Bacon is Shake-speare, by Sir Edwin Durning-lawrence

The plays known as Shakespeare's are at the present time universally acknowledged to be the "Greatest birth of time," the grandest production of the human mind. Their author also is generally recognised as the greatest genius of all the ages. The more the marvellous plays are studied, the more wonderful they are seen to be.

Classical scholars are amazed at the prodigious amount of knowledge of classical lore which they display. Lawyers declare that their author must take rank among the greatest of lawyers, and must have been learned not only in the theory of law, but also intimately acquainted with its forensic practice. In like manner, travellers feel certain that the author must have visited the foreign cities and countries which he so minutely and graphically describes.

It is true that at a dark period for English literature certain critics denied the possibility of Bohemia being accurately described as by the sea, and pointed out the "manifest absurdity" of speaking of the "port" at Milan; but a wider knowledge of the actual facts has vindicated the author at the expense of his unfortunate critics. It is the same with respect to other matters referred to in the plays. The expert possessing special knowledge of any subject invariably discovers that the plays shew that their author was well acquainted with almost all that was known at the time about that particular subject.

And the knowledge is so extensive and so varied that it is not too much to say that there is not a single living man capable of perceiving half of the learning involved in the production of the plays. One of the greatest students of law publicly declared, while he was editor of the Law Times, that although he thought that he knew something of law, yet he was not ashamed to confess that he had not sufficient legal knowledge or mental capacity to enable him to fully comprehend a quarter of the law contained in the plays.

Of course, men of small learning, who know very little of classics and still less of law, do not experience any of these difficulties, because they are not able to perceive how great is the vast store of learning exhibited in the plays.

There is also shewn in the plays the most perfect knowledge of Court etiquette, and of the manners and the methods of the greatest in the land, a knowledge which none but a courtier moving in the highest circles could by any possibility have acquired.

In his diary, Wolfe Tone records that the French soldiers who invaded Ireland behaved exactly like the French soldiers are described as conducting themselves at Agincourt in the play of "Henry V," and he exclaims, "It is marvellous!" (Wolfe Tone also adds that Shakespeare could never have seen a French soldier, but we know that Bacon while in Paris had had considerable experience of them.)

The mighty author of the immortal plays was gifted with the most brilliant genius ever conferred upon man. He possessed an intimate and accurate acquaintance, which could not have been artificially acquired, with all the intricacies and mysteries of Court life. He had by study obtained nearly all the learning that could be gained from books. And he had by travel and experience acquired a knowledge of cities and of men that has never been surpassed.

Who was in existence at that period who could by any possibility be supposed to be this universal genius? In the days of Queen Elizabeth, for the first time in human history, one such man appeared, the man who is described as the marvel and mystery of the age, and this was the man known to us under the name of Francis Bacon.

In answer to the demand for a "mechanical proof that Bacon is Shakespeare" I have added a chapter shewing the meaning of "Honorificabilitudinitatibus," and I have in Chapter XIV. shewn how completely the documents recently discovered by Dr. Wallace confirm the statements which I had made in the previous chapters.

I have also annexed a reprint of Bacon's "Promus," which has recently been collated with the original manuscript. "Promus" signifies Storehouse, and the collection of "Fourmes and Elegancyes" stored therein was largely used by Bacon in the Shakespeare plays, in his own acknowledged works, and also in some other works for which he was mainly responsible.

I trust that students will derive considerable pleasure and profit from examining the "Promus" and from comparing the words and phrases, as they are there preserved, with the very greatly extended form in which many of them finally appeared.

EDWIN DURNING-LAWRENCE.

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.

CHAPTER I. — "What does it matter whether the immortal works were written by

Shakespeare (of Stratford) or by another man who bore (or assumed) the same name?"

Some twenty years ago, when this question was first propounded, it was deemed an excellent joke, and I find that there still are a great number of persons who seem unable to perceive that the question is one of considerable importance.

When the Shakespeare revival came, some eighty or ninety years ago, people said "pretty well for Shakespeare" and the "learned" men of that period were rather ashamed that Shakespeare should be deemed to be "the" English poet.

Dryden did not write these lines in reference to Shakespeare but to Milton. Where will you find the person who to-day thinks Milton comes within any measurable distance of the greatest genius among the sons of earth who was called by the name of Shakespeare?

Ninety-two years ago, viz.: in June 1818, an article appeared in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, under the heading "Time's Magic Lantern. No. V. Dialogue between Lord Bacon and Shakspeare" [Shakespeare being spelled Shakspeare]. The dialogue speaks of "Lord" Bacon and refers to him as being engaged in transcribing the "Novum Organum" when Shakspeare enters with a letter from Her Majesty (meaning Queen Elizabeth) asking him, Shakspeare, to see "her own" sonnets now in the keeping of her Lord Chancellor.

Of course this is all topsy turvydom, for in Queen Elizabeth's reign Bacon was never "Lord" Bacon or Lord Chancellor.

But to continue, Shakspeare tells Bacon "Near to Castalia there bubbles also a fountain of petrifying water, wherein the muses are wont to dip whatever posies have met the approval of Apollo; so that the slender foliage which originally sprung forth in the cherishing brain of a true poet becomes hardened in all its leaves and glitters as if it were carved out of rubies and emeralds. The elements have afterwards no power over it."

This ridiculous and most absurd nonsense, which appeared in 1818 in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine was deemed so excellent and so instructive that (slightly abridged) it was copied into "Reading lessons for the use of public and private schools" by John Pierpont, of Boston, U.S.A., which was published in London nearly twenty years later, viz., in 1837.

As I said before, the dialogue is really all topsy turvydom, for the writer must have known perfectly well that Bacon was not Lord Keeper till 1617, the year after Shakspeare's death in 1616, and was not made Lord Chancellor till 1618, and that he is not supposed to have began to write the "Novum Organum" before the death of Queen Elizabeth.

I have therefore arrived at the conclusion that the whole article was really intended to poke fun at the generally received notion that the author of the plays was an unlettered man, who picked up his knowledge at tavern doors and in taprooms and tennis courts. I would specially refer to the passage where Bacon asks "How frame you such interlocutors as Brutus and Coriolanus?" and Shakspeare replies "By searching histories, in the first place, my Lord, for the germ. The filling up afterwards comes rather from feeling than observation. I turn myself into a Brutus or a Coriolanus for the time and can at least in fancy partake sufficiently of the nobleness of their nature to put proper words in their mouths."

Surely this also must have been penned to open the eyes of the public to the absurdity of the popular conception of the author of the plays as an unlettered man who "had small Latin and less Greek"!

The highest scholarship not only in this country and in Germany but throughout the world has been for many years concentrated upon the classical characters portrayed in the plays, and the adverse criticism of former days has given place to a reverential admiration for the marvellous knowledge of antiquity displayed throughout the plays in the presentation of the historical characters of bygone times; classical authority being found for nearly every word put into their mouths.

What does it matter whether the immortal works were written by Shakspeare (of Stratford) or by a great and learned man who assumed the name Shakespeare to "Shake a lance at Ignorance"? We should not forget that this phrase "Shake a lance at Ignorance" is contemporary, appearing in Ben Jonson's panegyric in the Shakespeare folio of 1623.

CHAPTER II. — The Shackspere Monument, Bust, and Portrait.

In the year 1909 Mr. George Hookham in the January number of the National Review sums up practically all that is really known of the life of William Shakspeare of Stratford as follows:—

[Illustration: Plate III. The Stratford Monument, From Dugdale's Warwickshire, 1656.]

[Illustration: Plate IV. The Stratford Monument as it appears at the present time.]

To this statement by Mr. George Hookham I would add that we know W. Shakspeare was christened 26th April 1564, that his Will which commences "In the name of god Amen! I Willim Shackspeare, of Stratford upon Avon, in the countie of warr gent in perfect health and memorie, god be praysed," was dated 25th (January altered to) March 1616, and it was proved 22nd June 1616, Shakspeare having died 23rd April 1616, four weeks after the date of the Will.

We also know that a monument was erected to him in Stratford Church. And because L. Digges, in his lines in the Shakespeare folio of 1623 says "When Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,"[1] it is supposed that the monument must have been put up before 1623. But we should remember that as Mrs. Stopes (who is by no means a Baconian) pointed out in the Monthly Review of April 1904, the original monument was not like the present monument which shews a man with a pen in his hand; but was the very different monument which will be found depicted in Sir William Dugdale's "Antiquities of Warwickshire," published in 1656. The bust taken from this is shewn on Plate 5, Page 14, and the whole monument on Plate 3, Page 8.

[Illustration: Plate V. The Stratford Bust, from Dugdale's Warwickshire. Published 1656.]

The figure bears no resemblance to the usually accepted likeness of Shakspeare. It hugs a sack of wool, or a pocket of hops to its belly and does not hold a pen in its hand.

In Plate 6, Page 15, is shewn the bust from the monument as it exists at the present time, with the great pen in the right hand and a sheet of paper under the left hand. The whole monument is shewn on Plate 4, Page 9.

The face seems copied from the mask of the so-called portrait in the 1623 folio, which is shewn in Plate 8.

[Illustration: Plate VIII. Full size Facsimile of part of the Title Page of the 1623 Shakespeare folio]

It is desirable to look at that picture very carefully, because every student ought to know that the portrait in the title-page of the first folio edition of the plays published in 1623, which was drawn by Martin Droeshout, is cunningly composed of two left arms and a mask. Martin Droeshout, its designer, was, as Mr. Sidney Lee tells us, but 15 years of age when Shakspeare died. He is not likely therefore ever to have seen the actor of Stratford, yet this is the "Authentic," that is the "Authorised" portrait of Shakspeare, although there is no question—there can be no possible question—that in fact it is a cunningly drawn cryptographic picture, shewing two left arms and a mask.

The back of the left arm which does duty for the right arm is shewn in Plate 10, Page 26.

Every tailor will admit that this is not and cannot be the front of the right arm, but is, without possibility of doubt, the back of the left arm.

[Illustration: (not included in list of plates) The Front of Left Arm. From Plate VIII. The Back of Left Arm From Plate VIII. Arranged Tailor fashion, shoulder to shoulder, as in the Gentleman's Tailor Magazine, April, 1911]

Plate 11 shews the front of the left arm, and you at once perceive that you are no longer looking at the back of the coat but at the front of the coat.

[Illustration: Plate XII. The [Mask] Head, from the [so-called] Portrait, by Droeshout, in the 1623 Folio]

Now in Plate 12, Page 32, you see the mask, especially note that the ear is a mask ear and stands out curiously; note also how distinct the line shewing the edge of the mask appears. Perhaps the reader will perceive this more clearly if he turns the page upside down.

Plate 13, Page 33, depicts a real face, that of Sir Nicholas Bacon, eldest son of the Lord Keeper, from a contemporary portrait by Zucchero, lately in the Duke of Fife's Collection. This shews by contrast the difference between the portrait of a living man, and the drawing of a lifeless mask with the double line from ear to chin. Again examine Plates 8, Pages 20, 21, the complete portrait in the folio. The reader having seen the separate portions, will, I trust, be able now to perceive that this portrait is correctly characterised as cunningly composed of two left arms and a mask.

While examining this portrait, the reader should study the lines that describe it in the Shakespeare folio of 1623, a facsimile of which is here inserted.

VERSES ASCRIBED TO BEN JONSON, FROM THE 1623 FOLIO EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS.

B.I. call the ridiculous dummy a "portrait" but describes it as the "Figure put for" (that is "instead of") and as "the Print," and as "his Picture"; he likewise most clearly tells us to "looke not on his (ridiculous) Picture, but (only) his Booke." It seems, therefore, evident that he knew the secret of Bacon's authorship and intended to inform those capable of understanding that the graver had done out the life when he writes, "Out-doo the life." In the New English Dictionary, edited by Sir J.A.H. Murray, there are upwards of six hundred words beginning with "Out," and every one of them, with scarcely a single exception, requires, in order to be fully understood, to be read reversed. Out-law does not mean outside of the law, but lawed out by a legal process. "Out-doo" was used only in the sense of "do out"; thus, in the "Cursor Mundi," written centuries before the days of Elizabeth, we read that Adam was out done [of Paradise]; and in Drayton's "Barons' Wars," published in 1603, we find in Book V. s. li.

The graver has indeed done out the life so cleverly that for hundreds of years learned pedants and others have thought that the figure represented a real man, and altogether failed to perceive that it was a mere stuffed dummy clothed in an impossible coat, cunningly composed of the front of the left arm buttoned on to the back of the same left arm, as to form a double left armed apology for a man. Moreover, this dummy is surmounted by a hideous staring mask, furnished with an imaginary ear, utterly unlike anything human, because, instead of being hollowed in, it is rounded out something like the rounded outside of a shoe-horn, in order to form a cup which would cover and conceal any real ear that might be behind it.

Perhaps the reader will more fully understand the full meaning of B.I.'s lines if I paraphrase them as follows:—

Do out appears in the name of the little instrument something like a pair of snuffer which was formerly used to extinguish the candles and called a "Doute." Therefore I have correctly substituted "extinguished" for "out-doo." At the beginning I have substituted "dummy" for "figure" because we are told that the figure is "put for" (that is, put instead of) Shakespeare. In modern English we frequently describe a chairman who is a mere dummy as a figurehead. Then "wit" in these lines means absolutely the same as "mind," which I have used in its place because I think it refers to the fact that upon the miniature of Bacon in his 18th year, which was painted by Hilliard in 1578, we read:—"Si tabula daretur digna animum mallem." This line is believed to have been written at the time by the artist, and was translated in "Spedding":—"If one could but paint his mind."

In March, 1911, the Tailor and Cutter newspaper stated that the Figure, put for Shakepeare in the 1623 folio, was undoubtedly clothed in an impossible coat, composed of the back and the front of the same left arm. And in the following April the Gentleman's Tailor Magazine, under the heading of a "Problem for the Trade," shews the two halves of the coat as printed on page 28a, and says: "It is passing strange that something like three centuries should have been allowed to elapse before the tailors' handiwork should have been appealed to in this particular manner."

"The special point is that in what is known as the authentic portrait of William Shakespeare, which appears in the celebrated first folio edition, published in 1623, a remarkable sartorial puzzle is apparent."

"The tunic, coat, or whatever the garment may have been called at the time, is so strangely illustrated that the right-hand side of the forepart is obviously the left-hand side of the backpart; and so gives a harlequin appearance to the figure, which it is not unnatural to assume was intentional, and done with express object and purpose."

"Anyhow, it is pretty safe to say that if a Referendum of the trade was taken on the question whether the two illustrations shown above represent the foreparts of the same garments, the polling would give an unanimous vote in the negative."

"It is outside the province of a trade journal to dogmatise on such a subject; but when such a glaring incongruity as these illustrations show is brought into court, it is only natural that the tailor should have something to say; or, at any rate, to think about."

This one simple fact which can neither be disputed nor explained away, viz., that the "Figure" put upon the title-page of the First Folio of the Plays in 1623 to represent Shakespeare, is a doubly left-armed and stuffed dummy, surmounted by a ridiculous putty-faced mask, disposes once and for all of any idea that the mighty Plays were written by the illiterate clown of Stratford-upon-Avon.

It is thought that hit means hid as in Chaucer's Squiere's Tale, line 512 etc.

If indeed "hit" be intended to be read as "hid" then these ten lines are no longer the cryptic puzzle which they have hitherto been considered to be, but in conjunction with the portrait, they clearly reveal the true facts, that the real author is writing left-handedly, that means secretly, in shadow, with his face hidden behind a mask or pseudonym.

We should also notice "out-doo" is spelled with a hyphen. In the language of to-day and still more in that of the time of Shakespeare all, or nearly all, words beginning with out may be read reversed, out-bar is bar out, out-bud is bud out, out-crop is crop out, out-fit is fit out, and so on through the alphabet.

If therefore we may read "out-doo the life" as "doo out the life" meaning "shut out the real face of the living man" we perceive that here also we are told "that the real face is hidden."

The description, with the head line "To the Reader" and the signature "B.I.," forms twelve lines, the words of which can be turned into numerous significant anagrams, etc., to which, however, no allusion is made in the present work. But our readers will find that if all the letters are counted (the two v.v.'s in line nine being counted as four letters) they will amount to the number 287. In subsequent chapters a good deal is said about this number, but here we only desire to say that we are "informed" that the "Great Author" intended to reveal himself 287 years after 1623, the date when the First Folio was published, that is in the present year, 1910, when very numerous tongues will be loosened.

Examine once more the original Stratford Bust, Plate 5, Page 14, and the present Stratford Bust, Plate 6, Page 15, with the large pen in the right hand.

If the Stratford actor were indeed the author of the plays it was most appropriate that he should have a pen in his hand. But in the original monument as shewn in Plate 3, Page 8, the figure hugs a sack of wool or a pocket of hops or may be a cushion. For about 120 years, this continued to be the Stratford effigy and shewed nothing that could in any way connect the man portrayed, with literary work. I believe that this was not accidental. I think that everybody in Stratford must have known that William "Shackspeare" could not write so much as his own name, for I assert that we possess nothing which can by any reasonable possibility be deemed to be his signature.

CHAPTER III. — The so-called "Signatures."

In Plate 14, Page 36, are shewn the five so-called signatures. These five being the only pieces of writing in the world that can, even by the most ardent Stratfordians, be supposed to have been written by Shakspeare's pen; let us consider them carefully. The Will commences "In the name of God Amen I Willum Shackspeare." It is written upon three sheets of paper and each sheet bears a supposed signature. The Will is dated in Latin "Vicesimo quinto die [Januarij] Mtij Anno Regni Dni nri Jacobi, nunc R Anglie, &c. decimo quarto & Scotie xlix° annoq Dni 1616", or shortly in English 25th March 1616.

I say after "PUBLISHING his Will" advisedly, for such is the attestation, viz., "Witnes to the publyshing hereof,"

Nothing is said about the witnessing of the signing hereof. The Will might therefore have been, and I myself am perfectly certain that it was, marked with the name of William Shakspeare by the Solicitor, Fra (ncis) Collyns, who wrote the body of the Will.

[Illustration: Plate XIV. The Five so-called "Shakespeare Signatures." THE FIVE SO-CALLED "SHAKESPEARE SIGNATURES."]

He also wrote the names of the other witnesses, which are all in the same hand-writing as the Will; shewing that Shakspeare's witnesses were also unable to write their names.

This fact, that Shakspeare's name is written by the solicitor, is conclusively proved by the recent article of Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel in the Leipzig magazine, Der Menschenkenner, which was published in January 1909.

In this publication, photo reproductions of certain letters in the body of the Will, and in the so-called Shakspeare signatures are placed side by side, and the evidence is irresistible that they are written by the same hand. Moreover when we remember that the Will commences "I Willim Shackspeare" with a "c" between the "a" and "k," the idea that Shakspeare himself wrote his own Will cannot be deemed worthy of serious consideration. The whole Will is in fact in the handwriting of Francis Collyns, the Warwick solicitor, who added the attestation clause.

I myself was sure that the solicitor had added the so-called signatures, when, many years ago, I examined under the strongest magnifying glasses the Will at Somerset House.

Look first at the upper writings and never again call them "signatures." The top one is on the first page of the Will, the second on the second page, the third on the last page of the Will.

The original of the top one has been very much damaged but the "W" remains quite clear. Look first only at the "W's". If the writings were signatures what could induce a man when signing his last Will to make each "W" as different from the others as possible, and why is the second Christian name written Willm?

Compare also the second and third "Shakspeare" and note that every letter is formed in a different manner. Compare the two "S's", next compare the two "h's", the "h" of the second begins at the bottom, the "h" of the third begins at the top, the same applies to the next letter the "a", so also with respect to the "k's "; how widely different these are.

Plate 14 shews at the bottom two other names also. These are taken, the one on the left from a deed of purchase of a dwelling house in Blackfriars dated March 10th 1612-13 (now in the City Library of the Corporation of London); the other on the right is from a mortgage of the same property executed on the following day, viz: March 11th 1612-13, which is now in the British Museum.

Neither of these documents states that it was "signed" but only says that it was "sealed," and it was at that date in no way necessary that any signatures should be written over the seals, but the clerks might and evidently did, place upon these deeds an abbreviated name of William Shakspeare over the seal on each document. In the case of the other two parties to the documents, the signatures are most beautifully written and are almost absolutely identical in the two deeds.

Look at these two supposititious signatures. To myself it is difficult to imagine that anyone with eyes to see could suppose them to be signatures by the same hand.

[Illustration: The Signatures (so called) of "Shakespeare," which are the best possible reproductions of the originals, and shew that all are written in "lawscript" by skilled penman.]

When part of the purchase money is what is commonly called "left on mortgage," the mortgage deed is always dated one day after, but is always signed one moment before, the purchase deed, because the owner will not part with his property before he receives his security.

The Shakespeare purchase deed and the mortgage deed were therefore both signed at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink.

This is evidently true with respect to the signatures of Wm. Johnson and Jno. Jackson, the other parries to both of the deeds.

But as I wrote to the City authorities and the British Museum authorities, it would be impossible to discover a scoundrel who would venture to perjure himself and falsely swear that it was even remotely possible that the two supposed signature of Wm. Shakespeare could have been written at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink, by the same hand.

They are widely different, one having been written by the law clerk of the seller, the other by the law clerk of the purchaser.

According to the law of England, anyone may (by request) attach any person's name to any document, and if that person touch it, any third person may witness it as a signature.

Some years ago by the courtesy of the Corporation of London, the Librarian and the Chairman of the Library Committee carried the Purchase Deed to the British Museum to place it side by side with the Mortgage Deed there.

After they had with myself and the Museum Authorities most carefully examined the two deeds, the Librarian of the City Corporation said to me, there is no reason to suppose that the Corporation deed has upon it the signature of Wm. Shakespeare, and the British Museum Authorities likewise told me that they did not think that the Museum Mortgage Deed had upon it a signature of William Shakespeare.

The more you examine the whole five the more you will be certain, as the writer is, after the most careful study of the Will and of the Deeds, that not one of the five writings is a "signature," or pretends to be a "signature," and that therefore there is a probability, practically amounting to a certainty, that the Stratford Actor could not so much as manage to scrawl his own name.

No! We possess not a scrap of writing, not even an attempt at a signature, [see also Chapter XIV., p. 161] that can be reasonably supposed to be written by the Stratford gentleman.

He is styled "gentle Shakespeare": this does not refer to anything relating to his character or to his manners but it means that possessing a coat of arms he was legally entitled to call himself a "gentleman."

CHAPTER IV. — Contemporary Allusions to Shackspere.

Shakspeare the Actor purchased New Place at Stratford-on-Avon in 1597 for £60 and he became a "gentleman" and an esquire when he secured a grant of arms in 1599.

How did the stage "honour" the player who had bought a coat of arms and was able to call himself a "gentleman"?

1st. Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his humour" which was acted in 1599 the very year of Shakspeare's grant of arms.

2nd. Shakespeare's "As you like it" which was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1600, although no copy is known to exist before the folio of 1623.

3rd. "The Return from Parnassus" which was acted at St. John's College, Cambridge in 1601, though not printed till 1606.

In addition to these three plays, there is a fourth evidence of the way in which the Clown who had purchased a coat of arms was regarded, in a pamphlet or tract of which only one copy is known to exist. This tract which can be seen in the Rylands Library, Manchester, used to be in Lord Spencer's library at Althorp, and is reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps in "Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare," 1889, Vol. I, pages 325-6.

[Illustration: PLATE XV. Bacon's Crest from the Binding of a Presentation Copy of the Novum Organum, 1620.]

To commence with Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his humour." The clown who had purchased a coat of arms is said to be the brother of Sordido (a miser), and is described as an "essential" clown (that is an uneducated rustic), and is styled Sogliardo which is the Italian for the filthiest possible name.

The other two characters in the scene (act iii. sc. I) are Puntarvolo who, as his crest is a Boar, must be intended to represent Bacon;[2] and Carlo Buffone who is a buffoon or jester.

Enter Sogliardo (the filth), who is evidently the Stratford Clown, who has just purchased a coat of arms:—

Shakspeare's "word" that is his "motto" was—non sanz droict—not without right—and I desire the reader also especially to remember Sogliardo's words "Yfaith I thanke God" a phrase which though it appears in the quartos is changed in the 1616 Ben Jonson folio into "I thank them" which has no meaning.

Next we turn to Shakespeare's "As you like it." This play though entered at Stationers' Hall in 1600 and probably played quite as early is not known in print till it appeared in the folio of 1623. The portion to which I wish to refer is the commencement of Actus Quintus, Scena Prima.

Firstly I want to call your attention to Touchstone the courtier who is playing clown and who we are told "uses his folly like a stalking horse and under the presentation of that he shoots his wit." Notice that Touchstone refuses to be married to Awdrey (who probably represents the plays of Shakespeare) by a Mar-text, and she declares that the Clown William "has no interest in mee in the world." William—shall we say Shakspeare of Stratford?—enters and is greeted as "gentle" (i. e. he is possessed of a coat of arms). He says "Thank God" he was born in the forest here (Ardennes, very near in sound to Arden). "Thank God" is repeated by Touchstone and as it is the same phrase that is used by Sogliardo in Ben Jonson's play I expect that it was an ejaculation very characteristic of the real man of Stratford and I am confirmed in this belief because in the folio edition of Ben Jonson's plays the phrase is changed to "I thank them" which has no meaning.

The clown of Ardennes is rich but only rich for a clown (Shakspeare of Stratford was not really rich, New Place cost only £60).

Asked if he is wise, he says "aye," that is "yes," and adds that he has "a pretty wit," a phrase we must remember that is constantly used in reference to the Stratford actor. Touchstone mocks him with a paraphrase of the well-known maxim "If you are wise you are a Foole if you be a Foole you are wise" which is to be found in Bacon's "Advancement of Learning" Antitheta xxxi. Then he asks him "Art thou learned" and William replies "No sir." This means, unquestionably, as every lawyer must know, that William replies that he cannot read one line of print. I feel sure the man called Shackspeare of Stratford was an uneducated rustic, never able to read a single line of print, and that this is the reason why no books were found in his house, this is the reason why his solicitor, Thomas Greene, lived with him in his house at New Place (Halliwell-Phillipps: Outlines, 1889, Vol. i, p. 226);—a well-known fact that very much puzzles those who do not realize the depth of Shakspeare's illiteracy.

CHAPTER V. — "The Return from Parnassus" and "Ratsei's Ghost."

The next play to which attention must be called is "The Return from Parnassus" which was produced at Cambridge in 1601 and was printed in 1606 with the following title page:—

Can these last two lines refer to Shakspeare the actor seeming to be the poet? Note that they are spoken by Philomusus that is friend of the poetic muse. Mark also the words "this mimick apes." Notice especially "with mouthing words that better wits haue framed, they purchase lands and now Esquiers are made" i.e. get grants of arms. Who at this period among mimics excepting W. Shakspeare of Stratford purchased lands and obtained also a grant of arms?

That this sneer "mouthing words that better wits have framed" must have been aimed at Shakspeare is strongly confirmed by the tract (reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps in his "Outlines of Shakespeare," 1889, Vol. I, p. 325) which is called "Ratsei's Ghost or the second part of his mad prankes and Robberies."

This pamphlet bears no date, but was entered at Stationers' Hall May 31st 1605. There is only a single copy in existence, which used to be in Earl Spencer's library at Althorp but is now in the Rylands; Library at Manchester. As I said, it is reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps, and Stratfordians are obliged to agree with him that the reference is unquestionably to "Wm Shakespeare of Stratford." The most important part which is spoken by Ratsei the robber to a country player is as follows:—

The whole account of buying a place in the country, of feeding upon all men (that is lending money upon usury) of never keeping promises, of never giving anything in charity, agrees but too well with the few records we possess of the man of Stratford. And therefore Stratfordians are obliged to accept Halliwell-Phillipps' dictum that this tract called Ratsei's Ghost refers to the actor of Stratford and that "he needed not to care for them that before made him proud with speaking their words upon the stage." How is it possible that Stratfordians can continue to refuse to admit that the statement in the "Return from Pernassus" "with mouthing words that better wits haue framed they purchase lands and now Esquiers are made" must also refer to the Stratford Actor?

CHAPTER VI. — Shackspere's Correspondence!

There is only a single letter extant addressed to Shakspeare, and this asks for a loan of £30 It is dated 25th October 1598, and is from Richard Quiney. It reads

This letter is the only letter known to exist which was ever addressed to William Shackspere, the illiterate householder of Stratford, who as has been pointed out in these pages was totally unable to read a line of print, or to write even his own name. There are however in existence three, and three only, contemporary letters referring in any way to him, and these are not about literature with which the Stratford man had nothing whatever to do—but about mean and sordid small business transactions.

One is from Master Abraham Sturley, who writes in 1598 to a friend in London in reference to Shakspeare lending "Some monei on some od yarde land or other att Shottri or neare about us."

Another is dated Nov. 4th 1598, and is from the same Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney in which we are told that "our countriman Mr Wm Shak would procure us monei wc I will like of."

A third from Adrian Quiney written (about 1598-1599) to his son Rycharde Quiney in which he says "yff yow bargen with Wm Sha or receve money therfor, brynge youre money homme."

There exists no contemporary letter from anyone to anyone, referring to the Stratford actor as being a poet or as being in any way connected with literature. But from the Court Records we learn that;

In 1600 Shakespeare brought action against John Clayton in London for £7 and got judgment in his favour. He also sued Philip Rogers of Stratford for two shillings loaned.

In 1604 he sued Philip Rogers for several bushels of malt sold to him at various times between March 27th and the end of May of that year, amounting in all to the value of £1. 15s. 10d. The poet a dealer in malt?

In 1608 he prosecuted John Addenbroke to recover a debt of £6 and sued his surety Horneby.

Halliwell-Phillipps tells us that "The precepts as appears from memoranda in the originals, were issued by the poet's solicitor Thomas Greene who was then residing under some unknown conditions[3] at New Place."

Referring to these sordid stories, Richard Grant White, that strong believer in the Stratford man, says in his "Life and genius of William Shakespeare," p. 156 "The pursuit of an impoverished man for the sake of imprisoning him and depriving him both of the power of paying his debts and supporting himself and his family, is an incident in Shakespeare's life which it requires the utmost allowance and consideration for the practice of the time and country to enable us to contemplate with equanimity—satisfaction is impossible."

"The biographer of Shakespeare must record these facts because the literary antiquaries have unearthed and brought them forward as new particulars of the life of Shakespeare. We hunger and receive these husks; we open our mouths for food and we break our teeth against these stones."

Yes! The world has broken its teeth too long upon these stones to continue to mistake them for bread. And as the accomplished scholar and poetess the late Miss Anna Swanwick once declared to the writer, she knew nothing of the Bacon and Shakespeare controversy, but Mr. Sidney Lee's "Life of Shakespeare" had convinced her that his man never wrote the plays. And that is just what everybody else is saying at Eton, at Oxford, at Cambridge, in the Navy, in the Army, and pretty generally among unprejudiced people everywhere, who are satisfied, as is Mark Twain, that the most learned of works could not have been written by the most unlearned of men.

Yes! It does matter that the "Greatest Birth of Time" should no longer be considered to have been the work of the unlettered rustic of Stratford; and the hour has at last come when it should be universally known that this mighty work was written by the man who had taken all knowledge for his province, the man who said "I have, though in a despised weed [that is under a Pseudonym] procured the good of all men"; the man who left his "name and memory to men's charitable speeches, and to foreign nations, and the next ages."

CHAPTER VII. — Bacon acknowledged to be a Poet.

In discussing the question of the Authorship of the plays many people appear to be unaware that Bacon was considered by his contemporaries to be a great poet. It seems therefore advisable to quote a few witnesses who speak of his pre-eminence in poetry.

In 1645 there was published "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus by Apollo and his assessours" a facsimile of the title of which is given on page 57. This work is anonymous but is usually ascribed to George Withers and in it Bacon as Lord Verulan is placed first and designated "Chancellor of Parnassus" that is "Greatest of Poets."

After the title, the book commences with two pages of which facsimiles are given on pages 58, 59.

Apollo appears at the top, next comes Lord Verulan as Chancellor of Parnassus, Sir Philip Sidney and other world renowned names follow and then below the line side by side is a list of the jurors and a list of the malefactors.

A little examination will teach us that the jurors are really the same persons as the malefactors and that we ought to read right across the page as if the dividing line did not exist.

Acting on this principle we perceive that George Wither [Withers] is correctly described as Mercurius Britanicus. Mr. Sidney Lee tells us that Withers regarded "Britain's Remembrancer" 1628 and "Prosopopaeia Britannica" 1648 as his greatest works.

Thomas Cary [Carew] is correctly described as Mercurias Aulicus—Court Messenger. He went to the French Court with Lord Herbert and was made Gentleman of the Privy Chamber by Charles I who presented him with an estate at Sunninghill.

Thomas May is correctly described as Mercurius Civicus. He applied for the post of Chronologer to the City of London and James I wrote to the Lord Mayor (unsuccessfully) in his favour.

Josuah Sylvester is correctly described as The Writer of Diurnals. He translated Du Bartas "Divine Weekes," describing day by day, that is "Diurnally," the creation of the world.

Georges Sandes [Sandys] is The Intelligencer. He travelled all over the world and his book of travels was one of the popular works of the period.

Michael Drayton is The Writer of Occurrences. Besides the "Poly-Olbion," he wrote "England's Heroicall Epistles" and "The Barron's Wars."

Francis Beaumont is The Writer of Passages. This exactly describes him as he is known as writing in conjunction with Fletcher. "Beamount and Fletcher make one poet, they single dare not adventure on a play."

William Shakespeere is "The writer of weekely accounts." This exactly describes him, for the only literature for which he was responsible was the accounts sent out by his clerk or attorney.

Turning over the pages of the little book on page 9 the cryer calls out "Then Sylvester, Sands, Drayton, Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, Shakespeare (sic) and Heywood, Poets good and true." This statement seems to be contradicted so far as Shakespeare is concerned by the defendant who says on page 31 "Shakespear's (sic) a mimicke" (that is a mere actor not a poet).

That is, Apollo admits that Shakespeare is not a poet but a "mimic," the word to which I called your attention in the "Return from Parnassus" in relation to "this mimick apes." In this little book Shakespeare's name occurs three times, and on each occasion is spelled differently.

This clear statement that the actor Shakespeare was not a poet but only a tradesman who sent out his "weekly accounts" is, I think, here for the first time pointed out. It seems very difficult to conceive of a much higher testimony to Bacon's pre-eminence in poetry than the fact that he is placed as "Chancellor of Parnassus" under Apollo. But a still higher position is accorded to him when it is suggested that Apollo feared that he himself should lose his crown which would be placed on Bacon's head.

Walter Begbie in "Is it Shakespeare?" 1903, p. 274, tells us:—That Thomas Randolf, in Latin verses published in 1640 but probably written some 14 years earlier says that Phoebus was accessory to Bacon's death because he was afraid lest Bacon should some day come to be crowned King of poetry or the Muses. Farther on the same writer declares that as Bacon "was himself a singer" he did not need to be celebrated in song by others, and that George Herbert calls Bacon the colleague of Sol [Phoebus Apollo].

George Herbert was himself a dramatic poet and Bacon dedicated his "Translation of the Psalms" to him "who has overlooked so many of my works."

Mr. Begbie also tells us that Thomas Campion addresses Bacon thus "Whether the thorny volume of the Law or the Schools or the Sweet Muse allure thee."

It may be worth while here to quote the similar testimony which is borne by John Davies of Hereford who in his "Scourge of Folly" published about 1610, writes

But nothing can much exceed in value the testimony of Ben Jonson who in his "Discoveries," 1641, says "But his learned, and able (though unfortunate) Successor [Bacon in margin] is he, who hath fill'd up all numbers, and perform'd that in our tongue, which may be compar'd or preferr'd either to insolent Greece, or haughty Rome."

"He who hath filled up all numbers" means unquestionably "He that hath written every kind of poetry."[5]

Alexander Pope the poet declares that he himself "lisped in numbers for the numbers came." Ben Jonson therefore bears testimony to the fact that Bacon was so great a poet that he had in poetry written that "which may be compar'd or preferr'd either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome."

Surely the statements in the "Discoveries" were intended to tell us who was the AUTHOR of the plays.

After perusing these contemporary evidences, and they might be multiplied, it is difficult to understand how anyone can venture to dispute Bacon's position as pre-eminent in poetry. But it may be of interest to those who doubt whether Bacon (irrespective of any claim to the authorship of the plays) could be deemed to be a great poet, to quote here the words of Percy Bysshe Shelley, who in his "Defence of Poetry" says

"Bacon was a poet. His language has a sweet and majestic rhythm, which satisfies the sense, no less than the almost superhuman wisdom of his philosophy satisfies the intellect. It is a strain which distends and then bursts the circumference of the reader's mind, and pours itself forth together with it into the universal element with which it has perpetual sympathy."

The immortal plays are the "Greatest Birth of Time," and contain a short summary of the wisdom of the world from ancient times, and they exhibit an extent and depth of knowledge in every branch which has never been equalled at any period of the world's history. In classic lore, as the late Mr. Churton Collins recently pointed out, they evince the ripest scholarship. And this is confirmed by classical scholars all the world over.

None but the profoundest lawyers can realise the extent of the knowledge not only of the theory but of the practice of Law which is displayed. Lord Campbell says that Lord Eldon [supposed to have been the most learned of judges] need not have been ashamed of the law of Shakespeare. And as an instance of the way in which the members of the legal profession look up to the mighty author I may mention that some years ago, at a banquet of a Shakespeare Society at which Mr. Sidney Lee and the writer were present, the late Mr. Crump, Q.C., editor of the Law Times, who probably possessed as much knowledge of law as any man in this country, declared that to tell him that the plays were not written by the greatest lawyer the world has ever seen, or ever would see, was to tell him what he had sufficient knowledge of law to know to be nonsense. He said also that he was not ashamed to confess that he himself, though he had some reputation for knowledge of law, did not possess sufficient legal knowledge to realise one quarter of the law that was contained in the Shakespeare plays.

It requires a philologist to fully appreciate what the enormous vocabulary employed in the plays implies.

"A well-educated person in England, who has been at a public school and at the University ... seldom uses more than about 3,000 or 4,000 words. ... The Hebrew Testament says all that it has to say with 5,642 words, Milton's poetry is built up with 8,000; and Shakespeare, who probably displayed a greater variety of expression than any writer in any language ... produced all his plays with about 15,000 words."

Shakspeare the householder of Stratford could not have known so many as one thousand words.

But Bacon declared that we must make our English language capable of conveying the highest thoughts, and by the plays he has very largely created what we now call the English language. The plays and the sonnets also reveal their author's life.

In the play of "Hamlet" especially, Bacon seems to tell us a good deal concerning himself, for the auto-biographical character of that play is clearly apparent to those who have eyes to see. I will, however, refer only to a single instance in that play. In the Quarto of 1603, which is the first known edition of the play of "Hamlet," we are told, in the scene at the grave, that Yorick has been dead a dozen years; but in the 1604 Quarto, which was printed in the following year, Yorick is stated to have been dead twenty-three years. This corrected number, twenty-three, looks therefore like a real date of the death of a real person. The words in the Quarto of 1604 are as follows:—

The King's Jester who died about 1580-1, just twenty-three years before 1604 (as stated in the play), was John Heywood, the last of the King's Jesters. The words spoken by Hamlet exactly describe John Heywood, who was wont to set the table in a roar with his jibes, his gambols, his songs, and his flashes of merriment. He was a favourite at the English Court during three if not four reigns, and it is recorded that Queen Elizabeth as a Princess rewarded him. It is an absolutely gratuitous assumption that he was obliged permanently to leave England when she became Queen. Indeed it is believed that he was an intimate friend of the Bacon family, and must have carried little Francis Bacon any number of times upon his back, and the little fellow must have kissed him still more oftentimes. The story in the play of "Hamlet" seems, therefore, to fit in exactly with the facts of Bacon's life; but it is not possible that the most fertile imagination of the most confirmed Stratfordian can suppose that the Stratford actor ever saw John Heywood, who died long before Shakspere came to London.

CHAPTER VIII. — The Author revealed in the Sonnets.

Bacon also reveals much of himself in the play "As you like it," which of course means "Wisdom from the mouth of a fool." In that play, besides giving us much valuable information concerning his "mask" William Shakespeare, he also tells us why it was necessary for him to write under a pseudonym.

Speaking in the character of Jaques, who is the alter ego of Touchstone, he says,

Stratfordians tell us that the above is written in reference to a poet whom Shakespeare "evidently" regarded as a rival. But it is difficult to imagine how sensible men can satisfy their reason with such an explanation. Is it possible to conceive that a poet should write against a rival

No! This sonnet is evidently written in reference to the writer's mask or pseudonym which would continue to have immortal life (even though he himself might be forgotten) as he says

It is sometimes said that Shakespeare (meaning the Stratford actor) did not know the value of his immortal works. Is that true of the writer of this sonnet who says

No! The writer knew his verses were immortal and would immortalize the pseudonym attached to them

Perhaps the reader will better understand Sonnet 81 if I insert the words necessary to fully explain it.

This Sonnet was probably written considerably earlier than 1609, but at that date Bacon's name had not been attached to any work of great literary importance.

After the writer had learned the true meaning of Sonnet 81, his eyes were opened to the inward meaning of other Sonnets, and he perceived that Sonnet No. 76 repeated the same tale.

Especially note that "Invention" is the same word that is used by Bacon in his letter to Sir Tobie Matthew of 1609 (same date as the Sonnets), and also especially remark the phrase "in a noted weed," which means in a "pseudonym," and compare it with the words of Bacon's prayer, "I have (though in a 'despised weed') procured the good of all men." [Resuscitatio, 1671.] Was not the pseudonym of the Actor Shakespeare a very "despised weed" in those days?

"Shakespeare" is frequently charged with being careless of his works and indifferent to the piracy of his name; but we see by this Sonnet, No. 78, that the real author was not indifferent to the false use of his pseudonym, though it was, of course, impossible for him to take any effectual action if he desired to preserve his incognito, his mask, his pseudonym.

CHAPTER IX. — Mr. Sidney Lee and the Stratford Bust.

One word to the Stratfordians. The "Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon" myth has been shattered and destroyed by the mass of inexactitudes collected in the supposititious "Life of Shakespeare" by Mr. Sidney Lee, who has done his best to pulverise what remained of that myth by recently writing as follows:—

"Most of those who have pressed the question [of Bacon being the real Shake-speare] on my notice, are men of acknowledged intelligence and reputation in their own branch of life, both at home and abroad. I therefore desire as respectfully, but also as emphatically and as publicly, as I can, to put on record the fact, as one admitting to my mind of no rational ground for dispute, that there exists every manner of contemporary evidence to prove that Shakspere, the householder of Stratford-on-Avon, wrote with his own hand, and exclusively by the light of his only genius (merely to paraphrase the contemporary inscription on his tomb in Stratford-on-Avon Church) those dramatic works which form the supreme achievement in English Literature."

As a matter of fact, not a single scrap of evidence, contemporary or otherwise, exists to show that Shakspere, the householder of Stratford-on-Avon, wrote the plays or anything else; indeed, the writer thinks that he has conclusively proved that this child of illiterate parents and father of an illiterate child was himself so illiterate that he was never able to write so much as his own name. But Mr. Sidney Lee seems prepared to accept anything as "contemporary evidence," for on pages 276-7 (1898 edition) of his "Life of Shakespeare" he writes

"Before 1623 an elaborate monument, by a London sculptor of Dutch birth, Gerard Johnson, was erected to Shakespeare's memory in the chancel of the parish church. It includes a half-length bust, depicting the dramatist on the point of writing. The fingers of the right hand are disposed as if holding a pen, and under the left hand lies a quarto sheet of paper."

As a matter of fact, the present Stratford monument was not put up till about one hundred and twenty years after Shakspeare's death. The original monument, see Plate 3 on Page 8, was a very different monument, and the figure, as I have shewn in Plate 5, instead of holding a pen in its hand, rests its two hands on a wool-sack or cushion. Of course, the false bust in the existing monument was substituted for the old bust for the purpose of fraudulently supporting the Stratford myth.

When Mr. Sidney Lee wrote that the present monument was erected before 1623 he did not do this consciously to deceive the public; still, it is difficult to pardon him for this and the other reckless statements with which his book is filled. But what are we to say of his words (respecting the present monument) which we read on page 286? "It was first engraved—very imperfectly—in Rowe's edition of 1709." An exact full size photo facsimile reproduction of Rowe's engraving is shown in Plate 19, Page 77.

[Illustration: Plate. XIX. The Original Stratford Monument, from Rowe's Life of Shakespeare, 1709]

As a matter of fact, the real Stratford monument of 1623 was first engraved in Dugdale's "Warwickshire" of 1656, where it appears opposite to page 523. We can, however, pardon Mr. Sidney Lee for his ignorance of the existence of that engraving; but how shall we pardon him for citing Rowe as a witness to the early existence of the present bust? To anyone not wilfully blinded by passion and prejudice, Rowe's engraving [see Plate 19, Page 77] clearly shews a figure absolutely different from the Bust in the present monument. Rowe's figure is in the same attitude as the Bust of the original monument engraved by Dugdale, and does not hold a pen in its hand, but its two hands are supported on a wool-sack or cushion, in the same manner as in the Bust from Dugdale which I have shewn in Plate 5, on Page 14.

What are we to say respecting the frontispiece to the 1898 edition of what he is pleased to describe as the "Life of William Shakespeare," which Mr. Sidney Lee tells us is "from the 'Droeshout' painting now in the Shakespeare Memorial Gallery at Stratford-on-Avon"?

As a matter of fact there is no "Droeshout" painting. The picture falsely so called is a manifest forgery and a palpable fraud, for in it all the revealing marks of the engraving by Martin Droeshout which appeared in the 1623 folio are purposely omitted. A full size photo facsimile of Martin Droeshout's engraving is shewn in Plate 8, pp. 20-21. In the false and fraudulent painting we find no double line to shew the mask, and the coat is really a coat and not a garment cunningly composed of two left arms.

Still it does seem singularly appropriate and peculiarly fitting that Mr. Sidney Lee should have selected as the frontispiece of the romance which he calls the "Life" of Shakespeare, an engraving of the false and fraudulent painting now in the Stratford-on-Avon Gallery for his first edition of 1898; and should also have selected an engraving of the false and fraudulent monument now in Stratford-on-Avon Church as the frontispiece for his first Illustrated Library Edition of 1899.

Mr. Sidney Lee is aware of the fact that Martin Droeshout was only fifteen years old when the Stratford actor died. But it is possible that he may not know that (in addition to the Shakespeare Mask which Droeshout drew for the frontispiece of the 1623 folio edition of the Plays of Shakespeare, in order to reveal, to those who were able to understand, the true facts of the Authorship of those plays), Martin Droeshout also drew frontispieces for other books, which may be similarly correctly characterised as cunningly composed, in order to reveal the true facts of the authorship of such works, unto those who were capable of grasping the hidden meaning of his engravings.

One other point it is worth while referring to. The question is frequently asked, if Bacon wrote under the name of Shakespeare, why so carefully conceal the fact? An answer is readily supplied by a little anecdote related by Ben Jonson, which was printed by the Shakespeare Society in 1842, in their "Notes of Ben Jonson's conversations with William Drummond of Hawthornden".

"He [Ben Jonson] was dilated by Sir James Murray to the King, for writting something against the Scots, in a play Eastward Hoe, and voluntarly imprissonned himself with Chapman and Marston who had written it amongst them. The report was that they should then [have] had their ears cut and noses. After their delivery, he banqueted all his friends; there was Camden, Selden, and others; at the midst of the feast his old Mother dranke to him, and shew him a paper which she had (if the sentence had taken execution) to have mixed in the prisson among his drinke, which was full of lustie strong poison, and that she was no churle, she told, she was minded first to have drunk of it herself."

This was in 1605, and it is a strange and grim illustration of the dangers that beset men in the Highway of Letters.

It was necessary for Bacon to write under pseudonyms to conceal his identity, but he intended that at some time posterity should do him justice and it was for this purpose that, among the numerous clues he supplied to reveal himself he wrote "The Tempest" in its present form, which Emile Montegut writing in the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1865 declared to be the author's literary Testament.

The Island is the Stage. Prospero the prime Duke, the great Magician, represents the Mighty Author who says "my brother ... called Anthonio who next thyself of all the world I lov'd" ... "graves at my command have wak'd their sleepers op'd and let them forth by my so potent Art" ...

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

[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

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—

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 12° 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.

[Illustration: Modern Script Facsimile of MS Folio 1 Reduced to about one-third the size of the original]

[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.]

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—

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.

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:

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 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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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 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.]

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

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—

continuing with a description of his deposition extending over 167 lines to the words—

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

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?

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:

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].

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.

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 uninstructed its clear meaning that

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.]

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:

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

[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":—

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.

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 (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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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."

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."

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

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 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.

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.

[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]

FOOTNOTES.

[2] Through the whole play the fact that Puntarvolo represents Bacon is continually apparent to the instructed reader. Note especially Act II., Scene 3, where Puntarvolo addresses his wife, who appears at a window, in a parody of the address of Romeo to Juliet. Again in Act II., Scene 3, Carlo Buffone calls Puntarvolo "A yeoman pheuterer." Pheuter or feuter means a rest or supportfor a spear—which is informing.

[3] This fact so puzzling to Halliwell-Phillipps is fully explained when it is realised that William Shackspere of Stratford could neither read or write.

[4] The words attriuted to Apollo, are of course spoken by his Chancellor Bacon. See note on the number 33 on page 112.

[5] While I am perfectly satisfied that the above explanation of the meaning of the expression "All numbers" is the correct one; I am not unaware that at the date at which the Discoveries appeared "All numbers" would be generally understood in its classical sense; Jonson of course not being permitted to speak too plainly. He was foreman of Bacon's good pens and one of his "left-hands"; as any visitor to Westminster Abbey may learn, the attendants there being careful to point out that the sculptor has "accidentally" clothed Jonson's Bust in a left-handed coat. (With respect to the meaning of this the reader is referred to Plate 33, page 131.) Thus far was written and in print when the writer's attention was called to the Rev. George O Neill's little brochure, "Could Bacon have written the plays?" in which in a note to page 14 we find "Numeri" in Latin, "numbers" in English, applied to literature mean nothing else than verse, and even seem to exclude prose. Thus Tibullus writes, "Numeris ille hic pede libero scribit" (one writes in verse another in prose), and Shakespeare has the same antithesis in "Love's Labour Lost" (iv., 3), "These numbers I will tear and write in prose." Yet all this does not settle the matter, for "Numeri" is also used in the sense merely of "parts". Pliny speaks of a prose work as perfect in all its parts, "Omnibus numeris absolutus," and Cicero says of a plan of life, "Omnes numeros virtutis continet" (it contains every element of virtue). So that Jonson may have merely meant to say in slightly pedantic phrase that Bacon had passed away all parts fulfilled.

[6] Under what is now known as "Rask's law" the Roman F becomes B in the Teutonic languages: fero, bear; frater, brother; feru, brew; flo, blow, etc., etc., shewing that the Roman F was by no means really a mute.

[8] The number 33 too obviously represented Bacon, and therefore 53 which spells sow (S 18, O 14, W 21 = 53) was substituted for 33. Scores of examples can be found where on page 53 some reference is made to Bacon in books published under various names, especially in the Emblem Books. In many cases page 55 is misprinted as 53. In the Shakespeare Folio 1623 on the first page 53 we read "Hang Hog is latten for Bacon," and on the second page 53 we find "Gammon of Bacon." When the seven extra plays were added in thethird folio 1664 in each of the two new pages 53 appears "St. Albans." In the fifth edition, published by Kowe in 1709, on page 53 we read "deeper than did ever Plummet sound I'll drown my Book"; and on page 55 misprinted 53 (the only mispagination in the whole book of 3324 pages) we find "I do ... require My Dukedom of thee, which perforce I know Thou must restore." In Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," first English edition, 1640, on page 55 misprinted 53 in the margin in capital letters (the only name in capital letters in the whole book) we read "BACON." In Florio's "Second Frutes," 1591, on page 53, is "slice of bacon" and also "gammon of bakon," to shew that Bacon may be misspelled as it is in Drayton's "Polyolbion," 1622, where on page 53 we find Becanus. A whole book could be filled with similar instances.

[9] About A.D. 1300 benefit of clergy was extended to all males who could read. In 1487 it was enacted that mere laymen should have the benefit only once and should be branded on the thumb to shew they had once had it. Whimsies, 1623, p. 69, tells us: "If a prisoner, by help of a compassionate prompter, hack out his neck verse (Psalm li. v. i in Latin) and be admitted to his clergy, the jailors have a cold iron in store if his purse be hot, but if not, a hot iron that his fist may Fiz." Benefit of clergy was not totally abolished till 1827.

[10] In 1599 Sir John Hayward, LL.D., brought out "The Life and raigne of King Henrie IIII extending to the end of the first yeare of his raigne." This little book contains an account of the trial of Richard II., and was dedicated to the Earl of Essex in very encomiastic terms. It irritated Queen Elizabeth in the highest degree, and she clapped Hayward into prison and employed Sir Francis Bacon to search his book for treason. (Lowndes, Bohn, p. 1018). The story carefully read reveals the fact that it was really the play rather than the book which enraged Queen Elizabeth.

[11] The appearance of Shakespeare's name in the list of Actors in Ben Jonson's plays and in the plays known as Shakespeare's was, of course, part of the plot to place Shakespeare's name in a prominent position while the pseudonym had to be preserved.

[12] Facsimiles of law clerks' writing of the name "John Shakespeare," are given in Plate 40, Page 169. They are taken from Halliwell-Phillipps' "Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare," 1889, vol. 2, pp. 233 and 236. In the first two examples the name is written "Shakes," followed by an exactly similar scroll and dash to complete the name. In Saunders' "Ancient Handwriting," 1909, page 24, we are shown that such a "scroll and dash" represents "per" "par," and "por"; and in Wright's "Court Handwriting restored" we find that in the most perfectly formed script a "p" with a dash through the lower part similarly represented "per," "par," and "por," this is repeated in Thoyts' "How to decipher and study old documents," and the same information is given in numerous other works. There is therefore no possible excuse for Dr. Wallace's blundering.

[13] A facsimile example of the way in which the law clerk wrote "Shaxper" is shewn in the third line of Plate 40, Page 169, where it will be seen that the writer uses a similar "X".

[14] Holinshed's Chronicles (1557) state that "Montioy, king-at-arms, was sent to the King of England to defie him as the enemie of France, and to tell him that he should shortlie have battell." Moreover, "Montioy" is not the personal name, but the official title of a Herald of France, just as "Norroy" is not a personal name, but the official title of one of the three chief Heralds of the College of Arms of England.

[16] From the Introduction of "The Famous Historie of Troylus and Cresseid, by William Shakespeare," 1609. This play as the above Introduction says was never acted.

[21] "Sedeant." This word is doubtful. It may be "tedeant," "te deum" is not an impossible reading.

[27] "ante," this may be read "aute" = "autem." 2 "ipsa" this may be read "ipsu"—"ipsum".

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BACON IS SHAKE-SPEARE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bacon is Shake-Speare

BACON IS SHAKE-SPEARE

By Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, BT

AND

PROMUS OF FOURMES AND ELEGANCYES BY FRANCIS BACON

Collated, with the Original MS. by the late F.B. BICKLEY, and revised by F.A. HERBERT, of the British Museum.

MCMX

"Every hollow Idol is dethroned by skill,
insinuation and regular approach."

TO THE READER

EDWIN DURNING-LAWRENCE.

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.

CHAPTER I. — "What does it matter whether the immortal works were written by

CHAPTER II. — The Shackspere Monument, Bust, and Portrait.

CHAPTER III. — The so-called "Signatures."

CHAPTER IV. — Contemporary Allusions to Shackspere.

CHAPTER V. — "The Return from Parnassus" and "Ratsei's Ghost."

CHAPTER VI. — Shackspere's Correspondence!

CHAPTER VII. — Bacon acknowledged to be a Poet.

CHAPTER VIII. — The Author revealed in the Sonnets.

CHAPTER IX. — Mr. Sidney Lee and the Stratford Bust.

CHAPTER X — Bacon is Shakespeare.

CHAPTER XI.— On the revealing page 136 in "Loves Labour's lost."

CHAPTER XII. — The "Householder of Stratford."

CHAPTER XIII.— Conclusion, with further evidences from title pages.

CHAPTER XIV. — Postscriptum.

CHAPTER XV. — APPENDIX.

A NEUER WRITER, TO AN EUER READER. NEWES.

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

ERRATA.

PROMUS OF FOURMES AND ELEGANCYES BY FRANCIS BACON.

PREFACE TO PROMUS

FOOTNOTES.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bacon is Shake-Speare

BACON IS SHAKE-SPEARE

By Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, BT

AND

PROMUS OF FOURMES AND ELEGANCYES BY FRANCIS BACON

Collated, with the Original MS. by the late F.B. BICKLEY, and revised by F.A. HERBERT, of the British Museum.

MCMX

"Every hollow Idol is dethroned by skill, insinuation and regular approach."

TO THE READER

EDWIN DURNING-LAWRENCE.

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.

CHAPTER I. — "What does it matter whether the immortal works were written by

CHAPTER II. — The Shackspere Monument, Bust, and Portrait.

CHAPTER III. — The so-called "Signatures."

CHAPTER IV. — Contemporary Allusions to Shackspere.

CHAPTER V. — "The Return from Parnassus" and "Ratsei's Ghost."

CHAPTER VI. — Shackspere's Correspondence!

CHAPTER VII. — Bacon acknowledged to be a Poet.

CHAPTER VIII. — The Author revealed in the Sonnets.

CHAPTER IX. — Mr. Sidney Lee and the Stratford Bust.

CHAPTER X — Bacon is Shakespeare.

CHAPTER XI.— On the revealing page 136 in "Loves Labour's lost."

CHAPTER XII. — The "Householder of Stratford."

CHAPTER XIII.— Conclusion, with further evidences from title pages.

CHAPTER XIV. — Postscriptum.

CHAPTER XV. — APPENDIX.

A NEUER WRITER, TO AN EUER READER. NEWES.

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

ERRATA.

PROMUS OF FOURMES AND ELEGANCYES BY FRANCIS BACON.

PREFACE TO PROMUS

FOOTNOTES.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

"Every hollow Idol is dethroned by skill,
insinuation and regular approach."