Bacon is Shake-Speare

CHAPTER III

The so-called "Signatures."

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

Shakspeare died 23rd April 1616 just four weeks after publishing his will.

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

"Fra: Collyns

Julius Shawe

John Robinson

Hamnet Sadler

Robert Whattcott"

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

[Illustration: Plate XIV. The Five so-called "Shakespeare Signatures."

THE FIVE SO-CALLED "SHAKESPEARE SIGNATURES."]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note on the so-called "Signatures."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some years ago by the courtesy of the Corporation of London, the

Librarian and the Chairman of the Library Committee carried the Purchase

Deed to the British Museum to place it side by side with the Mortgage

Deed there.

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV

Contemporary Allusions to Shackspere.

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

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

Three contemporary plays give us scenes illustrating the incident:

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: PLATE XV. Bacon's Crest from the Binding of a

Presentation Copy of the Novum Organum, 1620.]

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

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

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

Actus Tertius, Scena Prima,

Sogliardo, Punt., Carlo.

Sog. Nay I will haue him, I am resolute for that, by this Parchment Gentlemen, I haue ben so toil'd among the Harrots [meaning Heralds] yonder, you will not beleeue, they doe speake i' the straungest language, and giue a man the hardest termes for his money, that euer you knew.

Car. But ha' you armes? ha' your armes?

Sog. Yfaith, I thanke God I can write myselfe Gentleman now, here's my Pattent, it cost me thirtie pound by this breath.

Punt. A very faire Coat, well charg'd and full of Armorie.

Sog. Nay, it has, as much varietie of colours in it, as you haue seene a Coat haue, how like you the Crest, Sir?

Punt. I vnderstand it not well, what is't?

Sog. Marry Sir, it is your Bore without a head Rampant.

Punt. A Bore without a head, that's very rare.

 
Car. I, [Aye] and Rampant too: troth I commend
        the Herald's wit, he has deciphered him well:
        A Swine without a head, without braine, wit,
        anything indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie. You
        can blazon the rest signior? can you not?
              …
              …
 
 
Punt. Let the word be, Not without mustard, your
        Crest is very rare sir.
 

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

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

Act 5, Scene i. Enter Clowne and Awdrie

Clow. We shall finde a time Awdrie, patience gentle

Awdrie.

Awd. Faith the priest was good enough, for all the

olde gentlemans saying.

Clow. A most wicked Sir Oliver, Awdrie, a most vile Mar-text. But Awdrie, there is a youth heere in the forrest layes claime to you.

Awd. I, I know who 'tis: he hath no interest in mee in the world: here comes the man you meane.

(Enter William)

Clo. It is meat and drinke to me to see a clowne, by my troth, we that haue good wits, haue much to answer for: we shall be flouting: we cannot hold.

Will. Good eu'n Audrey.

Awd. God ye good eu'n William.

Will. And good eu'n to you sir.

Clo. Good eu'n gentle friend. Couer thy head, couer thy head: Nay prethee bee couer'd. How olde are you Friend?

Will. Fiue and twentie Sir.

Clo. A ripe age: Is thy name William?

Will. William, Sir.

Clo. A faire name. Was't borne i' the Forrest heere?

Will. I [Aye] Sir, I thanke God.

Clo. Thanke God: A good answer: Art rich?

Will. 'Faith Sir, so, so.

Clo. So, so, is good, very good, very excellent good: and yet it is not, it is but so, so: Art thou wise?

Will. I [Aye] sir, I haue a prettie wit.

Clo. Why, thou saist well. I do now remember a saying: The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wise man knowes himselfe to be a Foole… You do loue this maid?

Will. I do Sir.

Clo. Giue me your hand: art thou Learned?

Will. No Sir.

Clo. Then learne this of me, To haue is to haue. For it is a figure in Rhetoricke, that drink being powr'd out of a cup into a glasse, by filling the one, doth empty the other. For all your Writers do consent, that ipse is hee: now you are not ipse, for I am he.

Will. Which he Sir?

Clo. He Sir, that must marrie this woman.

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

The clown of Ardennes is rich but only rich for a clown (Shakspeare of

Stratford was not really rich, New Place cost only £60).

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

Chapter V

"The Return from Parnassus" and "Ratsei's Ghost."

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

 
            The Returne from Parnassus
                        or
              The Scourge of Simony.
          Publiquely acted by the Students
             in Saint Johns Colledge in
                    Cambridge.
 
 
                    At London
        Printed by G. Eld for John Wright, and
            are to bee sold at his shop at
                Christchurch Gate.
                     1606.
 

The portion to which I wish to direct attention is: —

Actus 5, Scena i.

 
Studioso. Fayre fell good Orpheus, that would rather be
            King of a mole hill, then a Keysars slaue:
            Better it is mongst fidlers to be chiefe,
            Then at plaiers trencher beg reliefe.
            But ist not strange this mimick apes should prize
            Vnhappy Schollers at a hireling rate.
            Vile world, that lifts them vp to hye degree,
            And treades vs downe in groueling misery.
            England affordes those glorious vagabonds,
            That carried earst their fardels on their backes,
            Coursers to ride on through the gazing streetes
            Sooping it in their glaring Satten sutes,
            And Pages to attend their maisterships:
            With mouthing words that better wits haue framed,
            They purchase lands, and now Esquiers are made.
 
 
Philomusus. What ere they seeme being euen at the best
            They are but sporting fortunes scornfull iests.
 

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

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

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

Ratsei. And for you sirra, saies hee to the chiefest of them, thou hast a good presence upon a stage; methinks thou darkenst thy merite by playing in the country. Get thee to London, for if one man were dead, they will have much neede of such a one as thou art. There would be none in my opinion fitter then thyselfe to play his parts. My conceipt is such of thee, that I durst venture all the mony in my purse on thy head to play Hamlet with him for a wager. There thou shalt learn to be frugall, – for players were never so thriftie as they are now about London – and to feed upon all men, to let none feede upon thee; to make thy hand a stranger to thy pocket, thy hart slow to performe thy tongues promise, and when thou feelest thy purse well lined, buy thee some place of lordship in the country, that, growing weary of playing, thy mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation; then thou needest care for no man, nor not for them that before made thee prowd with speaking their words upon the stage.

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

CHAPTER VI

Shackspere's Correspondence!

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

"Loveinge Countreyman I am bolde of vow as of a ffrende,

craveinge yowr helpe wth xxxll vppon mr Bushells & my

securytee or mr Myttons wth me. mr Rosswell is nott come

to London as yeate & I have especiall cawse. yow shall

ffrende me muche in helpeinge me out of all the debttes I

owe in London I thancke god & muche quiet my mynde wch

wolde nott be indebeted I am nowe towardes the Cowrte in

hope of answer for the dispatche of my Buysenes. yow shall

nether loase creddytt nor monney by me the Lorde wyllinge

and nowe butt perswade yowr selfe soe as I hope & yow shall

nott need to feare butt wth all hartie thanckefullenes I wyll

holde my tyme & content yowr ffrende & yf we Bargaine

farther yow shalbe the paie mr yowr selfe. my tyme biddes me

 

hasten to an ende & soe I committ thys [to] yowr care & hope

of yowr helpe. I feare I shall nott be backe thys night ffrom

the Cowrte. haste, the Lorde be wth yow & with us all

amen

ffrom the Bell in Carter Lane the 25 October 1598.

yowrs in all kyndenes

Ryc. Quyney

(addressed)

LS To my Loveinge good ffrend

& contreymann mr wm

Shackespere d[e]l[ive]r thees."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halliwell-Phillipps tells us that "The precepts as appears from

memoranda in the originals, were issued by the poet's solicitor Thomas

Greene who was then residing under some unknown conditions³ at

New Place."

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

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

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

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