Bacon is Shake-Speare

CHAPTER XII

The "Householder of Stratford."

We have in Chapter II. printed Mr. George Hookham's list of the very few incidents recorded concerning Shakespeare's life, but, as we have already shewn, a great deal of the "authentic history" of the Stratford clown has in fact been revealed to us. Ben Jonson calls the Stratford man who had purchased a coat of arms "Sogliardo" (scum of the earth), says he was brother to Sordido, the miser (Shakspeare was a miser), describes him as an essential clown (that means that he was a rustic totally unable to read and write), shews that he speaks "i' th' straungest language," and calls Heralds "Harrots," and finally sums him up definitely as a "Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie." In order that there should be no mistake as to the man who is referred to, "Sogliardo's" motto is stated to be "Not without Mustard," Shakespeare's motto being "Not without right" (Non sanz droict). Ben Jonson's account of the real Stratford man is confirmed by Shakespeare's play of "As You Like it," where Touchstone, the courtier playing clown, says, "It is meat and drinke to me to see a clowne" (meaning an essential clown, an uneducated rustic); yet he salutes him as "gentle," shewing that the mean fellow possesses a coat of arms.

The Clown is born in the Forest of Ardennes (Shakespeare's mother's name was Arden). He is rich, but only so-so rich, that is rich for a clowne (New Place cost only £60). He says he is wise, and Touchstone mocks him with Bacon's words, "The Foole doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a Fool." He says he has "a prettie wit" (pretty wit is the regular orthodox phrase as applied to Shakespeare). But when asked whether he is learned, he distinctly replies "No," which means that he says that he cannot read one line of print. A man who could read one line of print was at that period in the eye of the law "learned," and could not be hanged when convicted for the first time except for murder. If any persons be found to dispute the fact that the reply "No" to the question "Art thou learned?" meant in Queen Elizabeth's day "I cannot read one line of print" such persons must be totally unacquainted with Law literature.9

The play "As You Like it" confirms Ben Jonson's characterisation of Shakespeare being "an essential clowne." Next let us turn to Ratsei's Ghost (see p. 49), which, as Mr. Sidney Lee, in his "Life of William Shakespeare," p. 159, 1898 ed., confesses, refers to Shakespeare. Ratsei advises the young actor to copy Shakespeare, "and to feed upon all men, to let none feede upon thee" (meaning Shakespeare was a cruel usurer). As we shew, page 53, Grant White says: "The pursuit of an impoverished man for the sake of imprisoning him and depriving him both of the power of paying his debts and supporting himself and his family, is an incident in Shakespeare's life which it requires the utmost allowance and consideration for the practice of the time and country to enable us to contemplate with equanimity – satisfaction is impossible."

Ratsei continues, "Let thy hand be a stranger to thy pocket" [like the miser, Shakespeare], "thy hart slow to perform thy tongues promise" [like the lying rascal Shakespeare], "and when thou feelest thy purse well lined, buy thee a place of lordship in the country" [as Shakespeare had bought New Place, Stratford] "that, growing weary of playing, thy mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation" [as Shakespeare obtained a coat of arms], "then thou needest care for no man, nor not for them that before made thee prowd with speaking their words upon the stage." This manifestly refers to two things, one that Shakespeare when he bought New Place, quitted London and ceased to act; the other that he continually tried to exact more and more "blackmail" from those to whom he had sold his name.

Now we begin at last to understand what we are told by Rowe, in his "Life of Shakespeare," published in 1709, that is, 93 years after Shakespeare's death in 1616, when all traces of the actual man had been of set purpose obliterated, because the time for revealing the real authorship of the plays had not yet come. Rowe, page x., tells us: "There is one Instance so singular in the Magnificence of this Patron of Shakespeare's, that if I had not been assur'd that the Story was handed down by Sir William D'Avenant, who was probably very well acquainted with his Affairs, I should not have ventured to have inserted, that my Lord Southampton, at one time, gave him a thousand Pounds, to enable him to go through with a Purchase which he heard he had a mind to."

This story has been hopelessly misunderstood, because people did not know that a large sum had to be paid to Shakespeare to obtain his consent to allow his name to be put to the plays, and that New Place had to be purchased for him, 1597 (the title deeds were not given to him for five or six years later), and that he had also to be sent away from London before "W Shakespeare's" name was attached to any play, the first play bearing that name being, as we have already pointed out, page 89, "Loues Labor's lost," with its very numerous revelations of authorship. Then, almost immediately, the world is informed that eleven other plays had been written by the same author, the list including the play of "Richard II."

The story of the production of the play of "Richard II." is very curious and extremely instructive. It was originally acted with the Parliament scene, where Richard II. is made to surrender, commencing in the Folio of 1623 with the words —

"Fetch hither Richard, that in common view he may surrender,"

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

"That rise thus nimbly by a true king's fall."

This account of the deposition of a king reached Queen Elizabeth's ears; she was furiously angry and she exclaimed: "Seest thou not that I am Richard II."

A copy of the play without any author's name was printed in 1597, omitting the story of the deposition of Richard II.; this was followed by a second and probably a third reprint in 1597, with no important alterations, but still without any author's name. Then, after the actor had been sent away to Stratford, Shakespeare's name was put upon a fourth reprint, dated 1598.

The story of Richard II.'s deposition was not printed in the play till 1608, five years after the death of Queen Elizabeth.10

This history of the trouble arising out of the production of the play of "Richard II." explains why a name had to be found to be attached to the plays. Who would take the risk? An actor was never "hanged," he was often whipped, occasionally one lost his ears, but an actor of repute would probably have refused even a large bribe. There was, however, a grasping money-lending man, of little or no repute, that bore a name called Shaxpur, which might be twisted into Bacon's pen-name Shake-Speare, and that man was secured, but as long as he lived he was continually asking for more and more money. The grant of a coat of arms was probably part of the original bargain. At one time it seems to have been thought easier to grant arms to his father. This, however, was found impossible. But when in 1597 Bacon's friend Essex was Earl Marshal and chief of the Heralds' College, and Bacon's servant Camden (whom Bacon had assisted to prepare the "Annales" – see Spedding's "Bacon's Works," Vol. 6, p. 351, and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 211), was installed as Clarenceux, King-of-Arms, the grant of arms to Shakespeare was recognised, 1599. Shakespeare must have been provisionally secured soon after 1593, when the "Venus and Adonis" was signed with his name, because in the next year, 1594, "The Taming of a Shrew" was printed, in which the opening scene shews a drunken "Warwickshire" rustic [Shakspeare was a drunken Warwickshire rustic], who is dressed up as "My lord," for whom the play had been prepared. (In the writer's possession there is a very curious and absolutely unique masonic painting revealing "on the square" that the drunken tinker is Shakspeare and the Hostess, Bacon.)

The early date at which Shakspeare had been secured explains how in 1596 an application for a grant of arms seems to have been made (we say seems) for the date may possibly be a fraud like the rest of the lying document.

We have referred to Shakspeare as a drunken Warwickshire rustic who lived in the mean and dirty town of Stratford-on-Avon. There is a tradition that Shakespeare as a very young man was one of the Stratfordians selected to drink against "the Bidford topers," and with his defeated friends lay all night senseless under a crab tree, that was long known as Shakespeare's crab tree.

Shakespeare's description of the Stratford man as the drunken tinker in "The Taming of a Shrew" shews that the actor maintained his "drunken" character. This habit seems to have remained with him till the close of his life, for Halliwell-Phillipps says: "It is recorded that the party was a jovial one, and according to a somewhat late but apparently reliable tradition when the great dramatist [Shakespeare of Stratford] was returning to New Place in the evening, he had taken more wine than was conducive to pedestrian accuracy. Shortly or immediately afterwards he was seized by the lamentable fever which terminated fatally on Friday, April 23rd."

The story of his having to leave Stratford because he got into very bad company and became one of a gang of deer-stealers, has also very early support.

We have already proved that Shakspeare could neither read nor write. We must also bear in mind that the Stratford man never had any reputation as an actor.

Rowe, p. vi., thus writes: "His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in those Times, amongst those of the other Players, before some old Plays,11 but without any particular Account of what sort of Parts he us'd to play; and tho' I have inquir'd I could never meet with any further Account of him this way than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet." The humblest scene-shifter could play this character, as we shall shew later. What about being manager of a Theatre? Shakspeare never was manager of a Theatre. What about being master of a Shakespeare company of actors? There never existed a Shakespeare company of actors. What about ownership of a Theatre? Dr. Wallace, says in the Times of Oct. 2nd 1909, that at the time of his death Shakespeare owned one fourteenth of the Globe Theatre, and one-seventh of the Blackfriars Theatre. The profit of each of these was probably exceedingly small. The pleadings, put forth the present value at £300 each, but as a broad rule, pleadings always used to set forth at least ten times the actual facts. In the first case which the writer remembers witnessing in Court, the pleadings were 100 oxen, 100 cows, 100 calves, 100 sheep, and 100 pigs, the real matter in dispute being one cow and perhaps one calf. If we assume, therefore, that the total capital value of the holding of W. Shakespeare in both theatres taken together amounted to £60 in all, we shall probably, even then, considerably over-estimate their real worth. Now having disposed of the notion that Shakespeare was ever an important actor, was ever a manager of a Theatre, was ever the master of a company of actors, or was ever the owner of any Theatre, let us consider what Rowe means by the statement that the top of his performance was the Ghost in "Hamlet."

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

Chapter XIII

Conclusion, with further evidences from title pages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.