Bacon is Shake-Speare
by
Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence
Part 2 out of 4
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.
The hour has come when it is desirable and necessary to state with the
utmost distinctness that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
[Illustration: Plate XX. Reduced Facsimile of Page 136 of the
Shakespeare Folio, 1623]
[Illustration: Plate XXI. Portion of Page 136, full size, as in the
Shakespeare Folio 1623]
CHAPTER X
Bacon is Shakespeare.
Proved mechanically in a short chapter on the long word
Honorificabilitudinitatibus.
The long word found in "Loves Labour's lost" was not created by the
author of Shakespeare's plays. Mr. Paget Toynbee, writing in the
_Athenoeum_ (London weekly) of December 2nd 1899, tells us the history
of this long word.
It is believed to have first appeared in the Latin Dictionary by
Uguccione, called "Magnae Derivationes," which was written before the
invention of printing, in the latter half of the twelfth century and
seems never to have been printed. Excerpts from it were, however,
included in the "Catholicon" of Giovanni da Geneva, which was printed
among the earliest of printed books (that is, it falls into the class of
books known as "incunabula," so called because they belong to the
"cradle of printing," the fifteenth century).
In this "Catholicon," which, though undated, was printed before A.D.
1500, we read
"Ab _honorifico, hic_ et _hec honorificabilis,--le_ et
--hec honororificabilitas,--tis_ et _hec
honorificabilitudinitas_, et est longissima dictio,
que illo versu continetur--
Fulget Honorificabilitudinitatibus iste."
It is perhaps not without interest to call the reader's attention to the
fact that "Fulget hon|orifi |cabili|tudini|tatibus|iste" forms a neat
Latin hexameter. It will be found that the revelation derived from the
long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus is itself also in the form of a
Latin hexameter.
The long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus occurs in the Quarto edition
of "Loues Labor's Lost," which is stated to be "Newly corrected and
augmented by W. Shakespere." Imprinted in London by W.W. for Cutbert
Burby. 1598.
This is the very first play that bore the name W. Shakespere, but so
soon as he had attached the name W. Shakespere to that play, the great
author Francis Bacon caused to be issued almost immediately a book
attributed to Francis Meres which is called "Palladis Tamia, Wits
Treasury" and is stated to be Printed by P. Short for Cuthbert Burbie,
1598. This is the same publisher as the publisher of the Quarto of
"Loues Labor's lost" although both the Christian name and the surname
are differently spelled.
This little book "Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury" tells us on page 281,
"As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy
among the Latines, so Shakespeare among ye English, is the most
excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy, witness his Gentlemen
of Verona, his Errors, his Love Labors lost, his Love Labours wonne, his
Midsummers night dreame, and his Merchant of Venice: for Tragedy, his
Richard the 2, Richard the 3, Henry the 4, King John, Titus Andronicus,
and his Romeo and Juliet."
Here we are distinctly told that eleven other plays are also
Shakespeare's work although only Loues Labors lost at that time
bore his name.
We refer on page 138 to the reason why it had become absolutely
necessary for the Author to affix a false name to all these twelve
plays. For our present purpose it is sufficient to point out that on the
very first occasion when the name W. Shakespere was attached to any
play, viz., to the play called "Loues Labor's lost," the Author took
pains to insert a revelation that would enable him to claim his own when
the proper time should arrive. Accordingly he prepared the page which is
found F 4 (the little book is not paged) in the Quarto of "Loues Labor's
lost" which was published in 1598. A photo-facsimile of the page is
shewn, Page 105, Plate 22.
So far as is known there never was any other edition printed until the
play appeared in the Folio of 1623 under the name of "Loues Labour's
lost," and we put before the reader a reduced facsimile of the whole
page 136 of the 1623 Folio, on which the long word occurs, Page 86,
Plate 20, and we give also an exact full size photo reproduction of a
portion of the first column of that page. Page 87, Plate 21.
On comparing the page of the Quarto with that of the Folio, it will be
seen that the Folio page commences with the same word as does the Quarto
and that each and every word, and each and every italic in the Folio is
exactly reproduced from the Quarto excepting that Alms-basket in the
Folio is printed with a hyphen to make it into two words. A hyphen is
also inserted in the long word as it extends over one line to the next.
The only other change is that the lines are a little differently
arranged. These slight differences are by no means accidental, because
Alms-basket is hyphened to count as two words and thereby cause the long
word to be the 151st word. This is exceedingly important and it was only
by a misprint in the Quarto that it incorrectly appears there as the
150th word. By the rearrangement of the lines, the long word appears on
the 27th line, and the line, "What is A.B. speld backward with the horn
on his head" appears as it should do on the 33rd line. At the time the
Quarto was issued, when the trouble was to get Shakespere's name
attached to the plays, these slight printer's errors in the Quarto--for
they are printer's errors--were of small consequence, but when the play
was reprinted in the Folio of 1623 all these little blemishes were most
carefully corrected.
The long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus is found in "Loues Labour's
lost" not far from the commencement of the Fifth Act, which is called
Actus Quartus in the 1623 folio, and on Page 87, Plate 21, is given a
full size photo facsimile from the folio, of that portion of page 136,
in which the word occurs in the 27th line.
On lines 14, 15 occurs the phrase, "Bome boon for boon prescian, a
little scratcht, 'twil serve." I do not know that hitherto any rational
explanation has been given of the reason why this reference to the
pedantic grammarian "Priscian" is there inserted.
The mention of Priscian's name can have no possible reference to
anything apparent in the text, but it refers solely and entirely to the
phrase which is to be formed by the transposition of the twenty-seven
letters contained in the long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus; and it
was absolutely impossible that the citation of Priscian could ever have
been understood before the sentence containing the information which is
of the most important description had been "revealed." We say "revealed"
because the riddle could never have been "guessed."
The "revealed" and "all revealing" sentence forms a correct Latin
hexameter, and we will proceed to prove that it is without possibility
of doubt or question the real solution which the "Author" intended to be
known at some future time, when he placed the long word
Honorificabilitudinitatibus, which is composed of twenty-seven letters,
on the twenty-seventh line of page 136, where it appears as the 151st
word printed in ordinary type.
The all-important statement which reveals the authorship of the plays in
the most clear and direct manner (every one of the twenty-seven letters
composing the long word being employed and no others) is in the form of
a correct Latin hexameter, which reads as follows--
HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI
These plays F. Bacon's offspring are preserved for the
world.
This verse will scan as a spondaic hexameter as under
HI LU |DI F | BACO | NIS NA | TI TUI | TI ORBI
HI One long syllable meaning "these."
LUDI Two long syllables meaning "stage plays,"
and especially "stage plays"
in contradistinction to "Circus games."
(Suetonius Hist:
Julius Caes: 10. Venationes autem Ludosque
et cum collega et separatim edidit).
F, One long syllable. Now for the first time
can the world be informed why the sneer
"Bome boon for boon prescian, a little
scratcht, 'twil serve" was inserted on lines
14, 15, page 136 of the folio of 1623. Priscian
declares that F was a mute and Bacon mocks
him for so doing. Ausonius while giving the
pronunciation of most letters of the alphabet
does not afford us any information respecting
the sound of F, but Quintilian xii. 10, s. 29,
describes the pronunciation of the Roman F.
Some scholars understand him as indicating
that the Roman F had rather a rougher sound
than the English F. Others agree with Dr.
H.J. Roby, and are of opinion that Quintilian
means that the Roman F was "blown out
between the intervals of the teeth with no
sound of voice." (See Roby's Grammar of
the Latin language, 1881, xxxvi.) But Dr. A.
Bos in his "Petit Traite de prononciation
Latine," 1897, asserts that the old Latin manner
of pronouncing F was effe. Even if Dr.
A. Bos is correct it is not at all likely that effe
was a dissyllable, but most probably it would
be sounded very nearly like the Greek "[Greek: phi],"
that is as "pfe." In any case (even if it
were a dissyllable) F would, with the DI
of LUDI, form two long syllables and scan
as a spondee. The use of single consonants
to form long or short syllables was very
common among the Romans, but such appear
mostly in lines impossible to quote.
But the Great Author was well acquainted
with such instances, and in this same page 136,
in lines 6, 7, 8, he gives an example, shewing
that the letter "B," although silent in debt,
becomes, when debt is spelled, one of the four
full words--d e b t, each of which has to be
counted to make up the number "151."[6]
This, which is an example of the great value
and importance of what, in many of the plays,
appears to be merely "silly talk" affords a
strong additional evidence of the correctness
of the "revealed" and "revealing" sentence
which we shew was intended by the author to
be constructed out of the long word. Bacon
therefore was amply justified in making use
of F as a long syllable to form the second
half of a spondee.
BACONIS Three long syllables, the final syllable
being long by position. Pedantic grammarians
might argue that natus being a
participle ought not to govern a genitive
case, but should be followed by a preposition
with the ablative case, and that we
ought to say "e Bacone nati" or "de
Bacone nati." Other pedants have declared
that natus is properly, i.e., classically, said
of the mother only, although in low Latin,
such as the Vulgate, we find 1 John v. 2,
"Natos Dei," "born of God." But the
Author of the plays, who instead of having
"small Latin and less Greek" knew "_All_
Latin and very much Greek," was well aware
that Vergil, Aeneid i. 654 (or 658 when the
four additional lines are inserted at the
beginning) gives us "Maxima natarum
Priami," "greatest of the daughters of
Priam," and in Aeneid ii. 527 "Unus natorum
Priami," "one of the sons of Priam." There
exists therefore the highest classical authority
for the use of "Nati" in the sense of "Sons"
or "offspring" governing a genitive case.
"F. Baconis nati," "Francis Bacon's offspring,"
is therefore absolutely and classically
correct.
NATI Two long syllables. A noun substantive
meaning as shewn above "sons" or "offspring."
TUITI Two short syllables and one long syllable,
which last is elided and disappears before the
"o" of orbi. Tuiti which is the same word
as tuti is a passive past participle meaning
saved or preserved. It is derived from
tueor, which is generally used as a deponent
or reflexive verb, but tueor is used by Varro
and the legal writers as a passive verb.
ORBI Two long syllables. The word orbi may
be either the plural nominative of orbus
meaning "deprived" "orphaned," or it may
be the dative singular of Orbis meaning "for
the world." Both translations make good
sense because the plays are "preserved for
the world" and are "preserved orphaned."
The present writer prefers the translation
"for the world," indeed he thinks that to
most classical scholars "tuiti orbi," "preserved
discarded," looks almost like a contradiction
in terms.
Note on Honorficabilitudinitatibus
BACONIS.--On page 131 is shewn a photogravure of the title page of
Bacon's "De Augmentis," 1645, which is in fact a pictorial
representation of an anagram "Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi." On
this title page we find "Baconis" used as the genitive of Bacon's name
in Latin. Baconis is also found in XIII th century manuscript copies of
Roger Bacon's works, where the title reads "Opus minus Fratris Rogeri
Baconis," and in 1603 there was published in 12º at Frankfurt "Rogeri
Baconis ... De Arte Chymiae."
TUITI.--Pedanticgrammarians such as Priscian whom the author mocks at
in the line "Bome boom for boon precian, a little scratcht, 'twil
serve," falsely tel us that there is a passive verb "tueor" with a past
participle "tutus." As a matter of fact it is the same verb "tueor" that
is used both as a passive and as a deponent, and "tutus" or "tuitus" may
be used indifferently at the pleasure of the writer. Sallust uses
"tutus," not "tuitus," as the past participle of the deponent verb.
Opposite to the next page is shewn a type transcript of the cover or
outside page of a collection of manuscripts in the possession of the
Duke of Northumberland, which were discovered in 1867 at Northumberland
House. Three years later, viz., in 1870, James Spedding published a thin
little volume entituled "A Conference of Pleasure," in which he gave a
full size Facsimile of the original of the outside page which is here
shewn in _reduced type_ facsimile. He also gave a few particulars of the
MSS. themselves.
In 1904 Mr. Frank J. Burgoyne brought out a Collotype Facsimile of every
page that now remains of the collection of MSS. in an edition limited to
250 copies I a fine Royal Quarto at the price of £4 4s. 0d. O f the MSS.
mentioned on the cover nine now remain, and of these, six are certainly
by Francis Bacon; the first being written by him for a masque or
"fanciful devise" which Mr. Spedding thinks was presented at the Court of
Elizabeth in 1592.
The list of contents was written upon this outside page about 1597, and
among those original contents which are now missing were Richard II. and
Richard III. Mr. Spedding was satisfied that these were the so-called
Skakespearean plays. There are also the tiles of various other works to
which it is not now necessary to allude, but the reader's attention
should be especially directed to the (so-called) scribblings. Mr.
Spedding says: "I find nothing either in these later scribblings or in
what remains of the book itself to indicate a date later than the reign
of Elizabeth." The "scribblings" are therefore written by a contemporary
hand. For the purpose of reference I have placed the letters
_a, b, c, d, e_, outside of the facsimile.
(_a_) "honorificabilitudine." This curious long word when taken in
conjunction with the words "your William Shakespeare." which are also
found upon this page, appears to have some reference to the same curious
long word which is found in the ablative plural in "Loves Labour's
lost," which appeared I 1597, and was the play to which Shakespeare's
name was for the first time attached, and, as I shew, in Chapter X., p.
84, it was placed there in order to give with absolute certainty a key
to the real authorship.
(_b_) "By Mr ffrauncis William Shakespeare Baco"--with ffrauncis
written upside down over it and your/yourself written upside down
at the commencement of the line. Baco would require Baconis as
its genitive.
(_c_) "revealing day through every crany peepes." We think that this
is an accurate statement of the revelations here afforded.
[Illustration: Modern Script Facsimile of MS Folio 1 _Reduced to about
one-third the size of the original_]
(_d_) your
"William Shakespeare." Almost directly above this
your
appears also William Shakespeare.
[Illustration: Full-Size Facsimile of Written Ornament on Outside Page
of Northumberland MSS.]
[Illustration: Full-Size Facsimile of Written Ornament in "Les Tenure de
Monsieur Littleton." Annotate by Francic Bacon.]
(_e_) The three curious scrolles at the top right-hand corner are very
similar to the scrolls which are found upon the title page of a law
book entitled, "Les Tenures de Monsieur Littleton," printed in 1591, in
the possession of the writer, which is throughout noted in what the
authorities at the British Museum say is undoubtedly the handwriting of
Francis Bacon.
As I have pointed out upon page 114 and upon various other pages in
my book "upside down" printing is a device continually employed by
the authors of certain books in order to afford revelations
concerning Bacon and Shakespeare. As a whole this curious scribbled
page affords remarkable evidence that William Shakespeare is
"yourself" Francis Bacon.
Now and now only can a reasonable explanation be given for the first
time of the purpose of the reference to Priscian, in lines 14 and 15,
Plate 21, Page 87. And it is a singular circumstance that so far as the
writer is aware not one of the critics has perceived that the mockery of
Priscian forms a neat English iambic hexameter, indeed, in almost all
modern editions of the Shakespeare plays, both the form and the meaning
of the line have been utterly destroyed. In the original the line reads
"Bome boon for boon prescian, a little scracht, 'twil serve."
Perhaps the reader will be enabled better to understand the sneer and
the mockery by reading the following couplet--
A fig for old Priscián, a little scrátcht, 'twil serve
A poet súrely need not áll his rúles observe.
And we still more perfectly understand the purpose of the hexameter form
of the reference to Priscian if we scan the line side by side with the
"revealed" interpretation of the long word honorificabilitudinitatibus.
Bome boon | for boon | prescian | a lit | tle scratcht | 'twil serve
HI LU | DI F | BACO | NIS NA | TI TUI | TI ORBI
These plays F Bacon's offspring are preserved for the world.
This explanation of the real meaning to be derived from the long word
honorificabilitudinitatibus seems to be so convincing as scarcely to
require further proof. But the Author of the plays intended when the
time had fully come for him to claim his own that there should not be
any possibility of cavil or doubt. He therefore so arranged the plays
and the acts of the plays in the folio of 1623 that the long word should
appear upon the 136th page, be the 151st word thereon, should fall on
the 27th line and that the interpretation should indicate the numbers
136 and 151, thus forming a mechanical proof so positive that it can
neither be misconstrued nor explained away, a mechanical proof that
provides an evidence which absolutely compels belief.
The writer desires especially to bring home to the reader the manifest
fact that the revealed and revealing sentence must have been constructed
before the play of "Loues Labor's lost" first appeared in 1598, and that
when the plays were printed in their present form in the 1623 folio the
scenes and the acts of the preceding plays and the printing of the
columns in all those plays as well as in the play of "Loues Labour's
lost" required to be arranged with extraordinary skill in order that the
revealing page in the 1623 folio should commence with the first word of
the revealing page in the original quarto of 1598, and that that page
should form the 136th page of the folio, so that the long word
"Honorificabilitudinitatibus" should appear on page 136, be the 151st
word, and fall upon the 27th line.
Bacon tells us that there are 24 letters in the alphabet (_i_ and _j_
being deemed to be forms of the same letter, as are also _u_ and _v_).
Bacon was himself accustomed frequently to use the letters of the
alphabet as numerals (the Greeks similarly used letters for numerals).
Thus A is 1, B is 2 ... Y is 23, Z is 24. Let us take as an example
Bacon's own name--B=2, a=1, c=3, O=14, n=i3; all these added together
make the number 33, a number about which it is possible to say a good
deal.[7] We now put the numerical value to each of the letters that
form the long word, and we shall find that their total amounts to the
number 287, thus:
H O N O R I F I C A B I L I T U
8 14 13 14 17 9 6 9 3 1 2 9 11 9 19 20
D I N I T A T I B U S
4 9 13 9 19 1 19 9 2 20 18 = 287
From a word containing so large a number of letters as twenty-seven it
is evident that we can construct very numerous words and phrases; but I
think it "surpasses the wit of man" to construct any "sentence" other
than the "revealed sentence," which by its construction shall reveal not
only the number of the page on which it appears--which is 136--but shall
also reveal the fact that the long word shall be the 151st word printed
in ordinary type counting from the first word.
On one side of the facsimile reproduction of part of page 136 of the
1623 folio, numbers are placed shewing that the long word is on the 27th
line, which was a skilfully purposed arrangement, because there are 27
letters in the word. There is also another set of numbers at the other
side of the facsimile page which shews that, counting from the first
word, the long word is the 151st word. How is it possible that the
revealing sentence, "Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi," can tell us
that the page is 136 and the position of the long word is the 151st
word? The answer is simple. The numerical value of the initial letters
and of the terminal letters of the revealed sentence, when added
together, give us 136, the number of the page, while the numerical value
of all the other letters amount to the number 151, which is the number
of words necessary to find the position of the long word
"Honorificabilitudinitatibus," which is the 151st word on page 136,
counting those printed in ordinary type, the italic words being of
course omitted.
The solution is as follows
HI
LUDI
F
BACONIS
NATI
TUITI
ORBI
the initial letters of which are
H L F B N T O
their numerical values being
8 11 6 2 13 19 14 = total 73
and the terminal letters are
I I S I I I
their numerical values being
9 9 18 9 9 9 = total 63
__
Adding this 63 to 73 we get 136
while the intermediate letters are
U D A C O N I A T U I T R B
their numerical values being
20 4 1 3 14 13 9 1 19 20 9 19 17 2 = 151
___
Total 287
The reader thus sees that it is a fact that in the "revealed" sentence
the sum of the numerical values of the initial letters, when added to
the sum of the numerical values of the terminal letters, do, with
mathematical certainty produce 136, the number of the page in the first
folio, which is 136, and that the sum of the numerical values of the
intermediate letters amounts to 151, which gives the position of the
long word on that page, which is the 151st word in ordinary type. These
two sums of 136 and 151, when added together, give 287, which is the sum
of the numerical value of all the letters of the long word
"Honorificabilitudinitatibus," which, as we saw on page 99, amounted to
the same total, 287.
As a further evidence of the marvellous manner in which the Author had
arranged the whole plan, the long word of 27 letters is placed on the
27th line. Can anyone be found who will pretend to produce from the 27
letters which form the word "Honorificabilitudinitatibus" another
sentence which shall also tell the number of the page, 136, and that the
position of the long word on the page is the 151st word?
I repeat that to do this "surpasses the wit of man," and that
therefore the true solution of the meaning of the long word
"Honorificabilitudinitatibus," about which so much nonsense has been
written, is without possibility of doubt or question to be found by
arranging the letters to form the Latin hexameter.
HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI
These plays F. Bacon's offspring are preserved
for the world.
It is not possible to afford a clearer mechanical proof that
THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS ARE
BACON'S OFFSPRING.
It is not possible to make a clearer and more definite statement that
BACON IS THE AUTHOR OF THE
PLAYS.
It is not possible that any doubt can any longer be entertained
respecting the manifest fact that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
CHAPTER XI.
On the revealing page 136 in "Loves Labour's lost."
In the previous chapter it was pointed out that using letters for
numbers, Bacon's name is represented by 33.
B A C O N .
2 1 3 14 13 = 33
and that the long word possesses the numerical value of 287.
H O N O R I F I C A B I L I T U
8 14 13 14 17 9 6 9 3 1 2 9 11 9 19 20
D I N I T A T I B U S
4 9 13 9 19 1 19 9 2 20 18 = 287
In the Shakespeare folio, Page 136, shewn in Plate 20 and Plate 21, on
Pages 86-7, ON LINE 33, we read "What is Ab speld backward with the horn
on his head?"
The answer which is given is evidently an incorrect answer, it is "Ba,
puericia with a horne added," and the Boy mocks him with "Ba most seely
sheepe, with a horne: you heare his learning."
The reply should of course have been in Latin. The Latin for a horn is
cornu. The real answer therefore is "Ba corn-u fool."
This is the exact answer you might expect to find on the line 33, since
the number 33 indicates Bacon's name. And now, and now only, can be
explained the very frequent use of the ornament representing a Horned
Sheep, inside and outside "Baconian" books, under whatever name they may
be known. An example will be found at the head of the present chapter on
page 103. The uninitiated are still "informed" or rather "misinformed"
that this ornament alludes to the celebrated Golden Fleece of the
Argonauts and they little suspect that they have been purposely fooled,
and that the real reference is to Bacon.
It should be noted here that in the Quarto of "Loues Labor's lost,"
see Plate 22, Page 105, if the heading "Loues Labor's lost" be counted
as a line, we read on the 33rd line: "Ba most seely sheepe with a
horne: you heare his learning." This would direct you to a reference
to Bacon, although not so perfectly as the final arrangement in the
folio of 1623.
Proceeding with the other lines in the page, we read:--
"Quis quis, thou consonant?"
This means "Who, who"? [which Bacon] because in order to make the
revelation complete we must be told that it is "Francis" Bacon, so as
to leave no ambiguity or possibility of mistake. How then is it
possible that we can be told that it is Francis Bacon? We read in
answer to the question:
[Illustration: Plate XXII. Facsimile from "Loues Labor Lost," First
edition 1598]
"Quis quis, thou consonant?
The last of five vowels if you repeat them, the
fifth if I.
I will repeat them a, e, I.
The Sheepe, the other two concludes it o, u."
Now here we are told that a, e, I, o, u is the answer to Quis quis, and
we must note that the I is a capital letter. Therefore a is followed by
e, but I being a capital letter does not follow e but starts afresh, and
we must read I followed by o, and o followed by u.
[Illustration: Plate XXIII. Facsimile of a Contemporary Copy of a Letter
of Francis Bacon.]
Is it possible that these vowels will give us the Christian name of
Bacon? Can it be that we are told on what page to look? The answer to
both these questions is the affirmative "Yes."
The great Folio of Shakespeare was published in 1623, and in the
following year, 1624, there was brought out a great Cryptographic book
by the "Man in the Moon." We shall speak about this work presently;
suffice for the moment to say that this book was issued as the key to
the Shakespeare Folio of 1623. If we turn to page 254 in the
Cryptographic book we shall find Chapter XIV. "De Transpositione
Obliqua, per dispositionem Alphabeti."
[Illustration: Plate XXIV. FACSIMILES FROM PAGE 255 OF "GU TAVI SELENI
CRYPTOMENYTICES," PUBLISHED 1624. [The Square Table is much enlarged].]
This chapter describes how, by means of square tables, one letter
followed by another letter will give the cypher letter. On the present
page appears the square, which is shown in Plate 24, which enables us to
answer the question "Quis quis."
By means of this square we perceive that "a" followed by "e" gives us
the letter F, that "I" followed by "o" gives us the letter R, and that
"o" followed by "u" gives us the letter A. The answer therefore to Quis
quis (which Bacon do you mean) is Fra [Bacon]. _See_ Plate 23, Page 107.
[Illustration: Plate XXV. FACSIMILE FROM PAGE 2O2b OF "TRAICTE DES
CHIFFRES OU SECRETES MANIERES D'ESCRIRE," PAR VlGENÈRE.]
But what should induce us to look at this particular chapter on page 254
of the Cryptographic book for the solution? The answer is clearly given
in the wonderful page 136 of the 1623 Folio of Shakespeare.
As has been pointed out the numerical value of the long word
Honorificabilitudinitatibus is 287, and the numerical value of Bacon is
33. We have found Bacon from Ba with a horn, and we require the
remainder of his name, accordingly deduct 33 from 287, and we get the
answer 254 which is the number of the required page in the Cryptographic
book of 1624. But the wise Author knew that someone would say "How does
this apply to the 1598 Quarto published twenty-six years before the
great Cryptographic book appeared?" On Plate 24, Page 108, taken from
page 255 of the Cryptographic book of 1624, it is shewn that the
following lines are attached to the square
"Quarta Tabula, ex Vigenerio, pag. 202.b, etc."
=Square table taken from Vigenerio, page 202.b.
This reference is to the work entitled, "Traicte des chiffres ou
secretes manieres d'escrire": par Blaise de Vigenere, which was
published in Paris in 1586. Spedding states (Vol. I. of "Bacon's Letters
and Life," p. 6-8) that Francis Bacon went in 1576 to France, with Sir
Amias Paulet, the English Ambassador. Bacon remained in France until
1578-9, and when in 1623 he published his "De Augmentis
Scientiarum"--(the Advancement of Learning) he tells us that while in
Paris he invented his own method of secret writing. _See_ Spedding's
"Works of Bacon," Vol. 4, p. 445.
The system which Bacon then invented is now known as the Biliteral
Cypher, and it is in fact practically the same as that which is
universally employed in Telegraphy under the name of the Morse Code.
A copy of Vigenere's book will be found in the present writer's Baconian
library, for he knew by the ornaments and by the other marks that Bacon
must have had a hand in its production.
Anyone, therefore, reading the Quarto edition of "Loues Labor's lost,"
1598, and putting _two_ and _two_ together will find on p. 202.b of
Vigenere's book, the Table, of which a facsimile is here given, Plate
25, Page 109. This square is even more clear than the square table in
the great Cryptographic book.
Thus, upon the same page 136 in the Folio, or on F. 4 in the Quarto, in
addition to Honorificabilitudinitatibus containing the revealing
sentence "Hi ludi F Baconis nati tuiti orbi"--"These plays F Bacon's
offspring are entrusted to the world," we see that we are able to
discover on line 33 the name of Bacon, and by means of the lines which
follow that it is Fra. Bacon who is referred to.
Before parting with this subject we will give one or two examples to
indicate how often the number 33 is employed to indicate Bacon.
We have just shewn that on page 136 of the Folio we obtain Bacon's name
on line 33. On page 41 we refer to Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his
Humour." In an extremely rare early Quarto [_circa_ 1600] of that play
some unknown hand has numbered the pages referring to Sogliardo
(Shakespeare) and Puntarvolo (Bacon) 32 and 32 repeated. Incorrect
pagination is a common method used in "revealing" books to call
attention to some statements, and anyone can perceive that the second 32
is really 33 and as usual reveals something about Bacon.
On page 61 we point out that on page 33 of the little book called "The
Great Assizes holden in Parnassus" Apollo speaks. As the King speaks in
a Law Court only through the mouth of his High Chancellor so Apollo
speaks in the supposititious law action through the mouth of his
Chancellor of Parnassus, who is Lord Verulam, i.e. Bacon. Thus again
Bacon is found on Page 33. The writer could give very numerous examples,
but these three which occur incidentally will give some idea how
frequently the number 33 is used to indicate Bacon.[8]
The whole page 136 of the Folio is cryptographic, but we will not now
proceed to consider any other matters contained upon it, but pass on to
discuss the great Cryptographic book which was issued under Bacon's
instructions in the year following the publication of the great Folio of
Shakespeare. Before, however, speaking of the book, we must refer to the
enormous pains always taken to provide traps for the uninitiated.
If you go to Lunaeburg, where the Cryptographic book was published, you
will be referred to the Library at Wolfenbuttel and to a series of
letters to be found there which contain instructions to the engraver
which seem to prove that this book has no possible reference to
Shakespeare. We say, seem to prove, for the writer possesses accurate
photographs of all these letters and they really prove exactly the
reverse, for they are, to those capable of understanding them, cunningly
devised false clues, quite clear and plain. That these letters are
snares for the uninitiated, the writer, who possesses a "Baconian"
library, could easily prove to any competent scholar.
[Illustration: 106 _Surnames_. Plate XXVI.]
Before referring to the wonderful title page of the Cryptographic book
which reveals the Bacon-Shakespeare story, it is necessary to direct the
reader's attention to Camden's "Remains," published 1616. We may
conclude that Bacon had a hand in the production of this book, since
Spedding's "Bacon's Works," Vol. 6, p. 351, and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 211,
informs us that Bacon assisted Camden with his "Annales."
In Camden's "Remains," 1616, the Chapter on Surnames, p. 106, commences
with an ornamental headline like the head of Chapter 10, p. 84, but
printed "_upside down_." A facsimile of the heading in Camden's book is
shewn in Plate 26, page 113.
This trick of the upside down printing of ornaments and even of
engravings is continually resorted to when some revelation concerning
Bacon's works is given. Therefore in Camden's "Remains" of 1616 in the
Chapter on Surnames, because the head ornament is printed upside down,
we may be perfectly certain that we shall find some revelation
concerning Bacon and Shakespeare.
Accordingly on p. 121 we find as the name of a village "Bacon Creping."
There never was a village called "Bacon Creping." And on page 128 we
read "such names as Shakespeare, Shotbolt, Wagstaffe." In referring to
the great Cryptographic book, we shall realise the importance of this
conjunction of names.
On Plate 27, Page 115, we give a reduced facsimile of the title page,
which as the reader will see, states in Latin that the work is by
Gustavus Selenus, and contains systems of Cryptographic writing, also
methods of the shorthand of Trithemius. The Imprint at the end, under a
very handsome example of the double A ornament which in various forms is
used generally in books of Baconian learning, states that it was
published and printed at Lunaeburg in 1624. Gustavus Selenus we are told
in the dedicatory poems prefixed to the work is "Homo lunae" [the man in
the Moon].
[Illustration: Plate XXVII. Facsimile Title Page.]
[Illustration: Plate XXVIII. Left-Handed Portion, much enlarged, of
Plate XXVIII.]
[Illustration: 202.--Royal Eagle. Facsimile from p. 93 of Boutell's
English Heraldry, 1899. If this is compared with the bird in
Plate XXVIII. it will at once be seen that the later is an Eagle
in full flight.]
[Illustration: Plate XXIX. Right-Hand Portion, much enlarged, of
Plate XXVII.]
[Illustration: Plate XXX. Top Portion of Plate XXVII., much enlarged.]
[Illustration: Plate XXXI. Bottom Portion of Plate XXVII., much
enlarged.]
Look first at the whole title page; on the top is a tempest with flaming
beacons, on the left (of the reader) is a gentleman giving something to
a spearman, and there are also other figures; on the right is a man on
horseback, and at the bottom in a square is a much dressed up man taking
the "Cap of Maintenance" from a man writing a book.
Examine first the left-hand picture shewn enlarged, Plate 28, Page 118.
You see a man, evidently Bacon, giving his writing to a Spearman who is
dressed in actor's boots (see Stothard's painting of Falstaff in the
"Merry Wives of Windsor" wearing similar actor's boots, Plate 32, Page
127). Note that the Spearman has a sprig of bay in the hat which he
holds in his hand. This man is a Shake-Spear, nay he really is a correct
portrait of the Stratford householder, which you will readily perceive
if you turn to Dugdale's engraving of the Shakespeare bust, Plate 5,
Page 14. In the middle distance the man still holding a spear, still
being a Shake-Speare, walks with a staff, he is therefore a Wagstaffe.
On his back are books--the books of the plays. In the sky is seen an
arrow, no, it is not sufficiently long for an arrow, it is a Shotbolt
(Shakespeare, Wagstaffe, Shotbolt, of Camden's "Remains"). This Shotbolt
is near to a bird which seems about to give to it the scroll it carries
in its beak. But is it a real bird? No, it has no real claws, its feet
are Jove's lightnings, verily, "it is the Eagle of great verse."
Next, look on Plate 29, Page 119, which is the picture on the right of
the title page. Here you see that the same Shake-spear whom we saw in
the left-hand picture is now riding on a courser. That he is the same
man is shewn by the sprig of bay in his hat, but he is no longer a
Shake-spear, he is a Shake-_spur_. Note how much the artist has
emphasised the drawing of the spur. It is made the one prominent thing
in the whole picture. We refer our reader to "The Returne from
Pernassus" (see pp. 47-48) where he will read,
"England affordes those glorious vagabonds
That carried earst their fardels on their backes
Coursers to ride on through the gazing streetes."
Now glance at the top picture on the title page (see Plate 27, Page
115,) which is enlarged in Plate 30, Page 122. Note that the picture is
enclosed in the magic circle of the imagination, surrounded by the masks
of Tragedy, Comedy, and Farce (in the same way as Stothard's picture of
the "Merry Wives of Windsor," Plate 32, Page 127).
[Illustration: Plate XXXII. Scene from "The Merry Wives of Windsor,"
painted by Thomas Stothard.]
The engraving represents a tempest with beacon lights; No; it represents
"The Tempest" of Shakespeare and tells you that the play is filled with
Bacon lights. (In the sixteenth century Beacon was pronounced Bacon.
"Bacon great Beacon of the State.")
We have already pointed out that "The Tempest," as Emile Montegut shewed
in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_ in 1865, is a mass of Bacon's revelations
concerning himself.
At the bottom (see Plate 27, Page 115, and Plate 31, Page 123), within
the "four square corners of fact," surrounded with disguised masks of
Tragedy, Comedy, and Farce, is shewn the same man who gave the scroll
to the Spearman, see Plate 29, Page 118 (note the pattern of his
sleeves). He is now engaged in writing his book, while an Actor, very
much overdressed and wearing a mask something like the accepted mask of
Shakespeare, is lifting from the real writer's head a cap known in
Heraldry as the "Cap of Maintenance." Again we refer to our quotation
on page 48.
"Those glorious vagabonds....
Sooping it in their glaring Satten sutes."
Is not this masquerading fellow an actor "Sooping it in his glaring
Satten sute"? The figure which we say represents Bacon, see Plate 28,
wears his clothes as a gentleman. Nobody could for a moment imagine that
the masked creature in Plate 31 was properly wearing his own clothes.
No, he is "sooping it in his glaring Satten sute."
The whole title page clearly shows that it is drawn to give a
revelation about Shakespeare, who might just as well have borne the
name of Shotbolt or of Wagstaffe or of Shakespur, see "The Tempest,"
Act v., Scene I.
"The strong bass'd promontorie
Have I made shake, and by the spurs pluckt up."
There are also revealing title pages in other books, shewing a spear and
an actor wearing a single spur only (see Plate 35, Page 153).
It will be of interest to shew another specially revealing title page,
which for upwards of a hundred years remained unaltered as the title
page to Vol. I. of Bacon's collected works, printed abroad in Latin. A
different engraving, representing the same scene was also published in
France. These engravings, however, were never reproduced or used in
England, because the time for revelation had not yet come. Bacon is
shewn seated (see Plate 33, Page 131). Compare his portrait with the
engraving of the gentleman giving his scroll to the Spearman in the
Gustavus Silenus frontispiece, Plate 27, Page 115, and Plate 28, Page
118. Bacon is pointing with his right hand in full light to his open
book, while his left hand in deepest shadow is putting forward a figure
holding in both its hands a closed and clasped book, which by the cross
lines on its side (the accepted symbol of a mirror) shows that it
represents the mirror up to Nature, i.e., Shakespeare's plays.
Specially note that Bacon puts forward with his LEFT hand the figure
holding the book which is the mirror up to Nature. In the former part of
this treatise the writer has proved that the figure that forms the
frontispiece of the great folio of Shakespeare's plays, which is known
as the Droeshout portrait of Wm. Shakespeare, is really composed of two
LEFT arms and a mask. The reader will now be able to fully realise the
revelation contained in Droeshout's masked figure with its two left arms
when he examines it with the title page shown, Plate 33, Page 131.
[Illustration: Plate XXXIII. Facsimile Title Page.]
Bacon is putting forward what we described as a "figure"; it is a "man"
with false breasts to represent a woman (women were not permitted to act
in Bacon's time), and the man is clothed in a goat skin. Tragedos was
the Greek word for a goat skin, and Tragedies were so called because the
actors were dressed in goat skins. This figure therefore represents the
Tragic Muse. Here in the book called _De Augmentis Scientiarum_, which
formed one part of the Great Instauration, is placed an engraving to
show that another part of the Great Instauration known as Shakespeare's
Plays was issued LEFT-HANDEDLY, that is, was issued under the name of a
mean actor, the actor Shakespeare. This title page is very revealing,
and should be taken in conjunction with the title page of the
Cryptographic book which under the name of Gustavus Silenus, "_Homo
lunae_," the "Man in the Moon," was published in 1624 in order to form a
key to certain cyphers in the 1623 Folio of Shakespeare's Plays.
These two title pages were prepared with consummate skill in order to
reveal to the world, when the time was ripe, that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
CHAPTER XII.
The "Householder of Stratford."
We have in Chapter II. printed Mr. George Hookham's list of the very
few incidents recorded concerning Shakespeare's life, but, as we have
already shewn, a great deal of the "authentic history" of the Stratford
clown has in fact been revealed to us. Ben Jonson calls the Stratford
man who had purchased a coat of arms "Sogliardo" (scum of the earth),
says he was brother to Sordido, the miser (Shakspeare was a miser),
describes him as an essential clown (that means that he was a rustic
totally unable to read and write), shews that he speaks "i' th'
straungest language," and calls Heralds "Harrots," and finally sums him
up definitely as a "Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything
indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie." In order that there should be no
mistake as to the man who is referred to, "Sogliardo's" motto is stated
to be "Not without Mustard," Shakespeare's motto being "Not without
right" (Non sanz droict). Ben Jonson's account of the real Stratford
man is confirmed by Shakespeare's play of "As You Like it," where
Touchstone, the courtier playing clown, says, "It is meat and drinke to
me to see a clowne" (meaning an essential clown, an uneducated rustic);
yet he salutes him as "gentle," shewing that the mean fellow possesses
a coat of arms.
The Clown is born in the Forest of Ardennes (Shakespeare's mother's name
was Arden). He is rich, but only so-so rich, that is rich for a clowne
(New Place cost only £60). He says he is wise, and Touchstone mocks him
with Bacon's words, "The Foole doth think he is wise, but the wise man
knows himself to be a Fool." He says he has "a prettie wit" (pretty wit
is the regular orthodox phrase as applied to Shakespeare). But when
asked whether he is learned, he distinctly replies "No," which means
that he says that he cannot read one line of print. A man who could read
one line of print was at that period in the eye of the law "learned,"
and could not be hanged when convicted for the first time except for
murder. If any persons be found to dispute the fact that the reply "No"
to the question "Art thou learned?" meant in Queen Elizabeth's day "I
cannot read one line of print" such persons must be totally unacquainted
with Law literature.[9]
The play "As You Like it" confirms Ben Jonson's characterisation of
Shakespeare being "an essential clowne." Next let us turn to Ratsei's
_Ghost_ (see p. 49), which, as Mr. Sidney Lee, in his "Life of William
Shakespeare," p. 159, 1898 ed., confesses, refers to Shakespeare. Ratsei
advises the young actor to copy Shakespeare, "and to feed upon all men,
to let none feede upon thee" (meaning Shakespeare was a cruel usurer).
As we shew, page 53, Grant White says: "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."
Ratsei continues, "Let thy hand be a stranger to thy pocket" [like the
miser, Shakespeare], "thy hart slow to perform thy tongues promise"
[like the lying rascal Shakespeare], "and when thou feelest thy purse
well lined, buy thee a place of lordship in the country" [as Shakespeare
had bought New Place, Stratford] "that, growing weary of playing, thy
mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation" [as Shakespeare
obtained a coat of arms], "then thou needest care for no man, nor not
for them that before made thee prowd with speaking their words upon the
stage." This manifestly refers to two things, one that Shakespeare when
he bought New Place, quitted London and ceased to act; the other that he
continually tried to exact more and more "blackmail" from those to whom
he had sold his name.
Now we begin at last to understand what we are told by Rowe, in his
"Life of Shakespeare," published in 1709, that is, 93 years after
Shakespeare's death in 1616, when all traces of the actual man had been
of set purpose obliterated, because the time for revealing the real
authorship of the plays had not yet come. Rowe, page x., tells us:
"There is one Instance so singular in the Magnificence of this Patron of
Shakespeare's, that if I had not been assur'd that the Story was handed
down by Sir William D'Avenant, who was probably very well acquainted
with his Affairs, I should not have ventured to have inserted, that my
Lord Southampton, at one time, gave him a thousand Pounds, to enable him
to go through with a Purchase which he heard he had a mind to."
This story has been hopelessly misunderstood, because people did not
know that a large sum had to be paid to Shakespeare to obtain his
consent to allow his name to be put to the plays, and that New Place had
to be purchased for him, 1597 (the title deeds were not given to him for
five or six years later), and that he had also to be sent away from
London before "W Shakespeare's" name was attached to any play, the first
play bearing that name being, as we have already pointed out, page 89,
"Loues Labor's lost," with its very numerous revelations of authorship.
Then, almost immediately, the world is informed that eleven other plays
had been written by the same author, the list including the play of
"Richard II."
The story of the production of the play of "Richard II." is very curious
and extremely instructive. It was originally acted with the Parliament
scene, where Richard II. is made to surrender, commencing in the Folio
of 1623 with the words--
"Fetch hither Richard, that in common view he may surrender,"
continuing with a description of his deposition extending over 167 lines
to the words--
"That rise thus nimbly by a true king's fall."
This account of the deposition of a king reached Queen Elizabeth's ears;
she was furiously angry and she exclaimed: "Seest thou not that I am
Richard II."
A copy of the play without any author's name was printed in 1597,
omitting the story of the deposition of Richard II.; this was followed
by a second and probably a third reprint in 1597, with no important
alterations, but still without any author's name. Then, after the actor
had been sent away to Stratford, Shakespeare's name was put upon a
fourth reprint, dated 1598.
The story of Richard II.'s deposition was not printed in the play till
1608, five years after the death of Queen Elizabeth.[10]
This history of the trouble arising out of the production of the play of
"Richard II." explains why a name had to be found to be attached to the
plays. Who would take the risk? An actor was never "hanged," he was
often whipped, occasionally one lost his ears, but an actor of repute
would probably have refused even a large bribe. There was, however, a
grasping money-lending man, of little or no repute, that bore a name
called Shaxpur, which might be twisted into Bacon's pen-name
Shake-Speare, and that man was secured, but as long as he lived he was
continually asking for more and more money. The grant of a coat of arms
was probably part of the original bargain. At one time it seems to have
been thought easier to grant arms to his father. This, however, was
found impossible. But when in 1597 Bacon's friend Essex was Earl Marshal
and chief of the Heralds' College, and Bacon's servant Camden (whom
Bacon had assisted to prepare the "Annales"--see Spedding's "Bacon's
Works," Vol. 6, p. 351, and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 211), was installed as
Clarenceux, King-of-Arms, the grant of arms to Shakespeare was
recognised, 1599. Shakespeare must have been provisionally secured soon
after 1593, when the "Venus and Adonis" was signed with his name,
because in the next year, 1594, "The Taming of a Shrew" was printed, in
which the opening scene shews a drunken "Warwickshire" rustic
[Shakspeare was a drunken Warwickshire rustic], who is dressed up as
"My lord," for whom the play had been prepared. (In the writer's
possession there is a very curious and absolutely unique masonic
painting revealing "on the square" that the drunken tinker is
Shakspeare and the Hostess, Bacon.)
The early date at which Shakspeare had been secured explains how in
1596 an application for a grant of arms seems to have been made (we
say seems) for the date may possibly be a fraud like the rest of the
lying document.
We have referred to Shakspeare as a drunken Warwickshire rustic who
lived in the mean and dirty town of Stratford-on-Avon. There is a
tradition that Shakespeare as a very young man was one of the
Stratfordians selected to drink against "the Bidford topers," and with
his defeated friends lay all night senseless under a crab tree, that was
long known as Shakespeare's crab tree.
Shakespeare's description of the Stratford man as the drunken tinker in
"The Taming of a Shrew" shews that the actor maintained his "drunken"
character. This habit seems to have remained with him till the close of
his life, for Halliwell-Phillipps says: "It is recorded that the party
was a jovial one, and according to a somewhat late but apparently
reliable tradition when the great dramatist [Shakespeare of Stratford]
was returning to New Place in the evening, he had taken more wine than
was conducive to pedestrian accuracy. Shortly or immediately afterwards
he was seized by the lamentable fever which terminated fatally on
Friday, April 23rd."
The story of his having to leave Stratford because he got into very
bad company and became one of a gang of deer-stealers, has also very
early support.
We have already proved that Shakspeare could neither read nor write. We
must also bear in mind that the Stratford man never had any reputation
as an actor.
Rowe, p. vi., thus writes: "His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in
those Times, amongst those of the other Players, before some old
Plays,[11] but without any particular Account of what sort of Parts he
us'd to play; and tho' I have inquir'd I could never meet with any
further Account of him this way than that the top of his Performance was
the Ghost in his own Hamlet." The humblest scene-shifter could play
this character, as we shall shew later. What about being manager of a
Theatre? Shakspeare never was manager of a Theatre. What about being
master of a Shakespeare company of actors? There never existed a
Shakespeare company of actors. What about ownership of a Theatre? Dr.
Wallace, says in the _Times_ of Oct. 2nd 1909, that at the time of his
death Shakespeare owned one fourteenth of the Globe Theatre, and
one-seventh of the Blackfriars Theatre. The profit of each of these was
probably exceedingly small. The pleadings, put forth the present value
at £300 each, but as a broad rule, pleadings always used to set forth at
least ten times the actual facts. In the first case which the writer
remembers witnessing in Court, the pleadings were 100 oxen, 100 cows,
100 calves, 100 sheep, and 100 pigs, the real matter in dispute being
one cow and perhaps one calf. If we assume, therefore, that the total
capital value of the holding of W. Shakespeare in both theatres taken
together amounted to £60 in all, we shall probably, even then,
considerably over-estimate their real worth. Now having disposed of the
notion that Shakespeare was ever an important actor, was ever a manager
of a Theatre, was ever the master of a company of actors, or was ever
the owner of any Theatre, let us consider what Rowe means by the
statement that the top of his performance was the Ghost in "Hamlet."
This grotesque and absurd fable has for two hundred years been accepted
as an almost indisputable historical fact. Men of great intelligence in
other matters seem when the life of Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon is
concerned, quite prepared to refuse to exercise either judgment or
common sense, and to swallow without question any amount of preposterous
nonsense, even such as is contained in the above statement. The part of
the Ghost in the play of "Hamlet" is one of the smallest and most
insignificant possible, and can be easily played by the most ignorant
and most inexperienced of actors. All that is required is a suit of
armour with somebody inside it, to walk with his face concealed,
silently and slowly a few times across the stage. Then on his final
appearance he should say a few sentences (84 lines in the Folio, 1623),
but these can be and occasionally are spoken by some invisible speaker
in the same manner as the word "_Swear_" which is always growled out by
someone concealed beneath the stage. No one knows, and no one cares, for
no one sees who plays the part, which requires absolutely no histrionic
ability. Sir Henry Irving, usually, I believe, put two men in armour
upon the stage, in order to make the movements of the Ghost more
mysterious. What then can be the meaning of the statement that the
highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, attained was to play the
part of the Ghost in "Hamlet"? The rumour is so positive and so
persistent that it cannot be disregarded or supposed to be merely a
foolish jest or a senselessly false statement put forward for the
purpose of deceiving the public. We are compelled, therefore, to
conclude that there must be behind this fable some real meaning and some
definite purpose, and we ask ourselves; What is the purpose of this
puzzle? What can be its real meaning and intention? As usual, the Bacon
key at once solves the riddle. The moment we realise that BACON is
HAMLET, we perceive that the purpose of the rumour is to reveal to us
the fact that the highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, of
Stratford-on-Avon, attained was to play the part of Ghost to Bacon, that
is to act as his "PSEUDONYM," or in other words, the object of the story
is to reveal to us the fact that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
Chapter XIII.
Conclusion, with further evidences from title pages.
Bacon had published eleven plays anonymously, when it became
imperatively necessary for him to find some man who could be purchased
to run the risk, which was by no means inconsiderable, of being supposed
to be the author of these plays which included "Richard II."; the
historical play which so excited the ire of Queen Elizabeth. Bacon, as
we have already pointed out, succeeded in discovering a man who had
little, if any, repute as an actor, but who bore a name which was called
Shaxpur or Shackspere, which could be twisted into something that might
be supposed to be the original of Bacon's pen name of Shake-Speare.
When in 1597 through the medium of powerful friends, by means of the
bribe of a large sum of money, the gift of New Place, and the promise of
a coat of arms, this man had been secured, he was at once sent away from
London to the then remote village of Stratford-on-Avon, where scarcely a
score of people could read, and none were likely to connect the name of
their countryman, who they knew could neither read nor write and whom
they called Shak or Shackspur, with "William Shakespeare" the author of
plays the very names of which were absolutely unknown to any of them.
Bacon, when Shackspur had been finally secured in 1597, brought out in
the following year 1598 "Loues Labor's lost" with the imprint "newly
corrected and augmented by W. Shakespere," and immediately he also
brought out under the name of Francis Meres "Wits Treasury," containing
the statement that eleven other plays, including "Richard II.," were
also by this same Shakespeare who had written the poems of "Venus and
Adonis" and "Lucrece."
Francis Meres says: "As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in
Pythagoras so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and
honytongued Shakespeare, witnes his 'Venus and Adonis,' his 'Lucrece,'
his sugred Sonnets among his private friends."
The Sonnets were not printed, so far as is known, before 1609, and they
as has been shown in Chapter 8 repeat the story of Bacon's authorship of
the plays.
Bacon in 1598, as we have stated in previous pages, fully intended that
at some future period posterity should do him justice.
Among his last recorded words are those in which he commends his name
and fame to posterity, "after many years had past." Accordingly we find,
as we should expect to find, that when he put Shakespeare's name to
"Loues Labor's lost" (the first play to bear that name) Bacon took
especial pains to secure that at some future date he should be
recognised as the real author. Does he not clearly reveal this to us by
the wonderful words with which the play of "Loues Labor's lost" opens?
"Let Fame, that all hunt after in their lyues,
Liue registred vpon our brazen Tombes,
And then grace vs, in the disgrace of death:
When spight of cormorant deuouring Time,
Thendeuour of this present breath may buy:
That honour which shall bate his sythes keene edge,
And make us heires of all eternitie."
Bacon intended that "Spight of cormorant devouring Time" ... honour....
should make [him] heir of all eternitie.
Compare the whole of this grand opening passage of "Loues Labor's lost"
with the lines ascribed to Milton in the 1632 edition of Shakespeare's
plays when Bacon was [supposed to be] dead. No epitaph appeared in the
1623 edition, but in the 1632 edition appeared the following:
"An Epitaph on the admirable Dramaticke Poet,
W. Shakespeare.
What neede my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an Age in piled stones
Or that his hallow'd Reliques should be hid
Under a starrey-pointed Pyramid?
Deare sonne of Memory, great Heire of Fame,
What needst thou such dull witnesse of thy Name?
Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thy selfe a lasting Monument:
For whil'st, to th' shame of slow-endevouring Art
Thy easie numbers flow, and that each part,
Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued Booke,
Those Delphicke Lines with deepe impression tooke
Then thou our fancy of her selfe bereaving,
Dost make us Marble with too much conceiving,
And so Sepulcher'd, in such pompe dost lie
That Kings for such a Tombe would wish to die."
We have pointed out in Chapter 10 and in Chapter 11 how clearly in
"Loues Labour's lost," on page 136 of the folio of 1623, Bacon reveals
the fact that he is the Author of the Plays, and we have shewn how the
title pages of certain books support this revelation, beginning with the
title page of the first folio of 1623 with its striking revelation given
to us in the supposititious portrait which really consists of "a mask
supported on two left arms."
We may, however, perhaps here mention that instructions are specially
given to all who can understand, in the little book which is said to be
a continuation of Bacon's "Nova Atlantis," and to be by R. H., Esquire,
[whom no one has hitherto succeeded in identifying].
[Illustration: Plate XXXIV Facsimile Title Page.]
On Plate 34, Page 149, we give a facsimile of its Title Page which
describes the book and states that it was printed in 1660.
In this book a number of very extraordinary inventions are mentioned
such as submarine boats to blow up ships and harbours, and telegraphy by
means of magnetic needles, but the portion to which we now wish to
allude is that which refers to a "solid kind of Heraldry." This will be
found on pp. 23-4, and reads as follows:
"We have a solid kind of Heraldry, not made specious with ostentative
pydecoats and titular Atcheivements, which in Europe puzzel the tongue
as well as memory to blazon, and any Fool may buy and wear for his
money. Here in each province is a Register to record the memorable Acts,
extraordinary qualities and worthy endowments of mind of the most
eminent Patricians. Where for the Escutcheon of Pretence each noble
person bears the Hieroglyphic of that vertue he is famous for. E.G. If
eminent for Courage, the Lion; If for Innocence, the White Lamb; If for
Chastity, a Turtle; If for Charity, the Sun in his full glory; If for
Temperance, a slender Virgin, girt, having a bridle in her mouth; If for
Justice, she holds a Sword in the right, and a Scales in the left hand;
If for Prudence, she holds a Lamp; If for meek Simplicity, a Dove in her
right hand; If for a discerning Judgment, an Eagle; If for Humility, she
is in Sable, the head inclining and the knees bowing; If for Innocence,
she holds a Lilie; If for Glory or Victory, a Garland of Baies; If for
Wisdom, she holds a Salt; If he excels in Physic, an Urinal; If in
Music, a Lute; If in Poetry, a Scrowle; If in Geometry, an Astrolabe; If
in Arithmetic, a Table of Cyphers; If in Grammar, an Alphabetical Table;
If in Mathematics, a Book; If in Dialectica she holds a Serpent in
either hand; and so of the rest; the Pretence being ever paralel to his
particular Excellency. And this is sent him cut in brass, and in
colours, as he best phansies for the Field; only the Hieroglyphic is
alwayes proper."
These references to a solid kind of Heraldry refer to the title pages
and frontispieces of books which may be characterised broadly as
Baconian books, and examples of every one of them can be found in books
extending from the Elizabethan period almost up to the present date.
We place Plate 35, Page 153, before the reader, which is a photo
enlargement of the title page of Bacon's "History of Henry VII.,"
printed in Holland, 1642, the first Latin edition (in 12mo).
Here is seen the Virgin holding the Salt, shewing the Wisdom of the
Author. In her right hand, which holds the Salt, she holds also two
other objects which seem difficult to describe. They represent "a bridle
without a bit," in order to tell us the purpose of the Plate is to
unmuzzle Bacon, and to reveal to us his authorship of the plays known as
Shakespeare's.
But in order to prove that the objects represent a bridle without a bit,
we must refer to two emblem books of very different dates and
authorship.
First we refer our readers to Plate 36, Page 156, which is a photo
enlargement of the figure of Nemesis in the first (February 1531)
edition of Alciati's Emblems. The picture shews us a hideous figure
holding in her left hand a bridle with a tremendous bit to destroy false
reputations, _improba verba_.
We next put before our readers the photo reproduction of the figure of
Nemesis, which will be found on page 484, of Baudoin's Emblems, 1638.
Baudoin had previously brought out in French a translation of Bacon's
"Essays," which was published at Paris in 1621. In the preface to his
book of Emblems he tells us that he was induced to undertake the task by
BACON (printed in capital letters), and by Alciat (printed in ordinary
type). In this book of Emblems, Baudoin, on page 484, placed his figure
of Nemesis opposite to Bacon's name. If the reader carefully examines
Plate 37 he will perceive that it is no longer a grinning hideous
figure, but is a figure of FAME, and carries a bridle in which there is
found to be no sign of any kind of bit, because the purpose of the
Emblem is to shew that Nemesis will unmuzzle and glorify Bacon.
In order to make the meaning of Baudoin's Emblem still more emphatically
explicit a special Rosicrucian Edition of the same date, 1638, was
printed, in which Baudoin's Nemesis is printed "upside down"; we do not
mean bound upside down, but printed upside down, for there is the
printing of the previous page at the back of the engraving. We have
already alluded on page 113 to the frequent practice of the upside down
printing of ornaments and engravings when a revelation concerning
Bacon's connection with Shakespeare is afforded to us.
[Illustration: Plate XXXV. Facsimile Title Page]
[Illustration: Plate XXXVI. "Nemesis," from Alcaiti's Emblems, 1531]
[Illustration: Plate XXXVII. Page 484 from Baudoin's Emblems 1638]
The writer possesses an ordinary copy of Baudoin's Emblems, 1638, and
also a copy of the edition with the Nemesis printed upside down which
appears opposite Bacon's name. The copy so specially printed is bound
with Rosicrucian emblems outside.
The reader, by comparing Baudoin's Nemesis, Plate 37, and the Title Page
of Henry VII., Plate 35, will at once perceive that the objects in the
right hand of the Virgin holding the salt box are correctly described as
representing a "bridle without a bit," and he will know that a
revelation concerning Bacon and Shakespeare is going to be given to him.
Now we will tell him the whole story. On the right of the picture, Plate
35 (the reader's left) we see a knight in full armour, and also a
philosopher who is, as the roses on his shoes tell us, a Rosicrucian
philosopher. On the left on a lower level is the same philosopher,
evidently Bacon, but without the roses on his shoes. He is holding the
shaft of a spear with which he seems to stop the wheel. By his side
stands what appears to be a Knight or Esquire, but the man's sword is
girt on the wrong side, he wears a lace collar and lace trimming to his
breeches, and he wears actor's boots (see Plate 28, Page 118, and Plate
132, Page 127).
We are therefore forced to conclude that he is an Actor. And, lo, he
wears but ONE SPUR. He is therefore a Shake-spur Actor (on Plate 27,
Page 115, is shewn a Shake-spur on horseback). This same Actor is also
shaking the spear which is held by the philosopher. He is therefore also
a Shake-spear Actor. And now we can read the symbols on the wheel which
is over his head: the "mirror up to nature," "the rod for the back of
fools," the "basin to hold your guilty blood" ("Titus Andronicus," v. 2),
and "the fool's bawble." On the other side of the spear: the spade the
symbol of the workman, the cap the symbol of the gentleman, the crown
the symbol of the peer, the royal crown, and lastly the Imperial crown.
Bacon says Henry VII. wore an Imperial crown. Quite easily now we can
read the whole story.
The "History of Henry VII.," though in this picture displayed on a stage
curtain, is set forth by Bacon in prose while the rest of the Histories
of England are given to the world by Bacon by means of his pseudonym the
Shake-spear Actor at the Globe to which that figure is pointing.
Plain as the plate appears to the instructed eye it seems hitherto to
have failed to reveal to the _un_instructed its clear meaning that
BACON IS SHAKE-SPEARE.
CHAPTER XIV.
Postscriptum.
Most fortunately before going to press we were able to see at the Record
Office, Chancery Lane, London, the revealing documents recently
discovered by Dr. Wallace and described by him in an article published
in the March number of _Harper's Monthly Magazine_, under the title of
"New Shakespeare Discoveries." The documents found by Dr. Wallace are
extremely valuable and important. They tell us a few real facts about
the Householder of Stratford-upon-Avon, and they effectually once and
for all dispose of the idea that the Stratford man was the Poet and
Dramatist,--the greatest genius of all the ages.
In the first place they prove beyond the possibility of cavil or question
that "Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," was totally
unable to write even so much as any portion of his own name. It is true
that the Answers to the Interrogatories which are given by "William
Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," are marked at the
bottom "Wilm Shaxpr," but this is written by the lawyer or law clerk, in
fact "dashed in" by the ready pen of an extremely rapid writer. A full
size photographic facsimile of this "so-called" signature, with a
portion of the document above it, is given in Plate 38, Page 164, and on
the opposite page, in Plate 39, is shewn also in full size facsimile the
real signature of Daniell Nicholas with a portion of the document, which
he signed, above it.
In order that the reader may be able more easily to read the law writing
we give on page 167, in modern type, the portion of the document
photographed above the name Wilm Shaxp'r, and on the same page a modern
type transcript of the document above the signature of Daniell Nicholas.
Any expert in handwriting will at once perceive that "Wilm Shaxp'r" is
written by the same hand that wrote the lower portion of Shakespeare's
Answers to Interrogatories, and by the same hand that wrote the other
set of Answers to Interrogatories which are signed very neatly by
"Daniell Nicholas."
The words "Daughter Marye" occur in the portion photographed of both
documents, and are evidently written by the same law writer, and can be
seen in Plate 38, Page 164, just above the "Wilm Shaxp'r," and in Plate
39, Page 165, upon the fifth line from the top. The name of
"Shakespeare" also occurs several times in the "Answers to
Interrogatories." One instance occurs in Plate 39, Page 165, eight lines
above the name of Daniell Nicholas, and if the reader compares it with
the "Wilm Shaxp'r" on Plate 38, Page 164, it will be at once seen that
both writings are by the same hand.
[Illustration: Plate XXXVIII Full Size Facsimile of part of
"Shakespeare's Answers to the Interrogatories," Discovered by Dr.
Wallace in the British Records Office.]
[Illustration: Plate XXXIX. Full Size Facsimile of part of Daniell
Nicholas' "Answers to the Interrogatories," Discovered by Dr. Wallace in
British Record Office.]
portion
What c'tayne he
. . . . . .
. plt twoe hundered pounds
decease. But sayth that
his house. And they had amo
about their marriadge w'ch
nized. And more he can
ponnt saythe he can saye
of the same Interro for
cessaries of houshould stuffe
his daughter Marye
WILM SHAXPR
TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXVIII.
* * * * *
Interr this depnnt sayth
that the deft did beare
ted him well when he
by him the said Shakespeare
his daughter Marye
that purpose sent him
swade the plt to the
solempnised uppon pmise of
nnt. And more he can
this deponnt sayth
is deponnt to goe wth
DANIELL NICHOLAS.
TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXIX.
Answers to Interrogatories are required to be signed by the deponents.
In the case of "Johane Johnsone," who could not write her name, the
depositions are signed with a very neat cross which was her mark. In the
case of "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who
was also unable to write his name, they are signed with a dot which
might quite easily be mistaken for an accidental blot. Our readers will
see this mark, which is not a blot but a purposely made mark, just under
"Wilm Shaxp'r."
Dr. Wallace reads the "so-called" signature as Willm Shaks, but the
Christian name is written quite clearly Wilm. And we should have
supposed that any one possessing even the smallest acquaintance with the
law writing of the period must have known that the scroll which looks
like a flourish at the end of the surname is not and cannot be an "s,"
but is most certainly without any possibility of question a "p," and
that the dash through the "p" is the usual and accepted abbreviation for
words ending in "per," or "peare," etc.[12]
Then how ought we, nay how arewe, compelled to read the so-called
signature? The capital S is quite clear, so also is the "h," then the
next mass of strokes all go to make up simply the letter "a." Then we
come to the blotted letter,
[Illustration: Plate XL. FACSIMILES OF LAW CLERKS' WRITING OF THE NAME
"SHAKESPEARE," FROM HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS' "OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF
SHAKESPEARE," VOL. 2, 1889.]
this is not and cannot be "kes" or "ks" because in the law writing of
the period every letter "s" (excepting "s" at the end of a word) was
written as a very long letter. This may readily be seen in the word
Shakespeare which occurs in Plate 39 on the eighth line above the
signature of Daniell Nicholas. What then is this blotted letter if it is
not kes or ks? The answer is quite plain, it is an "X," and a careful
examination under a very strong magnifying glass will satisfy the
student that it is without possibility of question correctly described
as an "X."[13] Yes, the lawclerk marked the Stratford Gentleman's
"Answers to Interrogatories" with the name "Wilm Shaxp'r." Does there
exist a Stratfordian who will contend that William Shakespeare, of
Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, if he had been able to write any portion
of his name would have marked his depositions Wilm Shaxp'r? Does there
exist any man who will venture to contend that the great Dramatist, the
author of the Immortal plays, would or could have so signed his name? We
trow not; indeed, such an abbreviation would be impossible in a legal
document in a Court of Law where depositions are required to be signed
in full.
With reference to the other so-called Shakespeare's signatures we must
refer the reader to our Chapter III. which was penned before these "New
Shakespeare Discoveries" were announced. And it is perhaps desirable to
say that the dot in the "W" which appears in two of those "so-called"
signatures of Shakespeare, and also in the one just discovered, is part
of the regular method of writing a "W" in the law writing of the period.
In the Purchase Deed of the property in Blackfriars, of March 10th
1612-13, mentioned on page 38, there are in the first six lines of the
Deed seven "W's," in each of which appears a dot. And in the Mortgage
Deed of March 11th 1612-13, there are seven "W's" in the first five
lines, in each of which appears a similar dot. The above-mentioned two
Deeds are in the handwriting of different law clerks.
It may not be out of place here again to call our readers' attention to
the fact that law documents are required to be signed "in full," and
that if the very rapid and ready writer who wrote "Wilm Shaxp'r" were
indeed the Gentleman of Stratford it would have been quite easy for such
a good penman to have written his name in full; this the law writer has
not done because he did not desire to forge a signature to the document,
but desired only to indicate by an abbreviation that the dot or spot
below was the mark of William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
Thus the question, whether William Shakespeare, of
Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, could or could not write his name is
for ever settled in the negative, and there is no doubt, there can be
no doubt, upon this matter.
Dr. Wallace declares "I have had no theory to defend and no hypothesis
to propose." But as a matter of fact his whole article falsely assumes
that "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who is
referred to in the documents, is no other than the great Dramatist who
wrote the Immortal plays. And the writer can only express his unbounded
wonder and astonishment that even so ardent a Stratfordian as Dr.
Wallace, after studying the various documents which he discovered,
should have ventured to say:
"Shakespeare was the third witness examined.
Although, forsooth, the matter of his statements
is of no high literary quality and the manner is
lacking in imagination and style, as the Rev.
Joseph Green in 1747 complained of the will, we
feel none the less as we hear him talk that we
have for the first time met Shakespeare in the
flesh and that the acquaintance is good."
As a matter of fact none of the words of any of the deponents are their
own words, but they are the words of the lawyers who drew the Answers to
the Interrogatories. The present writer, when a pupil in the chambers of
a distinguished lawyer who afterwards became a Lord Justice, saw any
number of Interrogatories and Answers to Interrogatories, and even
assisted in their preparation. The last thing that any one of the pupils
thought of, was in what manner the client would desire to express his
own views. They drew the most plausible Answers they could imagine,
taking care that their words were sufficiently near to the actual facts
for the client to be able to swear to them.
The so-called signature "Wilm Shaxp'r," is written by the lawyer or law
clerk who wrote the lower part of Shakespeare's depositions, and this
same clerk also wrote the depositions above the name of another witness
who really _signs_ his own name, viz., "Daniell Nicholas." The only mark
William Shakespeare put to the document was the blot above which the
abbreviated name "Wilm Shaxp'r" was written by the lawyer or law clerk.
The documents shew that Shakespeare of Stratford occasionally "lay" in
the house in Silver Street, and Ben Jonson's words in "The Staple of
News" (Third Intermeane; Act iii.), to which Dr. Wallace refers viz.,
that "Siluer-Streete" was "a good seat for a Vsurer" are very
informing, because as we have before pointed out the Stratford man was
a cruel usurer.
Dr. Wallace's contention that Mountjoy, the wig-maker, of the corner
house in Silver Street where Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon,
Gentleman, occasionally slept, was the original of the name of the
Herald in Henry V.[14] really surpasses, in want of knowledge of History,
anything that the writer has ever previously encountered, and he is
afraid that it really is a measure of the value of Dr. Wallace's other
inferences connecting the illiterate Stratford Rustic with the great
Dramatist who "took all knowledge for his province."
Dr. Wallace's "New Shakespeare Discoveries" are really extremely
valuable and informing, and very greatly assist the statements which the
writer has made in the previous chapters, viz., that the Stratford
Householder was a mean Rustic who was totally unable to read or to
write, and was not even an actor of repute, but was a mere hanger-on at
the Theatre. Indeed, the more these important documents are examined the
clearer it will be perceived that, as Dr. Wallace points out, they shew
us that the real William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman,
was not the "Aristocrat," whom Tolstoi declares the author of the plays
to have been, but was in fact a man who resided [occasionally when he
happened to revisit London] "in a hardworking family," a man who was
familiar with hairdressers and their apprentices, a man who mixed as an
equal among tradesmen in a humble position of life, who referred to him
as "One Shakespeare." These documents prove that "One Shakespeare" was
not and could not have been the "poet and dramatist." In a word these
documents strongly confirm the fact that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
[Illustration: Plate XLI. Facsimile of the Dedication of Powell's
"Attourney's Academy," 1630]
CHAPTER XV.
Appendix.
The facsimile shewn in Plate 41, Page 176, is from "The Attourney's
Academy," 1630. The reader will perceive that the ornamental heading is
printed upside down. In the ordinary copies it is not so printed, but
only in special copies such as that possessed by the writer; the object
of the upside-down printing being, as we have already pointed out in
previous pages, to reveal, to those deemed worthy of receiving it, some
secret concerning Bacon.
In the present work, while we have used our utmost endeavour to place
in the vacant frame, the true portrait of him who was the wonder and
mystery of his own age and indeed of all ages, we have never failed to
remember the instructions given to us in "King Lear":--
"Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest."
Our object has been to supply exact and positive information and to
confirm it by proofs so accurate and so certain as to compel belief and
render any effective criticism an impossibility.
It may however not be without advantage to those who are becoming
convinced against their will, if we place before them a few of the
utterances of men of the greatest distinction who, without being
furnished with the information which we have been able to afford to our
readers, were possessed of sufficient intelligence and common sense to
perceive the truth respecting the real authorship of the Plays.
LORD PALMERSTON, b. 1784, d. 1865.
Viscount Palmerston, the great British statesman, used to say that he
rejoiced to have lived to see three things--the re-integration of Italy,
the unveiling of the mystery of China and Japan, and the explosion of
the Shakespearian illusions.--_From the Diary of the Right Hon.
Mount-Stewart E. Grant_.
LORD HOUGHTON, b. 1809, d. 1885.
Lord Houghton (better known as a statesman under the name of Richard
Monckton Milnes) reported the words of Lord Palmerston, and he also told
Dr. Appleton Morgan that he himself no longer considered Shakespeare,
the actor, as the author of the Plays.
SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE, b. 1772, d. 1834.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the eminent British critic and poet, although
he assumed that Shakespeare was the author of the Plays, rejected the
facts of his life and character, and says: "Ask your own hearts, ask
your own common sense, to conceive the possibility of the author of the
Plays being the anomalous, the wild, the irregular genius of our daily
criticism. What! are we to have miracles in sport? Does God choose
idiots by whom to convey divine truths to man?"
JOHN BRIGHT, b. 1811, d. 1889.
John Bright, the eminent British statesman, declared: "Any man that
believes that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Hamlet or Lear is a
fool." In its issue of March 27th 1889, the _Rochdale Observer_ reported
John Bright as scornfully angry with deluded people who believe that
Shakespeare wrote Othello.
RALPH WALDO EMERSON, b. 1803, d. 1882.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, the great American philosopher and poet, says: "As
long as the question is of talent and mental power, the world of men
has not his equal to show.... The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare
Societies comes to mind that he was a jovial actor and manager. I
cannot marry this fact to his verse."--_Emerson's Works. London, 1883.
Vol. 4, p. 420_.
JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER, b. 1807, d. 1892.
John Greenleaf Whittier, the American poet, declared: "Whether Bacon
wrote the wonderful plays or not, I am quite sure the man Shakspere
neither did nor could."
DR. W. H. FURNESS, b. 1802, d. 1891.
Dr. W. H. Furness, the eminent American scholar, who was the father of
the Editor of the Variorum Edition of Shakespeare's Works, wrote to
Nathaniel Holmes in a letter dated Oct. 29th 1866: "I am one of the many
who have never been able to bring the life of William Shakespeare and
the plays of Shakespeare within planetary space of each other. Are there
any two things in the world more incongruous? Had the plays come down to
us anonymously, had the labor of discovering the author been imposed
upon after generations, I think we could have found no one of that day
but F. Bacon to whom to assign the crown. In this case it would have
been resting now on his head by almost common consent."
MARK TWAIN, b. 1835, d. 1910.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens, who wrote under the pseudonym of Mark Twain,
was,--it is universally admitted,--one of the wisest of men. Last year
(1909) he published a little book with the title, "Is Shakespeare dead?"
In this he treats with scathing scorn those who can persuade themselves
that the immortal plays were written by the Stratford clown. He writes,
pp. 142-3: "You can trace the life histories of the whole of them [the
world's celebrities] save one far and away the most colossal prodigy of
the entire accumulation--Shakespeare. About him you can find out
_nothing_. Nothing of even the slightest importance. Nothing worth the
trouble of stowing away in your memory. Nothing that even remotely
indicates that he was ever anything more than a distinctly common-place
person--a manager,[15] an actor of inferior grade, a small trader in a
small village that did not regard him as a person of any consequence,
and had forgotten him before he was fairly cold in his grave. We can go
to the records and find out the life-history of every renowned
_race-horse_ of modern times--but not Shakespeare's! There are many
reasons why, and they have been furnished in cartloads (of guess and
conjecture) by those troglodytes; but there is one that is worth all the
rest of the reasons put together, and is abundantly sufficient all by
itself--_he hadn't any history to record_. There is no way of getting
around that deadly fact. And no sane way has yet been discovered of
getting round its formidable significance. Its quite plain significance
--to any but those thugs (I do not use the term unkindly) is, that
Shakespeare had no prominence while he lived, and none until he had been
dead two or three generations. The Plays enjoyed high fame from the
beginning."
PRINCE BISMARCK, b. 1815, d. 1898.
We are told in Sydney Whitman's "Personal Reminiscences of Prince
Bismarck," pp. 135-6, that in 1892, Prince Bismarck said, "He could not
understand how it were possible that a man, however gifted with the
intuitions of genius, could have written what was attributed to
Shakespeare unless he had been in touch with the great affairs of state,
behind the scenes of political life, and also intimate with all the
social courtesies and refinements of thought which in Shakspeare's time
were only to be met with in the highest circles."
"It also seemed to Prince Bismarck incredible that the man who had
written the greatest dramas in the world's literature could of his own
free will, whilst still in the prime of life, have retired to such a
place as Stratford-on-Avon and lived there for years, cut off from
intellectual society, and out of touch with the world."
The foregoing list of men of the very greatest ability and intelligence
who were able clearly to perceive the absurdity of continuing to accept
the commonly received belief that the Mighty Author of the immortal
Plays was none other than the mean rustic of Stratford, might be
extended indefinitely, but the names that we have mentioned are amply
sufficient to prove to the reader that he will be in excellent company
when he himself realises the truth that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
A NEUER WRITER, TO AN EUER READER. NEWES.
Eternall reader, you haue heere a new play, neuer stal'd with the Stage,
neuer clapper-clawd with the palmes of the vulger, and yet passing full
of the palme comicall; for it is a birth of your braine, that neuer
under-tooke any thing commicall, vainely: And were but the vaine names
of commedies changde for the titles of Commodities, or of Playes for
Pleas; you should see all those grand censors, that now stile them such
vanities, flock to them for the maine grace of their grauities:
especially this authors Commedies, that are so fram'd to the life, that
they serve for the most common Commentaries, of all the actions of our
Hues shewing such a dexteritie, and power of witte, that the most
displeased with Playes are pleasd with his Commedies.....
And beleeue this, that when hee is gone, and his Commedies out of sale,
you will scramble for them, and set up a new English Inquisition. Take
this for a warning, and at the perrill of your pleasures losse, and
Judgements, refuse not, nor like this the lesse, for not being sullied,
with the smoaky breath of the multitude.[16]
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.
Footnote to page 45. There was a forest of Arden in Warwickshire.
Footnote to page 51. This Richard Quyney's son Thomas married 10th
February 1616, Judith, William Shakespeare's younger daughter, who, like
her father, the supposed poet, was totally illiterate, and signed the
Register with a mark.
Footnote to page 62. In 1615, although nothing of poetical importance
bearing Bacon's name had been published, we find in Stowe's "Annales,"
p. 811, that Bacon's name appears seventh in the list there given of
Elizabethan poets.
ERRATA.
P. 5. For "knew little Latin" read "had small Latin."
P. 29. For "line 511" read "line 512."
P. 81. For "Montegut" read "Montegut."
For "Greek for crowned" read "Greek for
crown."
P. 93 & 94. For "Quintillian" read "Quintilian."
P. 133. For "Greek name" read "Greek word."
PROMUS
OF
FOURMES AND ELEGANCYES
BY
FRANCIS BACON.
PREFACE TO PROMUS
To these Essays I have attached a carefully collated reprint of Francis
Bacon's "Promus of Formularies and Elegancies," a work which is to be
found in Manuscript at the British Museum in the Harleian Collection
(No. 7,017.)
The folios at present known are numbered from 83 to 132, and are
supposed to have been written about A.D. 1594-6, because folio 85 is
dated December 5th 1594, and folio 114, January 27 1595.
The pagination of the MS. is modern, and was inserted for reference
purposes when the Promus was bound up in one volume together with
certain other miscellaneous manuscripts which are numbered from 1 to 82,
and from 133 onwards.
A facsimile of a portion of a leaf of the Promus MS., folio 85, is given
on pages 190-91, in order to illustrate Bacon's handwriting, and also to
shew his method of marking the entries. It will be perceived that some
entries have lines //// drawn across the writing, while upon others
marks similar to the capital letters T, F, and A are placed at the end
of the lines. But as the Promus is here printed page for page as in the
manuscript, I am not raising the question of the signification of these
marks, excepting only to say they indicate that Bacon made considerable
use of these memoranda.
"Promus" means larder or storehouse, and these "Fourmes, Formularies and
Elegancyes" appear to have been intended as a storehouse of words and
phrases to be employed in the production of subsequent literary works.
Mrs. Pott was the first to print the "Promus," which, with translations
and references, she published in 1883. In her great work, which really
may be described as monumental, Mrs. Pott points out, by means of some
thousands of quotations, how great a use appears to have been made of
the "Promus" notes, both in the acknowledged works of Bacon and in the
plays which are known as Shakespeare's.
Mrs. Pott's reading of the manuscript was extremely good, considering
the great difficulty experienced in deciphering the writing. But I
thought it advisable when preparing a reprint to secure the services of
the late Mr. F. B. Bickley, of the British Museum, to carefully revise
the whole of Bacon's "Promus." This task he completed and I received
twenty-four proofs, which I caused to be bound with a title page in
1898. There were no other copies, the whole of the type having
unfortunately been broken up. The proof has again been carefully
collated with the original manuscript and corrected by Mr. F. A.
Herbert, of the British Museum, and I have now reprinted it here, as I
am satisfied that the more Bacon's Promus--the Storehouse--is examined,
the more it will be recognised how large a portion of the material
collected therein has been made use of in the Immortal Plays, and I
therefore now issue the Promus with the present essay as an additional
proof of the identity of Bacon and Shakespeare.
EDWIN DURNING-LAWRENCE.
[Illustration: Plate XLII. Facsimile of portion of Folio 85 of the
Original MS of Bacon's "Promus." see page 199]
[Illustration: Plate XLIII. Portrait of Francis Bacon, from a Painting
by Van Somers. Formerly in the Collection of the Duke of Fife]
Promus of Formularies.
_Folio 83, front_.
Ingenuous honesty and yet with opposition and
strength.
Corni contra croci good means against badd, homes
to crosses.
In circuitu ambulant impij; honest by antiperistasis.
Siluj a bonis et dolor meus renouatus est.
Credidj propter quod locutus sum.
Memoria justi cum laudibus at impiorum nomen
putrescet
Justitiamque omnes cupida de mente fugarunt.
Non recipit stultus verba prudential nisi ea dixeris
quaee uersantur in corde ejus
Veritatem erne et noli vendere
Qui festinat ditari non erat insons
Nolite dare sanctum canibus.
Qui potest capere capiat
Back to Full Books
|