare's "Sonnets." 1609. Matheieu's "Henry IV." [of France.] 1612.
Page 74. Heading of CHAPTER IX. Hardy's "Le Theatre." 1624.
Page 84. Heading of CHAPTER X. Boys' "Exposition of the last Psalme." 1615.
Page 103. Heading of CHAPTER XI. Bacon's "Henry VII." 1629. Bacon's "New Atlantis." 1631.
Page 113. Printed upside down. Camden's "Remains." 1616.
Page 134. Heading of CHAPTER XII. Preston's "Life Eternall." 1634.
Page 144. Heading of CHAPTER XIII. Barclay's "Argenis." 1636.
Page 161. Heading of CHAPTER XIV. Martyn's "Lives of the Kings." 1615. Seneca's Works. 1620. Slatyer's "Great Britaine." 1621. Bacon's "Resuscitatio," Part II. 1671.
Page 177. Heading of CHAPTER XV. Gustavi Seleni "Cryptomenytices." 1624.
Page 187. Introduction to "Promus." "King John." 1591. Florio's "Second Frutes." 1591. De Loque's "Single Combat." 1591 Montaigne's "Essais." 1602. Cervantes' "Don Quixote," translated by Shelton. 1612-20.
Page 287. Tail Piece from Spenser's "Faerie Queen." 1617.
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
"What does it matter whether the immortal works were written by Shakespeare (of Stratford) or by another man who bore (or assumed) the same name?"
Some twenty years ago, when this question was first propounded, it was deemed an excellent joke, and I find that there still are a great number of persons who seem unable to perceive that the question is one of considerable importance.
When the Shakespeare revival came, some eighty or ninety years ago, people said "pretty well for Shakespeare" and the "learned" men of that period were rather ashamed that Shakespeare should be deemed to be "the" English poet.
"Three poets in three distant ages born, Greece, Italy and England did adorn, . . . . . . . . . . The force of Nature could no further go, To make a third she joined the other two."
Dryden did not write these lines in reference to Shakespeare but to Milton. Where will you find the person who to-day thinks Milton comes within any measurable distance of the greatest genius among the sons of earth who was called by the name of Shakespeare?
Ninety-two years ago, viz.: in June 1818, an article appeared in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, under the heading "Time's Magic Lantern. No. V. Dialogue between Lord Bacon and Shakspeare" [Shakespeare being spelled Shakspeare]. The dialogue speaks of "Lord" Bacon and refers to him as being engaged in transcribing the "Novum Organum" when Shakspeare enters with a letter from Her Majesty (meaning Queen Elizabeth) asking him, Shakspeare, to see "her own" sonnets now in the keeping of her Lord Chancellor.
Of course this is all topsy turvydom, for in Queen Elizabeth's reign Bacon was never "Lord" Bacon or Lord Chancellor.
But to continue, Shakspeare tells Bacon "Near to Castalia there bubbles also a fountain of petrifying water, wherein the muses are wont to dip whatever posies have met the approval of Apollo; so that the slender foliage which originally sprung forth in the cherishing brain of a true poet becomes hardened in all its leaves and glitters as if it were carved out of rubies and emeralds. The elements have afterwards no power over it."
Bacon. Such will be the fortune of your own productions.
Shakspeare. Ah my Lord! Do not encourage me to hope so. I am but a poor unlettered man, who seizes whatever rude conceits his own natural vein supplies him with, upon the enforcement of haste and necessity; and therefore I fear that such as are of deeper studies than myself, will find many flaws in my handiwork to laugh at both now and hereafter.
Bacon. He that can make the multitude laugh and weep as you do Mr. Shakspeare need not fear scholars.... More scholarship might have sharpened your judgment but the particulars whereof a character is composed are better assembled by force of imagination than of judgment....
Shakspeare. My Lord thus far I know, that the first glimpse and conception of a character in my mind, is always engendered by chance and accident. We shall suppose, for instance, that I, sitting in a tap-room, or standing in a tennis court. The behaviour of some one fixes my attention.... Thus comes forth Shallow, and Slender, and Mercutio, and Sir Andrew Aguecheek.
Bacon. These are characters who may be found alive in the streets. But how frame you such interlocutors as Brutus and Coriolanus?
Shakspeare. By searching histories, in the first place, my Lord, for the germ. The filling up afterwards comes rather from feeling than observation. I turn myself into a Brutus or a Coriolanus for the time; and can, at least in fancy, partake sufficiently of the nobleness of their nature, to put proper words in their mouths.... My knowledge of the tongues is but small, on which account I have read ancient authors mostly at secondhand. I remember, when I first came to London, and began to be a hanger-on at the theatres, a great desire grew in me for more learning than had fallen to my share at Stratford; but fickleness and impatience, and the bewilderment caused by new objects, dispersed that wish into empty air....
This ridiculous and most absurd nonsense, which appeared in 1818 in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine was deemed so excellent and so instructive that (slightly abridged) it was copied into "Reading lessons for the use of public and private schools" by John Pierpont, of Boston, U.S.A., which was published in London nearly twenty years later, viz., in 1837.
As I said before, the dialogue is really all topsy turvydom, for the writer must have known perfectly well that Bacon was not Lord Keeper till 1617, the year after Shakspeare's death in 1616, and was not made Lord Chancellor till 1618, and that he is not supposed to have began to write the "Novum Organum" before the death of Queen Elizabeth.
I have therefore arrived at the conclusion that the whole article was really intended to poke fun at the generally received notion that the author of the plays was an unlettered man, who picked up his knowledge at tavern doors and in taprooms and tennis courts. I would specially refer to the passage where Bacon asks "How frame you such interlocutors as Brutus and Coriolanus?" and Shakspeare replies "By searching histories, in the first place, my Lord, for the germ. The filling up afterwards comes rather from feeling than observation. I turn myself into a Brutus or a Coriolanus for the time and can at least in fancy partake sufficiently of the nobleness of their nature to put proper words in their mouths."
Surely this also must have been penned to open the eyes of the public to the absurdity of the popular conception of the author of the plays as an unlettered man who "had small Latin and less Greek"!
The highest scholarship not only in this country and in Germany but throughout the world has been for many years concentrated upon the classical characters portrayed in the plays, and the adverse criticism of former days has given place to a reverential admiration for the marvellous knowledge of antiquity displayed throughout the plays in the presentation of the historical characters of bygone times; classical authority being found for nearly every word put into their mouths.
What does it matter whether the immortal works were written by Shakspeare (of Stratford) or by a great and learned man who assumed the name Shakespeare to "Shake a lance at Ignorance"? We should not forget that this phrase "Shake a lance at Ignorance" is contemporary, appearing in Ben Jonson's panegyric in the Shakespeare folio of 1623.
The Shackspere Monument, Bust, and Portrait.
In the year 1909 Mr. George Hookham in the January number of the National Review sums up practically all that is really known of the life of William Shakspeare of Stratford as follows:—
'We only know that he was born at Stratford, of illiterate parents— (we do not know that he went to school there)—that, when 18-1/2 years old, he married Anne Hathaway (who was eight years his senior, and who bore him a child six months after marriage); that he had in all three children by her (whom with their mother he left, and went to London, having apparently done his best to desert her before marriage);—that in London he became an actor with an interest in a theatre, and was reputed to be the writer of plays;—that he purchased property in Stratford, to which town he returned;—engaged in purchases and sales and law-suits (of no biographical interest except as indicating his money-making and litigious temperament); helped his father in an application for coat armour (to be obtained by false pretences); promoted the enclosure of common lands at Stratford (after being guaranteed against personal loss); made his will—and died at the age of 52, without a book in his possession, and leaving nothing to his wife but his second best bed, and this by an afterthought. No record of friendship with anyone more cultured than his fellow actors.
No letter,—only two contemporary reports of his conversation, one with regard to the commons enclosure as above, and the other in circumstances not to be recited unnecessarily.
In a word we know his parentage, birth, marriage, fatherhood, occupation, his wealth and his chief ambition, his will and his death, and absolutely nothing else; his death being received with unbroken and ominous silence by the literary world, not even Ben Jonson who seven years later glorified the plays in excelsis, expending so much as a quatrain on his memory.'
To this statement by Mr. George Hookham I would add that we know W. Shakspeare was christened 26th April 1564, that his Will which commences "In the name of god Amen! I Willim Shackspeare, of Stratford upon Avon, in the countie of warr gent in perfect health and memorie, god be praysed," was dated 25th (January altered to) March 1616, and it was proved 22nd June 1616, Shakspeare having died 23rd April 1616, four weeks after the date of the Will.
We also know that a monument was erected to him in Stratford Church. And because L. Digges, in his lines in the Shakespeare folio of 1623 says "When Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment," it is supposed that the monument must have been put up before 1623. But we should remember that as Mrs. Stopes (who is by no means a Baconian) pointed out in the Monthly Review of April 1904, the original monument was not like the present monument which shews a man with a pen in his hand; but was the very different monument which will be found depicted in Sir William Dugdale's "Antiquities of Warwickshire," published in 1656. The bust taken from this is shewn on Plate 5, Page 14, and the whole monument on Plate 3, Page 8.
The figure bears no resemblance to the usually accepted likeness of Shakspeare. It hugs a sack of wool, or a pocket of hops to its belly and does not hold a pen in its hand.
In Plate 6, Page 15, is shewn the bust from the monument as it exists at the present time, with the great pen in the right hand and a sheet of paper under the left hand. The whole monument is shewn on Plate 4, Page 9.
The face seems copied from the mask of the so-called portrait in the 1623 folio, which is shewn in Plate 8.
It is desirable to look at that picture very carefully, because every student ought to know that the portrait in the title-page of the first folio edition of the plays published in 1623, which was drawn by Martin Droeshout, is cunningly composed of two left arms and a mask. Martin Droeshout, its designer, was, as Mr. Sidney Lee tells us, but 15 years of age when Shakspeare died. He is not likely therefore ever to have seen the actor of Stratford, yet this is the "Authentic," that is the "Authorised" portrait of Shakspeare, although there is no question—there can be no possible question—that in fact it is a cunningly drawn cryptographic picture, shewing two left arms and a mask.
The back of the left arm which does duty for the right arm is shewn in Plate 10, Page 26.
Every tailor will admit that this is not and cannot be the front of the right arm, but is, without possibility of doubt, the back of the left arm.
Plate 11 shews the front of the left arm, and you at once perceive that you are no longer looking at the back of the coat but at the front of the coat.
Head, from the [so-called] Portrait, by Droeshout, in the 1623 Folio]
Now in Plate 12, Page 32, you see the mask, especially note that the ear is a mask ear and stands out curiously; note also how distinct the line shewing the edge of the mask appears. Perhaps the reader will perceive this more clearly if he turns the page upside down.
Plate 13, Page 33, depicts a real face, that of Sir Nicholas Bacon, eldest son of the Lord Keeper, from a contemporary portrait by Zucchero, lately in the Duke of Fife's Collection. This shews by contrast the difference between the portrait of a living man, and the drawing of a lifeless mask with the double line from ear to chin. Again examine Plates 8, Pages 20, 21, the complete portrait in the folio. The reader having seen the separate portions, will, I trust, be able now to perceive that this portrait is correctly characterised as cunningly composed of two left arms and a mask.
While examining this portrait, the reader should study the lines that describe it in the Shakespeare folio of 1623, a facsimile of which is here inserted.
To the Reader.
This Figure, that thou here seest put, It was for gentle Shakespeare cut; Wherein the Grauer had a strife with Nature, to out-doo the life: O, could he but haue drawne his wit As well in brasse, as he hath hit His face; the Print would then surpasse All, that was euer writ in brasse. But, since he cannot, Reader, looke Not on his Picture, but his Booke. B.I.
VERSES ASCRIBED TO BEN JONSON, FROM THE 1623 FOLIO EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS.
B.I. call the ridiculous dummy a "portrait" but describes it as the "Figure put for" (that is "instead of") and as "the Print," and as "his Picture"; he likewise most clearly tells us to "looke not on his (ridiculous) Picture, but (only) his Booke." It seems, therefore, evident that he knew the secret of Bacon's authorship and intended to inform those capable of understanding that the graver had done out the life when he writes, "Out-doo the life." In the New English Dictionary, edited by Sir J.A.H. Murray, there are upwards of six hundred words beginning with "Out," and every one of them, with scarcely a single exception, requires, in order to be fully understood, to be read reversed. Out-law does not mean outside of the law, but lawed out by a legal process. "Out-doo" was used only in the sense of "do out"; thus, in the "Cursor Mundi," written centuries before the days of Elizabeth, we read that Adam was out done [of Paradise]; and in Drayton's "Barons' Wars," published in 1603, we find in Book V. s. li.
"That he his foe not able to withstand, Was ta'en in battle and his eyes out-done."
The graver has indeed done out the life so cleverly that for hundreds of years learned pedants and others have thought that the figure represented a real man, and altogether failed to perceive that it was a mere stuffed dummy clothed in an impossible coat, cunningly composed of the front of the left arm buttoned on to the back of the same left arm, as to form a double left armed apology for a man. Moreover, this dummy is surmounted by a hideous staring mask, furnished with an imaginary ear, utterly unlike anything human, because, instead of being hollowed in, it is rounded out something like the rounded outside of a shoe-horn, in order to form a cup which would cover and conceal any real ear that might be behind it.
Perhaps the reader will more fully understand the full meaning of B.I.'s lines if I paraphrase them as follows:—
To the Reader.
The dummy that thou seest set here, Was put instead of Shake-a-speare; Wherein the Graver had a strife To extinguish all of Nature's life; O, could he but have drawn his mind As well as he's concealed behind His face; the Print would then surpasse All, that was ever writ in brasse. But since he cannot, do not looke On his mas'd Picture, but his Booke.
Do out appears in the name of the little instrument something like a pair of snuffer which was formerly used to extinguish the candles and called a "Doute." Therefore I have correctly substituted "extinguished" for "out-doo." At the beginning I have substituted "dummy" for "figure" because we are told that the figure is "put for" (that is, put instead of) Shakespeare. In modern English we frequently describe a chairman who is a mere dummy as a figurehead. Then "wit" in these lines means absolutely the same as "mind," which I have used in its place because I think it refers to the fact that upon the miniature of Bacon in his 18th year, which was painted by Hilliard in 1578, we read:—"Si tabula daretur digna animum mallem." This line is believed to have been written at the time by the artist, and was translated in "Spedding":—"If one could but paint his mind."
In March, 1911, the Tailor and Cutter newspaper stated that the Figure, put for Shakepeare in the 1623 folio, was undoubtedly clothed in an impossible coat, composed of the back and the front of the same left arm. And in the following April the Gentleman's Tailor Magazine, under the heading of a "Problem for the Trade," shews the two halves of the coat as printed on page 28a, and says: "It is passing strange that something like three centuries should have been allowed to elapse before the tailors' handiwork should have been appealed to in this particular manner."
"The special point is that in what is known as the authentic portrait of William Shakespeare, which appears in the celebrated first folio edition, published in 1623, a remarkable sartorial puzzle is apparent."
"The tunic, coat, or whatever the garment may have been called at the time, is so strangely illustrated that the right-hand side of the forepart is obviously the left-hand side of the backpart; and so gives a harlequin appearance to the figure, which it is not unnatural to assume was intentional, and done with express object and purpose."
"Anyhow, it is pretty safe to say that if a Referendum of the trade was taken on the question whether the two illustrations shown above represent the foreparts of the same garments, the polling would give an unanimous vote in the negative."
"It is outside the province of a trade journal to dogmatise on such a subject; but when such a glaring incongruity as these illustrations show is brought into court, it is only natural that the tailor should have something to say; or, at any rate, to think about."
This one simple fact which can neither be disputed nor explained away, viz., that the "Figure" put upon the title-page of the First Folio of the Plays in 1623 to represent Shakespeare, is a doubly left-armed and stuffed dummy, surmounted by a ridiculous putty-faced mask, disposes once and for all of any idea that the mighty Plays were written by the illiterate clown of Stratford-upon-Avon.
"He hath hit his face"
It is thought that hit means hid as in Chaucer's Squiere's Tale, line 512 etc.
"Right as a serpent hit him under floures Til he may seen his tyme for to byte"
If indeed "hit" be intended to be read as "hid" then these ten lines are no longer the cryptic puzzle which they have hitherto been considered to be, but in conjunction with the portrait, they clearly reveal the true facts, that the real author is writing left-handedly, that means secretly, in shadow, with his face hidden behind a mask or pseudonym.
We should also notice "out-doo" is spelled with a hyphen. In the language of to-day and still more in that of the time of Shakespeare all, or nearly all, words beginning with out may be read reversed, out-bar is bar out, out-bud is bud out, out-crop is crop out, out-fit is fit out, and so on through the alphabet.
If therefore we may read "out-doo the life" as "doo out the life" meaning "shut out the real face of the living man" we perceive that here also we are told "that the real face is hidden."
The description, with the head line "To the Reader" and the signature "B.I.," forms twelve lines, the words of which can be turned into numerous significant anagrams, etc., to which, however, no allusion is made in the present work. But our readers will find that if all the letters are counted (the two v.v.'s in line nine being counted as four letters) they will amount to the number 287. In subsequent chapters a good deal is said about this number, but here we only desire to say that we are "informed" that the "Great Author" intended to reveal himself 287 years after 1623, the date when the First Folio was published, that is in the present year, 1910, when very numerous tongues will be loosened.
Examine once more the original Stratford Bust, Plate 5, Page 14, and the present Stratford Bust, Plate 6, Page 15, with the large pen in the right hand.
If the Stratford actor were indeed the author of the plays it was most appropriate that he should have a pen in his hand. But in the original monument as shewn in Plate 3, Page 8, the figure hugs a sack of wool or a pocket of hops or may be a cushion. For about 120 years, this continued to be the Stratford effigy and shewed nothing that could in any way connect the man portrayed, with literary work. I believe that this was not accidental. I think that everybody in Stratford must have known that William "Shackspeare" could not write so much as his own name, for I assert that we possess nothing which can by any reasonable possibility be deemed to be his signature.
The so-called "Signatures."
In Plate 14, Page 36, are shewn the five so-called signatures. These five being the only pieces of writing in the world that can, even by the most ardent Stratfordians, be supposed to have been written by Shakspeare's pen; let us consider them carefully. The Will commences "In the name of God Amen I Willum Shackspeare." It is written upon three sheets of paper and each sheet bears a supposed signature. The Will is dated in Latin "Vicesimo quinto die [Januarij] Mtij Anno Regni Dni nri Jacobi, nunc R Anglie, &c. decimo quarto & Scotie xlix deg. annoq Dni 1616", or shortly in English 25th March 1616.
Shakspeare died 23rd April 1616 just four weeks after publishing his will.
I say after "PUBLISHING his Will" advisedly, for such is the attestation, viz., "Witnes to the publyshing hereof,"
"Fra: Collyns Julius Shawe John Robinson Hamnet Sadler Robert Whattcott"
Nothing is said about the witnessing of the signing hereof. The Will might therefore have been, and I myself am perfectly certain that it was, marked with the name of William Shakspeare by the Solicitor, Fra (ncis) Collyns, who wrote the body of the Will.
He also wrote the names of the other witnesses, which are all in the same hand-writing as the Will; shewing that Shakspeare's witnesses were also unable to write their names.
This fact, that Shakspeare's name is written by the solicitor, is conclusively proved by the recent article of Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel in the Leipzig magazine, Der Menschenkenner, which was published in January 1909.
In this publication, photo reproductions of certain letters in the body of the Will, and in the so-called Shakspeare signatures are placed side by side, and the evidence is irresistible that they are written by the same hand. Moreover when we remember that the Will commences "I Willim Shackspeare" with a "c" between the "a" and "k," the idea that Shakspeare himself wrote his own Will cannot be deemed worthy of serious consideration. The whole Will is in fact in the handwriting of Francis Collyns, the Warwick solicitor, who added the attestation clause.
I myself was sure that the solicitor had added the so-called signatures, when, many years ago, I examined under the strongest magnifying glasses the Will at Somerset House.
Look first at the upper writings and never again call them "signatures." The top one is on the first page of the Will, the second on the second page, the third on the last page of the Will.
The original of the top one has been very much damaged but the "W" remains quite clear. Look first only at the "W's". If the writings were signatures what could induce a man when signing his last Will to make each "W" as different from the others as possible, and why is the second Christian name written Willm?
Compare also the second and third "Shakspeare" and note that every letter is formed in a different manner. Compare the two "S's", next compare the two "h's", the "h" of the second begins at the bottom, the "h" of the third begins at the top, the same applies to the next letter the "a", so also with respect to the "k's "; how widely different these are.
Plate 14 shews at the bottom two other names also. These are taken, the one on the left from a deed of purchase of a dwelling house in Blackfriars dated March 10th 1612-13 (now in the City Library of the Corporation of London); the other on the right is from a mortgage of the same property executed on the following day, viz: March 11th 1612-13, which is now in the British Museum.
Neither of these documents states that it was "signed" but only says that it was "sealed," and it was at that date in no way necessary that any signatures should be written over the seals, but the clerks might and evidently did, place upon these deeds an abbreviated name of William Shakspeare over the seal on each document. In the case of the other two parties to the documents, the signatures are most beautifully written and are almost absolutely identical in the two deeds.
Look at these two supposititious signatures. To myself it is difficult to imagine that anyone with eyes to see could suppose them to be signatures by the same hand.
Note on the so-called "Signatures."
When part of the purchase money is what is commonly called "left on mortgage," the mortgage deed is always dated one day after, but is always signed one moment before, the purchase deed, because the owner will not part with his property before he receives his security.
The Shakespeare purchase deed and the mortgage deed were therefore both signed at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink.
This is evidently true with respect to the signatures of Wm. Johnson and Jno. Jackson, the other parries to both of the deeds.
But as I wrote to the City authorities and the British Museum authorities, it would be impossible to discover a scoundrel who would venture to perjure himself and falsely swear that it was even remotely possible that the two supposed signature of Wm. Shakespeare could have been written at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink, by the same hand.
They are widely different, one having been written by the law clerk of the seller, the other by the law clerk of the purchaser.
According to the law of England, anyone may (by request) attach any person's name to any document, and if that person touch it, any third person may witness it as a signature.
Some years ago by the courtesy of the Corporation of London, the Librarian and the Chairman of the Library Committee carried the Purchase Deed to the British Museum to place it side by side with the Mortgage Deed there.
After they had with myself and the Museum Authorities most carefully examined the two deeds, the Librarian of the City Corporation said to me, there is no reason to suppose that the Corporation deed has upon it the signature of Wm. Shakespeare, and the British Museum Authorities likewise told me that they did not think that the Museum Mortgage Deed had upon it a signature of William Shakespeare.
The more you examine the whole five the more you will be certain, as the writer is, after the most careful study of the Will and of the Deeds, that not one of the five writings is a "signature," or pretends to be a "signature," and that therefore there is a probability, practically amounting to a certainty, that the Stratford Actor could not so much as manage to scrawl his own name.
No! We possess not a scrap of writing, not even an attempt at a signature, [see also Chapter XIV., p. 161] that can be reasonably supposed to be written by the Stratford gentleman.
He is styled "gentle Shakespeare": this does not refer to anything relating to his character or to his manners but it means that possessing a coat of arms he was legally entitled to call himself a "gentleman."
Contemporary Allusions to Shackspere.
Shakspeare the Actor purchased New Place at Stratford-on-Avon in 1597 for L60 and he became a "gentleman" and an esquire when he secured a grant of arms in 1599.
How did the stage "honour" the player who had bought a coat of arms and was able to call himself a "gentleman"?
Three contemporary plays give us scenes illustrating the incident:
1st. Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his humour" which was acted in 1599 the very year of Shakspeare's grant of arms.
2nd. Shakespeare's "As you like it" which was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1600, although no copy is known to exist before the folio of 1623.
3rd. "The Return from Parnassus" which was acted at St. John's College, Cambridge in 1601, though not printed till 1606.
In addition to these three plays, there is a fourth evidence of the way in which the Clown who had purchased a coat of arms was regarded, in a pamphlet or tract of which only one copy is known to exist. This tract which can be seen in the Rylands Library, Manchester, used to be in Lord Spencer's library at Althorp, and is reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps in "Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare," 1889, Vol. I, pages 325-6.
To commence with Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his humour." The clown who had purchased a coat of arms is said to be the brother of Sordido (a miser), and is described as an "essential" clown (that is an uneducated rustic), and is styled Sogliardo which is the Italian for the filthiest possible name.
The other two characters in the scene (act iii. sc. I) are Puntarvolo who, as his crest is a Boar, must be intended to represent Bacon; and Carlo Buffone who is a buffoon or jester.
Enter Sogliardo (the filth), who is evidently the Stratford Clown, who has just purchased a coat of arms:—
Actus Tertius, Scena Prima, Sogliardo, Punt., Carlo.
Sog. Nay I will haue him, I am resolute for that, by this Parchment Gentlemen, I haue ben so toil'd among the Harrots [meaning Heralds] yonder, you will not beleeue, they doe speake i' the straungest language, and giue a man the hardest termes for his money, that euer you knew.
Car. But ha' you armes? ha' your armes?
Sog. Yfaith, I thanke God I can write myselfe Gentleman now, here's my Pattent, it cost me thirtie pound by this breath.
Punt. A very faire Coat, well charg'd and full of Armorie.
Sog. Nay, it has, as much varietie of colours in it, as you haue seene a Coat haue, how like you the Crest, Sir?
Punt. I vnderstand it not well, what is't?
Sog. Marry Sir, it is your Bore without a head Rampant.
Punt. A Bore without a head, that's very rare.
Car. I, [Aye] and Rampant too: troth I commend the Herald's wit, he has deciphered him well: A Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie. You can blazon the rest signior? can you not? . . . . . . . . . . . .
Punt. Let the word be, Not without mustard, your Crest is very rare sir.
Shakspeare's "word" that is his "motto" was—non sanz droict—not without right—and I desire the reader also especially to remember Sogliardo's words "Yfaith I thanke God" a phrase which though it appears in the quartos is changed in the 1616 Ben Jonson folio into "I thank them" which has no meaning.
Next we turn to Shakespeare's "As you like it." This play though entered at Stationers' Hall in 1600 and probably played quite as early is not known in print till it appeared in the folio of 1623. The portion to which I wish to refer is the commencement of Actus Quintus, Scena Prima.
Act 5, Scene i. Enter Clowne and Awdrie.
Clow. We shall finde a time Awdrie, patience gentle Awdrie.
Awd. Faith the priest was good enough, for all the olde gentlemans saying.
Clow. A most wicked Sir Oliver, Awdrie, a most vile Mar-text. But Awdrie, there is a youth heere in the forrest layes claime to you.
Awd. I, I know who 'tis: he hath no interest in mee in the world: here comes the man you meane.
Clo. It is meat and drinke to me to see a clowne, by my troth, we that haue good wits, haue much to answer for: we shall be flouting: we cannot hold.
Will. Good eu'n Audrey.
Awd. God ye good eu'n William.
Will. And good eu'n to you sir.
Clo. Good eu'n gentle friend. Couer thy head, couer thy head: Nay prethee bee couer'd. How olde are you Friend?
Will. Fiue and twentie Sir.
Clo. A ripe age: Is thy name William?
Will. William, Sir.
Clo. A faire name. Was't borne i' the Forrest heere?
Will. I [Aye] Sir, I thanke God.
Clo. Thanke God: A good answer: Art rich?
Will. 'Faith Sir, so, so.
Clo. So, so, is good, very good, very excellent good: and yet it is not, it is but so, so: Art thou wise?
Will. I [Aye] sir, I haue a prettie wit.
Clo. Why, thou saist well. I do now remember a saying: The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wise man knowes himselfe to be a Foole.... You do loue this maid?
Will. I do Sir.
Clo. Giue me your hand: art thou Learned?
Will. No Sir.
Clo. Then learne this of me, To haue is to haue. For it is a figure in Rhetoricke, that drink being powr'd out of a cup into a glasse, by filling the one, doth empty the other. For all your Writers do consent, that ipse is hee: now you are not ipse, for I am he.
Will. Which he Sir?
Clo. He Sir, that must marrie this woman.
Firstly I want to call your attention to Touchstone the courtier who is playing clown and who we are told "uses his folly like a stalking horse and under the presentation of that he shoots his wit." Notice that Touchstone refuses to be married to Awdrey (who probably represents the plays of Shakespeare) by a-Mar-text_, and she declares that the Clown William "has no interest in mee in the world." William—shall we say Shakspeare of Stratford?—enters and is greeted as "gentle" (_i. e_. he is possessed of a coat of arms). He says "Thank God" he was born in the forest here (Ardennes, very near in sound to Arden). "Thank God" is repeated by Touchstone and as it is the same phrase that is used by Sogliardo in Ben Jonson's play I expect that it was an ejaculation very characteristic of the real man of Stratford and I am confirmed in this belief because in the folio edition of Ben Jonson's plays the phrase is changed to "I thank _them_" which has no meaning.
The clown of Ardennes is rich but only rich for a clown (Shakspeare of Stratford was not really rich, New Place cost only L60).
Asked if he is wise, he says "aye," that is "yes," and adds that he has "a pretty wit," a phrase we must remember that is constantly used in reference to the Stratford actor. Touchstone mocks him with a paraphrase of the well-known maxim "If you are wise you are a Foole if you be a Foole you are wise" which is to be found in Bacon's "Advancement of Learning" Antitheta xxxi. Then he asks him "Art thou learned" and William replies "No sir." This means, unquestionably, as every lawyer must know, that William replies that he cannot read one line of print. I feel sure the man called Shackspeare of Stratford was an uneducated rustic, never able to read a single line of print, and that this is the reason why no books were found in his house, this is the reason why his solicitor, Thomas Greene, lived with him in his house at New Place (Halliwell-Phillipps: Outlines, 1889, Vol. i, p. 226);—a well-known fact that very much puzzles those who do not realize the depth of Shakspeare's illiteracy.
"The Return from Parnassus" and "Ratsei's Ghost."
The next play to which attention must be called is "The Return from Parnassus" which was produced at Cambridge in 1601 and was printed in 1606 with the following title page:—
The Returne from Parnassus or The Scourge of Simony. Publiquely acted by the Students in Saint Johns Colledge in Cambridge.
At London Printed by G. Eld for John Wright, and are to bee sold at his shop at Christchurch Gate. 1606.
The portion to which I wish to direct attention is:—
Actus 5, Scena i.
Studioso. Fayre fell good Orpheus, that would rather be King of a mole hill, then a Keysars slaue: Better it is mongst fidlers to be chiefe, Then at plaiers trencher beg reliefe. But ist not strange this mimick apes should prize Vnhappy Schollers at a hireling rate. Vile world, that lifts them vp to hye degree, And treades vs downe in groueling misery. England affordes those glorious vagabonds, That carried earst their fardels on their backes, Coursers to ride on through the gazing streetes Sooping it in their glaring Satten sutes, And Pages to attend their maisterships: With mouthing words that better wits haue framed, They purchase lands, and now Esquiers are made.
Philomusus. What ere they seeme being euen at the best They are but sporting fortunes scornfull iests.
Can these last two lines refer to Shakspeare the actor seeming to be the poet? Note that they are spoken by Philomusus that is friend of the poetic muse. Mark also the words "this mimick apes." Notice especially "with mouthing words that better wits haue framed, they purchase lands and now Esquiers are made" i.e. get grants of arms. Who at this period among mimics excepting W. Shakspeare of Stratford purchased lands and obtained also a grant of arms?
That this sneer "mouthing words that better wits have framed" must have been aimed at Shakspeare is strongly confirmed by the tract (reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps in his "Outlines of Shakespeare," 1889, Vol. I, p. 325) which is called "Ratsei's Ghost or the second part of his mad prankes and Robberies."
This pamphlet bears no date, but was entered at Stationers' Hall May 31st 1605. There is only a single copy in existence, which used to be in Earl Spencer's library at Althorp but is now in the Rylands; Library at Manchester. As I said, it is reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps, and Stratfordians are obliged to agree with him that the reference is unquestionably to "Wm Shakespeare of Stratford." The most important part which is spoken by Ratsei the robber to a country player is as follows:—
Ratsei. And for you sirra, saies hee to the chiefest of them, thou hast a good presence upon a stage; methinks thou darkenst thy merite by playing in the country. Get thee to London, for if one man were dead, they will have much neede of such a one as thou art. There would be none in my opinion fitter then thyselfe to play his parts. My conceipt is such of thee, that I durst venture all the mony in my purse on thy head to play Hamlet with him for a wager. There thou shalt learn to be frugall,—for players were never so thriftie as they are now about London—and to feed upon all men, to let none feede upon thee; to make thy hand a stranger to thy pocket, thy hart slow to performe thy tongues promise, and when thou feelest thy purse well lined, buy thee some place of lordship in the country, that, growing weary of playing, thy mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation; then thou needest care for no man, nor not for them that before made thee prowd with speaking their words upon the stage.
The whole account of buying a place in the country, of feeding upon all men (that is lending money upon usury) of never keeping promises, of never giving anything in charity, agrees but too well with the few records we possess of the man of Stratford. And therefore Stratfordians are obliged to accept Halliwell-Phillipps' dictum that this tract called Ratsei's Ghost refers to the actor of Stratford and that "he needed not to care for them that before made him proud with speaking their words upon the stage." How is it possible that Stratfordians can continue to refuse to admit that the statement in the "Return from Pernassus" "with mouthing words that better wits haue framed they purchase lands and now Esquiers are made" must also refer to the Stratford Actor?
There is only a single letter extant addressed to Shakspeare, and this asks for a loan of L30 It is dated 25th October 1598, and is from Richard Quiney. It reads
"Loveinge Countreyman I am bolde of vow as of a ffrende, craveinge yowr helpe wth xxxll vppon mr Bushells & my securytee or mr Myttons wth me. mr Rosswell is nott come to London as yeate & I have especiall cawse. yow shall ffrende me muche in helpeinge me out of all the debttes I owe in London I thancke god & muche quiet my mynde wch wolde nott be indebeted I am nowe towardes the Cowrte in hope of answer for the dispatche of my Buysenes. yow shall nether loase creddytt nor monney by me the Lorde wyllinge and nowe butt perswade yowr selfe soe as I hope & yow shall nott need to feare butt wth all hartie thanckefullenes I wyll holde my tyme & content yowr ffrende & yf we Bargaine farther yow shalbe the paie mr yowr selfe. my tyme biddes me hasten to an ende & soe I committ thys [to] yowr care & hope of yowr helpe. I feare I shall nott be backe thys night ffrom the Cowrte. haste, the Lorde be wth yow & with us all amen ffrom the Bell in Carter Lane the 25 October 1598. yowrs in all kyndenes Ryc. Quyney
LS To my Loveinge good ffrend & contreymann mr wm Shackespere d[e]l[ive]r thees."
This letter is the only letter known to exist which was ever addressed to William Shackspere, the illiterate householder of Stratford, who as has been pointed out in these pages was totally unable to read a line of print, or to write even his own name. There are however in existence three, and three only, contemporary letters referring in any way to him, and these are not about literature with which the Stratford man had nothing whatever to do—but about mean and sordid small business transactions.
One is from Master Abraham Sturley, who writes in 1598 to a friend in London in reference to Shakspeare lending "Some monei on some od yarde land or other att Shottri or neare about us."
Another is dated Nov. 4th 1598, and is from the same Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney in which we are told that "our countriman Mr Wm Shak would procure us monei wc I will like of."
A third from Adrian Quiney written (about 1598-1599) to his son Rycharde Quiney in which he says "yff yow bargen with Wm Sha or receve money therfor, brynge youre money homme."
There exists no contemporary letter from anyone to anyone, referring to the Stratford actor as being a poet or as being in any way connected with literature. But from the Court Records we learn that;
In 1600 Shakespeare brought action against John Clayton in London for L7 and got judgment in his favour. He also sued Philip Rogers of Stratford for two shillings loaned.
In 1604 he sued Philip Rogers for several bushels of malt sold to him at various times between March 27th and the end of May of that year, amounting in all to the value of L1. 15s. 10d. The poet a dealer in malt?
In 1608 he prosecuted John Addenbroke to recover a debt of L6 and sued his surety Horneby.
Halliwell-Phillipps tells us that "The precepts as appears from memoranda in the originals, were issued by the poet's solicitor Thomas Greene who was then residing under some unknown conditions at New Place."
Referring to these sordid stories, Richard Grant White, that strong believer in the Stratford man, says in his "Life and genius of William Shakespeare," p. 156 "The pursuit of an impoverished man for the sake of imprisoning him and depriving him both of the power of paying his debts and supporting himself and his family, is an incident in Shakespeare's life which it requires the utmost allowance and consideration for the practice of the time and country to enable us to contemplate with equanimity—satisfaction is impossible."
"The biographer of Shakespeare must record these facts because the literary antiquaries have unearthed and brought them forward as new particulars of the life of Shakespeare. We hunger and receive these husks; we open our mouths for food and we break our teeth against these stones."
Yes! The world has broken its teeth too long upon these stones to continue to mistake them for bread. And as the accomplished scholar and poetess the late Miss Anna Swanwick once declared to the writer, she knew nothing of the Bacon and Shakespeare controversy, but Mr. Sidney Lee's "Life of Shakespeare" had convinced her that his man never wrote the plays. And that is just what everybody else is saying at Eton, at Oxford, at Cambridge, in the Navy, in the Army, and pretty generally among unprejudiced people everywhere, who are satisfied, as is Mark Twain, that the most learned of works could not have been written by the most unlearned of men.
Yes! It does matter that the "Greatest Birth of Time" should no longer be considered to have been the work of the unlettered rustic of Stratford; and the hour has at last come when it should be universally known that this mighty work was written by the man who had taken all knowledge for his province, the man who said "I have, though in a despised weed [that is under a Pseudonym] procured the good of all men"; the man who left his "name and memory to men's charitable speeches, and to foreign nations, and the next ages."
Bacon acknowledged to be a Poet.
In discussing the question of the Authorship of the plays many people appear to be unaware that Bacon was considered by his contemporaries to be a great poet. It seems therefore advisable to quote a few witnesses who speak of his pre-eminence in poetry.
In 1645 there was published "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus by Apollo and his assessours" a facsimile of the title of which is given on page 57. This work is anonymous but is usually ascribed to George Withers and in it Bacon as Lord Verulan is placed first and designated "Chancellor of Parnassus" that is "Greatest of Poets."
After the title, the book commences with two pages of which facsimiles are given on pages 58, 59.
Apollo appears at the top, next comes Lord Verulan as Chancellor of Parnassus, Sir Philip Sidney and other world renowned names follow and then below the line side by side is a list of the jurors and a list of the malefactors.
A little examination will teach us that the jurors are really the same persons as the malefactors and that we ought to read right across the page as if the dividing line did not exist.
Acting on this principle we perceive that George Wither [Withers] is correctly described as Mercurius Britanicus. Mr. Sidney Lee tells us that Withers regarded "Britain's Remembrancer" 1628 and "Prosopopaeia Britannica" 1648 as his greatest works.
Thomas Cary [Carew] is correctly described as Mercurias Aulicus—Court Messenger. He went to the French Court with Lord Herbert and was made Gentleman of the Privy Chamber by Charles I who presented him with an estate at Sunninghill.
Thomas May is correctly described as Mercurius Civicus. He applied for the post of Chronologer to the City of London and James I wrote to the Lord Mayor (unsuccessfully) in his favour.
Josuah Sylvester is correctly described as The Writer of Diurnals. He translated Du Bartas "Divine Weekes," describing day by day, that is "Diurnally," the creation of the world.
Georges Sandes [Sandys] is The Intelligencer. He travelled all over the world and his book of travels was one of the popular works of the period.
Michael Drayton is The Writer of Occurrences. Besides the "Poly-Olbion," he wrote "England's Heroicall Epistles" and "The Barron's Wars."
Francis Beaumont is The Writer of Passages. This exactly describes him as he is known as writing in conjunction with Fletcher. "Beamount and Fletcher make one poet, they single dare not adventure on a play."
William Shakespeere is "The writer of weekely accounts." This exactly describes him, for the only literature for which he was responsible was the accounts sent out by his clerk or attorney.
Turning over the pages of the little book on page 9 the cryer calls out "Then Sylvester, Sands, Drayton, Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, Shakespeare (sic) and Heywood, Poets good and true." This statement seems to be contradicted so far as Shakespeare is concerned by the defendant who says on page 31 "Shakespear's (sic) a mimicke" (that is a mere actor not a poet).
"Beamount and Fletcher make one poet, they Single, dare not adventure on a play."
Each of these statements seems to be true. And on Page 33 Apollo says
"We should to thy exception give consent But since we are assur'd, 'tis thy intent, By this refusall, onely to deferre That censure, which our justice must conferre Upon thy merits; we must needs decline From approbation of these pleas of thine."
That is, Apollo admits that Shakespeare is not a poet but a "mimic," the word to which I called your attention in the "Return from Parnassus" in relation to "this mimick apes." In this little book Shakespeare's name occurs three times, and on each occasion is spelled differently.
This clear statement that the actor Shakespeare was not a poet but only a tradesman who sent out his "weekly accounts" is, I think, here for the first time pointed out. It seems very difficult to conceive of a much higher testimony to Bacon's pre-eminence in poetry than the fact that he is placed as "Chancellor of Parnassus" under Apollo. But a still higher position is accorded to him when it is suggested that Apollo feared that he himself should lose his crown which would be placed on Bacon's head.
Walter Begbie in "Is it Shakespeare?" 1903, p. 274, tells us:—That Thomas Randolf, in Latin verses published in 1640 but probably written some 14 years earlier says that Phoebus was accessory to Bacon's death because he was afraid lest Bacon should some day come to be crowned King of poetry or the Muses. Farther on the same writer declares that as Bacon "was himself a singer" he did not need to be celebrated in song by others, and that George Herbert calls Bacon the colleague of Sol [Phoebus Apollo].
George Herbert was himself a dramatic poet and Bacon dedicated his "Translation of the Psalms" to him "who has overlooked so many of my works."
Mr. Begbie also tells us that Thomas Campion addresses Bacon thus "Whether the thorny volume of the Law or the Schools or the Sweet Muse allure thee."
It may be worth while here to quote the similar testimony which is borne by John Davies of Hereford who in his "Scourge of Folly" published about 1610, writes
"To the royall, ingenious, and all-learned Knight,—
Sr Francis Bacon.
Thy bounty and the Beauty of thy Witt Comprisd in Lists of Law and learned Arts, Each making thee for great Imployment fitt Which now thou hast, (though short of thy deserts) Compells my pen to let fall shining Inke And to bedew the Baies that deck thy Front;— And to thy health in Helicon to drinke As to her Bellamour the Muse is wont: For thou dost her embozom; and dost vse Her company for sport twixt grave affaires; So vtterst Law the liuelyer through thy Muse. And for that all thy Notes are sweetest Aires; My Muse thus notes thy worth in eu'ry Line, With yncke which thus she sugers; so, to shine."
But nothing can much exceed in value the testimony of Ben Jonson who in his "Discoveries," 1641, says "But his learned, and able (though unfortunate) Successor [Bacon in margin] is he, who hath fill'd up all numbers, and perform'd that in our tongue, which may be compar'd or preferr'd either to insolent Greece, or haughty Rome."
"He who hath filled up all numbers" means unquestionably "He that hath written every kind of poetry."
Alexander Pope the poet declares that he himself "lisped in numbers for the numbers came." Ben Jonson therefore bears testimony to the fact that Bacon was so great a poet that he had in poetry written that "which may be compar'd or preferr'd either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome."
But in 1623 Ben Jonson had said of the AUTHOR of the plays
"Or when thy sockes were on Leaue thee alone, for the comparison Of all, that insolent Greece or haughtie Rome Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come."
Surely the statements in the "Discoveries" were intended to tell us who was the AUTHOR of the plays.
After perusing these contemporary evidences, and they might be multiplied, it is difficult to understand how anyone can venture to dispute Bacon's position as pre-eminent in poetry. But it may be of interest to those who doubt whether Bacon (irrespective of any claim to the authorship of the plays) could be deemed to be a great poet, to quote here the words of Percy Bysshe Shelley, who in his "Defence of Poetry" says
"Bacon was a poet. His language has a sweet and majestic rhythm, which satisfies the sense, no less than the almost superhuman wisdom of his philosophy satisfies the intellect. It is a strain which distends and then bursts the circumference of the reader's mind, and pours itself forth together with it into the universal element with which it has perpetual sympathy."
The immortal plays are the "Greatest Birth of Time," and contain a short summary of the wisdom of the world from ancient times, and they exhibit an extent and depth of knowledge in every branch which has never been equalled at any period of the world's history. In classic lore, as the late Mr. Churton Collins recently pointed out, they evince the ripest scholarship. And this is confirmed by classical scholars all the world over.
None but the profoundest lawyers can realise the extent of the knowledge not only of the theory but of the practice of Law which is displayed. Lord Campbell says that Lord Eldon [supposed to have been the most learned of judges] need not have been ashamed of the law of Shakespeare. And as an instance of the way in which the members of the legal profession look up to the mighty author I may mention that some years ago, at a banquet of a Shakespeare Society at which Mr. Sidney Lee and the writer were present, the late Mr. Crump, Q.C., editor of the Law Times, who probably possessed as much knowledge of law as any man in this country, declared that to tell him that the plays were not written by the greatest lawyer the world has ever seen, or ever would see, was to tell him what he had sufficient knowledge of law to know to be nonsense. He said also that he was not ashamed to confess that he himself, though he had some reputation for knowledge of law, did not possess sufficient legal knowledge to realise one quarter of the law that was contained in the Shakespeare plays.
It requires a philologist to fully appreciate what the enormous vocabulary employed in the plays implies.
Max Muller in his "Science of Language," Vol. I, 1899, p. 379, says
"A well-educated person in England, who has been at a public school and at the University ... seldom uses more than about 3,000 or 4,000 words. ... The Hebrew Testament says all that it has to say with 5,642 words, Milton's poetry is built up with 8,000; and Shakespeare, who probably displayed a greater variety of expression than any writer in any language ... produced all his plays with about 15,000 words."
Shakspeare the householder of Stratford could not have known so many as one thousand words.
But Bacon declared that we must make our English language capable of conveying the highest thoughts, and by the plays he has very largely created what we now call the English language. The plays and the sonnets also reveal their author's life.
In the play of "Hamlet" especially, Bacon seems to tell us a good deal concerning himself, for the auto-biographical character of that play is clearly apparent to those who have eyes to see. I will, however, refer only to a single instance in that play. In the Quarto of 1603, which is the first known edition of the play of "Hamlet," we are told, in the scene at the grave, that Yorick has been dead a dozen years; but in the 1604 Quarto, which was printed in the following year, Yorick is stated to have been dead twenty-three years. This corrected number, twenty-three, looks therefore like a real date of the death of a real person. The words in the Quarto of 1604 are as follows:—
Hamlet, Act v, Scene i.
"[Grave digger called.] Clow[n] ... heer's a scull now hath lyen you i' th' earth 23 yeeres ... this same scull, sir, was, sir, Yorick's skull, the Kings jester ...
Ham[let]. Alas poore Yoricke, I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite iest, of most excellent fancie, hee hath bore me on his backe a thousand times ... Heere hung those lyppes that I haue kist, I know not howe oft, where be your gibes now? your gamboles, your songs, your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roare, not one now to mocke your owne grinning...."
The King's Jester who died about 1580-1, just twenty-three years before 1604 (as stated in the play), was John Heywood, the last of the King's Jesters. The words spoken by Hamlet exactly describe John Heywood, who was wont to set the table in a roar with his jibes, his gambols, his songs, and his flashes of merriment. He was a favourite at the English Court during three if not four reigns, and it is recorded that Queen Elizabeth as a Princess rewarded him. It is an absolutely gratuitous assumption that he was obliged permanently to leave England when she became Queen. Indeed it is believed that he was an intimate friend of the Bacon family, and must have carried little Francis Bacon any number of times upon his back, and the little fellow must have kissed him still more oftentimes. The story in the play of "Hamlet" seems, therefore, to fit in exactly with the facts of Bacon's life; but it is not possible that the most fertile imagination of the most confirmed Stratfordian can suppose that the Stratford actor ever saw John Heywood, who died long before Shakspere came to London.
The Author revealed in the Sonnets.
Bacon also reveals much of himself in the play "As you like it," which of course means "Wisdom from the mouth of a fool." In that play, besides giving us much valuable information concerning his "mask" William Shakespeare, he also tells us why it was necessary for him to write under a pseudonym.
Speaking in the character of Jaques, who is the alter ego of Touchstone, he says,
Act ii, Scene 7.
"O that I were a foole, I am ambitious for a motley coat. Duke. Thou shalt haue one. Jag. It is my onely suite, Prouided that you weed your better judgements Of all opinion that growes ranke in them, That I am wise. I must haue liberty Wiithall, as large a Charter as the winde, To blow on whom I please, for so fooles haue: And they that are most gauled with my folly, They most must laugh.... Inuest me in my motley: Giue me leaue To speake my minde, and I will through and through Cleanse the foule bodie of th' infected world If they will patiently receiue my medicine."
He also gives us most valuable information in Sonnet 81.
Or I shall liue your Epitaph to make, Or you suruiue when I in earth am rotten, From hence your memory death cannot take, Although in me each part will be forgotten, Your name from hence immortall life shall haue, Though I (once gone) to all the world must dye, The Earth can yeeld me but a common graue, When you intombed in men's eyes shall lye, Your monument shall be my gentle verse, Which eyes not yet created shall ore read, And toungs to be, your being shall rehearse, When all the breathers of this world are dead, You still shall liue (such vertue hath my Pen) Where breath most breaths euen in the mouths of men.
Stratfordians tell us that the above is written in reference to a poet whom Shakespeare "evidently" regarded as a rival. But it is difficult to imagine how sensible men can satisfy their reason with such an explanation. Is it possible to conceive that a poet should write against a rival
"Your name from hence immortall life shall haue Though I (once gone) to all the world must dye"
or should say against a rival,
"The Earth can yeeld me but a common graue While you intombed in men's eyes shall lye."
or should have declared "against a rival,"
"Your monument shall be my gentle verse"
No! This sonnet is evidently written in reference to the writer's mask or pseudonym which would continue to have immortal life (even though he himself might be forgotten) as he says
"Although in me each part will be forgotten."
It is sometimes said that Shakespeare (meaning the Stratford actor) did not know the value of his immortal works. Is that true of the writer of this sonnet who says
"my gentle verse Which eyes not yet created shall ore read"
No! The writer knew his verses were immortal and would immortalize the pseudonym attached to them
"When all the breathers of this world are dead."
Perhaps the reader will better understand Sonnet 81 if I insert the words necessary to fully explain it.
Or shall I [Bacon] live your Epitaph to make, Or you [Shakespeare] survive when I in Earth am rotten, From hence your memory death cannot take, Although in me each part will be forgotten. Your name [Shakespeare] from hence immortal life shall have, Though I [Bacon] once gone to all the world must die, The earth can yield me but a common grave, When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie, Your monument shall be my [not your] gentle verse, Which eyes not yet created shall ore read, And tongues to be your being [which as an author was not] shall rehearse, When all the breathers of this world are dead, You [Shakespeare] still shall live, such vertue hath my pen [not your own pen, for you never wrote a line] Where breathe most breaths even in the mouths of men.
This Sonnet was probably written considerably earlier than 1609, but at that date Bacon's name had not been attached to any work of great literary importance.
After the writer had learned the true meaning of Sonnet 81, his eyes were opened to the inward meaning of other Sonnets, and he perceived that Sonnet No. 76 repeated the same tale.
"Why write I still all one, euer the same, And keep inuention in a noted weed, That euery word doth almost sel my name, Shewing their birth and where they did proceed?"
(Sel may mean spell or tell or possibly betray.)
Especially note that "Invention" is the same word that is used by Bacon in his letter to Sir Tobie Matthew of 1609 (same date as the Sonnets), and also especially remark the phrase "in a noted weed," which means in a "pseudonym," and compare it with the words of Bacon's prayer, "I have (though in a 'despised weed') procured the good of all men." [Resuscitatio, 1671.] Was not the pseudonym of the Actor Shakespeare a very "despised weed" in those days?
Let us look also at Sonnet No. 78.
"So oft have I enuoked thee for my Muse, And found such faire assistance in my verse, As every alien pen hath got my use, And under thee their poesy disperse."
Here again we should understand how to read this Sonnet as under:—
"So oft have I enuoked thee [Shakespeare] for my Muse, And found such faire assistance in my verse, As every alien pen hath got my use, And under thee [Shakespeare] their poesy disperse."
"Shakespeare" is frequently charged with being careless of his works and indifferent to the piracy of his name; but we see by this Sonnet, No. 78, that the real author was not indifferent to the false use of his pseudonym, though it was, of course, impossible for him to take any effectual action if he desired to preserve his incognito, his mask, his pseudonym.
Mr. Sidney Lee and the Stratford Bust.
One word to the Stratfordians. The "Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon" myth has been shattered and destroyed by the mass of inexactitudes collected in the supposititious "Life of Shakespeare" by Mr. Sidney Lee, who has done his best to pulverise what remained of that myth by recently writing as follows:—
"Most of those who have pressed the question [of Bacon being the real Shake-speare] on my notice, are men of acknowledged intelligence and reputation in their own branch of life, both at home and abroad. I therefore desire as respectfully, but also as emphatically and as publicly, as I can, to put on record the fact, as one admitting to my mind of no rational ground for dispute, that there exists every manner of contemporary evidence to prove that Shakspere, the householder of Stratford-on-Avon, wrote with his own hand, and exclusively by the light of his only genius (merely to paraphrase the contemporary inscription on his tomb in Stratford-on-Avon Church) those dramatic works which form the supreme achievement in English Literature."
As a matter of fact, not a single scrap of evidence, contemporary or otherwise, exists to show that Shakspere, the householder of Stratford-on-Avon, wrote the plays or anything else; indeed, the writer thinks that he has conclusively proved that this child of illiterate parents and father of an illiterate child was himself so illiterate that he was never able to write so much as his own name. But Mr. Sidney Lee seems prepared to accept anything as "contemporary evidence," for on pages 276-7 (1898 edition) of his "Life of Shakespeare" he writes
"Before 1623 an elaborate monument, by a London sculptor of Dutch birth, Gerard Johnson, was erected to Shakespeare's memory in the chancel of the parish church. It includes a half-length bust, depicting the dramatist on the point of writing. The fingers of the right hand are disposed as if holding a pen, and under the left hand lies a quarto sheet of paper."
As a matter of fact, the present Stratford monument was not put up till about one hundred and twenty years after Shakspeare's death. The original monument, see Plate 3 on Page 8, was a very different monument, and the figure, as I have shewn in Plate 5, instead of holding a pen in its hand, rests its two hands on a wool-sack or cushion. Of course, the false bust in the existing monument was substituted for the old bust for the purpose of fraudulently supporting the Stratford myth.
When Mr. Sidney Lee wrote that the present monument was erected before 1623 he did not do this consciously to deceive the public; still, it is difficult to pardon him for this and the other reckless statements with which his book is filled. But what are we to say of his words (respecting the present monument) which we read on page 286? "It was first engraved—very imperfectly—in Rowe's edition of 1709." An exact full size photo facsimile reproduction of Rowe's engraving is shown in Plate 19, Page 77.
As a matter of fact, the real Stratford monument of 1623 was first engraved in Dugdale's "Warwickshire" of 1656, where it appears opposite to page 523. We can, however, pardon Mr. Sidney Lee for his ignorance of the existence of that engraving; but how shall we pardon him for citing Rowe as a witness to the early existence of the present bust? To anyone not wilfully blinded by passion and prejudice, Rowe's engraving [see Plate 19, Page 77] clearly shews a figure absolutely different from the Bust in the present monument. Rowe's figure is in the same attitude as the Bust of the original monument engraved by Dugdale, and does not hold a pen in its hand, but its two hands are supported on a wool-sack or cushion, in the same manner as in the Bust from Dugdale which I have shewn in Plate 5, on Page 14.
What are we to say respecting the frontispiece to the 1898 edition of what he is pleased to describe as the "Life of William Shakespeare," which Mr. Sidney Lee tells us is "from the 'Droeshout' painting now in the Shakespeare Memorial Gallery at Stratford-on-Avon"?
As a matter of fact there is no "Droeshout" painting. The picture falsely so called is a manifest forgery and a palpable fraud, for in it all the revealing marks of the engraving by Martin Droeshout which appeared in the 1623 folio are purposely omitted. A full size photo facsimile of Martin Droeshout's engraving is shewn in Plate 8, pp. 20-21. In the false and fraudulent painting we find no double line to shew the mask, and the coat is really a coat and not a garment cunningly composed of two left arms.
Still it does seem singularly appropriate and peculiarly fitting that Mr. Sidney Lee should have selected as the frontispiece of the romance which he calls the "Life" of Shakespeare, an engraving of the false and fraudulent painting now in the Stratford-on-Avon Gallery for his first edition of 1898; and should also have selected an engraving of the false and fraudulent monument now in Stratford-on-Avon Church as the frontispiece for his first Illustrated Library Edition of 1899.
Mr. Sidney Lee is aware of the fact that Martin Droeshout was only fifteen years old when the Stratford actor died. But it is possible that he may not know that (in addition to the Shakespeare Mask which Droeshout drew for the frontispiece of the 1623 folio edition of the Plays of Shakespeare, in order to reveal, to those who were able to understand, the true facts of the Authorship of those plays), Martin Droeshout also drew frontispieces for other books, which may be similarly correctly characterised as cunningly composed, in order to reveal the true facts of the authorship of such works, unto those who were capable of grasping the hidden meaning of his engravings.
One other point it is worth while referring to. The question is frequently asked, if Bacon wrote under the name of Shakespeare, why so carefully conceal the fact? An answer is readily supplied by a little anecdote related by Ben Jonson, which was printed by the Shakespeare Society in 1842, in their "Notes of Ben Jonson's conversations with William Drummond of Hawthornden".
"He [Ben Jonson] was dilated by Sir James Murray to the King, for writting something against the Scots, in a play Eastward Hoe, and voluntarly imprissonned himself with Chapman and Marston who had written it amongst them. The report was that they should then [have] had their ears cut and noses. After their delivery, he banqueted all his friends; there was Camden, Selden, and others; at the midst of the feast his old Mother dranke to him, and shew him a paper which she had (if the sentence had taken execution) to have mixed in the prisson among his drinke, which was full of lustie strong poison, and that she was no churle, she told, she was minded first to have drunk of it herself."
This was in 1605, and it is a strange and grim illustration of the dangers that beset men in the Highway of Letters.
It was necessary for Bacon to write under pseudonyms to conceal his identity, but he intended that at some time posterity should do him justice and it was for this purpose that, among the numerous clues he supplied to reveal himself he wrote "The Tempest" in its present form, which Emile Montegut writing in the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1865 declared to be the author's literary Testament.
The Island is the Stage. Prospero the prime Duke, the great Magician, represents the Mighty Author who says "my brother ... called Anthonio who next thyself of all the world I lov'd" ... "graves at my command have wak'd their sleepers op'd and let them forth by my so potent Art" ...
"and deeper than ever plummet sound He drown my booke."
Yet he does not forget finally to add "I do ... require my Dukedome of thee, which perforce I know thou must restore."
The falsely crowned and gilded king of the Island who had stolen the wine (the poetry) "where should they find this grand liquor that hath gilded them" and whose name is Stephanos (Greek for crown) throws off at the close of the play, his false crown while Caliban says "What a thrice double asse was I to take this drunkard for a God."
The mighty Magician Prospero says "knowing I lov'd my bookes, he furnished me from mine own Library, with volumes, that I prize above my Dukedome." Bacon when he was dismissed from his high offices, devoted himself to his books. Not a book of any kind was found at New Place, Stratford. Bacon's brother "whom next himself he loved" was called Anthony. "Gentle" Shakespeare of Stratford died from the effects of a "Drunken" bout!
It does matter whether it is thought that the Immortal works were written by the sordid money-lender of Stratford, the "Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie"; or were written by him who was himself the "Greatest Birth of Time"; the man pre-eminently distinguished amongst the sons of earth; the man who in order to "do good to all mankind," disguised his personality "in a despised weed," and wrote under the name of William Shakespeare.
It does matter, and England is now declining any longer to dishonour and defame the greatest Genius of all time by continuing to identify him with the mean, drunken, ignorant, and absolutely unlettered, rustic of Stratford who never in his life wrote so much as his own name and in all probability was totally unable to read one single line of print.
The hour has come for revealing the truth. The hour has come when it is no longer necessary or desirable that the world should remain in ignorance that the Great Author of Shakespeare's Plays was himself alive when the Folio was published in 1623. The hour has come when all should know that this the greatest book produced by man was given to the world more carefully edited by its author as to every word in every column, as to every italic in every column, as to every apparent misprint in every column, than any book had ever before been edited, and more exactly printed than there seems any reasonable probability that any book will ever again be printed that may be issued in the future.