The Shakespeare Myth

THE SHAKESPEARE SIGNATURES (SO-CALLED)

NO scrap of writing is in existence which can by any possibility be supposed to have been written by William Shakespeare, excepting only the six (so-called) signatures. And, since every one of these supposed signatures is undoubtedly written by a law clerk, the inference that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, was totally unable to write, seems to be incontrovertible.

The first so-called signature in the order of date is the one last discovered, viz.: that at the Record Office, London. This is attached to "Answers to Interrogatories," dated May 1th, 1612, in a petty lawsuit, in which it appeared that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, had occasionally lodged in Silver Street at the house of a hairdresser named Mountjoy.

Among the "Answers to Interrogatories" those which were signed very carefully by Daniell Nicholas, and the "Answers to Interrogatories" from William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, which are dated May 11th, 1612, are both written in the handwriting of the same law clerk, who attached to the latter the name "Wilm Shaxpr" over a neat blot, which was probably the mark made by the illiterate "Gentleman" of Stratford, who was totally unable to write even a single letter of his own name.

To those acquainted with the law script of the period it is abundantly evident that the "Wilm Shaxpr" is in the same handwriting as the body of the Answers.

The next (so-called) signatures in order of date are upon the purchase deed now in the London Guildhall Library, and upon the mortgage deed of the same property, which is in the British Museum. The purchase deed is dated March 10th, 1613, and the mortgage deed is dated March 11th, 1613, but at that period, as at the present time, when part of the purchase money is left on mortgage, the mortgage deed was always dated one day after the purchase deed, and always signed one moment before it, because the owner cannot part with his property before he receives both the cash and the mortgage deed. About twenty-five years ago, I succeeded in persuading the City authorities to carry the purchase deed to the British Museum, where by appointment we met the officials there, who took the mortgage deed out of the show-case and placed it side by side with the purchase deed from Guildhall. After a long and careful examination of the two deeds, some dozen or twenty officials standing around, everyone agreed that neither of the names of William Shakespeare upon the deeds could be supposed to be signatures. Recently one of the higher officials of the British Museum wrote to me about the matter, and in reply I wrote to him and also to the new Librarian of Guildhall that it would be impossible to discover a scoundrel who would venture to swear that it was even remotely possible that these two supposed signatures of William Shakespeare could have been written at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink, by the same hand. They are widely different, one having been written by the law clerk of the seller, the other by the law clerk of the purchaser. One of the so-called signatures is evidently written by an old man, the other is written by a young man. The deeds are not stated to be signed but only to be sealed.

Next we come to the three supposed signatures upon the will, dated March 25th, 1616. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, on several occasions I examined with powerful glasses Shakespeare's will at Somerset House, where for my convenience it was placed in a strong light, and I arrived at the only possible conclusion, viz., that the supposed signatures were all written by the law clerk who wrote the body of the will, and who wrote also the names of the witnesses, all of which, excepting his own which is written in a neat modern looking hand, are in the same handwriting as the will itself.

The fact that Shakespeare's name is written by the law clerk has been conclusively proved by Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel in the Leipzig Magazine, "Der Menschenkenner," of January, 1909, in which photo reproductions of certain letters in the body of the will and in the so-called signatures are placed side by side, and the evidence is conclusive that they are written by the same hand. Moreover, the will was originally drawn to be sealed, because the solicitor must have known that the illiterate householder of Stratford was unable to write his name. Subsequently, however, the word "seale" appears to have been struck out and the word "hand" written over it. People unacquainted with the rules of law are generally not aware that anyone can, by request, "sign" any person's name to any legal document, and that if such person touch it and acknowledge it, anyone can sign as witness to his signature. Moreover the will is not stated to be signed, but only stated to be "published."

In putting the name of William Shakespeare three times to the will the law clerk seems to have taken considerable care to show that they were not real signatures. They are all written in law script, and the three "W's" of "William" are made in the three totally different forms in which "W's" were written in the law script of that period. Excepting the "W" the whole of the first so-called signature is almost illegible, but the other two are quite clear, and show that the clerk has purposefully formed each and every letter in the two names "Shakespeare" in a different manner one from the other. It is, therefore, impossible for anyone to suppose that the three names upon the will are "signatures."

I should perhaps add that all the six so-called signatures were written by law clerks who were excellent penmen, and that the notion that the so-called signatures are badly written has only arisen from the fact that the general public, and even many educated persons, are totally ignorant of the appearance of the law script of the period. The first of the so-called signatures, viz., that at the Record Office, London, is written with extreme ease and rapidity.

Thus are for ever disproved each and every one of the writings hitherto claimed as "signatures" of William Shakespeare, and as there is not in existence any other writing which can be supposed to be from his pen, it seems an indisputable fact that he was totally unable to write. There is also very strong evidence that he was likewise unable to read.

BACON SIGNED THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS

A CAREFUL examination of the First Folio of "Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies," 1623, which are generally known as "The Plays of Shakespeare," will prove that Bacon signed the plays in very many ways.

I will place a few examples before my readers, and when they have carefully studied these they may perhaps (if they can get access to a photographic facsimile copy of the First Folio of Shakespeare's Plays, 1623), be able to discover additional traces of the great author's hand.

For reasons which it is not now necessary to discuss, Bacon selected as one of the keys to the mystery of his authorship of various works the number 53.

The Great Folio of the Plays of 1623 is divided into Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies. Each of these, although they are all bound in one volume, is separately paged. It follows therefore, that there must be three pages numbered 53 in the Folio Volume of Shakespeare's Plays. I must also inform my readers that every page is divided into two columns, and it is absolutely certain that the author himself so arranged these that he knew in what column and in what line in such column every word would appear in the printed page.

Let us examine, in the first instance,

The First Page 53

in the plays. The second column of this page 53 commences with the first scene of the fourth act of the "Merry Wives of Windsor" In this act a Welsh schoolmaster, "Evans," "Dame Quickly," and a boy named "William" appear. The object of the introduction of the Welshman seems to have been that he might mispronounce "c" as "g," and so call "hic" "hig," and "hoc" "hog." William also is made wrongly to say that the accusative case is "hinc" instead of "hunc," and Evans, the Welsh schoolmaster, who should have corrected this error made by the boy, repeats the blunder with the change of "c" into "g," so as to give without confusion the right signature key-words which appear in the second column of the first page 53, as follow: —

Eva. I pray you have your remembrance (childe) Accusative, king, hang, hog.6

Qu. Hang-hog, is latten for Bacon, I warrant you.

Observe that "Bacon" is spelled with a capital "B," and also note that in this way we are told quite clearly that Hang-hog means Bacon. In very numerous instances a hog with a halter (a rope with a slip-knot) round its neck appears as part of some engraving in some book to which Bacon's name has not yet been publicly attached. I shall again refer to "Hang-hog" as we proceed.

Next, let us carefully examine

The Second Page 53

in the Folio of the Plays, which in the first column contains the commencement of the first scene of the second act of the first part of "King Henry the Fourth." Two carriers are conversing, and we read: —

1 Car. What Ostler, come away, and be hangd; come away.

2 Car. I have a Gammon of Bacon, and two razes of Ginger, to be delivered as farre as Charing-crosse.

Observe that gammon is spelled with a capital "G," and Bacon also is spelled with a capital "B." Thus we have found Bacon in the second page 53. But I must not forget to inform my readers that this second page 53 is really and evidently of set purpose falsely numbered 53, because page 46 is immediately followed by 49, there being no page numbered 47 or 48 in the Histories, the second part of the Plays.

Having found what appears to be a revelation in each of the first two pages numbered 53 in the First Folio, we must remember that a Baconian revelation, in order to be complete, satisfactory, and certain, requires to be repeated "three" times. The uninitiated inquirer will not be able to perceive upon the third page 53, on which is found the beginning of "The Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet," any trace of Bacon, or hog or pig, or anything suggesting such things. The initiated will know that the Great "Master-Mason" will supply two visible pillars, but that the third pillar will be the invisible pillar, the Shibboleth; therefore, the informed will not expect to find the third key upon the visible page 53, but upon

The Invisible Page 53.

Most of my readers will not fail to perceive that the invisible page 53 must be the page that is 53, when we count not from the beginning, but from the end of the book of Tragedies, that is, from the end of the volume.

The last page in the Folio is 399. This is falsely numbered 993, not by accident or by a misprint, but (as the great cryptographic book, by Gustavus Selenus [The man in the Moon], published in 1624, will tell those who are able to read it) because 993 forms the word "Baconus," a signature of Bacon. Let me repeat that the last page of the Great Folio of the plays is page 399, and deducting 53 from 399 we obtain the number 346, which is

The Page 53 from the end.

On this page, 346, in the first column, we find part of "The Tragedie of Anthony and Cleopatra," and we there read,

Enobar. Or if you borrow one another's Love for the instant, you may when you heare no more words of Pompey returne it againe: you shall have time to wrangle in, when you have nothing else to do.

Anth. Thou art a Souldier, onely speake no more.

Enob. That trueth should be silent, I had almost forgot.

Now here we perceive that "Pompey,"

"in," and "got," by the manner in which the type is arranged in the column, come directly under each other, and their initial letters being P. I. G., we quite easily read "pig," which is what we were looking for.

But on this "invisible" page 53, in which the key-word is found, other very important revelations may also be discovered, because it is the "Shibboleth" page. If we count the headline title and all the lines that come to the left-hand edge of the column on this page 346, we find that "Pompey" which begins the word, "pig" is upon

The 43rd Line. (Example 1.)

Bacon very frequently signed with some form of cypher the first page of his secret books. Let us, then, look at the first page of the Great Folio of 1623, on which is the commencement of the play of "The Tempest." In the first column of that first page we shall read

is perfect Gallowes: stand fast good Fate to his han ging, make the rope of his destiny our cable, for our owne doth little advantage: If he be not borne to bee hang'd, our case is miserable.

Here, reading upwards from hang'd, we read hang'd, H. O. G., the "h" of hang'd being twice used. And just as "Pompey" the commencement of Pig, is upon the 43rd line of page 346 (the invisible page 53), so here on page 1 the commencing word "hang'd" is also upon

The 43rd Line (Example 2.)

counting all the lines without exception, including as before the head-line titles. Observe, that it is only made possible for us to read "hang'd hog," because by the printer's "error" hanging is divided improperly as han-ging instead of hang-ing. This apparent misprint is a most careful arrangement made by the great author himself.

I must once again repeat that there are no misprints or errors in the First Folio, 1623, because the great author was alive, and most carefully arranged every column in every page, and every word in every column, so that we should find every word exactly where we do find such particular word. Hang'd hog is, therefore, clearly the signature of the great author upon the first page of the Folio, just as 993 is his signature upon the last page of the Folio. But, as I have already said, in order to obtain a full, certain and complete revelation we must discover a third example. This we shall find in the second column of wherein is the first scene of the second act of "The Merry Wives of Windsor," where we read as follows: —

The First Page 43. (Example 3.)

Mis. Page. What's the matter, woman?

Mi. Ford. O woman: if it were not for one trifling respect, I could come to such honour.

Mi. Page. Hang the trifle (woman) take the honour.

Here, reading the initial letters of each line upwards from "Hang," we get quite clearly S. O. W., and we perceive that "Hang sow" is just as much Bacon as is Hang hog. Thus, we get a triplet of No. 43, as we had a triplet of page 53, but we should also realise that we get a third triplet, because we find

Hang HOG (Example 1.)

on page one in the Comedies, the first portion of the plays, and we find

Hang SOW (Example 2.)

which is practically the same thing as Hang hog, upon page 43 in the Comedies, the first portion of the plays, and we find that

Hang-hog is latten for Bacon (Example 3.)

is on page 53 in the Comedies, the first portion of the plays, and "Hang-hog is Bacon," gives the Shibboleth, and affords the explanation of the two previous examples. Thus we have a revelation of Bacon's authorship in "three times three" forms, and the revelation is, therefore, "absolutely perfect."

The Number 36.

There are thirty-six plays in the First Folio. This is not accidental. Thirty-six is a cabalistic number, and is used in several of Bacon's works when he refers to the Stage or to Plays.

The 36th Essay,

in the Italian edition of Bacon's "Essays," published in London, in 1618, is entitled "Fattioni" (Stage Plays).

The 36 th Antitheta.

In the Latin edition of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," published in 1623, the same year in which the Folio of the Plays appeared, the XXXVI. Antitheta commences "Amorum multa debet scena (stage plays)," and when the English edition was brought out in 1640, the XXXVI. Antitheta commences with the word "The Stage."

The 36th Apophthegm.

In the collection of Bacon's "Apophthegms," printed in 1671, Apophthegm 36 reads as follows, and fully explains the meaning of "Hang-hog is latten for Bacon, I warrant you."

"Sir Nicholas Bacon, being appointed a Judge for the Northern Circuit, and having brought his Trials that came before him to such a pass, as the passing of Sentence on Malefactors, he was by one of the Malefactors mightily importuned for to save his life, which when nothing that he had said did avail, he at length desired his mercy on the account of kindred: Prethee said my Lord Judge, how came that in? Why, if it please you my Lord, your name is Bacon and mine is Hog, and in all Ages Hog and Bacon have been so near kindred, that they are not to be separated. I [Aye], but, replyed Judge Bacon, you and I cannot be kindred except you be hanged; for Hog is not Bacon until it be well hanged."

Page 53.

At an early date Bacon selected the number "53" to give in numerous books revelations concerning his authorship. In Florio's "Second Frutes," published in 1591, on page 53 we read: —

H. A slice of bacon, would make us taste this wine well.S. What ho, set that gammon of bakon upon the board.

Florio was always a servant of Bacon's, and received a pension for "making my lord's works known abroad." The above is inserted on page 53 to inform us that Bacon's name may be spelled in many different ways, as students of various books will find to be the fact.

In the "Mikrokosmos,"7 of which editions both in Latin and in French were published at Antwerp in 1592, we find on page 53 a picture of Circe's Island, which the intelligent reader will perceive represents "the Stage." Beneath it are the words from Proverbs ix. 17, which in our English authorised version read, "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant." Examining this engraving, we perceive in the forefront Bacon's boar, drawn exactly as it is heraldically portrayed in Bacon's crest, but with a man's head surmounted by a "Cap of Liberty," and we should remember the words in Shakespeare's play, "As You Like It" (which means'"Wisdom from the mouth of a clown"): "I must have liberty:… to blow on whom I please, for so fools have… Invest me in my motley: Give me leave to speak my mind, and I will through and through cleanse the foule bodie of th' infected world, if they will patiently receive my medicine."

In Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," 1640, first edition in English, we find a first page "53." In the margin of this page we find "Alexand": (Bacon sometimes alluded to himself as Alexander). But the page 55 is misnumbered "53," and on this second and false page "53" we read in the margin all in capital letters, almost the only marginal capital letters in the whole of the book, which is Bacon's own book, and yet has this striking reference to himself on the false page "53." The number of pages "53" (very frequently falsely paged "53"), in which some reference to Bacon or to the Plays may be discovered, is very large. I will, however, now quote only two other instances.

S. FRANBACON,

In 1664, the third edition of Shakespeare's plays, containing seven extra plays, was issued, and the editors, in order to mislead the initiated and pretend that they had Bacon's authority for so adding some of his inferior plays to his revised selection of the thirty-six plays which formed the great Folio of 1623, numbered two pages 53, which they placed opposite to each other, and on each of these we find "S. Albans" (Bacon was Viscount S. Albans).

In 1709, the fifth edition was published by Nicholas Rowe, and in that edition there is a proper page 53, and also 55 is misprinted 53 (the only mispagination in the whole book of 3,324 pages), and this is made in the false page 53 in order to afford a revelation if we carefully read both pages "53" together.

THE NORTHUMBERLAND MANUSCRIPTS

ON page 25 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 at Northumberland House in London in 1867 Three years later, viz… in 1870, James Spedding published a thin little volume entituled "A Conference of Pleasure," in which he printed a full size facsimile of the original of the outside page, which is here reproduced in modern script on page 25. 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, in a fine Royal Quarto at the price of £4 4s. each. Of the MSS. mentioned on the cover, nine only 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 reader's attention is directed to this Masque, which consists of "The praise of the Worthiest Vertue, &c," Lower down we read: "Speaches for my Lord of Essex at the tylt,"

"Speach for my Lord of Sussex tilt,"

"Orations at Graies Inne revells." We must remember that in numerous instances when masques were presented, reference is made to Bacon having in some way countenanced them or assisted them by taking part in the arrangement of the "dumb shew." This teaches us how familiar Bacon was with stage presentations.

Further down on the page we find "Rychard the second" and "Rychard the third." Mr. Spedding declared himself satisfied that these were the (so-called) Shakespeare plays. Immediately above, we read "William Shakespeare," which appears to be part of the original writing upon the page.

It is not necessary here to refer to the remainder of these original writings, but there is a mass of curious scribblings all over the page. Concerning these, Mr. Spedding says: "I find nothing in these later scribblings or in what remains of the book itself to indicate a date later than the reign of Elizabeth." They 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 found more than once upon the page, appears to have some reference to the longer word "Honorificabili-tudinitatibus," which is found in "Loves Labors Lost," printed in 1598, the first play to which the name of Shakespeare (spelled Shakespere) was attached. I must repeat that upon no play appeared the name William Shakespeare until that man had been sent permanently away to Stratford in 1597. The long word, as I shew in my book, "Bacon is Shakespeare," Chapter X., page 84, gives us the Masonic number 287, and really tells us with the most absolute mechanical certainty that the plays were Francis Bacon's "orphan" children.

(b) "By Mr. ffrauncis William Shakespeare Baco" – observe that ffrauncis is repeated "upside down," over these lines, and that your/yourself" also printed upside down, appears at the commencement of the lines. The reader will therefore not be surprised to read at (c) "revealing day through every crany peepes"; which seems to be a particularly accurate account of the object of the revelations afforded by the "Scribblings" so called, viz., to inform us that "Bacon was Shakespeare." The same kind of revelation is again repeated at (d), when we find your/William Shakespeare and then above it "Shak Shakespeare" and "your William Shakespeare." And the reader should remember that, as Mr. Spedding admits, all these so-called "scribblings" were contemporary and written before 1603, the date of the death of Queen Elizabeth.

I also call attention at (e) to the three curious scrolls, each written with one continuous sweep of the pen, which it would take a great deal of practice to succeed in successfully and easily writing. I myself am in a particularly fortunate position with regard to these scrolls, because I possess a very fine large-paper copy of "Les Tenures de Monsieur Littleton," 1591. This work is annotated throughout in what the British Museum authorities admit to be the handwriting of Francis Bacon, and, upon the wide large paper margin of the title page, eight similar scrolls appear, which have evidently some (shall we say Rosicrucian) significance.8

Perhaps I should add that here, in this little book, before the reader's eyes, is the knowledge of this revealing page of the Northumberland MSS. given for the first time wide publicity. Spedding's little book, which has been long out of print, was too insignificant to attract much notice, and Mr. Burgoyne's splendid work was too expensive for ordinary purchasers.