provided by the Internet Archive






[Illustration: 0001]

[Illustration: 0005]

[Illustration: 0006]




THE SHAKESPEARE MYTH

By Edwin Durning-Lawrence,

1912


Halliwell-Phillipps says: "It was not till the Jubilee of 1769 that
the tendency to the fabrication of Shakespeare anecdotes and relics at
Stratford Museum became manifest. All kinds of deception have since been
practised there."




THE FOLIO OF THE PLAYS, 1623.


|IT is now universally admitted that the Plays known as Shakespeare's
are the greatest "Birth of Time," the most wonderful product of the
human mind which the world has ever seen, that they evince the ripest
classical scholarship, the most perfect knowledge of Law, and the most
intimate acquaintance with all the intricacies of the highest Court
life.

The Plays as we know them, appeared in the Folio, published in 1623,
seven years after Shakespeare's death in 1616. This volume contains
thirty-six plays. Of this number only eight are substantially in the
form in which they were printed in Shakespeare's lifetime. Six are
greatly improved. Five are practically rewritten, and seventeen are not
known to have been printed before Shakespeare's death, although thirteen
plays of similar names are registered or in some way referred to.

The following particulars are mainly derived from Reed's "Bacon our
Shakespeare," published 1902. The spelling of the first Folio of 1623
has, however, been strictly followed.


THE EIGHT WHICH ARE PRINTED IN THE FOLIO SUBSTANTIALLY AS THEY
ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE QUARTOS ARE:--

1. Much ado about Nothing.

2. Loves Labour lost. *

3. Midsommer Nights Dreame.

4. The Merchant of Venice.

5. The First part of King Henry the fourth.

6. The Second part of K. Henry the fourth.

7. Romeo and Juliet.

8. The Tragedie of Troylus and Cressida. **

     * Note.--The scene of the play is Navarre and one of the
     characters is Biron. A passport given to Bacon's brother
     Anthony in 1586 from the court of Navarre, is signed
     "Biron." (British Museum Add. MS. 4125).

     ** Note.--This has a new title and a Prologue in the Folio.
     This extremely learned play which we are told was "never
     clapper-clawd with the palmes of the vulger.... or sullied
     with the smoaky breath of the multitude," has recently been
     shewn by Mrs. Hinton Stewart to be a satire upon the court
     of King James I.


THE SIX WHICH HAVE BEEN GREATLY IMPROVED ARE:--

1. The Life & death of Richard the second. Corrections throughout.

2. The Third part of King Henry the sixt. New title, 906 new lines, and
many old lines retouched.

3. The Life & Death of Richard the Third. 193 new lines added, 2,000
lines retouched.

4. Titus Andronicus. One entire new scene added.

5. The Tragedy of Hamlet. Many important additions and omissions.

6. King Lear. 88 new lines, 119 lines retouched.


THE FIVE WHICH HAVE BEEN PRACTICALLY REWRITTEN ARE:--

1. The Merry Wives of Windsor. 1,081 new lines, the text rewritten.

2. The Taming of the Shrew. New title, 1,000 new lines added, and
extensive revision.

3. The Life and Death of King John. New title,

1,000 new lines including one entire new scene. The dialogue rewritten.

4. The Life of King Henry the Fift. New title, the choruses and two new
scenes added. Text nearly doubled in length.

5. The Second part of King Hen. the Sixt. New title, 1,139 new lines,
and 2,000 old lines retouched.

[The practice of false-dating books of the Elizabethan period was not
uncommon, instances of as much as thirty years having been discovered.
It has been proved by Mr. A. W. Pollard, of the British Museum; by Mr.
W. W. Greg, Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge; and by Prof. W. J.
Neidig, that four of these, viz., "A Midsommer Nights Dreame," and "The
Merchant of Venice," both dated 1600, and "King Lear," and "Henry the
Fift," both dated 1608, were in fact printed in 1619, three years after
Shakespeare's death.]


THE THIRTEEN WHICH SEEM NOT TO HAVE BEEN PRINTED BEFORE SHAKESPEARE'S
DEATH,

although plays of somewhat similar names are registered or in some way
referred to, are:--

1. The Tempest.

2. The First part of King Henry the Sixt.

3. The two Gentlemen of Verona.

4. Measure for Measure.

5. The Comedy of Errours.

6. As you Like it.

7. All is well, that Ends well.

8. Twelfe-Night, or what you will.

9. The Winters Tale.

10. The Life and death of Julius Cæsar.

11. The Tragedy of Macbeth.

12. Anthony and Cleopater.

13. Cymbeline King of Britaine.


THE FOUR WHICH SEEM NEITHER TO HAVE BEEN PRINTED NOR REFERRED TO TILL
AFTER SHAKESPEARE'S DEATH ARE:-- *

1. The Life of King Henry the Eight.

2. The Tragedy of Coriolanus.

3. Timon of Athens.

4. Othello, the Moore of Venice.

Of the above plays, most of those which were printed in Shakespeare's
lifetime originally appeared anonymously; indeed, no play bore
Shakespeare's name until New Place, Stratford-on-Avon, had been
purchased for him and £1,000 given to him in 1597. The first play to
bear the name of W. Shakespere was Loves Labors Lost, which appeared in
the following year--1598.

     * Note.--The above very strongly confirms Mrs. Gallup's
     reading of the Cypher, viz.: that there are twenty-two new
     plays in the Folio. The Tempest, with Timon of Athens and
     Henry VIII., seems to be largely concerned with the story of
     Bacon's fall from his high offices in 1621, and Emile
     Montégut, writing in the "Revue des Deux Mondes" of August,
     1865, says that the Tempest is evidently the author's
     literary testament.

Stratford, to which Shakespeare was sent in 1597, was at that period
much farther from London for all practical purposes than Canada
is to-day, and Shakespeare did not go there for week ends, but he
permanently resided there, only very occasionally visiting London, when
he lodged at Silver Street with a hairdresser named Mountjoy.

It is exceedingly important and informing to remember that Shakespeare's
name never appeared upon any play until he had been permanently
sent away from London, and that his wealth was simply the
money--£1,000--given to him in order to induce him to incur the risk
entailed by allowing his name to appear upon the plays. Such risk was
by no means inconsiderable, because Queen Elizabeth was determined to
punish the author of Richard the Second, a play which greatly incensed
her; she is reported to have said, "Seest thou not that I am Richard the
Second?" There is no evidence that Shakespeare ever earned so much as
ten shillings in any one week while he lived in London.

At Stratford, Shakespeare sold corn, malt, etc., and lent small sums of
money, and indeed, was nothing more than a petty tradesman, a fact of
which we are quite clearly informed in "The Great Assises holden at
Parnassus," printed in 1645, where Bacon is put as "Chancellor of
Parnassus," i.e., greatest of the world's poets, and Shakespeare appears
as "the writer of weekly accounts." This means that the only literature
for which Shakespeare was responsible consisted of his small tradesman's
accounts sent out weekly by his clerk; because, as will be shewn
presently, <b>Shakespeare was totally unable to write a single letter of
his own name.</b>

Let us now return to the Folio of Shakespeare's plays, published in
1623. On the title page appears a large half-length figure drawn by
Martin Droeshout, which is known as the Authentic (i.e., the authorised)
portrait of Shakespeare. Martin Droeshout, I should perhaps mention, is
scarcely likely to have ever seen Shakespeare, as he was only 15 years
of age when Shakespeare died. On the cover of this pamphlet will be
found a reduced facsimile of the title page of the Folio of 1623. It is
almost inconceivable that people with eyes to see should have looked
at this so-called portrait for 287 years without perceiving that it
consists of a ridiculous, "putty-faced mask," fixed upon a stuffed dummy
clothed in a trick coat. *

     * Note.--This stuffed dummy is surmounted by a mask with an
     ear attached to it not in the least resembling any possible
     human ear, because, instead of being hollowed, it is rounded
     out something like the back side of a shoehorn, so as to
     form a sort of cup to cover and conceal any real ear that
     might be behind it.

The "Tailor and Cutter" newspaper, in its issue of 9th March, 1911,
stated that the figure, put for Shakespeare, 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," prints
the two halves of the coat put tailor fashion, shoulder to shoulder, as
shewn here on page 2, and says:--

"It is passing strange that something like three centuries should have
been allowed to elapse before the tailor's 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 back part; 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 [exactly
as our illustration on page 2] represent the foreparts of the same
garment, the polling would give an unanimous vote in the negative."

Facing the title page of the 1623 first Folio of the plays, on which the
stuffed and masked dummy appears, is the following description (of which
I give a photo-facsimile), which, as it is signed B. I., is usually
ascribed to Ben Jonson:--=

`````To the Reader.

```This Figure, that thou here seest pur,

````It was for gentle Shackspeare cut;

```Wherein the Grauer had a strife

````with Nature, to out-doo the life:

```O, could he but haue drawne his wit

````As well in brasse, as he hath hit

```His face, the Print would then surpasse

````All, that was cuer writ in brasse.

```But, since he cannot, Reader, lookc

````Not on his Picture, but his Booke.

`````B.I.=

[Illustration: 0011]

If my readers will count all the letters in the above, including the
four v's, which are used instead of the two w's, they will find that
there are 287 letters, a masonic number often repeated throughout the
Folio. My book, "Bacon is Shakespeare," was published in 1910 (i.e.,
287 years after 1623), and tells for the first time the true meaning of
these lines.

B. I. never calls the ridiculous dummy a portrait, but describes it as
"the Figure," "put for" (i.e., instead of), and as "the Print," and
as "his Picture," and he distinctly tells us to look not at his
(ridiculous) Picture, but (only) at his Booke.

It has always been a puzzle to students who read these verses why B. I.
lavished such extravagant praise upon what looks so stiff and wooden
a figure, about which Gainsborough, writing in 1768, says: "Damn the
original picture of him... for I think a stupider face I never beheld
except D... k's... it is impossible that such a mind and ray of heaven,
could shine with such a face and pair of eyes."

To those capable of properly reading the lines, B. I. clearly tells the
whole story. He says, "The Graver had a strife with Nature to out-doo
the life." In the New English Dictionary, edited by Sir James Murray,
we find more than six hundred words beginning with "out." Every one
of these, with scarcely an exception, must, in order to be fully
understood, be read reversed; outfit is fit out, outfall is fall out,
outburst is burst out, etc. Outlaw does not mean outside the law, but
lawed out by some legal process. "Out-doo" therefore must here mean "do
out," and was continually used for hundreds of years in that sense. Thus
in the "Cursor Mundi," written in the Thirteenth Century, we read
that Adam was "out-done" [of Paradise]. In 1603 Drayton published his
"Barons' Wars," and in Book V. s. li. we read,

````For he his foe not able to withstand,

````Was ta'en in battle and his eyes out-done.

B. I. therefore tells us that the Graver has done out the life, that is,
covered it up and masked it. The Graver has done this so cleverly that
for 287 years (i.e., from 1623 till 1910) learned pedants and others
have looked at the dummy without perceiving the trick that had been
played upon them.

B. I. then proceeds to say:--"O, could he but have drawne his wit as
well in brasse, as he hath hit his face." Hit, at that period, was often
used as the past participle of hide, with the meaning hid or hidden,
exactly as we find in Chaucer, in "The Squieres Tale," where we read,
ii. 512, etc.,=

```Right as a serpent hit him under floures

```Til he may seen his tyme for to byte.=

This, put into modern English prose, means, Just as a serpent hid
himself under the flowers until he might see his time to bite.

I have already explained how B. I. tells the reader not to look at the
picture, but at the book; perhaps the matter may be still more clear if
I give a paraphrase of the verses.=

`````TO THE READER.

```The dummy that thou seest set here

```Was put instead of Shake-a-speare;

```Wherein the graver had a strife

```To extinguish all of Nature's life.

```O, could he but have drawn his mind

```As well as he's concealed behind

```His face; the Print would then surpasse

```All, that was ever writ in brasse.

```But since he cannot, do not looke

```On his mask'd Picture, but his Booke.=

"Do out" appears as the name of the little instrument something like
a pair of snuffers, called a "douter," which was formerly used to
extinguish candles. Therefore, I have correctly substituted "extinguish"
for "out-do." 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. "Wit" in these lines means absolutely the same as
"mind" which I have used in its place, because I feel sure that it
refers to the fact that upon the miniature of Bacon in his eighteenth
year, painted by Hilliard in 1578, we read:--"Si tabula daretur digna
animum mallem," the translation of which is--"If one could but paint his
mind!"

This important fact which can neither be disputed nor explained away,
viz., that the figure upon the title page of the first Folio of the
plays in 1623 put 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 drunken, illiterate clown of Stratford-on-Avon, and shows us
quite clearly that the name "Shakespeare" was used as a left-hand, a
pseudonym, behind which the great author, Francis Bacon, wrote securely
concealed. In his last prayer, Bacon says, "I have though in a despised
weed procured the good of all men," while in the 76th "Shakespeare"
sonnet he says:--

```Why write I still all one, ever the same,

```And keepe invention in a noted weed.

```That every word doth almost sel my name

```Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed.

Weed signifies disguise, and is used in that sense by Bacon in his
"Henry VII.," where he says, "This fellow... clad himself like an
Hermite and in that weede wandered about the countrie."

It is doubtful if at that period it was possible to discover a meaner
disguise, a more "despised weed," than the pseudonym of William
Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, Gentleman. Bacon also specially
refers to his own great "_descent_ to the Good of Mankind" in the
wonderful prayer which is evidently his dedication of the "Immortal
Plays."=

```THIS IS THE FORM AND RULE OF OUR

`````ALPHABET

```May God, the Creator, Preserver, and Renewer of the Universe,

``protect and govern this work, both in its ascent to his Glory, and

``in its descent to the Good of Mankind, for the sake of his Mercy

``and good Will to Men, through his only Son (Immanuel). _God

`` us._=

In the "Promus," which is the name of Bacon's notebook now in the MSS.
department of the British Museum, Bacon tells us that "Tragedies and
Comedies are made of one Alphabet." His beautiful prayer, described
as the Form and Rule of our Alphabet, was first published in 1679 in
"Certaine Genuine Remains of Sir Francis Bacon, Baron of Verulam and
Viscount St. Albans," where it appears as a fragment of a book written
by the Lord Verulam and entituled, "The Alphabet of Nature." In the
preface we are told that this work is commonly said to be lost. "The
Alphabet of Nature" is, of course, "The Immortal Plays," known to us
as Shakespeare's, which hold "The Mirror up to Nature," and are now no
longer lost, but restored to their great author, Francis Bacon.




BACON SHEWN BY CONTEMPORARY TITLE PAGES TO BE THE AUTHOR OF THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS.


|I HAVE shewn on pp. 6 to 9 that the title page of the 1623 Folio of
the Plays known as Shakespeare's is adorned with a supposed portrait
of Shakespeare, which is, in fact, a putty-faced mask supported on a
stuffed dummy wearing a coat with two left arms, to inform us that the
Stratford clown was a "left-hand," a "dummy," a "pseudonym," behind
which the great Author was securely concealed.

This fact disposes once and for all of the Shakespeare myth, and I
will now proceed to prove by a few contemporary evidences that the real
author was Francis Bacon.

I place before the reader on page 11 a photographically enlarged copy
of the engraved title page of Bacon's work, the De Augmentis, which was
published in Holland in 1645. "De Augmentis" is the Latin name for the
work which appeared in English as the Advancement of Learning.

This same engraved title page was for more than one hundred years used
for the title page of Vol. I. of various editions of Bacon's collected
works in Latin, which were printed abroad. The same subject, but
entirely redrawn, was also employed for other foreign editions of the De
Augmentis, but nothing in any way resembling it was printed in England
until quite recently, when photo-facsimile copies were made of it for
the purpose of discussing the authorship of the "Shakespeare" plays.
In this title page we see in the foreground on the right of the picture
(the reader's left) Bacon seated with his right hand in brightest light
resting upon an open book beneath which is a second book (shall we
venture to say that these are the De Augmentis and the Novum Organum?),
while with his left-hand in deepest shadow, Bacon is putting forward a
mean man, who appears to the careless observer to be running away with
a third book. Let us examine carefully this man. We shall then perceive
that he is clothed in a goat skin. The word tragedy is derived from the
Greek word tragodos, which means an actor dressed in a goat skin. We
should also notice that the man wears a false breast to enable him
to represent a woman; there were no women actors at the time of
Shakespeare's plays. The man, therefore, is intended to represent the
tragic muse. With his left hand, and with his left hand only, he grips
strongly a clasped sealed, concealed book, which by the crossed lines
upon its side (then, as now, the symbol of a mirror) is shewn to be the
"Mirror up to Nature," the "Book of the Immortal Plays," known to us
under the name of Shakespeare, which, together with Bacon's De Augmentis
and his Novum Organum, makes up the "Great Instauration," by which Bacon
has "procured the good of all men."

[Illustration:0015]

Having very carefully considered this plate of the title page of the De
Augmentis, 1645, let us next examine the plate on page 13, which is
the title page that forms the frontispiece of Bacon's Henry VII. in the
Latin edition, printed in Holland in 1642. This forms, with the 1645
edition of the De Augmentis, one of the series of Bacon's collected
works which were continually reprinted for upwards of a hundred years.
In this title page of Henry VII. we see the same "left-handed" story
most emphatically repeated. On the right of the engraving--the reader's
left--upon the higher level, Francis Bacon stands in the garb of a
philosopher with grand Rosicrucian rosettes upon his shoes. By his side
is a knight in full armour, who, like himself, touches the figure with
his right hand. On the "left" side of the picture upon the _lower level_
we see that the same Francis Bacon, who is now wearing _actor's boots_,
is stopping the wheel with the shaft of a spear which, the "left-handed"
actor grasps (or shall we say "shakes"), while with his "left hand" he
points to the globe. This actor wears one spur only, and that upon his
"left" boot, and his sword is also girded upon him "left-handedly."
Above this "left-handed" actor's head, upon the wheel which the figure
is turning with her "left" hand, we see the emblems of the plays;
the mirror up to nature (observe the crossed lines to which we called
attention in reference to the crossed lines upon the book in the title
page of the De Augmentis, 1645)--the rod for the back of fools--"the
bason that receives your guilty blood" (see Titus Andronicus v. 2) which
is here the symbol for tragedy,--and the fool's rattle or bauble. That
the man is not a knight, but is intended to represent an actor, is
manifest from his wearing actor's boots, a collar of lace, and leggings
trimmed with lace, and having his sword girded on the wrong side, while
he wears but one gauntlet and that upon his "left" hand. That he is a
Shake-speare actor is also evident because he is shaking the spear which
is held by Bacon. He is likewise a shake-spur actor, as is shewn by
his wearing one spur only, which is upon his "left" boot. In other
emblematic writings and pictures we similarly get "Shake-spur," meaning
"Shake-speare."

The reader cannot fail to remark how perpetually it is shewn that
everything connected with the plays is performed "left-handedly," that
is, "underhandedly" and "secretly in shadow." On the right-hand side
upon the higher level the figure with her right hand holds above Bacon's
head a salt box. This is in order to teach us that Bacon was the "wisest
of mankind," because we are plainly told in the "Continuation of Bacon's
New Atlantis" (which was published in 1660, but of which the author
who is called "R. H., Esq.," has never been identified) that in "our
Heraldry" (which refers to the symbolic drawings that appear mostly as
the frontispieces of certain books such as those before the reader) "If
for wisdom she (the virgin) holds a salt." But the reader will perceive
that in her right hand she also holds something else above Bacon's head.

[Illustration: 0017]

Only a considerable knowledge of Emblems and Emblem books enables me
to inform my readers what this very curious object represents. It is
absolutely certain that what she holds above Bacon's head is a "bridle
without a bit," which is here put for the purpose of instructing us that
the future age is not to curb and muzzle and destroy Bacon's reputation.
This emblem tells us that, as the ages roll on, Bacon will be unmuzzled
and crowned with everlasting fame. How do we know so much as this? In
February, 1531, the first edition of the most important of all Emblem
books, viz., "Alciati's Emblems," was published, and in that book there
is shewn a hideous figure of Nemesis holding a bridle in which is a
tremendous "bit" to destroy "improba verba," false reputations. A
little more than a hundred years later, viz., in 1638, Baudoin, who had
translated Bacon's essays into French, also published a book of Emblems,
a task which, he tells us in the preface, he was induced to undertake
by "Alciat" (printed in small letters) and by BACON (printed in capital
letters). In this book of Emblems Baudoin puts opposite to Bacon's name
a fine engraving of Nemesis, but which is, in fact, a figure of Fame
holding a "bridle without a bit," of exactly the same shape as that
shewn in the title page of "Henry VII.," which is now under the reader's
eyes. I may perhaps here state that I possess books that must have
belonged to a distinguished Rosicrucian who was well acquainted with
Bacon's secrets, and that in my library there is a specially printed
copy of Baudoin's book in which this figure of Fame that is put as the
Nemesis for Bacon, is purposefully printed upside down; I do not mean
bound upside down, but printed upside down, the printing on the back
being reversed and so reading correctly. Other books which I possess
have portions similarly purposefully printed upside down to afford
revelations of Bacon's authorship to those readers who are capable
of understanding symbols. This particular upside down drawing of the
Nemesis placed opposite to Bacon's name in Baudoin's book is so printed
in order to emphasise the author's meaning that the Nemesis for Bacon is
to unmuzzle him and spread his fame over all the world. This "specially
printed" copy of Baudoin's book is also "specially bound"--in
contemporary binding--with Rosicrucian Emblems on the back.

The figure which turns the wheel turns it with her "left" hand, while
with her right hand she holds over Bacon's head what the reader now
knows to be the emblems of Wisdom and of Fame. Streaming from her head
is a long lock of hair which is correctly described as "the forelock
of time," and this is to teach us that as time goes on so will Bacon's
reputation continually extend farther and farther.

Bacon in his will declared that he bequeathed his "name and memory...
to foreign nations and the next ages." * Bacon knew that much time must
elapse before the world would begin to recognise how much he had done
for its advancement, and there is considerable evidence that he fixed
upon the year 1910, which is 287 years after the year 1623, in which
the Folio edition of the immortal plays, known as Shakespeare's, first
appeared.

     * Note.--The following story, related by Ben Jonson himself,
     shows how necessary it was for Bacon to conceal his identity
     behind various' masks:--"He [Ben Jonson] was dilated by Sir
     James Murray to the King, for writing 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.

With respect to Bacon's remarkable reference to foreign nations, we must
remember that the title pages here shown and numerous other striking
revelations of his authorship of the plays were never printed or
published in England, but appear only in editions printed in foreign
countries. I will once more repeat that the title page of the "De
Augmentis" clearly tells us that Bacon has secretly with his "left hand"
placed his great work, the "Immortal plays," "the Mirror up to Nature,"
in the hands of a mean actor, and that the title page of "Henry VII."
repeats the same "lefthanded" story, and tells us that, while the
history of Henry VII. is written in prose in Bacon's own name, his other
histories of the "Kings of England" are set forth at the Globe Theatre
by the Shakespeare actor, concealed behind whom Bacon stands secure. In
other words, that Bacon's other histories of England will be found in
the plays to which is attached the name of his pseudonym, the doubly
"lefthanded" and masked dummy, "William Shakespeare."




THE SHAKESPEARE SIGNATURES (SO-CALLED).


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




BACON SIGNED THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS.


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

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

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

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

Let us examine, in the first instance,=

````The First Page 53=

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

_Eva_. I pray you have your remembrance (childe) _Accusative_, king,
hang, hog. *

     * Note.--In the folio Ac-cusativo king, hang, hog are in
     italics as here printed.

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

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

Next, let us carefully examine=

````The Second Page 53=

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

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

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

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

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

````The Invisible Page 53.=

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

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

````The Page 53 from the end.=

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

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

_ Anth_. Thou art a Souldier, onely speake no more.

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

Now here we perceive that "Pompey,"

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

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

``The 43rd Line. (Example 1.)=

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

``is perfect Gallowes: stand fast good Fate to his han

``ging, make the rope of his destiny our cable, for our

``owne doth little advantage: If he be not borne to bee

``hang'd, our case is miserable.=

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

```The 43rd Line (Example 2.)=

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

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

```The First Page 43. (Example 3.)=

wherein is the first scene of the second act of "The Merry Wives of
Windsor," where we read as follows:--

_Mis. Page_. What's the matter, woman?

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

_Mi. Page_. Hang the trifle (woman) take the honour.

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

```Hang HOG (Example 1.)=

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

```Hang SOW (Example 2.)=

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

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

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

`````The Number 36.=

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

`````The 36th Essay,=

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

````The 36 th Antitheta.=

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

````The 36th Apophthegm.=

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

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

````Page 53.=

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

``H. A slice of bacon, would make us taste this wine well.

``S. What ho, set that gammon of bakon upon the board.=

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

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

     * Note.--The title page is headed with the figure of a
     Chameleon, which forms the "53rd" of "Alciati's Emblems."
     The Chameleon was supposed to assume various appearances,
     and is therefore used as an emblem for Bacon, who assumed
     numerous masks in order to do good to all mankind, though in
     a despised weed."

In Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," 1640, first edition in English,
we find a first page "53." In the margin of this page we find "Alexand":
(Bacon sometimes alluded to himself as Alexander). But the page 55 is
misnumbered "53," and on this second and false page "53" we read in the
margin=

`````S. FRAN

`````BACON,=

all in capital letters, almost the only marginal capital letters in the
whole of the book, which is Bacon's own book, and yet has this striking
reference to himself on the false page "53." The number of pages "53"
(very frequently falsely paged "53"), in which some reference to Bacon
or to the Plays may be discovered, is very large. I will, however, now
quote only two other instances.

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

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




THE NORTHUMBERLAND MANUSCRIPTS.


|ON page 25 is shewn a type transcript of the cover or outside page of
a collection of manuscripts in the possession of the Duke of
Northumberland, which were discovered at Northumberland House in London
in 1867 Three years later, viz.., in 1870, James Spedding published a
thin little volume entituled "A Conference of Pleasure," in which he
printed a full size facsimile of the original of the outside page,
which is here reproduced in modern script on page 25. He also gave a few
particulars of the MSS. themselves.

In 1904, Mr. Frank J. Burgoyne brought out a Collotype Facsimile of
every page that now remains of the collection of MSS. in an edition
limited to 250 copies, in a fine Royal Quarto at the price of £4 4s.
each. Of the MSS. mentioned on the cover, nine only now remain, and of
these, six are certainly by Francis Bacon; the first being written by
him for a Masque or "fanciful devise," which Mr. Spedding thinks was
presented at the Court of Elizabeth in 1592.

The reader's attention is directed to this Masque, which consists of
"The praise of the Worthiest Vertue, &c," Lower down we read: "Speaches
for my Lord of Essex at the tylt,"

"Speach for my Lord of Sussex tilt,"

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

[Illustration: 0029]

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

It is not necessary here to refer to the remainder of these original
writings, but there is a mass of curious scribblings all over the page.
Concerning these, Mr. Spedding says: "I find nothing in these later
scribblings or in what remains of the book itself to indicate a date
later than the reign of Elizabeth." They are therefore written by a
contemporary hand.

For the purpose of reference I have placed the letters a b c d e outside
of the facsimile.

(a) "Honorificabilitudine." This curious long word, when taken in
conjunction with the words "Your William Shakespeare," which are found
more than once upon the page, appears to have some reference to the
longer word "Honorificabili-tudinitatibus," which is found in "Loves
Labors Lost," printed in 1598, the first play to which the name of
Shakespeare (spelled Shakespere) was attached. I must repeat that upon
no play appeared the name William Shakespeare until that man had been
sent permanently away to Stratford in 1597. The long word, as I shew
in my book, "Bacon is Shakespeare," Chapter X., page 84, gives us
the Masonic number 287, and really tells us with the most absolute
mechanical certainty that the plays were Francis Bacon's "orphan"
children.

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

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

     * Note.--A few copies of my book, "Bacon is Shakespeare,"
     published by Gay & Hancock, are still on sale at the price
     of 2s. '6d. No important statement contained therein has
     been or ever will be successfully controverted because the
     facts stated are derived from books contained in my unique
     library, which includes works that must have belonged to a
     distinguished Rosicrucian who was well acquainted with the
     secrets of Bacon's authorship.

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




BACON AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.


|WE owe our mighty English tongue of to-day to Francis Bacon and to
Francis Bacon alone. The time has now come when this stupendous fact
should be taught in every school, and that the whole of the Anglo-Saxon
speaking peoples should know that the most glorious birthright which
they possess, their matchless language,was the result of the life and
labour of one man, viz.--Francis Bacon, who, when as little more than a
boy, he was sent with our ambassador, Sir Amyas Paulett, to Paris, found
there that "La Pléiade" (the Seven) had just succeeded in creating the
French language from what had before been as they declared "merely a
barbarous jargon." Young Bacon at once seized the idea and resolved to
create an English language capable of expressing the highest thoughts.
All writers are agreed that at the commencement of the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, English as a "literary" language did not exist. All writers
are agreed that what is known as the Elizabethan Age was the most
glorious period of English literature. All writers are agreed that our
language of to-day is founded upon the English translation of the Bible
and upon the Plays of Shakespeare. Every word of each of these was
undoubtedly written by, or under the direction of, Francis Bacon.

Max Müller, in his "Science of Language," Vol. I., 1899, page 378, says:
"A well educated person in England who has been at a public school
and at the university... seldom uses more than about 3,000 or 4,000
words.... The Hebrew Testament says all that it has to say with 5,642
words, Milton's poetry is built up with 8,000, and Shakespeare, who
probably displayed a greater variety of expression than any writer in
any language produced all his plays with about 15,000 words."

Does anyone suppose that any master of the Stratford Grammar School,
where Latin was the only language used, knew so many as 2,000 English
words, or that the illiterate householder of Stratford, known as William
Shakespeare, knew half or a quarter so many?

But to return to the Bible--we mean the Bible of 1611, known as the
Authorised Version, which J. A. Weisse tells us contains about 15,000
different words (i.e. the same number as used in the Shakespeare plays).
It was translated by 48 men, whose names are known, and then handed to
King James I. * It was printed about one and a half years later. In the
Preface, which is evidently written by Bacon, we are told "we have not
tyed ourselves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of
words." This question of variety of expression is discussed in the
Preface at considerable length (compare with Max Müller's references
to Shakespeare's extraordinary variety of expression) and then we read:
"Wee might also be charged... with some unequall dealing towards a
great number of good English words... if we should say, as it were, unto
certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwaies, and
to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever." This
means that an endeavour was made to insert all good English words into
this new translation of the Bible, so that none might be deemed to be
merely "secular."

     * Note.--The forty-eight translators made use of "The
     Bishops' Bible," but no copy of this work, on which appear
     any annotations by the translators, can be discovered. See
     Bishop Westcott's "History of the English Bible," 1905, p.
     118.

Is it possible that any intelligent person can really read the Bible
as a whole, not now a bit and now a scrap, but read it straight through
like an ordinary book and fail to perceive that the majestic rhythm that
runs through the whole cannot be the language of many writers, but must
flow from the pen, or at least from the editorship, of one great master
mind?

A confirmation of this statement that the Authorised Version of King
James I. was edited by one masterhand is contained in the "Times"
newspaper of March 22nd, 1912, where Archdeacon Westcott, writing about
the Revised Version of 1881, says, the revisers "were men of notable
learning and singular industry.... There were far too many of them; and
successful literary results cannot be achieved by syndicates."

Yes, the Bible and Shakespeare embody the language of the great master,
but before it could be so embodied, the English tongue had to be
created, and it was for this great purpose that Bacon made his piteous
appeals for funds to Bodley, to Burleigh, and to Queen Elizabeth.

Observe the great mass of splendid translations of the Classics (often
second-hand from the French, as Plutarch's "Lives" by North) with which
England was positively flooded at that period. Hitherto no writer seems
to have called attention to the fact that certain of these translations
were made from the French instead of from the original Greek or Latin,
not because it was easier to take them from the French, but because in
that way the new French words and, phrases were enabled to be introduced
to enrich the English tongue. The sale of these translations could not
possibly have paid any considerable portion of their cost.

Thus Bacon worked. Thus his books under all sorts of pseudonyms
appeared. No book of the Elizabethan Age of any value proceeded from
any source except from his workshop of those "good pens," over whom Ben
Jonson was foreman.

In a very rare and curious little volume, published anonymously in
1645, under the title of "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus by
Apollo and his Assessours," Ben Jonson is described as the "Keeper
of the Trophonian Denne," and in Westminster Abbey his medallion bust
appears clothed in a left-handed coat to show us that he was a servant
of Bacon.=

```O, rare Ben Jonson--what a turncoat grown!

````Thou ne'er wast such, till clad in stone;

```Then let not this disturb thy sprite,

````Another age shall set thy buttons right. '

`````Stowe ii., p. 512-13.

In this same book, we see on the leaf following the title page the name
of Apollo in large letters in an ornamental frame, and below it in
the place of honour we find Francis Bacon placed as "_Lord_ VERULAN
_Chancellor of Parnassus_."

This means that Bacon was the greatest of poets since the world began.
This proud position is also claimed for him by Thomas Randolf in a Latin
poem published in 1640, but believed to have been written immediately
after Bacon's death in 1626. Thomas Randolf declares that Phoebus (i.e.,
Apollo) was accessory to Bacon's death because he was afraid that Bacon
would some day come to be crowned king of poetry or the Muses. George
Herbert, Bacon's friend, who had overlooked many of his works, repeats
the same story, calling Bacon the colleague of Sol, i.e., Phoebus
Apollo.

Instances might be multiplied, but I will only quote the words of John
Davies, of Hereford, another friend of Bacon's, who addresses him in his
"Scourge of Folly," published about 1610, as follows:--=

```As to her Bellamour the Muse is wont;

```For, thou dost her embozom; and dost use,

```Her company for sport twixt grave affaires.=

Bacon was always recognised by his contemporaries as among the greatest
of poets. Although nothing of any poetical importance bearing Bacon's
name had been up to that time published, Stowe (in his Annales, printed
in 1615) places Bacon seventh in his list of Elizabethan poets.




THE SHAKESPEARE MYTH IS DEAD.


|IN 1898 the Shakespeare myth was mortally wounded by the curious
collection of "may have beens," "might have beens," "could have beens,"
"should have beens," "must have beens," etc., collected in Sir Sidney
Lee's supposititious life of William Shakespeare. In 1910 it was killed
by the Cambridge History of English Literature, edited by Dr. Ward,
Master of Peterhouse, and Mr. Waller, also of Peterhouse, for in Volume
V., pages 165-6-7, we read: "We are not quite sure of the identity of
Shakespeare's father; we are by no means certain of the identity of
his wife.... We do not know whether he ever went to school.. . . No
biography of Shakespeare, therefore, which deserves any confidence has
ever been constructed without a large infusion of the tell-tale words
'apparently,' 'probably,' 'there can be little doubt,' and no small
infusion of the still more tell-tale 'perhaps,' 'it would be natural,'
'according to what was usual at the time,' and so forth... John
Shakespeare married Mary Arden, an heiress of a good yeomanry family,
but as to whose connection with a more distinguished one of the same
name there remains much room for doubt."

I should add that no letter addressed to Shakespeare exists excepting
one asking for a loan of £30; and that no contemporary letter referring
to him has been discovered excepting three which are about money.

In 1910 appeared my own book, "Bacon is Shakespeare," which, placed
in every library in the world, has carried everywhere the news of the
decease of the myth.

In 1911 Mark Twain's book, "Is Shakespeare dead?" which had been
published in 1909 in England, was included in the Tauchnitz collection,
and therefore likewise carries the news of the decease of the myth all
over the earth. Mark Twain describes Shakespeare as just a "Tar
Baby," and says: "About him you can find out nothing. Nothing of any
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 commonplace person... a small trader in a small village
that did not regard him as a person of any consequence, and had
forgotten all about him before he was cold in his grave.... * We can go
to the records and find out the life-history of every renowned racehorse
of modern times--but not Shakespeare's! There are many reasons why, and
they have been furnished in cartloads (of guess and conjecture). . . 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 tell.
There is no way of getting round that deadly fact. And no sane way has
yet been discovered of getting round its formidable significance."

     * Note.--Stratford owes all its glory to two of its sons,
     John, Archbishop of Canterbury, who built a church there;
     and Hugh Clopton, who built, at his own cost, a bridge of
     fourteen arches across the Avon. Translated from Jean Blaeu,
     1645.

The Shakespeare myth is now destroyed. Does any educated person of
intelligence still believe in the "Tar Baby," the illiterate clown of
Stratford, who was totally unable to write a single letter of his own
name, and of whom we are told, if we understand what we are told, that
he could not read a line of print. No book was found in his house, and
neither of his daughters could either read or write.

There exists no "portrait" of Shakespeare. The significant fact that the
Figure put for Shakespeare in the 1623 Folio of the plays consists of
a doubly left-handed dummy is alone sufficient to dispose of the
Shakespeare myth. I have printed in various newspapers all over the
world about a million copies of articles demonstrating this fact, which
none can successfully dispute.

In modern times Percy Bysshe Shelley--one of England's greatest poets
(who knew nothing about the Shakespeare controversy)--wrote as follows:
"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." This statement by Shelley, taken in conjunction
with the testimony of "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus," 1645, and
the words of Thomas Randolf, 1640, and of Bacon's friends George Herbert
and John Davies, together with the contemporary evidence of Stowe
in 1615, are sufficient to dispose, once and for all, of the absurd
contention that is sometimes put forth that Bacon did not possess
sufficient poetical ability to have written his own greatest work, the
Immortal Plays.

Lord Palmerston said that he rejoiced to see the reintegration of
Italy, the unveiling of the mystery of China, and the explosion of the
Shakespeare illusions. Lord Houghton, the father of the present Marquis
of Crewe, said that he agreed with Lord Palmerston. John Bright said any
man that believed that William Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet," or "Lear,"
was a fool. Prince Bismarck said in 1892: "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 Shakespeare's time were only to be met
with in the highest circles."

The "Tempest" is over, the false crown of the Island (the Stage) has
been torn from the head of the dummy that appeared to wear it. It seems
difficult to imagine that people possessed of ordinary intelligence can
any longer continue to believe that the most learned of all the literary
works in the world was written by the most unlearned of men, William
Shakespeare of Stratford, who never seems even to have attempted to
write a single letter of his own name. It has been proved that the six
so-called signatures of Shakespeare were written by various law clerks,
and it is now admitted that there exist no other writings which can even
be supposed to be from his pen.

E. D-L.









