Bacon is Shake-Speare

[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 SHAKESPEAREA 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."

PROMUSOFFOURMES AND ELEGANCYESBYFRANCIS 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.