Bacon is Shake Speare
S >>
Sir Edwin Durning Lawrence >> Bacon is Shake Speare
Pages:
1 | 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11
The back of the left arm which does duty for the right arm is shewn in
Plate 10, Page 26.
[Illustration: Plate X. The Back of the Left Arm, from Plate VIII]
Every tailor will admit that this is not and cannot be the front of
the right arm, but is, without possibility of doubt, the back of
the left arm.
[Illustration: Plate XI. The Front of the Left Arm, from Plate VIII]
[Illustration: (not included in list of plates) The Front of Left Arm.
_From Plate VIII_. The Back of Left Arm _From Plate VIII._ Arranged
Tailor fashion, shoulder to shoulder, as in the _Gentleman's Tailor
Magazine_, April, 1911]
Plate 11 shews the front of the left arm, and you at once perceive
that you are no longer looking at the back of the coat but at the
front of the coat.
[Illustration: Plate XII. The [Mask] Head, from the [so-called]
Portrait, by Droeshout, in the 1623 Folio]
Now in Plate 12, Page 32, you see the mask, especially note that the ear
is a mask ear and stands out curiously; note also how distinct the line
shewing the edge of the mask appears. Perhaps the reader will perceive
this more clearly if he turns the page upside down.
[Illustration: Plate XIII. Sir Nicholas Bacon, from the Painting
by Zucchero]
Plate 13, Page 33, depicts a real face, that of Sir Nicholas Bacon,
eldest son of the Lord Keeper, from a contemporary portrait by Zucchero,
lately in the Duke of Fife's Collection. This shews by contrast the
difference between the portrait of a living man, and the drawing of a
lifeless mask with the double line from ear to chin. Again examine
Plates 8, Pages 20, 21, the complete portrait in the folio. The reader
having seen the separate portions, will, I trust, be able now to
perceive that this portrait is correctly characterised as cunningly
composed of two left arms and a mask.
While examining this portrait, the reader should study the lines that
describe it in the Shakespeare folio of 1623, a facsimile of which is
here inserted.
To the Reader.
This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare 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 euer writ in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
B.I.
Plate IX.
VERSES ASCRIBED TO BEN JONSON, FROM THE 1623 FOLIO EDITION
OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS.
B.I. call the ridiculous dummy a "portrait" but describes it as the
"Figure put for" (that is "instead of") and as "the Print," and as "his
Picture"; he likewise most clearly tells us to "looke not on his
(ridiculous) Picture, but (only) his Booke." It seems, therefore, evident
that he knew the secret of Bacon's authorship and intended to inform
those capable of understanding that the graver had done out the life
when he writes, "Out-doo the life." In the New English Dictionary, edited
by Sir J.A.H. Murray, there are upwards of six hundred words beginning
with "Out," and every one of them, with scarcely a single exception,
requires, in order to be fully understood, to be read reversed. Out-law
does not mean outside of the law, but lawed out by a legal process.
"Out-doo" was used only in the sense of "do out"; thus, in the "Cursor
Mundi," written centuries before the days of Elizabeth, we read that
Adam was out done [of Paradise]; and in Drayton's "Barons' Wars,"
published in 1603, we find in Book V. s. li.
"That he his foe not able to withstand,
Was ta'en in battle and his eyes out-done."
The graver has indeed done out the life so cleverly that for hundreds of
years learned pedants and others have thought that the figure
represented a real man, and altogether failed to perceive that it was a
mere stuffed dummy clothed in an impossible coat, cunningly composed of
the front of the left arm buttoned on to the back of the same left arm,
as to form a double left armed apology for a man. Moreover, this dummy
is surmounted by a hideous staring mask, furnished with an imaginary
ear, utterly unlike anything human, because, instead of being hollowed
in, it is rounded out something like the rounded outside of a shoe-horn,
in order to form a cup which would cover and conceal any real ear that
might be behind it.
Perhaps the reader will more fully understand the full meaning of B.I.'s
lines if I paraphrase them as follows:--
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 mas'd Picture, but his Booke.
Do out appears in the name of the little instrument something like a
pair of snuffer which was formerly used to extinguish the candles and
called a "Doute." Therefore I have correctly substituted "extinguished"
for "out-doo." At the beginning I have substituted "dummy" for "figure"
because we are told that the figure is "put for" (that is, put instead
of) Shakespeare. In modern English we frequently describe a chairman who
is a mere dummy as a figurehead. Then "wit" in these lines means
absolutely the same as "mind," which I have used in its place because I
think it refers to the fact that upon the miniature of Bacon in his 18th
year, which was painted by Hilliard in 1578, we read:--"Si tabula
daretur digna animum mallem." This line is believed to have been written
at the time by the artist, and was translated in "Spedding":--"If one
could but paint his mind."
In March, 1911, the _Tailor and Cutter_ newspaper stated that the
Figure, put for Shakepeare in the 1623 folio, was undoubtedly clothed in
an impossible coat, composed of the back and the front of the same left
arm. And in the following April the _Gentleman's Tailor Magazine_,
under the heading of a "Problem for the Trade," shews the two halves of
the coat as printed on page 28a, and says: "It is passing strange that
something like three centuries should have been allowed to elapse
before the tailors' handiwork should have been appealed to in this
particular manner."
"The special point is that in what is known as the authentic portrait of
William Shakespeare, which appears in the celebrated first folio
edition, published in 1623, a remarkable sartorial puzzle is apparent."
"The tunic, coat, or whatever the garment may have been called at the
time, is so strangely illustrated that the right-hand side of the
forepart is obviously the left-hand side of the backpart; and so gives a
harlequin appearance to the figure, which it is not unnatural to assume
was intentional, and done with express object and purpose."
"Anyhow, it is pretty safe to say that if a Referendum of the trade was
taken on the question whether the two illustrations shown above
represent the foreparts of the same garments, the polling would give an
unanimous vote in the negative."
"It is outside the province of a trade journal to dogmatise on such a
subject; but when such a glaring incongruity as these illustrations show
is brought into court, it is only natural that the tailor should have
something to say; or, at any rate, to think about."
This one simple fact which can neither be disputed nor explained away,
viz., that the "Figure" put upon the title-page of the First Folio of
the Plays in 1623 to represent Shakespeare, is a doubly left-armed and
stuffed dummy, surmounted by a ridiculous putty-faced mask, disposes once
and for all of any idea that the mighty Plays were written by the
illiterate clown of Stratford-upon-Avon.
"He hath _hit_ his face"
It is thought that _hit_ means _hid_ as in Chaucer's Squiere's Tale,
line 512 etc.
"Right as a serpent _hit_ him under floures
Til he may seen his tyme for to byte"
If indeed "hit" be intended to be read as "hid" then these ten lines are
no longer the cryptic puzzle which they have hitherto been considered to
be, but in conjunction with the portrait, they clearly reveal the true
facts, that the real author is writing left-handedly, that means
secretly, in shadow, with his face hidden behind a mask or pseudonym.
We should also notice "out-doo" is spelled with a hyphen. In the
language of to-day and still more in that of the time of Shakespeare
all, or nearly all, words beginning with _out_ may be read reversed,
out-bar is bar out, out-bud is bud out, out-crop is crop out, out-fit is
fit out, and so on through the alphabet.
If therefore we may read "out-doo the life" as "doo out the life"
meaning "shut out the real face of the living man" we perceive that here
also we are told "that the real face is hidden."
The description, with the head line "To the Reader" and the signature
"B.I.," forms twelve lines, the words of which can be turned into
numerous significant anagrams, etc., to which, however, no allusion is
made in the present work. But our readers will find that if all the
letters are counted (the two v.v.'s in line nine being counted as four
letters) they will amount to the number 287. In subsequent chapters a
good deal is said about this number, but here we only desire to say that
we are "informed" that the "Great Author" intended to reveal himself 287
years after 1623, the date when the First Folio was published, that is
in the present year, 1910, when very numerous tongues will be loosened.
Examine once more the original Stratford Bust, Plate 5, Page 14, and the
present Stratford Bust, Plate 6, Page 15, _with the large pen in the
right hand_.
If the Stratford actor were indeed the author of the plays it was most
appropriate that he should have a pen in his hand. But in the original
monument as shewn in Plate 3, Page 8, the figure hugs a sack of wool or
a pocket of hops or may be a cushion. For about 120 years, this
continued to be the Stratford effigy and shewed nothing that could in
any way connect the man portrayed, with literary work. I believe that
this was not accidental. I think that everybody in Stratford must have
known that William "Sha_c_kspeare" could not write so much as his own
name, for I assert that we possess nothing which can by any reasonable
possibility be deemed to be his signature.
[Illustration: Decorative Chapter Heading]
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 deg. 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 L60 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 L60).
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.
Pages:
1 | 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11