полная версия

Durning-Lawrence Edwin
Bacon is Shake-Speare

This grotesque and absurd fable has for two hundred years been accepted as an almost indisputable historical fact. Men of great intelligence in other matters seem when the life of Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon is concerned, quite prepared to refuse to exercise either judgment or common sense, and to swallow without question any amount of preposterous nonsense, even such as is contained in the above statement. The part of the Ghost in the play of "Hamlet" is one of the smallest and most insignificant possible, and can be easily played by the most ignorant and most inexperienced of actors. All that is required is a suit of armour with somebody inside it, to walk with his face concealed, silently and slowly a few times across the stage. Then on his final appearance he should say a few sentences (84 lines in the Folio, 1623), but these can be and occasionally are spoken by some invisible speaker in the same manner as the word "Swear" which is always growled out by someone concealed beneath the stage. No one knows, and no one cares, for no one sees who plays the part, which requires absolutely no histrionic ability. Sir Henry Irving, usually, I believe, put two men in armour upon the stage, in order to make the movements of the Ghost more mysterious. What then can be the meaning of the statement that the highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, attained was to play the part of the Ghost in "Hamlet"? The rumour is so positive and so persistent that it cannot be disregarded or supposed to be merely a foolish jest or a senselessly false statement put forward for the purpose of deceiving the public. We are compelled, therefore, to conclude that there must be behind this fable some real meaning and some definite purpose, and we ask ourselves; What is the purpose of this puzzle? What can be its real meaning and intention? As usual, the Bacon key at once solves the riddle. The moment we realise that BACON is HAMLET, we perceive that the purpose of the rumour is to reveal to us the fact that the highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, attained was to play the part of Ghost to Bacon, that is to act as his "PSEUDONYM," or in other words, the object of the story is to reveal to us the fact that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE

Chapter XIII

Conclusion, with further evidences from title pages.

Bacon had published eleven plays anonymously, when it became imperatively necessary for him to find some man who could be purchased to run the risk, which was by no means inconsiderable, of being supposed to be the author of these plays which included "Richard II."; the historical play which so excited the ire of Queen Elizabeth. Bacon, as we have already pointed out, succeeded in discovering a man who had little, if any, repute as an actor, but who bore a name which was called Shaxpur or Shackspere, which could be twisted into something that might be supposed to be the original of Bacon's pen name of Shake-Speare.

When in 1597 through the medium of powerful friends, by means of the bribe of a large sum of money, the gift of New Place, and the promise of a coat of arms, this man had been secured, he was at once sent away from London to the then remote village of Stratford-on-Avon, where scarcely a score of people could read, and none were likely to connect the name of their countryman, who they knew could neither read nor write and whom they called Shak or Shackspur, with "William Shakespeare" the author of plays the very names of which were absolutely unknown to any of them.

Bacon, when Shackspur had been finally secured in 1597, brought out in the following year 1598 "Loues Labor's lost" with the imprint "newly corrected and augmented by W. Shakespere," and immediately he also brought out under the name of Francis Meres "Wits Treasury," containing the statement that eleven other plays, including "Richard II.," were also by this same Shakespeare who had written the poems of "Venus and Adonis" and "Lucrece."

Francis Meres says: "As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honytongued Shakespeare, witnes his 'Venus and Adonis,' his 'Lucrece,' his sugred Sonnets among his private friends."

The Sonnets were not printed, so far as is known, before 1609, and they as has been shown in Chapter 8 repeat the story of Bacon's authorship of the plays.

Bacon in 1598, as we have stated in previous pages, fully intended that at some future period posterity should do him justice.

Among his last recorded words are those in which he commends his name and fame to posterity, "after many years had past." Accordingly we find, as we should expect to find, that when he put Shakespeare's name to "Loues Labor's lost" (the first play to bear that name) Bacon took especial pains to secure that at some future date he should be recognised as the real author. Does he not clearly reveal this to us by the wonderful words with which the play of "Loues Labor's lost" opens?

 
    "Let Fame, that all hunt after in their lyues,
     Liue registred vpon our brazen Tombes,
     And then grace vs, in the disgrace of death:
     When spight of cormorant deuouring Time,
     Thendeuour of this present breath may buy:
     That honour which shall bate his sythes keene edge,
     And make us heires of all eternitie."
 

Bacon intended that "Spight of cormorant devouring Time" … honour… should make [him] heir of all eternitie.

Compare the whole of this grand opening passage of "Loues Labor's lost" with the lines ascribed to Milton in the 1632 edition of Shakespeare's plays when Bacon was [supposed to be] dead. No epitaph appeared in the 1623 edition, but in the 1632 edition appeared the following:

 
     "An Epitaph on the admirable Dramaticke Poet,
                  W. Shakespeare.
     What neede my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
     The labour of an Age in piled stones
     Or that his hallow'd Reliques should be hid
     Under a starrey-pointed Pyramid?
     Deare sonne of Memory, great Heire of Fame,
     What needst thou such dull witnesse of thy Name?
     Thou in our wonder and astonishment
     Hast built thy selfe a lasting Monument:
     For whil'st, to th' shame of slow-endevouring Art
     Thy easie numbers flow, and that each part,
     Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued Booke,
     Those Delphicke Lines with deepe impression tooke
     Then thou our fancy of her selfe bereaving,
     Dost make us Marble with too much conceiving,
     And so Sepulcher'd, in such pompe dost lie
     That Kings for such a Tombe would wish to die."
 

We have pointed out in Chapter 10 and in Chapter 11 how clearly in "Loues Labour's lost," on page 136 of the folio of 1623, Bacon reveals the fact that he is the Author of the Plays, and we have shewn how the title pages of certain books support this revelation, beginning with the title page of the first folio of 1623 with its striking revelation given to us in the supposititious portrait which really consists of "a mask supported on two left arms."

We may, however, perhaps here mention that instructions are specially given to all who can understand, in the little book which is said to be a continuation of Bacon's "Nova Atlantis," and to be by R. H., Esquire, [whom no one has hitherto succeeded in identifying].

[Illustration: Plate XXXIV Facsimile Title Page.]

On Plate 34, Page 149, we give a facsimile of its Title Page which describes the book and states that it was printed in 1660.

In this book a number of very extraordinary inventions are mentioned such as submarine boats to blow up ships and harbours, and telegraphy by means of magnetic needles, but the portion to which we now wish to allude is that which refers to a "solid kind of Heraldry." This will be found on pp. 23-4, and reads as follows:

"We have a solid kind of Heraldry, not made specious with ostentative pydecoats and titular Atcheivements, which in Europe puzzel the tongue as well as memory to blazon, and any Fool may buy and wear for his money. Here in each province is a Register to record the memorable Acts, extraordinary qualities and worthy endowments of mind of the most eminent Patricians. Where for the Escutcheon of Pretence each noble person bears the Hieroglyphic of that vertue he is famous for. E.G. If eminent for Courage, the Lion; If for Innocence, the White Lamb; If for Chastity, a Turtle; If for Charity, the Sun in his full glory; If for Temperance, a slender Virgin, girt, having a bridle in her mouth; If for Justice, she holds a Sword in the right, and a Scales in the left hand; If for Prudence, she holds a Lamp; If for meek Simplicity, a Dove in her right hand; If for a discerning Judgment, an Eagle; If for Humility, she is in Sable, the head inclining and the knees bowing; If for Innocence, she holds a Lilie; If for Glory or Victory, a Garland of Baies; If for Wisdom, she holds a Salt; If he excels in Physic, an Urinal; If in Music, a Lute; If in Poetry, a Scrowle; If in Geometry, an Astrolabe; If in Arithmetic, a Table of Cyphers; If in Grammar, an Alphabetical Table; If in Mathematics, a Book; If in Dialectica she holds a Serpent in either hand; and so of the rest; the Pretence being ever paralel to his particular Excellency. And this is sent him cut in brass, and in colours, as he best phansies for the Field; only the Hieroglyphic is alwayes proper."

These references to a solid kind of Heraldry refer to the title pages and frontispieces of books which may be characterised broadly as Baconian books, and examples of every one of them can be found in books extending from the Elizabethan period almost up to the present date.

We place Plate 35, Page 153, before the reader, which is a photo enlargement of the title page of Bacon's "History of Henry VII.," printed in Holland, 1642, the first Latin edition (in 12mo).

Here is seen the Virgin holding the Salt, shewing the Wisdom of the Author. In her right hand, which holds the Salt, she holds also two other objects which seem difficult to describe. They represent "a bridle without a bit," in order to tell us the purpose of the Plate is to unmuzzle Bacon, and to reveal to us his authorship of the plays known as Shakespeare's.

But in order to prove that the objects represent a bridle without a bit, we must refer to two emblem books of very different dates and authorship.

First we refer our readers to Plate 36, Page 156, which is a photo enlargement of the figure of Nemesis in the first (February 1531) edition of Alciati's Emblems. The picture shews us a hideous figure holding in her left hand a bridle with a tremendous bit to destroy false reputations, improba verba.

We next put before our readers the photo reproduction of the figure of Nemesis, which will be found on page 484, of Baudoin's Emblems, 1638. Baudoin had previously brought out in French a translation of Bacon's "Essays," which was published at Paris in 1621. In the preface to his book of Emblems he tells us that he was induced to undertake the task by BACON (printed in capital letters), and by Alciat (printed in ordinary type). In this book of Emblems, Baudoin, on page 484, placed his figure of Nemesis opposite to Bacon's name. If the reader carefully examines Plate 37 he will perceive that it is no longer a grinning hideous figure, but is a figure of FAME, and carries a bridle in which there is found to be no sign of any kind of bit, because the purpose of the Emblem is to shew that Nemesis will unmuzzle and glorify Bacon.

In order to make the meaning of Baudoin's Emblem still more emphatically explicit a special Rosicrucian Edition of the same date, 1638, was printed, in which Baudoin's Nemesis is printed "upside down"; we do not mean bound upside down, but printed upside down, for there is the printing of the previous page at the back of the engraving. We have already alluded on page 113 to the frequent practice of the upside down printing of ornaments and engravings when a revelation concerning Bacon's connection with Shakespeare is afforded to us.

[Illustration: Plate XXXV. Facsimile Title Page]

[Illustration: Plate XXXVI. "Nemesis," from Alcaiti's Emblems, 1531]

[Illustration: Plate XXXVII. Page 484 from Baudoin's Emblems 1638]

The writer possesses an ordinary copy of Baudoin's Emblems, 1638, and also a copy of the edition with the Nemesis printed upside down which appears opposite Bacon's name. The copy so specially printed is bound with Rosicrucian emblems outside.

The reader, by comparing Baudoin's Nemesis, Plate 37, and the Title Page of Henry VII., Plate 35, will at once perceive that the objects in the right hand of the Virgin holding the salt box are correctly described as representing a "bridle without a bit," and he will know that a revelation concerning Bacon and Shakespeare is going to be given to him. Now we will tell him the whole story. On the right of the picture, Plate 35 (the reader's left) we see a knight in full armour, and also a philosopher who is, as the roses on his shoes tell us, a Rosicrucian philosopher. On the left on a lower level is the same philosopher, evidently Bacon, but without the roses on his shoes. He is holding the shaft of a spear with which he seems to stop the wheel. By his side stands what appears to be a Knight or Esquire, but the man's sword is girt on the wrong side, he wears a lace collar and lace trimming to his breeches, and he wears actor's boots (see Plate 28, Page 118, and Plate 132, Page 127).

We are therefore forced to conclude that he is an Actor. And, lo, he wears but ONE SPUR. He is therefore a Shake-spur Actor (on Plate 27, Page 115, is shewn a Shake-spur on horseback). This same Actor is also shaking the spear which is held by the philosopher. He is therefore also a Shake-spear Actor. And now we can read the symbols on the wheel which is over his head: the "mirror up to nature," "the rod for the back of fools," the "basin to hold your guilty blood" ("Titus Andronicus," v. 2), and "the fool's bawble." On the other side of the spear: the spade the symbol of the workman, the cap the symbol of the gentleman, the crown the symbol of the peer, the royal crown, and lastly the Imperial crown. Bacon says Henry VII. wore an Imperial crown. Quite easily now we can read the whole story.

The "History of Henry VII.," though in this picture displayed on a stage curtain, is set forth by Bacon in prose while the rest of the Histories of England are given to the world by Bacon by means of his pseudonym the Shake-spear Actor at the Globe to which that figure is pointing.

Plain as the plate appears to the instructed eye it seems hitherto to have failed to reveal to the _un_instructed its clear meaning that

BACON IS SHAKE-SPEARE

CHAPTER XIV

Postscriptum.

Most fortunately before going to press we were able to see at the Record Office, Chancery Lane, London, the revealing documents recently discovered by Dr. Wallace and described by him in an article published in the March number of Harper's Monthly Magazine, under the title of "New Shakespeare Discoveries." The documents found by Dr. Wallace are extremely valuable and important. They tell us a few real facts about the Householder of Stratford-upon-Avon, and they effectually once and for all dispose of the idea that the Stratford man was the Poet and Dramatist, – the greatest genius of all the ages.

In the first place they prove beyond the possibility of cavil or question that "Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," was totally unable to write even so much as any portion of his own name. It is true that the Answers to the Interrogatories which are given by "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," are marked at the bottom "Wilm Shaxpr," but this is written by the lawyer or law clerk, in fact "dashed in" by the ready pen of an extremely rapid writer. A full size photographic facsimile of this "so-called" signature, with a portion of the document above it, is given in Plate 38, Page 164, and on the opposite page, in Plate 39, is shewn also in full size facsimile the real signature of Daniell Nicholas with a portion of the document, which he signed, above it.

In order that the reader may be able more easily to read the law writing we give on page 167, in modern type, the portion of the document photographed above the name Wilm Shaxp'r, and on the same page a modern type transcript of the document above the signature of Daniell Nicholas.

Any expert in handwriting will at once perceive that "Wilm Shaxp'r" is written by the same hand that wrote the lower portion of Shakespeare's Answers to Interrogatories, and by the same hand that wrote the other set of Answers to Interrogatories which are signed very neatly by "Daniell Nicholas."

The words "Daughter Marye" occur in the portion photographed of both documents, and are evidently written by the same law writer, and can be seen in Plate 38, Page 164, just above the "Wilm Shaxp'r," and in Plate 39, Page 165, upon the fifth line from the top. The name of "Shakespeare" also occurs several times in the "Answers to Interrogatories." One instance occurs in Plate 39, Page 165, eight lines above the name of Daniell Nicholas, and if the reader compares it with the "Wilm Shaxp'r" on Plate 38, Page 164, it will be at once seen that both writings are by the same hand.

[Illustration: Plate XXXVIII Full Size Facsimile of part of

"Shakespeare's Answers to the Interrogatories," Discovered by Dr.

Wallace in the British Records Office.]

[Illustration: Plate XXXIX. Full Size Facsimile of part of Daniell

Nicholas' "Answers to the Interrogatories," Discovered by Dr. Wallace in

British Record Office.]

portion What c'tayne he… plt twoe hundered pounds decease. But sayth that his house. And they had amo about their marriadge w'ch nized. And more he can ponnt saythe he can saye of the same Interro for cessaries of houshould stuffe his daughter Marye WILM SHAXPR

TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXVIII

* * * * *

Interr this depnnt sayth that the deft did beare ted him well when he by him the said Shakespeare his daughter Marye that purpose sent him swade the plt to the solempnised uppon pmise of nnt. And more he can this deponnt sayth is deponnt to goe wth DANIELL NICHOLAS.

TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXIX

Answers to Interrogatories are required to be signed by the deponents. In the case of "Johane Johnsone," who could not write her name, the depositions are signed with a very neat cross which was her mark. In the case of "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who was also unable to write his name, they are signed with a dot which might quite easily be mistaken for an accidental blot. Our readers will see this mark, which is not a blot but a purposely made mark, just under "Wilm Shaxp'r."

Dr. Wallace reads the "so-called" signature as Willm Shaks, but the Christian name is written quite clearly Wilm. And we should have supposed that any one possessing even the smallest acquaintance with the law writing of the period must have known that the scroll which looks like a flourish at the end of the surname is not and cannot be an "s," but is most certainly without any possibility of question a "p," and that the dash through the "p" is the usual and accepted abbreviation for words ending in "per," or "peare," etc.¹²

Then how ought we, nay how arewe, compelled to read the so-called signature? The capital S is quite clear, so also is the "h," then the next mass of strokes all go to make up simply the letter "a." Then we come to the blotted letter,

[Illustration: Plate XL. FACSIMILES OF LAW CLERKS' WRITING OF THE NAME

"SHAKESPEARE," FROM HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS' "OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF

SHAKESPEARE," VOL. 2, 1889.]

this is not and cannot be "kes" or "ks" because in the law writing of the period every letter "s" (excepting "s" at the end of a word) was written as a very long letter. This may readily be seen in the word Shakespeare which occurs in Plate 39 on the eighth line above the signature of Daniell Nicholas. What then is this blotted letter if it is not kes or ks? The answer is quite plain, it is an "X," and a careful examination under a very strong magnifying glass will satisfy the student that it is without possibility of question correctly described as an "X."¹³ Yes, the lawclerk marked the Stratford Gentleman's "Answers to Interrogatories" with the name "Wilm Shaxp'r." Does there exist a Stratfordian who will contend that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, if he had been able to write any portion of his name would have marked his depositions Wilm Shaxp'r? Does there exist any man who will venture to contend that the great Dramatist, the author of the Immortal plays, would or could have so signed his name? We trow not; indeed, such an abbreviation would be impossible in a legal document in a Court of Law where depositions are required to be signed in full.

With reference to the other so-called Shakespeare's signatures we must refer the reader to our Chapter III. which was penned before these "New Shakespeare Discoveries" were announced. And it is perhaps desirable to say that the dot in the "W" which appears in two of those "so-called" signatures of Shakespeare, and also in the one just discovered, is part of the regular method of writing a "W" in the law writing of the period. In the Purchase Deed of the property in Blackfriars, of March 10th 1612-13, mentioned on page 38, there are in the first six lines of the Deed seven "W's," in each of which appears a dot. And in the Mortgage Deed of March 11th 1612-13, there are seven "W's" in the first five lines, in each of which appears a similar dot. The above-mentioned two Deeds are in the handwriting of different law clerks.

It may not be out of place here again to call our readers' attention to the fact that law documents are required to be signed "in full," and that if the very rapid and ready writer who wrote "Wilm Shaxp'r" were indeed the Gentleman of Stratford it would have been quite easy for such a good penman to have written his name in full; this the law writer has not done because he did not desire to forge a signature to the document, but desired only to indicate by an abbreviation that the dot or spot below was the mark of William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Thus the question, whether William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, could or could not write his name is for ever settled in the negative, and there is no doubt, there can be no doubt, upon this matter.

Dr. Wallace declares "I have had no theory to defend and no hypothesis to propose." But as a matter of fact his whole article falsely assumes that "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who is referred to in the documents, is no other than the great Dramatist who wrote the Immortal plays. And the writer can only express his unbounded wonder and astonishment that even so ardent a Stratfordian as Dr. Wallace, after studying the various documents which he discovered, should have ventured to say:

"Shakespeare was the third witness examined. Although, forsooth, the matter of his statements is of no high literary quality and the manner is lacking in imagination and style, as the Rev. Joseph Green in 1747 complained of the will, we feel none the less as we hear him talk that we have for the first time met Shakespeare in the flesh and that the acquaintance is good."

As a matter of fact none of the words of any of the deponents are their own words, but they are the words of the lawyers who drew the Answers to the Interrogatories. The present writer, when a pupil in the chambers of a distinguished lawyer who afterwards became a Lord Justice, saw any number of Interrogatories and Answers to Interrogatories, and even assisted in their preparation. The last thing that any one of the pupils thought of, was in what manner the client would desire to express his own views. They drew the most plausible Answers they could imagine, taking care that their words were sufficiently near to the actual facts for the client to be able to swear to them.

The so-called signature "Wilm Shaxp'r," is written by the lawyer or law clerk who wrote the lower part of Shakespeare's depositions, and this same clerk also wrote the depositions above the name of another witness who really signs his own name, viz., "Daniell Nicholas." The only mark William Shakespeare put to the document was the blot above which the abbreviated name "Wilm Shaxp'r" was written by the lawyer or law clerk.

The documents shew that Shakespeare of Stratford occasionally "lay" in the house in Silver Street, and Ben Jonson's words in "The Staple of News" (Third Intermeane; Act iii.), to which Dr. Wallace refers viz., that "Siluer-Streete" was "a good seat for a Vsurer" are very informing, because as we have before pointed out the Stratford man was a cruel usurer.

Dr. Wallace's contention that Mountjoy, the wig-maker, of the corner house in Silver Street where Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, occasionally slept, was the original of the name of the Herald in Henry V.¹⁴ really surpasses, in want of knowledge of History, anything that the writer has ever previously encountered, and he is afraid that it really is a measure of the value of Dr. Wallace's other inferences connecting the illiterate Stratford Rustic with the great Dramatist who "took all knowledge for his province."

Dr. Wallace's "New Shakespeare Discoveries" are really extremely valuable and informing, and very greatly assist the statements which the writer has made in the previous chapters, viz., that the Stratford Householder was a mean Rustic who was totally unable to read or to write, and was not even an actor of repute, but was a mere hanger-on at the Theatre. Indeed, the more these important documents are examined the clearer it will be perceived that, as Dr. Wallace points out, they shew us that the real William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman, was not the "Aristocrat," whom Tolstoi declares the author of the plays to have been, but was in fact a man who resided [occasionally when he happened to revisit London] "in a hardworking family," a man who was familiar with hairdressers and their apprentices, a man who mixed as an equal among tradesmen in a humble position of life, who referred to him as "One Shakespeare." These documents prove that "One Shakespeare" was not and could not have been the "poet and dramatist." In a word these documents strongly confirm the fact that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE

[Illustration: Plate XLI. Facsimile of the Dedication of Powell's

"Attourney's Academy," 1630]