diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-0.txt | 1791 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/39121-h.htm | 2202 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/frontispiece.jpg | bin | 0 -> 126091 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page10a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 19315 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page10b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 19795 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page11a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 21060 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page11b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 53923 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page3a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 84543 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page45.jpg | bin | 0 -> 301773 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page46.jpg | bin | 0 -> 95167 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page4a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 10855 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page4b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 9172 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page4c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 4569 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page5a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 5813 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page5b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 6197 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page5c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 6152 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page5d.jpg | bin | 0 -> 1212 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page5e.jpg | bin | 0 -> 1404 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page5f.jpg | bin | 0 -> 1849 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page6a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 5425 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page6b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 2818 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page6c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 6427 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page7a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 24676 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page7b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 7910 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/page7c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 7324 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-h/images/titlepage.jpg | bin | 0 -> 141099 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-pdf.zip | bin | 1251829 -> 0 bytes |
27 files changed, 3993 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/39121-0.txt b/39121-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ce552d --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1791 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 39121 *** + +Produced by David Widger. + + + + + *BACON AND SHAKSPERE* + + + _By_ + + *William Henry Burr* + + _PROOF THAT WILLIAM SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE_ + + _BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO_ + + _1886_ + + + + +CONTENTS + + + PROOF THAT SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE + NO TRUE LIKENESS OF SHAKSPERE + THE SONNETS OF SHAKSPERE + BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO + AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO + BACON AND SHAKSPERE A CHRONOGRAPH + A CHRONOGRAPHIC PARALLEL + + + + +QUEEN ELIZABETH’S “YOUNG LORD KEEPER.” FROM BUST. + + + + +[3] + + + + +PROOF THAT SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE + + +No handwriting of Shakspere has ever been discovered except five +autographs. In March 1613, when he was nearly 49 years old, he signed +his name to a mortgage, and again to a deed relative to the same +transaction. Three years later he subscribed his name to three briefs or +sheets of his will. The five facsimiles are here reproduced: + +They are all such signatures as an illiterate person, unaccustomed to +write, would be likely to scrawl; and + +[4] + +they are so different that an acquaintance with one is little help to +the recognition of another. + +In the first signature he writes Wm. for William. + +The second and third autographs have William written above Shakspere. +Who but an illiterate person would sign his name thus? + +In the last two signatures (being told perhaps that his name ought to be +written on one line) he puts William before Shakspere; but the fourth +William reads Willin. + +See now how differently each letter is formed in the name Shakspere, +beginning with the initial: + +Did anybody ever write the first letter of his name so differently? +After four attempts to form a capital S he succeeds tolerably well the +fifth time. The second S, though of singular shape, appears to have been +a customary one as early as 1598. (See examples of that year below.) +Shakspere’s first attempt to form the crooked letter is a failure, but +the second passably good. So again in 1616, when he has a different form +to copy, his first attempt is futile, the second is passable, and the +third quite successful. + +But in attempting the next letter he makes it worse every time: + +With the letter a he is more successful, making it legible three times +out of five: + +[5] + +But the attempt to form a k is a signal failure: + +With the long s he succeeds best the first time, and worst the second +and third: + +The letter p is legible the first time, but grows worse and worse to the +last: + +It seems as if in the first attempt to sign his name in 1613 he thought +it was complete when he made it end with sp e; but being reminded that +it lacked a letter or two he undertook to add one by putting an a over +the e thus: + +The next time, which was probably the same day,(1) he seems to have +written his name Shaksper, though the terminal letters are uncertain: + +The third time he gets it more like Shakspoze: + +The deed to Shakspere and two other trustees is dated March 10 and +signed Henry Walker. The mortgage from Shakspere and the other trustees +is dated March 11. But for some unaccountable reason a duplicate +verbatim copy of the deed from Henry Walker is signed by William +Shakspere. This duplicate is in the Library of the city of London; the +mortgage is in the British Museum. The duplicate deed we suspect was +signed after the mortgage. Hence the improvement in the autograph; it +was probably Shakspere’s second attempt to write. Compare it with the +third. + +[6] + +The fourth time he seems to have tried to disguise the termination with +awkward flourishes, making the letters totally illegible: + +Finally, he omits the flourishes and comes nearer legibility, but still +it is impossible to tell whether he meant to write _ear, ere, or eare_: + +And now let the reader mark, that notwithstanding the orthodox spelling +of the name from 1593 to 1616, and indeed up to the present time, was +and is Shakespeare, there is no e in the first syllable and no a in the +last, although some have imagined the letter a to exist in the last part +of the final autograph. + +We have said that these signatures are all that. Shakspere is known to +have written; we ought to add that he prefixed to the last one the +following scrawl: + +For a long time we puzzled over this. Could it be an attempt to write +“25th of March,” the day of the execution of the will? At last we read +the following in Hallowell-Phillipps’s Shakspere: + +“It may be observed that the words By me, which, the autograph excepted, +are the only ones in the poet’s handwriting known to exist, appear to +have been penned with ordinary firmness.” + +Presuming that the signatures were made in a sick bed, the author +concedes that the words “By me” were penned with ordinary firmness. Very +good; but could not almost any five-year-old boy do as well the first +time? + +[7] + +In 1775 certain papers and legal instruments were published, attributed +to Shakspere, Queen Elizabeth, and Southampton. In 1796 Edmund Malone +proved them to be forgeries. Here is one of the forged autographs of +Shakspere: + +This is superior to any of the genuine ones, which in some degree it +resembles. The letter a is pretty clearly written in the last syllable, +as if the forger meant to establish the proper spelling of that part of +the name. Malone, who at first pronounced the genuine orthography to be +Shakspeare, subsequently declared Shakspere to be the poet’s own mode of +spelling his name beyond all doubt. But others do not accede to this +decision, because they think there is an a in the last of the five +genuine signatures. + +The solution of the whole mystery is in the fact that Shakspere was +unable to write or even to spell his own name. + +In 1598 Richard Quiney addressed a letter to him asking for a loan of +£30, and the name was written Shackesper: + +In the same year among thirteen names of holders of corn in Stratford +the last but one is Shakesper: + +The form of the letter a in both these fac-similes + +[8] + +was peculiar to that time. It occurs in Shakspere’s second autograph. +Why did he thus vary the form? Probably because he followed the copy set +for him. + +Note now the various spellings of his name: + +In 1582, as a bridegroom, Shagsper. + +In 1593 and 1594, as a poet, Shakespeare; and the same uniformly as a +playwright from 1598 to 1623. but sometimes with a hyphen—Shake-speare. + +In 1596, as an inhabitant of Southwark, Shaksper. + +In 1598, as addressed by letter, Shackesper. + +In 1598, as owner of corn, Shakesper. + +In 1604, as plaintiff in a suit, Shexpere. + +In 1604 and 1605, as author of plays performed at Whitehall before King +James, Shaxberd. + +In 1609, as plaintiff in a suit, Shackspeare. + +In 1612, as plaintiff in a suit, Schackspeare. + +In 1614, as written by his cousin, Shakspear. + +In 1616, as twice written in his will, Shackspeare; but in signing the +same three times he omits the c in the first syllable, and it is +impossible to tell what the last three or four letters are. And although +in the two Deeds of 1613 the name is written repeatedly Shakespeare, in +signing them he omits the e in the first syllable both times, and varies +the termination of the name, just as an illiterate person would be +likely to do. + +But there are more of these various spellings. All the records of +Shakspere’s lifetime have been hunted up and printed. From these +documents, consisting of deeds, bills of complaint, letters, poems, +plays, etc.,— most of which especially concerned either the father or +son or both—we extract the following spellings, giving; the dates: + +[9] + +Shakspere 1558, ’62, ’63, ’64, ’66, ’69, ’71, ’79, 80, ’83, + ’85, ’90, ’96, 1616, ’17. (John Shakspere and all his offspring + so registered, except Richard Shaks peer, baptized 1574.) + +Shaxpere 1558, ’79, 1607, ’08. + +Shakspeyr 1567, (“Mr.,” meaning John.) + +Shakysper 1568, (“Mr. John.”) + +Shackespere 1573, ’89, 1602. + +Shakespere 1575, ’79, ’96, ’97, ’98, ’99,1602, ’04, ’06, ’08, + ’09, ’10, ’11, ’13. + +Shackspere 1579, (Deed. “Joannis Shaxpere -j-.”) 1608. + +Shagsper 1582, (Marriage bond—twice so written.) + +Shake-scene 1592, (Greene, the playwright, in derision.) + +Shakespeare 1593-1594, (Poems,) 1596, ’98, 1603, ’05, ’13, (and all +Plays from 1598 to 1623.) + +Shaksper 1596, ’98, 1613, (Signature,) 1616. + +Shakesper 1598, (Owner of corn.) + +Shackesper 1598, (Letter from Quiney to Shakspere.) + +Shakspeare 1601, ’03, ’07, ’12, ’13, ’14, 1623. + +Shackespeare 1603, ’14, (Agreement.) + +Shexpere 1604, (Suit for mult sold.) + +Shaxberd 1604, ’05, (Dramatist, Whitehall.) + +Shakespear 1605, (Conveyance.) + +Shakesphear 1605, (Same conveyance.) + +Shackspeare 1608, ’12, ’14, ’16. + +Scliackspeare 1612, ’14, (Complaint and agreement.) Shaksp; 1613, +(Signature.) + +Shakspear 1614, (Cousin’s letter.) + +Shaksp.... 1616, (Signatures to Will.) + +Shaxper 1616, (“Bell and pall for Mr. Shaxpers + dawghter, viii. d.”) + +If we divide the name between the s and p we have the following +variations of each part: + +Shaks, Shakes, Shakys, Shacks, Shackes, Schacks, Shags, Shax, Shex; per, +pere, peer, pear, peare, peyr, phear, berd, pj, p .... + +Shakspere’s daughter Judith in 1611 witnessed two instruments by making +her mark. And his other + +[10] + +daughter Susanna in 1642 disputed the unmistakable handwriting of her +deceased husband in such a manner as to betray her illiteracy. + +Mr. C. F. Gunther, of Chicago, claims to have obtained a copy of the +Shakspere Folio of 1632, (i.e., the second Folio,) containing the +author’s autograph pasted on a fly-leaf, underneath which is written: + +“The works of William Shakespeare. Born in April, 1564, and died in +April, 1616. John Ward.” + +And on the same fly-leaf is pasted a letter from Charles Godwin, of +Bath, dated February 16, 1839, to Dr. Charles Severn, of London, who was +then editing “The Diary of the Rev. John Ward, A. M.,” Vicar of +Stratford-upon-Avon from 1648 to 1679. + +The book is said to have been owned by a Mormon, and is supposed to have +been brought from England by an emigrant to Utah. Aside from the +impossibility of such an autograph escaping from England to the wilds of +America and remaining undiscovered so many years, the fac-simile in the +Chicago _Current_ of May 23, 1885, betrays most certain evidence of +fraud. Compare it with the five genuine scrawls of Shakspere. It is so +exact a copy of the last signature to the will as to indicate that it +was traced therefrom. + +Shakspere’s last signature: + +Pretended autograph in Chicago: + +[11] + +This close resemblance in so clumsy an autograph would be extraordinary, +if not impossible; but how easy to forge it by first tracing it lightly +with a pencil and then completing it with a pen. Here is a hair-line +tracing of the spurious over the genuine autograph: + +Even the most illiterate man who is obliged often to sign his name, will +do it uniformly, so that when you have seen his signature once you will +know it again. For example, take the following autographs: + +The undersigned, aged 78 years, wrote the above autographs in presence +of the two subscribing witnesses. And he never wrote and cannot write +anything but his name, though he can read print with ease. And he +further says that he learned to write his name in the course of one +month in the administration of President Polk (1845-’9) while serving as +a Capitol policeman; otherwise he would have been obliged to sign the +pay-roll with his cross. + +Witness: + + A. Watson, JOHN W. SMITH. + +Wm. Henry Burr. + +Bacon required a mask, and he found it in the illiterate play-actor +Shakspere. + +Washington, D. C., May 31, 1885. + + + + +[12] + + + + +NO TRUE LIKENESS OF SHAKSPERE + + +The likeness of Shakspere in the Folio of 1623 has frequently been +called “an abominable libel on humanity.” And yet its fidelity is +certified by Ben Jonson in laudatory lines. Jonson was Bacon’s friend +and enthusiastic admirer. If there was an original portrait of that +wooden face it has never been found. If there was a better likeness of +Shakspere in existence why was it not reproduced in that famous Folio? +The same ugly engraving reappeared in all the later editions up tu 1685. + +The bust on the monument at Stratford was first noticed in 1623. It was +not taken from life, and is unlike any picture of Shakspere. It presents +him in the act of composition, and “the _vis comica_", says Boaden, “so +broadens his countenance, that it is hardly a stretch of fancy to +suppose him in the actual creation of Falstaff himself.” More likely, we +should say, Falltaff was Shakspere—Fall-staff, Shake-spear. + +The most familiar pictures of Shakspere are very different from either +of these, and generally far more intellectual and refined. They are +pretended copies of what is called the Chandos portrait, but are not +much like it. The Chandos picture was painted by an unknown artist, and +has been altered by a later hand. It is said to have been owned by Sir +William Davenant, who died in 1668; and he is said to have obtained it +from an actor named Joseph Taylor, who died about 1653 at the age of 70. +This we gather from Boaden’s “Portraits of Shakspere,” 1824. But now +comes a further statement purporting to be written in Mr. Gunther’s +Folio, by one Charles Lomax,, in 1781, as follows: + +“The only original picture now extant of Shakespeare was painted by +Joseph Taylor, one of the actors,” &c. + +The rest of the pretended information agrees with what we find in +Boaden’s book, which has a picture taken from the Chandos portrait quite +different from those we generally see, and not much like the Droeshout +engraving in the Shakspere Folio. + +Shakspere probably never had a portrait taken. + + + + +[13] + + + + +THE SONNETS OF SHAKSPERE + + +WRITTEN BY FRANCIS BACON TO THE EARL OF ESSEX AND HIS BRIDE, A. D. 1590 + +“The mystery of the Sonnets will never be unfolded.” —Richard Grant +White, 1865. + +“All is supposition; the mystery is insoluble.” —Dr. Charles Mackay, +1884. + +The mystery unfolded by W. H. Burr, July 31, 1883. + +The first published poem of Shakspere, so far as known, was “Venus and +Adonis,” in 1593. It was dedicated to the Earl of Southampton, then +about twenty years of age. Five or six editions were called for in nine +years. The “Sonnets” did not appear till 1609. The latter poem has 154 +stanzas of 14 lines each; the first 126 are addressed to a beautiful and +ardently beloved youth; the remainder to the young man’s betrothed. + +As to the merits of the composition, the American Cyclopedia says: + +“These ‘Sonnets,’ though deformed with occasional conceits, far surpass +all other poems of their kind in our own language, or perhaps any +other.” + +The dedication is in these words: + +“To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. H. all +happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our everliving poet | +wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting forth | T. T.” + +[14] + +Some have believed that “Mr. W. H.” was William Herbert; and a German +critic supposes the initials to signify “William Himself.” But the +American Cyclopedia says: + +“To whom they were written, and in whose person is among the most +difficult of unsolved literary problems.... Who this ‘onlie begetter’ +was no man has yet been able satisfactorily to show.”(1) + + (1) Dr. Charles Mackay attempts to solve the problem in an + elaborate article in the Nineteenth Century, August, 1884, + entitled “A Tangled Skein Unravelled.” He claims only to have + found indications of mixed authorship. But this only makes the + tangle worse, which began with Shakspere’s ostensible + authorship; and the last despairing words of the astute + un-raveller are: “All is supposition, the mystery is insoluble.” + +In regard to the hypothesis that “W. H.” was William Herbert, the same +authority says there is almost as much ground for the notion that the +person addressed was Queen Elizabeth in doublet and hose. + +In 1872 we first read Nathaniel Holmes’s “Authorship of Shakspere;” +since then we have never entertained a reasonable doubt that Bacon was +the author of the Plays. In 1882 we reread them all in the light of that +discovery; but until July 31, 1883, we had never read a page of the +“Sonnets,” nor when we began to read them on that day did we remember to +have heard who “W. H.” was supposed to be. But coming to the +twenty-fifth sonnet, we suspected that the poem was addressed to the +Earl of Essex, and subsequent research confirmed that suspicion. + +Herbert was sixteen years younger than Shakspere, and nineteen years +younger than Bacon. If, therefore, the poem was written in 1590, which +we purpose to show, it is impossible for Herbert to have been the + +[15] + +“onlie begetter of these Sonnets,” for he was then only ten years old. + +Of course no one will date their composition as late as 1609, when +Shakspere was forty-five and Bacon forty-eight. At that time the former +had retired from the stage, and Bacon had been for six years King’s +counsel and three years a married man. And certainly two sonnets (138 +and 144) were composed as early as 1599, for they are repeated at the +beginning of “The Passionate Pilgrim,” which was first published in that +year. + +All the internal and external evidence points to the year 1590 as the +date, Francis Bacon as the writer, and the Earl of Essex as the person +addressed. + +It is said that Bacon made the acquaintance of Essex about 1590, but it +would be remarkable if he did not know him years before. In sonnet 104 +the poet says: + + “Three winters cold + Have from the forests shook three summers’ pride, + Three beauteous springs to yellow autumn turned + In process of the seasons have I seen, + Three April perfumes in three hot Junes burned, + Since first I saw you fresh, which yet are green.” + +Let us suppose that Bacon began to cultivate the Earl’s friendship in +1590. He was then twenty-two years old; three years earlier, when Bacon +first saw him, the Earl was “fresh now he is yet green.”(1) + + 1. A letter from Bacon to the Earl of Leicester, asking for his + furtherance in some suit which the Earl of Essex had moved in + his behalf, has recently been found, written in 1588. + (Sped-ding’s “Bacon,” 1878, i, 50, note.) + +Robert Devereux, the second Earl of Essex, was born Nov. 10, 1567, and +was beheaded for treason + +[16] + +Feb. 25, 1601. He succeeded to the title at ten years of age. At twenty +he was appointed master of the horse. At twenty-one the Queen created +him captain-general of the cavalry, and conferred on him the honor of +the garter. In the same year an expedition was undertaken against +Portugal, and he secretly followed the armament. This was without the +Queen’s permission, but he was quickly reconciled with her after his +return, and at once assumed a superiority over Sir Walter Raleigh and +Sir Charles Blount, rival competitors for royal favor. He was challenged +by Blount and wounded in the knee, and the Queen is said to have +expressed her gratification that some one had taken him down, as +otherwise there would be no ruling him. He was an accomplished scholar +and patron of literature. He erected a monument to Spenser and gave an +estate to Bacon. + +But we have omitted one striking characteristic which has an important +bearing on the question of his identity with “Mr. W. H.” The young Earl +of Essex was a remarkably handsome man. Now the beauty of the person +addressed in the “Sonnets” is a constantly recurring theme, and the +burden of the poem is an appeal to the beloved and beautiful young man +to marry. It begins thus: + + “From fairest creatures we desire increase, + That thereby beauty’s rose might never die.” + +The next Sonnet begins: + + “When forty winters shall besiege thy brow, + And dig deep trenches in thy beauty’s field, + Thy youth’s proud livery, so gazed on now, + Will be a tattered weed of small worth held.” + +The last line of Sonnet 13 reads: + + “You had a father; let your son say so.” + +[17] + +The father of Essex died in 1576. In 1590 the second Earl married the +widow of Sir Philip Sidney, Essex being twenty-two years old and she a +little younger. The marriage was secret to avoid the opposition of +Elizabeth. By October, concealment was no longer possible, and on the +22d of January, 1591, (not 1592 as some have it,) the first child was +born. (“Earls of Essex,” 1853.) + +The mother of Essex was celebrated for her beauty; his father was not +handsome. (See portrait in “Earls of Essex.”) The son’s inheritance of +his mother’s features is told in the third Sonnet: + + “Thou art thy mother’s glass, and she in thee + Calls back the lovely April of her prime; + So thou through windows of thine age shalt see, + Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.” + +For further description of the young Earl’s beauty, take the following: + + “If I could write the beauty of your eyes, + And in fresh numbers number all your graces, + The age to come would say, ‘This poet lies; + Such heavenly touches ne’er touched earthly faces.” + + “Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit + Is poorly imitated after you; + On Helen’s cheek all art of beauty set, + And you in Grecian ’tires are painted new.” + +Essex having become the special favorite of the Queen, of course became +an object of envy and slander. Mark now what the poet says: + + “Gentle thou art, and therefore to be won; + Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed.” + + “That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect, + For slander’s mark was ever yet the fair; + The ornament of beauty is suspect, + A crow that flies in heaven’s sweetest air. + + [18] + + So be thou good−; slander doth but approve + Thy worth the greater, being wooed of time.” + +In 1590 Bacon had acquired a reputation as an orator in the House of +Commons, but was without available means of livelihood in keeping with +his wants and station. Up to this time his efforts for promotion were +thwarted by the Queen’s minister, Lord Burleigh (Cecil) who regarded him +as a dangerous rival for his son. With the rise of young Essex into +royal favor Bacon turned to him as a friend at court. From 1590 to 1594 +the Earl tried in vain to advance Bacon, and at last, when the vacant +office of Attorney General was filled by another, Essex, blaming himself +for the disappointment, insisted on presenting him with an estate worth +£1,800. + +With these facts in mind, see how perfectly the following lines fit the +persons and the time, 1590: + + “Let those who are in favor with their stars, + Of public honor and proud titles boast, + Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars, + Unlooked for joy in that I honor most.” + + “When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes, + I all alone beweep my outcast state, + And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, + And look upon myself and curse my fate, + Wishing me like to one more rich in hope. + + Featured like him, like him with friends possessed, + Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope, + With what I most enjoy contented least; + Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, + Haply I think on thee, and then my state, + Like to the lark at break of day arising, + From sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s gate; + For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings + it then I scorn to change my state with kings.” + + “I may not evermore acknowledge thee, + Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame, + Nor thou with public kindness honor me, + Unless thou take that honor from thy name; + But do not so; I love thee in such sort + As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report. + + “As a decrepit father takes delight + To see his active child do deeds of youth, + So I, made lame by fortune’s dearest spite, + Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth. + For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, + Or any of these all, or all, or more, + Entitled in my parts do crowned sit, + I make my love engrafted to this store. + + So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised, + Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give + That I in thy abundance am sufficed, + And by a part of all thy glory live.” + +In 1590 Shakspere was part owner of a theater. + +In 1590 Bacon obtained his first show of favor from the court; he became +Queen’s counsel extraordinary, but the office was without emolument. At +this time plays for the theater were written and rewritten again and +again to meet the demand. Young lawyers and poets produced them rapidly. +Each theatrical company kept from one to four poets in its pay (Amer. +Cyc.) Shakspere appeared to be ready to father anything that promised +success, and there are at least six plays published under his name or +initials which most critics say are not his, nor have they ever appeared +in the genuine canon. In 1591 a poem by Spenser was published containing +these lines: + + “And he, the man whom Nature’s self has made + To mock herself and truth to imitate, + +With kindly counter under mimic shade: + + “Our pleasant Willy, ah, is dead of late: + With whom all joy and jolly merriment + Is also deaded and in dolor drent.” + +[20] + +From 1590 until Shakspere retired from the stage, how could it be said +that he was “poor,” bewailing his “outcast state” and “cursing his +fate?” But it is certain that Bacon’s condition answered precisely to +that description up to November, 1594, when Essex gave him an estate +worth £1,800; aye, even until 1604, when King James granted him a +pension of £60; if not even up to 1607. + +Mark now the modesty of the poet in 1590: + + “If thou survive my well contented day, + When that churl Death with bones my dust shall cover, + And shalt by fortune once more resurvey + These poor rude lines of thy deceased lover, + Compare them with the bettering of the time, + And though they be outstripp’d by every pen, + Reserve them for thy love, not for their rhyme, + Exceeded by the height of happier men.” + + “My name be buried Where my body is, + and live no more to shame nor me nor you, + for I am shamed by that which I bring forth, + and so should you, to love things nothing worth.” + +We have already quoted a verse from Spenser in praise of “Willy,” first +published in 1591; we now adduce a passage from one of “Willy” Bacon’s +poems first published in 1599 in praise of Spenser: + + “Dowland to thee is dear, whose heavenly touch + Upon the lute doth ravish human sense; + + Spenser to me, whose deep conceit is such + As, passing all conceit, needs no defense.” + +This verse is in “The Passionate Pilgrim,” the first two numbers of +which are Sonnets 138 and 144 with slight variations. John Dowland, a +musician, was born + +[21] + +in 1562 and died 1625. Spenser was eight years older than Bacon. + +But coupled with this modesty of the author of the “Sonnets,” note how +he praises his friend and how famous that friend appears at the time: + + “Oh, how I faint when I of you do write, + Knowing a better spirit doth use your name, + And in the praise thereof spends all his might, + To make me tongue−tied, speaking of your fame. + + But since your worth, wide as the ocean is, + The humble as the proudest sail doth bear, + My saucy bark, inferior far to his, + On your broad main doth wilfully appear; + Your shallowest help will hold me up afloat, + Whilst he upon your soundless deep doth ride; + Or being wrecked, I am a worthless boat, + He of tall building and of goodly pride; + Then if he thrive and I be cast away, + The worst was this: my love was my decay.” + +The other superior (?) poet referred to is undoubtedly Spenser, among +whose “Sonnets, addressed by the author to his friends and patrons,” in +January, 1590, is one “To the most honorable and excellent Lord the Earl +of Essex, great master of the horse to her highness, and knight of the +noble order of the garter, etc.” Essex became master of the horse in +1587, and knight of the garter in 1588. + +We proceed with the quotations from the Shaksperian Sonnets: + + “Or I shall live your epitaph to make, + Or you survive when I in earth am rotten, + From hence your memory death cannot take, + Although in me each part will be forgotten. + + Your name from hence immortal life shall have, + Though, I once gone, to all the world must die; + The earth can yield me but a common grave, + When you entombed in men’s eyes shall lie. + + [22] + + Your monument shall be my gentle verse, + Which eyes not yet created shall o’er−read, + And tongues to be your being shall rehearse + When all the breathers of this world are dead; + You shall still live—such virtue hath my pen— + Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men. + +From Sonnet 42 it appears that the young Earl had won the heart of the +widow Sidney: + + “That thou hast her, it is not all my grief, + And yet it may be said I loved her dearly; + That she hath thee, is of my wailing chief, + A loss in love that touches me more nearly. + + Loving offenders! thus I will excuse ye: + Thou dost love her, because thou know’st I love her, + And for my sake even so doth she abuse me, + Suffering my friend for my sake to approve her. + + If I lose thee, my loss is my love’s gain, + And losing her, my friend hath found that loss; + Both find each other, and I lose both twain, + And both for my sake lay me on this cross: + But here’s the joy: my friend and I are one; + Sweet flattery! then she loves but me alone.” + +The second part of the “Sonnets,” after 126, is addressed to the Earl’s +bethrothed; we quote Sonnet 134: + + “So now I have confessed that he is thine. + And I myself am mortgaged to thy will, + Myself I’ll forfeit, so that other mine + Thou wilt restore, to be my comfort still; + But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free, + For thou art covetous and he is kind; + He learned but surety−like to write for me, + Under that bond that him as fast doth bind, + The statute of thy beauty thou wilt take, + Thou usurer that put’st forth all to use, + And sue a friend came debtor for my sake; + So him I lose through my unkind abuse. + + Him have I lost; thou hast both him and me, + He pays the whole, and yet am I not free.” + +[23] + +Incidentally it may be noted how familiar the writer of the above lines +must have been with the practice of law. Shakspere’s legal knowledge has +amazed the lawyers. + +The next Sonnet introduces the name of “Will,” and puns upon it +profusely: + + “Whoever hath her wish thou hast thy Will, + And Will to boot, and Will in overplus; + More than enough am I that vex thee still, + To thy sweet will making addition thus, + Wilt thou whose will is large and spacious, + Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine? + + Shall will in others seem right gracious, + And in my will no fair acceptance shine? + The sea, all water, yet receives rain still, + And in abundance addeth to his store: + + So thou being rich in Will add to thy Will + One will of mine, to make thy large Will more. + + Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill; + Think all but one, and me in that one Will.” + +How preposterous to believe that a common-place play actor, with a wife +and children, addressed such sentiments to the bride of his dearest +friend! At no time do the sentiments or circumstances of the poem fit +the person of the actor, of whom the dying and dissipated playwright, +Greene, wrote in 1592: + +“There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that with his +Tygers heart, wrapt in a player’s hide, supposes he is as well able to +bumbast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute +Johannes factotum, is, in his owne conceyt, the onely Shake-scene in a +countne.” + +But, on the other hand, frequent evidence appears that Bacon, up to the +time he was made Attorney-General in 1613, was constantly engaged in +secret literary work. But not so secret as to be unknown + +[24] + +to a circle of friends and perchance a few enemies; for, in 1599, when +he interceded with the Queen for his dear friend Essex, then under +arrest on account of a treasonable pamphlet being dedicated to him, her +Majesty flung at Bacon “a matter which grew from him, but went after +about in others’ names,” being in fact the play of “Richard II,” which, +in that and the preceding year, had a great run on the stage, and had +gone through two editions, but, for prudential reasons, with the scene +containing the deposition of the king left out. + +But even in the “Sonnets” the fact appears that the author has been +writing for the stage: + + “Alas, ’tis true I have gone here and there, + And made myself a motley to the view, + Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear, + Made old offenses of affections new; + Most true it is that I have looked on truth + Askance and strangely; but by all above, + These blenches gave my heart another youth, + And worse essays proved thee my best of love.” + + “O, for my sake do you with Fortune chide, + The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds, + That did not better for my life provide + Than public means which public manners breeds. + Thence comes it that my name receives a brand, + And almost thence my nature is subdued + To what it works in, like the dyer’s hand: + Pity me then and wish I were renewed.” + +Here is not only a private confession of being compelled to produce +plays for subsistence, but a sorrowful acknowledgment that thereby his +“name receives a brand.” + +Yet it must not be supposed that Bacon was publicly known at any time as +a play writer. His first + +[25] + +publication, the “Essays,” was in 1597, and Shakspere’s name first +appeared on the title page of a Play in 1598, by which time nearly half +of the Plays had been written or sketched, and six had been printed, all +without the author’s name. And when the first collection was published +in the “Folio” of 1623, (seven years after Shakspere’s death,) it +included some Plays never before heard of, and eighteen never before +printed. + +Lord Coke, who was Bacon’s most jealous rival and adversary, seems never +to have suspected him of play writing. Nor did the watchful Puritanic +mother of the two bachelors of Gray’s Inn ever dream that her studious +younger son was engaged in such sinful work. + +In Sonnet 76 the writer deplores his want of variety of style, and fears +that this fault will almost disclose his secret authorship: + + “Why is my verse so barren of new pride, + So far from variation or quick change? + Why with the time do I not glance aside, + To new−found methods and to compounds strange? + Why write I still all one, ever the same, + And keep invention in a noted weed, + That every word doth almost tell my name, + Showing their birth and where they did proceed?” + +Bacon having begun to produce plays for Shakspere’s theater before 1590, +the authorship of which was afterward assumed by the actor and +proprietor, it became necessary also to avoid being publicly known as a +writer of sonnets. Therefore, in view of the circulation and ultimate +publication of this poem, he facetiously disguised the identity of the +writer by calling himself “Will.” Three years later he dedicated a + +[26] + +published poem to his young friend Southampton under the name of +“William Shakespeare,” and again another in 1594. But the “Sonnets” were +not published until 1609, when Essex had been dead eight years, and his +widow had been married six years to a third husband. It would never do +for the Solicitor-General to be known as the author of such a poem; so +when it came out in print it was dedicated to “Mr. W. H.” by “T. T.,” +and no one until a few years ago ever seems to have suspected that Bacon +wrote the poem, nor, so far as we are aware, has any one ever suspected +until July 31, 1883, that “W. H.” was the accomplished and famous Earl +of Essex. + +The young widow Sidney was the only daughter of the Queen’s principal +secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham, for whom Bacon drafted an important +state paper in 1588 on the conduct of the government toward Papists and +Dissenters. And that Bacon was intimate with the Secretary’s daughter, +aye, even one of her lovers, appears from many of the Sonnets addressed +to her. He describes her playing on the harpsichord, envies the keys +“that nimbly leap to kiss her hand,” and says: + + “Since saucy jacks so happy are in this, + Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss.” + +And from other passages it is quite evident that he had often kissed +her. + +No fact has been found incompatible with Bacon’s authorship of the +“Sonnets.” The following line might seem to indicate a writer past the +age of 29: + + “Although she knows my days are past the best.” + +But in 1599, when Shakspere was only 35, this very verse was published +as his in the “Passionate Pilgrim,” where Sonnet 138 appears as number +one. + +[27] + +But again, we have a letter written in 1592 by Bacon to his uncle, Lord +Treasurer Burleigh, in which he says: + +“I wax somewhat ancient; one and thirty years is a great deal of sand in +the hour-glass.” + +At the age of 31 he thinks himself “somewhat ancient” two years earlier +he apprehends that forty winters will entirely deface the youthful +Earl’s beauty; and to the lovely young widow he says: “My days are past +the best.” + +This misconception therefore, whether pretended or real, becomes a +strong proof of Bacon’s authorship. + +It has been boldly alleged by some that Bacon was no poet. Such, +however, was not the judgment of his biographer, the late James +Spedding. Before he could have heard it claimed that Shakspere did not +write the plays he said that Bacon might have taken the highest rank as +a poet. And that judgment was based upon the versification of a few +Psalms by the old man on a sick bed. Since 1867 the substantial proofs +of Bacon’s secret authorship have been adduced. Aside from innumerable +parallels in the works of Bacon and Shakspere there is much external +evidence. For example: + +We know that Bacon wrote Sonnets to Queen Elizabeth and excused himself +by saying: “I profess not to be a poet.” + +We know that he composed Masques anonymously before Shakspere’s name +appeared as a play writer, and that those Masques were essentially +poetical compositions, in the nature of plays, and sometimes contained +verses in rhyme equal in merit to the average of Shakspere’s. + +[28] + +In one of those Masques a speaker is made to say: “The monuments of wit +survive the monuments of power; the verses of the poet endure without a +syllable lost, while states and empires pass many periods.” Two years +later, in 1596, the composer of that speech, writing to Sir Fulke +Greville on his studies, said: “For poets I can commend none, being +resolved to be ever a stranger to them.” Greville (1554-1628) was a +poet, and wrote the life of Sir Philip Sidney. + +In 1603 Bacon wrote a private letter to the poet John Davies, begging +him to speak a good word for the writer to the incoming King James I., +and closing with these words: “So, desiring you to be good to _concealed +poets_, I continue.” + +Bacon’s most intimate friend, Toby Matthew, in a letter with cancelled +date, but as late as 1605, acknowledged the receipt of some work by +Bacon, and added this postscript: + +“I will not return you weight for weight, but _Measure for Measure_.” + +“Mesur for Mesur,” by “Shaxberd,” was played before King James, at +Whitehall, December 26, 1604. + +Again, about the time of the publication of the Shakespere Folio, 1623, +Matthew acknowledged in a letter without date, the receipt of a “great +and noble favor,” and added the following: + +“P. S.—The most prodigious wit that ever I knew, of my nation and of +this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s name, though he be known by +another.” + + + + +BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO + + +Spenser’s “Faery Queen” was begun in 1582, and published in 1590. The +Dedication to Sir Walter Raleigh is dated 23 January, 1589 (i. e., +1590.) Raleigh in return praised the poem in two Sonnets. These, +together with five other versified encomiums by “Hobynoll” (Gabriel +Harvey,) “R. S.,” “H. B.,” “W. L.,” and “Ignoto,” are prefixed to +Spenser’s work. + +In 1599 “The Passionate Pilgrim,” a collection of twenty-one sonnets, +songs, etc., was published with the name of W. Shakspere on the title +page. The authorship of several of the pieces is disputed. + +In regard to No. xviii. “My flocks feed not,” Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, +says: + +“There is a somewhat brief version of this song in the collection of +Madrigals, etc., by Thomas Weelkes 1597, this person being the composer +of the music, but not necessarily the author of the words. A copy of it +as it is seen in the Passionate Pilgrim also occurs in England’s +Helicon, 1600, entitled ‘The Unknowne Sheepheards Complaint,’ and is +there subscribed _Ignoto._” + +Again, in regard to No. xx, “Live with me and be my love,” the same +author, says: + +“The first of these very pretty songs is incomplete, and the second, +called ‘Love’s answer,’ still more so. In England’s Helicon, 1600, the +former is given to Marlowe, the latter to _Ignoto_; and there is good +reason to believe that Christopher + +[30] + +Marlowe wrote the song, and Sir Walter Raleigh the nymph’s reply; for so +we are positively assured by Isaac Walton, who has inserted them both in +his Complete Angler under the character of ‘that smooth song which was +made by Kit Marlowe, now at least fifty years ago; and an answer to it +which was made by Sir Walter Raleigh in his younger days:—old fashioned +poetry but choicely good.’ Both these songs were exceedingly popular and +are afterwards found in the street ballads. The first is quoted in the +Merry Wives of Windsor.” + +Again, in regard to No. xxi, “As it fell upon a day,” Mr. +Halliwell-Phillipps, says: + +“This charming idyl occurs, with the absence of two lines, amongst the +Poems in Divers Humours appended to Bamfield’s Encomion of Lady Pecunia, +in 1598, and the first twenty-six lines with the addition of two new +ones are found in England’s Helicon, 1600. This latter version follows +in that work No. xviii of this list, [“My flocks feed not,”] is also +subscribed _Ignoto_, and is headed: ‘Another of the same Sheepheards.’ +The probability is that the copies of these little poems, as given in +the Helicon, were taken from a Common Place book in which the names of +the authors were not recorded; the two supplementary lines just noticed +having the appearance of being an unauthorized couplet improvised for +the sake of giving a neater finish to the abridgment.” + +We will now reproduce the aforesaid poems from “England’s Helicon,” +second edition, 1614. A brief version of the first song, No. xviii of +“The Passionate Pilgrim,” says Halliwell-Phillipps, appeared in 1597: + + *The unknown Shepherd's Complaint.* + + + My flocks feed not, my ewes breed not, + My rams speed not, all is amiss; + Love is denying, Faith is defying; + Hearts ren[e]ging, causer of this. + + All my merry jigs are quite forgot, + And my lady’s love is lost, God wot: + Where her faith was firmly fixed in love, + There a nay is placed without remove. + + [31] + + One silly cross wrought all my loss; + O frowning fortune, cursed fickle Dame, + For now I see, inconstancy + More in women than in men remain. + + In black mourn I, all fears scorn I, + Love hath forlorn me, living in thrall; + Heart is bleeding, all help needing, + O cruel speeding, fraughted with gall. + + My shepherd’s pipe can sound no deal, + My wether’s bell rings doleful knell. + My curtail dog that wont to have played, + Plays not at all, but seems afraid. + + With sighs so deep, procure to weep, + In howling−wise to see my doleful plight, + How sighs resound, through heartless ground, + Like a thousand vanquished men in bloody fight. + + Clear wells spring not, sweet birds sing not, + Green plants bring not forth their dye; + Herds stand weeping—flocks all sleeping, + Nymphs back peeping fearfully. + + All our pleasures known to us poor swains, + All our merry meeting on the plains, + All our evening sports from us are fled, + All our love is lost, for love is dead. + + Farewell sweet lass, thy like ne’er was, + For sweet content, the cause of all my moan: + Poor Corydon must live alone, + Other help for him, I see that there is none. + + Finis Ignoto + +The variations from the version of 1599 are few, the only important one +being “ren[e]ging” for “renying.” The latter has no meaning; _the former +is used twice in the plays._ + +The only question in regard to the authorship of this poem is, whether +Shakspere or “Ignoto” wrote it. + +The next poem printed in the “Helicon” is a part of No.xxi of the +“Passionate Pilgrim.”: + + [32] + + Another of the Same Shepherds. + + As it fell upon a day + In the merry month of May, + Sitting in a pleasant shade + Which a grove of myrtles made; + Beasts did leap, and birds did sing, + Trees did grow and plants did spring; + Everything did banish moan, + Save the nightingale alone. + + She, poor bird, as all forlorn, + Lean’d her breast against a thorn; + And there sung the dolefull’st ditty, + That to hear it was great pity. + + Fie, fie, fie, now would she cry; + Teru, teru! by and by; + That to hear her so complain + Scarce I could from tears refrain; + For her griefs, so lively shown, + Made me think upon mine own. + + Ah! thought I, thou mourn’st in vain! + None takes pity on thy pain: + Senseless trees, they cannot hear thee, + Ruthless beasts they will not cheer thee: + King Pandion he is dead; + All thy friends are lapp’d in lead; + All thy fellow birds do sing, + Careless of thy sorrowing! + Even so, poor bird, like thee, + None alive will pity me. + + Finis. Ignoto. + +The last two lines, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps says, are new ones added to +the first twenty-six in “The Passionate Pilgrim.” Our own edition of the +latter has those two lines, and the only variation is in the tenth +line—“up-till” for “against.” There are thirty lines more in our +edition. But we have another version of the whole, omitting the +aforesaid two lines and a subsequent couplet. This version, curiously +enough, is + +[33] + +Leaded “Address to the Nightingale,” and is credited to Richard +Barnfield, “about 1610.” (Encyc. of Poetry No. 121.) In 1598 it is said +that the first twenty-six lines of this idyl appeared in an appendix to +Barnfield’s “Encomium in 1599 it reappeared enlarged to twice the length +and was credited to Shakspere; in 1600 the first twenty-eight lines were +republished in “England’s Helicon” and subscribed “Ignoto.” + +We now transcribe from the “Helicon,” No. xx of “The Passionate Pilgrim” +much amended and enlarged: + + The Passionate Shepherd to his love. + Come live with me, and be my love, + And we will all the pleasures prove, + That valleys, groves, [and] hills and fields, + Woods, or steeple mountains yields.(1) + + (1) The grammar of this verse is shocking both here and in + the version of 1599. And there are considerable variations + in the two versions. In that of 1599 the first word “Come” + is omitted, without which the song could hardly be sung. + Other slight defects of measure appear in both. But the + editor of Marlowe’s Works has carefully corrected the + grammar and the measure. + + And we will sit upon the rocks, + Seeing the shepherds feed their flocks, + By shallow rivers, to whose falls + Melodious birds sing madrigals. + + And I will make thee beds of roses, + And a thousand fragrant posies, + A cap of flowers and a kirtle + Embroidered all with leaves of myrtle. + + A gown made of the finest wool, + Which from our pretty lambs we pull, + Fair lined slippers for the cold, + With buckles of the purest gold: + A belt of straw, and ivy buds + With coral clasps and amber studs. + + [34] + + And if these pleasures may thee move, + Come live with me and be my love. + The shepherd swains shall dance and sing + For thy delights each May−morning; + If these delights thy mind may move, + Then live with me and be my love. + + Finis. Chr. Marlowe. + +Here we have Marlowe credited with this song in 1600, seven years after +his death. Is there any other evidence that he wrote it? A single line +at the close of a ditty in his “Jew of Malta” parallels with the first +line of this, except the first word: + + “Shall live with me and be my love.” + +The song, with many verbal amendments, and omitting the last stanza, is +inserted in his “Works,” 1826. + +In the “Merry Wives of Windsor” act iii, scene ly Sir Hugh Evans sings +the following four lines: + + “To shallow rivers, to whose falls + Melodious birds sing madrigals; + There we will make our peds of roses, + And a thousand fragrant posies.” + +This play was written in the latter part of 1599. In the earliest form +of it Sir Hugh transposes and varies the lines thus: + + “And then she made him beds of roses, + And a thousand fragrant posies.” + +Then after three lines of incoherent speech: + + “To shallow rivers, and to falls + Melodious birds sing madrigals.” + +It would seem as if the song was familiar to the public in 1599 We now +add from the “Helicon” the rest of No. xx of “The Passionate Pilgrim,” +enlarged from one stanza to six: + + [35] + + The Nymph's reply to the Shepherd. + If all the world and love were young, + And truth in every shepherd’s tongue, + These pretty pleasures might me move, + To live with thee, and be thy love. + + Time drives the flocks from field to fold, + When rivers rage, and rocks grow cold; + And Philomel becometh dumb; + The rest complain of cares to come. + + The flowers do fade, and wanton fields + To wayward Winter reckoning yields; + A honey tongue, a heart of gall, + Is fancy’s Spring, but sorrow’s fall. + + Thy gowns, thy shoes, thy beds of roses, + Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies, + Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten, + In folly ripe, in reason rotten. + + Thy belt of straw, and ivy buds, + Thy coral clasps and amber studs, + All these in me no means can move, + To come to thee and be thy love. + + But could youth last, and love still breed, + Had joys no date, nor age no need, + Then these delights my mind might move, + To live with thee and be thy love. + + Finis. Ignoto. + +The editor of the third edition of the “Helicon” 1812, says in regard to +“Ignoto:” + +“This signature appears to have been generally, though not exclusively, +subscribed to the pieces of Sir Walter Raleigh. It is also subscribed to +one piece since appropriated to Shakspere, [No. xviii,] and to one +Which, according to Ellis, belongs to Richard Barnfield [No. xxi.] The +celebrated answer to Marlowe’s, ’Come live with me,’ here subscribed +_Ignoto_, is given expressly to Raleigh by Isaac Walton in his ‘Complete +Angler,’ first published in 1653.” + +[36] + +What could Walton know about it fifty years after the publication of the +song and answer as above? On such worthless testimony the Nymph’s Answer +is credited to Raleigh. And we have in the “Encyclopedia of Poetry,” +1873, first the song by Marlowe, “_about_ 1590,” and then the Nymph’s +Reply by Raleigh “_about_ 1610.” Strange that the Nymph should wait +_about_ twenty years to reply, and should then repeat the lines credited +to Shakspere in 1599 and to “Ignoto” in 1600! The song perhaps existed +before the death of Marlowe in 1593, but was probably composed by +“Ignoto,” who also wrote “The Nymph’s Reply” and numerous other poetical +pieces that were published in the “Helicon” in 1600. + +“Ignoto” was undoubtedly a concealed poet. Marlowe, Raleigh and +Barnfield were not. As early as January 1590, if not a little sooner, +“Ignoto” contributed to Spenser’s first publication of the “Faery Queen” +the following lines: + + “To look upon a work of rare devise + The which a workman setteth out to view, + And not to yield it the deserved prize + That unto such a workmanship is due, + Doth either prove the judgment to be naught, + Or else doth show a mind with envy fraught. + + “To labor to commend a piece of work + Which no man goes about to discommend, + Would raise a jealous doubt that there did lurk + Some secret doubt whereto the praise did tend: + For when men know the goodness of the wine + ’Tis needless for the host to have a sign. + + “Thus then, to show my judgment to be such + As can discern of colors black and white, + As als to free my mind from envy’s touch, + That never gives to any man his right: + I here pronounce this workmanship is such + As that no pen can set it forth too much. + + [37] + + “And thus I hang a garland at the door; + Not for to show the goodness of the ware; + But such hath been the custom heretofore, + And customs very hardly broken are; + And when your taste shall tell you this is true, + Then look you give your host his utmost due.” + +In No. viii of “The Passionate Pilgrim” the writer says: + + “Dowland to thee is dear, whose heavenly touch + Upon the lute doth ravish human sense; + + Spenser to me, whose deep conceit is such + As, passing all conceit, needs no defense.” + +Is not this praise of Spenser a substantial repetition of the sentiments +expressed by “Ignoto”? + +Again, in Shakspere’s Sonnet lxxx we read: + + “O how I faint when I of you do write, + Knowing a better spirit doth use your name, + And in the praise thereof spends all his might, + To make me tongue−tied, speaking of your fame!” + +Spenser praises Essex in one of the Sonnets prefixed to his “Faery +Queen,” which antedates the Sonnets of Shakspere. + +Once more. In No. xviii of “The Passionate Pilgrim” we read: + + “Poor Corydon must live alone, + Other help for him I see that there is none.” + +Compare this with the following lines from Spenser’s “Colin Clout,” +dedicated to Sir Walter Raleigh, December 27, 1591, and published in +1595: + + “And there is Corydon, though meanly waged, + Yet ablest wit of most I know this day.” + +Was not Bacon the ablest wit of that time? Was + +[38] + +he not a concealed poet? Was he not “Corydon”? Was he not “Ignoto”? + +But what evidence is there that Raleigh used that signature? The “Faery +Queen” was publicly dedicated to him, and in the Sonnet addressed to him +as one of Spenser’s patrons, a forthcoming poem by Raleigh is announced +thus: + + “Yet, till that thou thy poem wilt make known, + Let thy fair Cynthia’s praises be thus rudely shown.” + +That poem was known to Spenser, who in the Dedication said he had +fashioned his Queen “according to your [Raleigh’s] own excellent conceit +of Cynthia,” i. e., Queen Elizabeth. + +Furthermore, Raleigh contributed two Sonnets in praise of Spenser’s +“Faery Queen;” these he subscribed with his own initials. Did he at the +same time write another encomium and sign it “Ignoto”? + +There are sixteen pieces in the “Helicon” subscribed “Ignoto.” One of +these, “The Nymph’s Reply” is ascribed to Raleigh on the testimony of +Walton in 1653; and two others are believed by the editor of the third +edition, 1812, to belong to Raleigh, because in an early copy of the +same “Ignoto” was found pasted over “W. R.” Upon such flimsy evidence +the modern editor infers that the signature “Ignoto” was “generally, +_though not exclusively_, (his own italics,) subscribed to the pieces of +Sir Walter Raleigh.” + +The next piece after “The Nymph’s Reply” in the “Helicon” is the +following by “Ignoto”: + + Another of the same nature made since. + Come live with me and be my dear, + And we will revel all the year, + In plains and groves, on hills and dales, + Where fragrant air breeds sweetest gates. + + + There shall you have the beauteous pine, + The cedar, and the spreading vine; + And all the woods to be a screen, + Lest Phoebus kiss my summer queen. + + The seat for your disport shall be + Over some river in a tree; + Where silver sands and pebbles sing + Eternal ditties with the Spring. + + There shall you see the nymphs at play, + And how the Satyrs spend the day; + The fishes gliding on the sands, + Offering their bellies to your hands. + + The birds, with heavenly tuned throats, + Possess woods’ echoes with sweet notes; + Which to your senses will impart + A music to inflame the heart. + + Upon the bare and leafless oak + The ring−dove’s wooings will provoke + A colder blood than you possess, + To play with me and do no less. + + In bowers of laurel trimly dight, + We will outwear the silent night, + While Flora busy is to spread + Her richest treasure on our bed. + + Ten thousand glow−worms shall attend, + And all their sparkling lights shall spend. + All to adorn and beautify + Your lodging with most majesty. + + Then in mine arms will I enclose + Lily’s fair mixture with the rose; + Whose nice perfections in love’s play, + Shall tune to me the highest key. + + Thus as we pass the welcome night + In sportful pleasures and delight, + The nimble fairies on the grounds + Shall dance and sing melodious sounds. + + [40] + + If these may serve for to entice + Your presence to Love’s paradise, + Then come with me and be my dear, + And we will straight begin the year. + + Finis. Ignoto. + +Who will say that this is not equal to the first song ascribed to +Marlowe? What couplet in that surpasses this one?: + + “Where silver sands and pebbles sing + Eternal ditties with the Spring.” + +Or this?: + + “Ten thousand glow−worms shall attend. + And all their sparkling lights shall spend.” + +For parallels with the first of these couplets take the following: + + “Silver stream.” Much Ado, iii, 1. + + “Sing no more ditties.” Ibid, ii, 1. + + “Silver currents.” K. John, ii, 1. + + “The murmuring surge + That on the unnumbered idle pebbles chafes.” + + Ibid, iv, 6. + +For a single parallel with the second couplet take this: + + “Twenty glow−worms shall our lanterns be.” + + M. W. Windsor, v, 5. + +Similar parallels may be found with other lines of the song. Now are we +to believe that Marlowe wrote the first song, and Raleigh the other two +signed “Ignoto”? Is it not far more rational and consistent to believe +that all three were written by the same pen? + +Again, Barnfield has two pieces in the “Helicon,” and the editor +ascribes to him another signed “Ignoto”—No. xxi, “As it fell upon a +day”—while Allibone, in his Dictionary of Authors, makes him the + +[41] + +author not only of xxi, but of xx—“Come live with me and be my love”—and +says that Raleigh’s authorship of “The Nymph’s Reply” is questioned. + +Thus Marlowe is robbed of the only piece ascribed to him in the +“Helicon,” and Raleigh is left out of it entirely, unless he wrote some +other poem signed “Ignoto.” + +And by the way, poor neglected Shakspere has but a single specimen +there—“On a day, alack a day”— taken from “Love’s Labor Lost.” + +But the confusion about “Ignoto” is still more confounded. On page 112 +of the “Helicon” is a song entitled “The Shepherd’s Dump,” subscribed +“S. E. D.,” supposed to mean Sir Edward Dyer, and on page 224 the same +identical song reappears entitled “Thirsis, the Shepherd, to his pipe,” +and signed “Ignoto.” The editor of 1812 supposes it was reprinted to +make a few corrections in the last stanza; but as the verbal variations +in that stanza make it positively worse, it is more likely that the +compiler did not notice the repetition, but inadvertently put both in as +he found them. + +But even this is not all. In Ellis’s “Specimens of the early English +Poets,” 5th edition, 1845, among the pieces credited to Fulke Greville +(Lord Brooke) is a “Song,” with these words in brackets: + +“To be found in ‘England’s Helicon,’ where it is signed Ignoto.” + +On turning to the edition of 1614 we find that song entitled “Another, +of his Cynthia.” It is preceded by two, evidently by the same pen, +entitled, “To his Flocks,” and “To his Love” and is followed by still +“Another to his Cynthia.” But all these are anonymous + +[42] + +in the edition of 1614, and the editor appends to the last one the +following remark: + +“These three [or four?] ditties were taken out of Maister John Dowland’s +Book of Tableture for the Lute. The authors’ names not there set down, +and therefore left to their owners.” + +But it happens that the four ditties are all credited to “Ignoto” in the +Table of Contents, prepared by the _other editor_, so that in the +edition of 1614 “Ignoto” has twenty pieces, besides the one assigned to +Marlowe. + +With all this confusion what are we to believe in regard to “Ignoto”? +Was he sometimes Raleigh, sometimes Barnfield, sometimes Dyer, sometimes +Greville, + +and sometimes Shakspere, or some one else? Or was he a single person who +“loved better to be a poet than to be counted so” and who affected to +hoodwink the above-named Greville by writing to him in 1596: “For poets +I can commend none, being resolved to be ever a stranger to them”? + +And here let us note a bit of internal evidence that Bacon wrote the +little poem in praise of the “Faery Queen” signed “Ignoto.” One couplet +of it is as follows: + + “For when men know the goodness of the wine, + ’Tis needless for the host to have a sign.” + +No. 517 of Bacon’s “Promus of Formularies and Elegancies” is this: + + “Good wine needs no bush.” + +The word “bush” as applied to wine is thus defined by Webster: + +“branch of ivy (as sacred to Bacchus) hung out at vintners’ doors, or as +a tavern sign; hence a tavern sign, or the tavern itself.” + +“‘If it be true that good wine needs no bush, ’tis true that a good play +needs no epilogue.’” Shak.[As You Like It.] + +We leave the reader to put this and that together argument or comment is +superfluous. + + + + +[43] + + + + +AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO + + +And now what shall we say in regard to Marlowe’s ostensible authorship +of a popular song, which was attributed to Shakspere in 1599? Is it not +presumable that “Ignoto,” who wrote the “Nymph’s Reply,” and followed it +with “Another of the same nature made since” in imitation of the song +subscribed “Chr. Marlowe”—is it not probable that “Ignoto” ascribed his +own original song to Marlowe? + +Marlowe was buried June 1, 1593. In the same year Shakspere’s name first +appeared in print as an author. And now among the startling revelations +hitherto hidden in the Folio of 1623, but made known through Bacon’s +cipher discovered by the Hon. Ignatius Donnelly, is this sentence: + +“Ever since Marlowe was killed Shakspere has been my mask.” + +Another Poem by Bacon in 1590. + +The 33d anniversary of Elizabeth’s coronation was celebrated November +17, 1590. Sir Henry Lea, the Queen’s champion and master of the armory, +who had conducted the exercises from the beginning, appeared for the +last time, and, after the customary performances, resigned his office to +the Earl of Cumberland, whereupon the celebrated vocalist, Mr. Hales, a +servant of her Majesty, pronounced and sung the following verses, +personating the aged man-at-arms: + + “My golden locks hath time to silver turned, + (O Time too swift, and swiftness never ceasing!) + My youth ’gainst age, and age at youth hath spurned, + But spurned in vain; youth waneth, by increasing. + Beauty and strength, and youth flowers fading been, + Duty, faith, love, are roots and ever green. + + “My helmet now shall make a hive for bees, + And lovers’ songs shall turn to holy psalms; + A man−at−arms must now stand on his knees, + And feed on prayers that are old age’s alms. + + And so from court to cottage I depart; + My saint is sure of my unspotted heart. + “And when I sadly sit in lonely cell, + I’ll teach my swains this carol for a song: + ‘Blest be the hearts that wish my Sovereign well, + Curst be the souls that think to do her wrong.’ + + Goddess! vouchsafe this aged man his right, + To be your beadsman now that Was your knight.” + +Parallels are found in Bacon and Shakspere with almost every sentiment +and expression in these lines. (See Mrs. Pott’s “Promus,” p. 528.) + +The verses were published anonymously in Dowland’s “First Book of +Songs,” 1600, and again in 1844; both times with the pronouns changed +from the first to the third person—e. g., “His golden locks,” etc. In +the “Works of George Peele,” 1828, they are credited to that poet, but +the only evidence adduced of his authorship is the fact that he, as an +eye-witness, wrote a poetic description of the celebration in 1590. Mrs. +Pott is doubtless right in claiming for Bacon the authorship, and is +only mistaken in supposing that the person to whom the verses were +intended to apply was Lord Burleigh, who about that time, on account of +the loss of his wife, had temporarily withdrawn from court. + + + + +BACON AND SHAKSPERE A CHRONOGRAPH + + +1. If the Parliament met November 23, 1584, as Mr. Spedding distinctly +says, then Bacon was not yet twenty-four. + +An ideal tableau of the youthful statesman is gaily depicted by Wm. +Hepworth Dixon, in his “Personal History of Lord Bacon:” + +“How he appears in outward guise and aspect among these courtly and +martial contemporaries the miniature of Hilyard helps us to conceive. +Slight in build, rosy and round in fleshy dight in a sumptuous suit, the +head well-set, erect, and framed in a thick starched fence of frill; a +bloom of study and travel on the fat, girlish face, which looks far +younger than his years; the hat and feather tossed aside from the white +brow, over which, crisps and curls a mane of dark, soft hair; an English +nose, firm, open, straight; a mouth delicate and small—a lady’s or +jester’s mouth—a thousand pranks and humors, quibbles, whims and +laughters lurking in its twinkling, tremulous lines;—such is Francis +Bacon at the age of twenty-four.” + +Bearing in mind that Bacon is three years and three months older than +Shakspere, we will now parallel their lives by successive years. + + + + +[47] + + + + +A CHRONOGRAPHIC PARALLEL + + + A. D. 1585. +Bacon at 24, in a letter to the Queen’s principal secretary, Sir Francis +Walsingham, urges his some time pending suit, which is to determine his +“course of practice”—supposed to mean a shortening of the five years’ +probation required to become a pleader. + +He writes an essay entitled “Greatest Birth of Time,” foreshadowing his +scientific works. + +His mother in her zeal for the Nonconformists urges their cause in +person before Lord Treasurer Burleigh, and follows it by a letter to the +same in which she says: + +“I confess as one that hath found mercy, that I have profited more in +the inward feeling knowledge of God his holy will, though but in small +measure, by an ordinary preaching within these seven or eight years, +than I did by hearing odd sermons at Paul’s well nigh twenty years +together.” + +Shakspere at 21 is still living at Stratford, the father of three +children—two of them twins. His father is said to have been a butcher as +well as a dealer in wool; and gossiping John Aubrey says he was told by +some of the neighbors that when the boy William “kill’d a calfe, he wold +doe it in a high style, and make a speeche.” + +Mr. Richard Grant White guesses that William may have gone to London +this year or the next. + +[48] + + A. D. 1586. +Bacon at 25 writes a letter, May 6th, to Lord Treasurer Burleigh, his +uncle, saying: + +“I find in my simple observation that they which live as it were _in +umbra_ and not in public or frequent action, how moderately and modestly +soever they behave themselves, yet _laborant inmdia_. I find also that +such persons as are of nature bashful (as myself is,) whereby they want +that plausible familiarity which others have, are often mistaken for +proud. But once I know well, and I most humbly beseech your Lordship to +believe that arrogancy and overweening is so far from my nature, as, if +I think well of myself in anything, it is in this, that I am free from +that vice.” + +He is again elected to Parliament. The conspirators who attempted to +liberate Mary of Scotland have been tried, condemned, and sentenced. The +case is brought before the Parliament. Bacon is one of the speakers in +“the Great Cause,” and one of the committees to whom it is referred. + +Shakspere at 22 is probably still at Stratford, though Mr. White +presumes he has become connected with the London stage this year, or +perhaps a little later. + + [To be continued to the end of both lives, making a book of 300 + pages or more, including this pamphlet as an appendix, with + important additions. All the essential facts of Lord Bacon’s + life will be presented, whereby his secret authorship will be + more abundantly proved, and his moral character vindicated + against the aspersions of 260 years.] + + + + + ———— + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 39121 *** diff --git a/39121-h/39121-h.htm b/39121-h/39121-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..464cfc8 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/39121-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2202 @@ +<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN' 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> +<meta name="generator" content="Docutils 0.8.1: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/" /> +<style type="text/css"> +/* +Project Gutenberg common docutils stylesheet. + +This stylesheet contains styles common to HTML and EPUB. Put styles +that are specific to HTML and EPUB into their relative stylesheets. + +:Author: Marcello Perathoner (webmaster@gutenberg.org) +:Copyright: This stylesheet has been placed in the public domain. + +This stylesheet is based on: + + :Author: David Goodger (goodger@python.org) + :Copyright: This stylesheet has been placed in the public domain. + + Default cascading style sheet for the HTML output of Docutils. + +*/ + +/* ADE 1.7.2 chokes on !important and throws all css out. */ + +/* FONTS */ + +.italics { font-style: italic } +.no-italics { font-style: normal } + +.bold { font-weight: bold } +.no-bold { font-weight: normal } + +.small-caps { } /* Epub needs italics */ +.gesperrt { } /* Epub needs italics */ +.antiqua { font-style: italic } /* what else can we do ? */ +.monospaced { font-family: monospace } + +.smaller { font-size: smaller } +.larger { font-size: larger } + +.xx-small { font-size: xx-small } +.x-small { font-size: x-small } +.small { font-size: small } +.medium { font-size: medium } +.large { font-size: large } +.x-large { font-size: x-large } +.xx-large { font-size: xx-large } + +.text-transform-uppercase { text-transform: uppercase } +.text-transform-lowercase { text-transform: lowercase } +.text-transform-none { text-transform: none } + +.red { color: red } +.green { color: green } +.blue { color: blue } +.yellow { color: yellow } +.white { color: white } +.gray { color: gray } +.black { color: black } + +/* ALIGN */ + +.left { text-align: left } +.center { text-align: center } +.right { text-align: right } +.justify { text-align: justify } + +/* LINE HEIGHT */ + +body { line-height: 1.5 } +p { margin: 0; + text-indent: 2em } + +/* PAGINATION */ + +.title, .subtitle { page-break-after: avoid } + +.container, .title, .subtitle, #pg-header + { page-break-inside: avoid } + +/* SECTIONS */ + +body { text-align: justify } + +p.pfirst, +p.center, +p.right, +div.center p, +div.right p, +p.noindent { text-indent: 0 } + +.boxed { border: 1px solid black; padding: 1em } +.topic, .note { margin: 5% 0; border: 1px solid black; padding: 1em } +div.section { clear: both } + +div.line-block { margin: 1.5em 0 } /* same leading as p */ +div.line-block.inner { margin: 0 0 0 10% } +div.line { margin-left: 20%; text-indent: -20%; } +.line-block.noindent div.line { margin-left: 0; text-indent: 0; } + +hr.docutils { margin: 1.5em 40%; border: none; border-bottom: 1px solid black; } + +.vfill, .vspace { border: 0px solid white } + +.title { margin: 1.5em 0 } +.title.with-subtitle { margin-bottom: 0 } +.subtitle { margin: 1.5em 0 } + +/* header font style */ +/* http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#propdef-font-size */ + +h1.title { font-size: 200%; } /* for book title only */ +h2.title, p.subtitle.level-1 { font-size: 150%; margin-top: 4.5em; margin-bottom: 2em } +h3.title, p.subtitle.level-2 { font-size: 120%; margin-top: 2.25em; margin-bottom: 1.25em } +h4.title, p.subtitle.level-3 { font-size: 100%; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; font-weight: bold; } +h5.title, p.subtitle.level-4 { font-size: 89%; margin-top: 1.87em; margin-bottom: 1.69em; font-style: italic; } +h6.title, p.subtitle.level-5 { font-size: 60%; margin-top: 3.5em; margin-bottom: 2.5em } + +/* title page */ + +h1.title, p.subtitle.level-1, +h2.title, p.subtitle.level-2 { text-align: center } + +#pg-header, +h1.document-title { margin: 10% 0 5% 0 } +p.document-subtitle { margin: 0 0 5% 0 } + +/* PG header and footer */ +#pg-machine-header { } +#pg-produced-by { } + +li.toc-entry { list-style-type: none } +ul.open li, ol.open li { margin-bottom: 1.5em } + +p.attribution { margin-top: 0 } + +.example-rendered { + margin: 1em 5%; border: 1px dotted red; padding: 1em; background-color: #ffd } +.literal-block.example-source { + margin: 1em 5%; border: 1px dotted blue; padding: 1em; background-color: #eef } + +/* DROPCAPS */ + +/* BLOCKQUOTES */ + +blockquote { margin: 1.5em 10% } + +blockquote.epigraph { } + +blockquote.highlights { } + +div.local-contents { margin: 1.5em 10% } + +div.abstract { margin: 3em 10% } +div.caption { margin: 1.5em 10%; text-align: center; font-style: italic } +div.legend { margin: 1.5em 10% } + +.hidden { display: none } + +.invisible { visibility: hidden; color: white } /* white: mozilla print bug */ + +a.toc-backref { + text-decoration: none ; + color: black } + +dl.docutils dd { + margin-bottom: 0.5em } + +div.figure { margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em } + +img { max-width: 100% } + +div.footer, div.header { + clear: both; + font-size: smaller } + +div.sidebar { + margin: 0 0 0.5em 1em ; + border: medium outset ; + padding: 1em ; + background-color: #ffffee ; + width: 40% ; + float: right ; + clear: right } + +div.sidebar p.rubric { + font-family: sans-serif ; + font-size: medium } + +ol.simple, ul.simple { margin: 1.5em 0 } + +ol.toc-list, ul.toc-list { padding-left: 0 } +ol ol.toc-list, ul ul.toc-list { padding-left: 5% } + +ol.arabic { + list-style: decimal } + +ol.loweralpha { + list-style: lower-alpha } + +ol.upperalpha { + list-style: upper-alpha } + +ol.lowerroman { + list-style: lower-roman } + +ol.upperroman { + list-style: upper-roman } + +p.credits { + font-style: italic ; + font-size: smaller } + +p.label { + white-space: nowrap } + +p.rubric { + font-weight: bold ; + font-size: larger ; + color: maroon ; + text-align: center } + +p.sidebar-title { + font-family: sans-serif ; + font-weight: bold ; + font-size: larger } + +p.sidebar-subtitle { + font-family: sans-serif ; + font-weight: bold } + +p.topic-title, p.admonition-title { + font-weight: bold } + +pre.address { + margin-bottom: 0 ; + margin-top: 0 ; + font: inherit } + +.literal-block, .doctest-block { + margin-left: 2em ; + margin-right: 2em; } + +span.classifier { + font-family: sans-serif ; + font-style: oblique } + +span.classifier-delimiter { + font-family: sans-serif ; + font-weight: bold } + +span.interpreted { + font-family: sans-serif } + +span.option { + white-space: nowrap } + +span.pre { + white-space: pre } + +span.problematic { + color: red } + +span.section-subtitle { + /* font-size relative to parent (h1..h6 element) */ + font-size: 100% } + +table { margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; border-spacing: 0 } +table.align-left, table.align-right { margin-top: 0 } + +table.table { border-collapse: collapse; } + +table.table.hrules-table thead { border: 1px solid black; border-width: 2px 0 0 } +table.table.hrules-table tbody { border: 1px solid black; border-width: 2px 0 } +table.table.hrules-rows tr { border: 1px solid black; border-width: 0 0 1px } +table.table.hrules-rows tr.last { border-width: 0 } +table.table.hrules-rows td, +table.table.hrules-rows th { padding: 1ex 1em; vertical-align: middle } + +table.table tr { border-width: 0 } +table.table td, +table.table th { padding: 0.5ex 1em } +table.table tr.first td { padding-top: 1ex } +table.table tr.last td { padding-bottom: 1ex } +table.table tr.first th { padding-top: 1ex } +table.table tr.last th { padding-bottom: 1ex } + + +table.citation { + border-left: solid 1px gray; + margin-left: 1px } + +table.docinfo { + margin: 3em 4em } + +table.docutils { } + +tr.footnote.footnote td, tr.footnote.footnote th { + padding: 0 0.5em 1.5em; +} + +table.docutils td, table.docutils th, +table.docinfo td, table.docinfo th { + padding: 0 0.5em; + vertical-align: top } + +table.docutils th.field-name, table.docinfo th.docinfo-name { + font-weight: bold ; + text-align: left ; + white-space: nowrap ; + padding-left: 0 } + +/* used to remove borders from tables and images */ +.borderless, table.borderless td, table.borderless th { + border: 0 } + +table.borderless td, table.borderless th { + /* Override padding for "table.docutils td" with "!important". + The right padding separates the table cells. */ + padding: 0 0.5em 0 0 } /* FIXME: was !important */ + +h1 tt.docutils, h2 tt.docutils, h3 tt.docutils, +h4 tt.docutils, h5 tt.docutils, h6 tt.docutils { + font-size: 100% } + +ul.auto-toc { + list-style-type: none } +</style> +<style type="text/css"> +/* +Project Gutenberg HTML docutils stylesheet. + +This stylesheet contains styles specific to HTML. +*/ + +/* FONTS */ + +/* em { font-style: normal } +strong { font-weight: normal } */ + +.small-caps { font-variant: small-caps } +.gesperrt { letter-spacing: 0.1em } + +/* ALIGN */ + +.align-left { clear: left; + float: left; + margin-right: 1em } + +.align-right { clear: right; + float: right; + margin-left: 1em } + +.align-center { margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto } + +div.shrinkwrap { display: table; } + +/* SECTIONS */ + +body { margin: 5% 10% 5% 10% } + +/* compact list items containing just one p */ +li p.pfirst { margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0 } + +.first { margin-top: 0 !important; + text-indent: 0 !important } +.last { margin-bottom: 0 !important } + +span.dropcap { float: left; margin: 0 0.1em 0 0; line-height: 1 } +img.dropcap { float: left; margin: 0 0.5em 0 0; max-width: 25% } +span.dropspan { font-variant: small-caps } + +.no-page-break { page-break-before: avoid !important } + +/* PAGINATION */ + +@media screen { + .coverpage, .frontispiece, .titlepage, .verso, .dedication, .plainpage + { margin: 10% 0; } + + div.clearpage, div.cleardoublepage + { margin: 10% 0; border: none; border-top: 1px solid gray; } + + .vfill { margin: 5% 10% } +} + +@media print { + div.clearpage { page-break-before: always; padding-top: 10% } + div.cleardoublepage { page-break-before: right; padding-top: 10% } + + .vfill { margin-top: 20% } + h2.title { margin-top: 20% } +} + +</style> +<title>BACON AND SHAKSPERE</title> +<meta name="PG.Rights" content="Public Domain" /> +<meta name="PG.Title" content="Bacon And Shakspere" /> +<meta name="PG.Producer" content="David Widger" /> +<meta name="DC.Creator" content="William Henry Burr" /> +<meta name="DC.Created" content="1886" /> +<meta name="PG.Id" content="39121" /> +<meta name="PG.Released" content="2012-03-12" /> +<meta name="DC.Language" content="en" /> +<meta name="DC.Title" content="Bacon And Shakspere" /> + +<link href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" rel="schema.DCTERMS" /> +<link href="http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators" rel="schema.MARCREL" /> +<meta content="Bacon And Shakspere" name="DCTERMS.title" /> +<meta content="bacon.rst" name="DCTERMS.source" /> +<meta content="en" scheme="DCTERMS.RFC4646" name="DCTERMS.language" /> +<meta content="2012-03-12T22:29:01.900933+00:00" scheme="DCTERMS.W3CDTF" name="DCTERMS.modified" /> +<meta content="Project Gutenberg" name="DCTERMS.publisher" /> +<meta content="Public Domain in the USA." name="DCTERMS.rights" /> +<link href="http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39121" rel="DCTERMS.isFormatOf" /> +<meta content="William Henry Burr" name="DCTERMS.creator" /> +<meta content="2012-03-12" scheme="DCTERMS.W3CDTF" name="DCTERMS.created" /> +<meta content="width=device-width" name="viewport" /> +<meta content="EpubMaker 0.3 by Marcello Perathoner <webmaster@gutenberg.org>" name="generator" /> +<style type="text/css"> +.pageno { position: absolute; right: 95%; font: medium sans-serif; text-indent: 0 } +.pageno:after { color: gray; content: '[' attr(title) ']' } +.lineno { position: absolute; left: 95%; font: medium sans-serif; text-indent: 0 } +.lineno:after { color: gray; content: '[' attr(title) ']' } +.toc-pageref { float: right } +pre { font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.9em; white-space: pre-wrap } +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 39121 ***</div> +<div class="document" id="bacon-and-shakspere"> +<h1 class="document-title level-1 pfirst title">BACON AND SHAKSPERE</h1> +<div class="noindent vspace" style="height: 4em"> +</div> +<p class="noindent pfirst" id="pg-produced-by"><span>Produced by David Widger.</span></p> +<div class="noindent vspace" style="height: 1em"> +</div> +<p class="noindent pfirst"><span></span></p> +</div> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<div class="center line-block noindent outermost"> +<div class="line"><span class="bold x-large">BACON AND SHAKSPERE</span></div> +<div class="line"> </div> +<div class="line"> </div> +<div class="line"><cite class="italics">By</cite></div> +<div class="line"> </div> +<div class="line"><span class="bold x-large">William Henry Burr</span></div> +<div class="line"> </div> +<div class="line"><span class="small-caps">PROOF THAT WILLIAM SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE</span></div> +<div class="line"> </div> +<div class="line"><span class="italics small">BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO</span></div> +<div class="line"> </div> +<div class="line"><span class="small-caps">1886</span></div> +</div> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<div class="level-2 section" id="id1"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title">CONTENTS</h2> +<div class="container contents"> +<ul class="compact simple toc-list"> +<li class="level-2 toc-entry"><p class="first pfirst"><a class="reference internal" href="#proof-that-shakspere-could-not-write" id="id2">PROOF THAT SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE</a></p> +</li> +<li class="level-2 toc-entry"><p class="first pfirst"><a class="reference internal" href="#no-true-likeness-of-shakspere" id="id3">NO TRUE LIKENESS OF SHAKSPERE</a></p> +</li> +<li class="level-2 toc-entry"><p class="first pfirst"><a class="reference internal" href="#the-sonnets-of-shakspere" id="id4">THE SONNETS OF SHAKSPERE</a></p> +</li> +<li class="level-2 toc-entry"><p class="first pfirst"><a class="reference internal" href="#bacon-identified-as-the-concealed-poet-ignoto" id="id5">BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO</a></p> +</li> +<li class="level-2 toc-entry"><p class="first pfirst"><a class="reference internal" href="#as-the-concealed-poet-ignoto" id="id6">AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO</a></p> +</li> +<li class="level-2 toc-entry"><p class="first pfirst"><a class="reference internal" href="#bacon-and-shakspere-a-chronograph" id="id7">BACON AND SHAKSPERE A CHRONOGRAPH</a></p> +</li> +<li class="level-2 toc-entry"><p class="first pfirst"><a class="reference internal" href="#a-chronographic-parallel" id="id8">A CHRONOGRAPHIC PARALLEL</a></p> +</li> +</ul> +</div> +</div> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/titlepage.jpg" /> +</div> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/frontispiece.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">QUEEN ELIZABETH’S “YOUNG LORD KEEPER.” FROM BUST.</p> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">[3]</p> +<div class="level-2 section" id="proof-that-shakspere-could-not-write"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title"><a class="toc-backref" href="#id2">PROOF THAT SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE</a></h2> +<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 3.00em">N</span><span class="dropspan">o</span> handwriting of Shakspere has ever been discovered +except five autographs. In March 1613, when +he was nearly 49 years old, he signed his name to a +mortgage, and again to a deed relative to the same +transaction. Three years later he subscribed his name +to three briefs or sheets of his will. The five facsimiles +are here reproduced:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page3a.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">They are all such signatures as an illiterate person, +unaccustomed to write, would be likely to scrawl; and</p> +<p class="pnext">[4]</p> +<p class="pnext">they are so different that an acquaintance with one is +little help to the recognition of another.</p> +<p class="pnext">In the first signature he writes Wm. for William.</p> +<p class="pnext">The second and third autographs have William +written above Shakspere. Who but an illiterate +person would sign his name thus?</p> +<p class="pnext">In the last two signatures (being told perhaps that +his name ought to be written on one line) he puts +William before Shakspere; but the fourth William +reads Willin.</p> +<p class="pnext">See now how differently each letter is formed in the +name Shakspere, beginning with the initial:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 86%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page4a.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">Did anybody ever write the first letter of his name +so differently? After four attempts to form a capital +S he succeeds tolerably well the fifth time. The second +S, though of singular shape, appears to have been a +customary one as early as 1598. (See examples of that +year below.) Shakspere’s first attempt to form the +crooked letter is a failure, but the second passably +good. So again in 1616, when he has a different form +to copy, his first attempt is futile, the second is passable, +and the third quite successful.</p> +<p class="pnext">But in attempting the next letter he makes it worse +every time:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 79%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page4b.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">With the letter a he is more successful, making it +legible three times out of five:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 65%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page4c.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">[5]</p> +<p class="pnext">But the attempt to form a k is a signal failure:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 56%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page5a.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">With the long s he succeeds best the first time, and +worst the second and third:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 58%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page5b.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">The letter p is legible the first time, but grows worse +and worse to the last:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 53%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page5c.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">It seems as if in the first attempt to sign his name in +1613 he thought it was complete when he made it end +with sp e; but being reminded that it lacked a letter +or two he undertook to add one by putting an a over +the e thus:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 8%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page5d.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">The next time, which was probably the same day,(1) +he seems to have written his name Shaksper, though +the terminal letters are uncertain:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 10%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page5e.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">The third time he gets it more like Shakspoze:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 14%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page5f.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">The deed to Shakspere and two other trustees is dated March +10 and signed Henry Walker. The mortgage from Shakspere +and the other trustees is dated March 11. But for some +unaccountable reason a duplicate verbatim copy of the deed from +Henry Walker is signed by William Shakspere. This duplicate +is in the Library of the city of London; the mortgage is in the +British Museum. The duplicate deed we suspect was signed +after the mortgage. Hence the improvement in the autograph; +it was probably Shakspere’s second attempt to write. Compare +it with the third.</p> +<p class="pnext">[6]</p> +<p class="pnext">The fourth time he seems to have tried to disguise +the termination with awkward flourishes, making the letters totally illegible:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 27%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page6a.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">Finally, he omits the flourishes and comes nearer +legibility, but still it is impossible to tell whether he +meant to write <em class="italics">ear, ere, or eare</em>:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 22%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page6b.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">And now let the reader mark, that notwithstanding +the orthodox spelling of the name from 1593 to 1616, +and indeed up to the present time, was and is Shakespeare, there is no e in the first syllable and no a in +the last, although some have imagined the letter a to +exist in the last part of the final autograph.</p> +<p class="pnext">We have said that these signatures are all that. +Shakspere is known to have written; we ought to add +that he prefixed to the last one the following scrawl:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 46%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page6c.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">For a long time we puzzled over this. Could it be +an attempt to write “25th of March,” the day of the +execution of the will? At last we read the following in +Hallowell-Phillipps’s Shakspere:</p> +<p class="pnext">“It may be observed that the words By me, which, the autograph excepted, are the only ones in the poet’s handwriting +known to exist, appear to have been penned with ordinary +firmness.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Presuming that the signatures were made in a sick +bed, the author concedes that the words “By me” were +penned with ordinary firmness. Very good; but could +not almost any five-year-old boy do as well the first +time?</p> +<p class="pnext">[7]</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1775 certain papers and legal instruments were +published, attributed to Shakspere, Queen Elizabeth, +and Southampton. In 1796 Edmund Malone proved +them to be forgeries. Here is one of the forged autographs of Shakspere:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page7a.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">This is superior to any of the genuine ones, which in +some degree it resembles. The letter a is pretty clearly +written in the last syllable, as if the forger meant to +establish the proper spelling of that part of the name. +Malone, who at first pronounced the genuine orthography to be Shakspeare, subsequently declared Shakspere +to be the poet’s own mode of spelling his name beyond +all doubt. But others do not accede to this decision, +because they think there is an a in the last of the five +genuine signatures.</p> +<p class="pnext">The solution of the whole mystery is in the fact that +Shakspere was unable to write or even to spell his own +name.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1598 Richard Quiney addressed a letter to him +asking for a loan of £30, and the name was written +Shackesper:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 40%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page7b.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">In the same year among thirteen names of holders of +corn in Stratford the last but one is Shakesper:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 42%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page7c.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">The form of the letter a in both these fac-similes</p> +<p class="pnext">[8]</p> +<p class="pnext">was peculiar to that time. It occurs in Shakspere’s +second autograph. Why did he thus vary the form? +Probably because he followed the copy set for him.</p> +<p class="pnext">Note now the various spellings of his name:</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1582, as a bridegroom, Shagsper.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1593 and 1594, as a poet, Shakespeare; and the +same uniformly as a playwright from 1598 to 1623. +but sometimes with a hyphen—Shake-speare.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1596, as an inhabitant of Southwark, Shaksper.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1598, as addressed by letter, Shackesper.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1598, as owner of corn, Shakesper.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1604, as plaintiff in a suit, Shexpere.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1604 and 1605, as author of plays performed at +Whitehall before King James, Shaxberd.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1609, as plaintiff in a suit, Shackspeare.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1612, as plaintiff in a suit, Schackspeare.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1614, as written by his cousin, Shakspear.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1616, as twice written in his will, Shackspeare; but +in signing the same three times he omits the c in +the first syllable, and it is impossible to tell what +the last three or four letters are. And although +in the two Deeds of 1613 the name is written +repeatedly Shakespeare, in signing them he omits +the e in the first syllable both times, and varies +the termination of the name, just as an illiterate +person would be likely to do.</p> +<p class="pnext">But there are more of these various spellings. All +the records of Shakspere’s lifetime have been hunted +up and printed. From these documents, consisting of +deeds, bills of complaint, letters, poems, plays, etc.,— +most of which especially concerned either the father or +son or both—we extract the following spellings, giving; +the dates:</p> +<p class="pnext">[9]</p> +<dl class="docutils"> +<dt>Shakspere 1558, ’62, ’63, ’64, ’66, ’69, ’71, ’79, 80, ’83,</dt> +<dd><p class="first last pfirst">’85, ’90, ’96, 1616, ’17. (John Shakspere and all +his offspring so registered, except Richard Shaks peer, baptized 1574.)</p> +</dd> +</dl> +<p class="pfirst">Shaxpere 1558, ’79, 1607, ’08.</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspeyr 1567, (“Mr.,” meaning John.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakysper 1568, (“Mr. John.”)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shackespere 1573, ’89, 1602.</p> +<dl class="docutils"> +<dt>Shakespere 1575, ’79, ’96, ’97, ’98, ’99,1602, ’04, ’06, ’08,</dt> +<dd><p class="first last pfirst">’09, ’10, ’11, ’13.</p> +</dd> +</dl> +<p class="pfirst">Shackspere 1579, (Deed. “Joannis Shaxpere -j-.”) 1608.</p> +<p class="pnext">Shagsper 1582, (Marriage bond—twice so written.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shake-scene 1592, (Greene, the playwright, in derision.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakespeare 1593-1594, (Poems,) 1596, ’98, 1603, ’05, +’13, (and all Plays from 1598 to 1623.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shaksper 1596, ’98, 1613, (Signature,) 1616.</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakesper 1598, (Owner of corn.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shackesper 1598, (Letter from Quiney to Shakspere.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspeare 1601, ’03, ’07, ’12, ’13, ’14, 1623.</p> +<p class="pnext">Shackespeare 1603, ’14, (Agreement.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shexpere 1604, (Suit for mult sold.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shaxberd 1604, ’05, (Dramatist, Whitehall.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakespear 1605, (Conveyance.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakesphear 1605, (Same conveyance.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shackspeare 1608, ’12, ’14, ’16.</p> +<p class="pnext">Scliackspeare 1612, ’14, (Complaint and agreement.) +Shaksp; 1613, (Signature.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspear 1614, (Cousin’s letter.)</p> +<p class="pnext">Shaksp.... 1616, (Signatures to Will.)</p> +<dl class="docutils"> +<dt>Shaxper 1616, (“Bell and pall for Mr. Shaxpers</dt> +<dd><p class="first last pfirst">dawghter, viii. d.”)</p> +</dd> +</dl> +<p class="pfirst">If we divide the name between the s and p we have +the following variations of each part:</p> +<p class="pnext">Shaks, Shakes, Shakys, Shacks, Shackes, Schacks, +Shags, Shax, Shex; per, pere, peer, pear, peare, peyr, +phear, berd, pj, p ....</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspere’s daughter Judith in 1611 witnessed two +instruments by making her mark. And his other</p> +<p class="pnext">[10]</p> +<p class="pnext">daughter Susanna in 1642 disputed the unmistakable +handwriting of her deceased husband in such a manner +as to betray her illiteracy.</p> +<p class="pnext">Mr. C. F. Gunther, of Chicago, claims to have obtained a copy of the Shakspere Folio of 1632, (i.e., the +second Folio,) containing the author’s autograph pasted +on a fly-leaf, underneath which is written:</p> +<p class="pnext">“The works of William Shakespeare. Born in April, 1564, +and died in April, 1616. John Ward.”</p> +<p class="pnext">And on the same fly-leaf is pasted a letter from +Charles Godwin, of Bath, dated February 16, 1839, to +Dr. Charles Severn, of London, who was then editing +“The Diary of the Rev. John Ward, A. M.,” Vicar of +Stratford-upon-Avon from 1648 to 1679.</p> +<p class="pnext">The book is said to have been owned by a Mormon, +and is supposed to have been brought from England +by an emigrant to Utah. Aside from the impossibility +of such an autograph escaping from England to the +wilds of America and remaining undiscovered so many +years, the fac-simile in the Chicago <em class="italics">Current</em> of May 23, +1885, betrays most certain evidence of fraud. Compare +it with the five genuine scrawls of Shakspere. It is so +exact a copy of the last signature to the will as to indicate that it was traced therefrom.</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspere’s last signature:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page10a.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">Pretended autograph in Chicago:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page10b.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">[11]</p> +<p class="pnext">This close resemblance in so clumsy an autograph +would be extraordinary, if not impossible; but how +easy to forge it by first tracing it lightly with a pencil +and then completing it with a pen. Here is a hair-line +tracing of the spurious over the genuine autograph:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page11a.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">Even the most illiterate man who is obliged often to +sign his name, will do it uniformly, so that when you +have seen his signature once you will know it again. +For example, take the following autographs:</p> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page11b.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">The undersigned, aged 78 years, wrote the above autographs +in presence of the two subscribing witnesses. And he never +wrote and cannot write anything but his name, though he can +read print with ease. And he further says that he learned to +write his name in the course of one month in the administration +of President Polk (1845-’9) while serving as a Capitol policeman; otherwise he would have been obliged to sign the pay-roll +with his cross.</p> +<p class="pnext">Witness:</p> +<ol class="upperalpha simple"> +<li><p class="first pfirst">Watson, JOHN W. SMITH.</p> +</li> +</ol> +<p class="pfirst">Wm. Henry Burr.</p> +<p class="pnext">Bacon required a mask, and he found it in the +illiterate play-actor Shakspere.</p> +<p class="pnext">Washington, D. C., May 31, 1885.</p> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">[12]</p> +</div> +<div class="level-2 section" id="no-true-likeness-of-shakspere"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title"><a class="toc-backref" href="#id3">NO TRUE LIKENESS OF SHAKSPERE</a></h2> +<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 3.00em">T</span><span class="dropspan">he</span> likeness of Shakspere in the Folio of 1623 has frequently +been called “an abominable libel on humanity.” And yet its +fidelity is certified by Ben Jonson in laudatory lines. Jonson +was Bacon’s friend and enthusiastic admirer. If there was an +original portrait of that wooden face it has never been found. +If there was a better likeness of Shakspere in existence why +was it not reproduced in that famous Folio? The same ugly +engraving reappeared in all the later editions up tu 1685.</p> +<p class="pnext">The bust on the monument at Stratford was first noticed in +1623. It was not taken from life, and is unlike any picture of +Shakspere. It presents him in the act of composition, and +“the <em class="italics">vis comica</em>", says Boaden, “so broadens his countenance, +that it is hardly a stretch of fancy to suppose him in the actual +creation of Falstaff himself.” More likely, we should say, +Falltaff was Shakspere—Fall-staff, Shake-spear.</p> +<p class="pnext">The most familiar pictures of Shakspere are very different +from either of these, and generally far more intellectual and +refined. They are pretended copies of what is called the +Chandos portrait, but are not much like it. The Chandos picture was painted by an unknown artist, and has been altered +by a later hand. It is said to have been owned by Sir William +Davenant, who died in 1668; and he is said to have obtained +it from an actor named Joseph Taylor, who died about 1653 at +the age of 70. This we gather from Boaden’s “Portraits of +Shakspere,” 1824. But now comes a further statement purporting to be written in Mr. Gunther’s Folio, by one Charles Lomax,, +in 1781, as follows:</p> +<p class="pnext">“The only original picture now extant of Shakespeare was +painted by Joseph Taylor, one of the actors,” &c.</p> +<p class="pnext">The rest of the pretended information agrees with what we +find in Boaden’s book, which has a picture taken from the +Chandos portrait quite different from those we generally see, +and not much like the Droeshout engraving in the Shakspere +Folio.</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspere probably never had a portrait taken.</p> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">[13]</p> +</div> +<div class="level-2 section" id="the-sonnets-of-shakspere"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title"><a class="toc-backref" href="#id4">THE SONNETS OF SHAKSPERE</a></h2> +<p class="pfirst">WRITTEN BY FRANCIS BACON TO THE EARL OF ESSEX AND HIS BRIDE, A. D. 1590</p> +<p class="pnext">“The mystery of the Sonnets will never be unfolded.” +—Richard Grant White, 1865.</p> +<p class="pnext">“All is supposition; the mystery is insoluble.” +—Dr. Charles Mackay, 1884.</p> +<p class="pnext">The mystery unfolded by W. H. Burr, July 31, 1883.</p> +<p class="pnext"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 3.00em">T</span><span class="dropspan">he</span> first published poem of Shakspere, so far as +known, was “Venus and Adonis,” in 1593. It was +dedicated to the Earl of Southampton, then about +twenty years of age. Five or six editions were called +for in nine years. The “Sonnets” did not appear till +1609. The latter poem has 154 stanzas of 14 lines +each; the first 126 are addressed to a beautiful and +ardently beloved youth; the remainder to the young +man’s betrothed.</p> +<p class="pnext">As to the merits of the composition, the American +Cyclopedia says:</p> +<p class="pnext">“These ‘Sonnets,’ though deformed with occasional conceits, +far surpass all other poems of their kind in our own language, +or perhaps any other.”</p> +<p class="pnext">The dedication is in these words:</p> +<p class="pnext">“To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. +H. all happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our everliving poet | wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting +forth | T. T.”</p> +<p class="pnext">[14]</p> +<p class="pnext">Some have believed that “Mr. W. H.” was William +Herbert; and a German critic supposes the initials to +signify “William Himself.” But the American Cyclopedia says:</p> +<p class="pnext">“To whom they were written, and in whose person is among +the most difficult of unsolved literary problems.... Who +this ‘onlie begetter’ was no man has yet been able satisfactorily +to show.”(1)</p> +<blockquote> +<div> +<p class="pfirst">(1) Dr. Charles Mackay attempts to solve the problem in an +elaborate article in the Nineteenth Century, August, 1884, +entitled “A Tangled Skein Unravelled.” He claims only to +have found indications of mixed authorship. But this only +makes the tangle worse, which began with Shakspere’s +ostensible authorship; and the last despairing words of the +astute un-raveller are: “All is supposition, the mystery is +insoluble.”</p> +</div> +</blockquote> +<p class="pfirst">In regard to the hypothesis that “W. H.” was William Herbert, the same authority says there is almost +as much ground for the notion that the person addressed was Queen Elizabeth in doublet and hose.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1872 we first read Nathaniel Holmes’s “Authorship of Shakspere;” since then we have never entertained a reasonable doubt that Bacon was the author +of the Plays. In 1882 we reread them all in the light +of that discovery; but until July 31, 1883, we had +never read a page of the “Sonnets,” nor when we began to read them on that day did we remember to have +heard who “W. H.” was supposed to be. But coming +to the twenty-fifth sonnet, we suspected that the +poem was addressed to the Earl of Essex, and subsequent research confirmed that suspicion.</p> +<p class="pnext">Herbert was sixteen years younger than Shakspere, +and nineteen years younger than Bacon. If, therefore, +the poem was written in 1590, which we purpose to +show, it is impossible for Herbert to have been the</p> +<p class="pnext">[15]</p> +<p class="pnext">“onlie begetter of these Sonnets,” for he was then only +ten years old.</p> +<p class="pnext">Of course no one will date their composition as late +as 1609, when Shakspere was forty-five and Bacon +forty-eight. At that time the former had retired +from the stage, and Bacon had been for six years +King’s counsel and three years a married man. And +certainly two sonnets (138 and 144) were composed as +early as 1599, for they are repeated at the beginning +of “The Passionate Pilgrim,” which was first published +in that year.</p> +<p class="pnext">All the internal and external evidence points to +the year 1590 as the date, Francis Bacon as the +writer, and the Earl of Essex as the person addressed.</p> +<p class="pnext">It is said that Bacon made the acquaintance of +Essex about 1590, but it would be remarkable if he +did not know him years before. In sonnet 104 the +poet says:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Three winters cold + Have from the forests shook three summers’ pride, +Three beauteous springs to yellow autumn turned + In process of the seasons have I seen, +Three April perfumes in three hot Junes burned, + Since first I saw you fresh, which yet are green.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Let us suppose that Bacon began to cultivate the +Earl’s friendship in 1590. He was then twenty-two +years old; three years earlier, when Bacon first saw +him, the Earl was “fresh now he is yet green.”(1)</p> +<blockquote> +<div> +<p class="pfirst">1. A letter from Bacon to the Earl of Leicester, asking for +his furtherance in some suit which the Earl of Essex had +moved in his behalf, has recently been found, written in +1588. (Sped-ding’s “Bacon,” 1878, i, 50, note.)</p> +</div> +</blockquote> +<p class="pfirst">Robert Devereux, the second Earl of Essex, was +born Nov. 10, 1567, and was beheaded for treason</p> +<p class="pnext">[16]</p> +<p class="pnext">Feb. 25, 1601. He succeeded to the title at ten +years of age. At twenty he was appointed master of +the horse. At twenty-one the Queen created him +captain-general of the cavalry, and conferred on him +the honor of the garter. In the same year an expedition was undertaken against Portugal, and he secretly followed the armament. This was without the +Queen’s permission, but he was quickly reconciled +with her after his return, and at once assumed a superiority over Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Charles +Blount, rival competitors for royal favor. He was +challenged by Blount and wounded in the knee, and +the Queen is said to have expressed her gratification +that some one had taken him down, as otherwise +there would be no ruling him. He was an accomplished scholar and patron of literature. He erected +a monument to Spenser and gave an estate to Bacon.</p> +<p class="pnext">But we have omitted one striking characteristic +which has an important bearing on the question of +his identity with “Mr. W. H.” The young Earl of +Essex was a remarkably handsome man. Now the +beauty of the person addressed in the “Sonnets” is +a constantly recurring theme, and the burden of the +poem is an appeal to the beloved and beautiful young +man to marry. It begins thus:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “From fairest creatures we desire increase, +That thereby beauty’s rose might never die.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The next Sonnet begins:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “When forty winters shall besiege thy brow, +And dig deep trenches in thy beauty’s field, + Thy youth’s proud livery, so gazed on now, +Will be a tattered weed of small worth held.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The last line of Sonnet 13 reads:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“You had a father; let your son say so.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">[17]</p> +<p class="pnext">The father of Essex died in 1576. In 1590 the +second Earl married the widow of Sir Philip Sidney, Essex being twenty-two years old and she a little younger. +The marriage was secret to avoid the opposition of +Elizabeth. By October, concealment was no longer +possible, and on the 22d of January, 1591, (not 1592 +as some have it,) the first child was born. (“Earls of +Essex,” 1853.)</p> +<p class="pnext">The mother of Essex was celebrated for her beauty; +his father was not handsome. (See portrait in “Earls of +Essex.”) The son’s inheritance of his mother’s features +is told in the third Sonnet:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Thou art thy mother’s glass, and she in thee + Calls back the lovely April of her prime; + So thou through windows of thine age shalt see, + Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">For further description of the young Earl’s beauty, +take the following:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“If I could write the beauty of your eyes, + And in fresh numbers number all your graces, + The age to come would say, ‘This poet lies; + Such heavenly touches ne’er touched earthly faces.” + +“Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit + Is poorly imitated after you; + On Helen’s cheek all art of beauty set, + And you in Grecian ’tires are painted new.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Essex having become the special favorite of the +Queen, of course became an object of envy and slander. +Mark now what the poet says:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “Gentle thou art, and therefore to be won; + Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed.” + + “That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect, + For slander’s mark was ever yet the fair; + The ornament of beauty is suspect, + A crow that flies in heaven’s sweetest air. + +[18] + + So be thou good-; slander doth but approve + Thy worth the greater, being wooed of time.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">In 1590 Bacon had acquired a reputation as an orator +in the House of Commons, but was without available +means of livelihood in keeping with his wants and +station. Up to this time his efforts for promotion +were thwarted by the Queen’s minister, Lord Burleigh +(Cecil) who regarded him as a dangerous rival for his +son. With the rise of young Essex into royal favor +Bacon turned to him as a friend at court. From 1590 +to 1594 the Earl tried in vain to advance Bacon, and +at last, when the vacant office of Attorney General was +filled by another, Essex, blaming himself for the +disappointment, insisted on presenting him with an +estate worth £1,800.</p> +<p class="pnext">With these facts in mind, see how perfectly the following lines fit the persons and the time, 1590:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “Let those who are in favor with their stars, +Of public honor and proud titles boast, +Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars, +Unlooked for joy in that I honor most.” + +“When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes, + I all alone beweep my outcast state, +And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, +And look upon myself and curse my fate, +Wishing me like to one more rich in hope. + +Featured like him, like him with friends possessed, +Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope, + With what I most enjoy contented least; +Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, +Haply I think on thee, and then my state, + Like to the lark at break of day arising, + From sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s gate; + For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings + it then I scorn to change my state with kings.” + + “I may not evermore acknowledge thee, +Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame, + Nor thou with public kindness honor me, + Unless thou take that honor from thy name; + But do not so; I love thee in such sort + As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report. + + “As a decrepit father takes delight + To see his active child do deeds of youth, +So I, made lame by fortune’s dearest spite, + Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth. +For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, + Or any of these all, or all, or more, + Entitled in my parts do crowned sit, +I make my love engrafted to this store. + + So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised, + Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give + That I in thy abundance am sufficed, + And by a part of all thy glory live.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">In 1590 Shakspere was part owner of a theater.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1590 Bacon obtained his first show of favor from +the court; he became Queen’s counsel extraordinary, +but the office was without emolument. At this time +plays for the theater were written and rewritten again +and again to meet the demand. Young lawyers and +poets produced them rapidly. Each theatrical company +kept from one to four poets in its pay (Amer. Cyc.) +Shakspere appeared to be ready to father anything +that promised success, and there are at least six plays +published under his name or initials which most +critics say are not his, nor have they ever appeared in +the genuine canon. In 1591 a poem by Spenser was +published containing these lines:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“And he, the man whom Nature’s self has made + To mock herself and truth to imitate, +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">With kindly counter under mimic shade:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Our pleasant Willy, ah, is dead of late: + With whom all joy and jolly merriment + Is also deaded and in dolor drent.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">[20]</p> +<p class="pnext">From 1590 until Shakspere retired from the stage, +how could it be said that he was “poor,” bewailing +his “outcast state” and “cursing his fate?” But it is +certain that Bacon’s condition answered precisely to +that description up to November, 1594, when Essex +gave him an estate worth £1,800; aye, even until +1604, when King James granted him a pension of +£60; if not even up to 1607.</p> +<p class="pnext">Mark now the modesty of the poet in 1590:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“If thou survive my well contented day, + When that churl Death with bones my dust shall cover, + And shalt by fortune once more resurvey + These poor rude lines of thy deceased lover, + Compare them with the bettering of the time, + And though they be outstripp’d by every pen, + Reserve them for thy love, not for their rhyme, + Exceeded by the height of happier men.” + +“My name be buried Where my body is, + and live no more to shame nor me nor you, + for I am shamed by that which I bring forth, + and so should you, to love things nothing worth.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">We have already quoted a verse from Spenser in +praise of “Willy,” first published in 1591; we now +adduce a passage from one of “Willy” Bacon’s +poems first published in 1599 in praise of Spenser:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Dowland to thee is dear, whose heavenly touch +Upon the lute doth ravish human sense; + +Spenser to me, whose deep conceit is such +As, passing all conceit, needs no defense.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">This verse is in “The Passionate Pilgrim,” the first +two numbers of which are Sonnets 138 and 144 with +slight variations. John Dowland, a musician, was born</p> +<p class="pnext">[21]</p> +<p class="pnext">in 1562 and died 1625. Spenser was eight years older +than Bacon.</p> +<p class="pnext">But coupled with this modesty of the author of the +“Sonnets,” note how he praises his friend and how +famous that friend appears at the time:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “Oh, how I faint when I of you do write, +Knowing a better spirit doth use your name, + And in the praise thereof spends all his might, +To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your fame. + +But since your worth, wide as the ocean is, +The humble as the proudest sail doth bear, + My saucy bark, inferior far to his, +On your broad main doth wilfully appear; +Your shallowest help will hold me up afloat, +Whilst he upon your soundless deep doth ride; + Or being wrecked, I am a worthless boat, +He of tall building and of goodly pride; + Then if he thrive and I be cast away, +The worst was this: my love was my decay.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The other superior (?) poet referred to is undoubtedly +Spenser, among whose “Sonnets, addressed by +the author to his friends and patrons,” in January, 1590, +is one “To the most honorable and excellent Lord the +Earl of Essex, great master of the horse to her highness, and knight of the noble order of the garter, etc.” +Essex became master of the horse in 1587, and knight +of the garter in 1588.</p> +<p class="pnext">We proceed with the quotations from the Shaksperian Sonnets:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “Or I shall live your epitaph to make, + Or you survive when I in earth am rotten, + From hence your memory death cannot take, + Although in me each part will be forgotten. + + Your name from hence immortal life shall have, + Though, I once gone, to all the world must die; + The earth can yield me but a common grave, + When you entombed in men’s eyes shall lie. + +[22] + + Your monument shall be my gentle verse, + Which eyes not yet created shall o’er-read, + And tongues to be your being shall rehearse + When all the breathers of this world are dead; + You shall still live—such virtue hath my pen— + Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men. +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">From Sonnet 42 it appears that the young Earl had +won the heart of the widow Sidney:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“That thou hast her, it is not all my grief, + And yet it may be said I loved her dearly; + That she hath thee, is of my wailing chief, + A loss in love that touches me more nearly. + + Loving offenders! thus I will excuse ye: + Thou dost love her, because thou know’st I love her, + And for my sake even so doth she abuse me, + Suffering my friend for my sake to approve her. + + If I lose thee, my loss is my love’s gain, + And losing her, my friend hath found that loss; + Both find each other, and I lose both twain, + And both for my sake lay me on this cross: + But here’s the joy: my friend and I are one; + Sweet flattery! then she loves but me alone.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The second part of the “Sonnets,” after 126, is addressed +to the Earl’s bethrothed; we quote Sonnet 134:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“So now I have confessed that he is thine. + And I myself am mortgaged to thy will, + Myself I’ll forfeit, so that other mine + Thou wilt restore, to be my comfort still; + But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free, + For thou art covetous and he is kind; + He learned but surety-like to write for me, + Under that bond that him as fast doth bind, + The statute of thy beauty thou wilt take, + Thou usurer that put’st forth all to use, + And sue a friend came debtor for my sake; + So him I lose through my unkind abuse. + + Him have I lost; thou hast both him and me, + He pays the whole, and yet am I not free.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">[23]</p> +<p class="pnext">Incidentally it may be noted how familiar the writer +of the above lines must have been with the practice of +law. Shakspere’s legal knowledge has amazed the +lawyers.</p> +<p class="pnext">The next Sonnet introduces the name of “Will,” +and puns upon it profusely:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Whoever hath her wish thou hast thy Will, +And Will to boot, and Will in overplus; +More than enough am I that vex thee still, +To thy sweet will making addition thus, +Wilt thou whose will is large and spacious, +Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine? + + Shall will in others seem right gracious, +And in my will no fair acceptance shine? +The sea, all water, yet receives rain still, +And in abundance addeth to his store: + +So thou being rich in Will add to thy Will +One will of mine, to make thy large Will more. + + Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill; +Think all but one, and me in that one Will.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">How preposterous to believe that a common-place +play actor, with a wife and children, addressed such +sentiments to the bride of his dearest friend! At no +time do the sentiments or circumstances of the poem +fit the person of the actor, of whom the dying and dissipated playwright, Greene, wrote in 1592:</p> +<p class="pnext">“There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that +with his Tygers heart, wrapt in a player’s hide, supposes he is +as well able to bumbast out a blank verse as the best of you; +and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is, in his owne conceyt, the onely Shake-scene in a countne.”</p> +<p class="pnext">But, on the other hand, frequent evidence appears +that Bacon, up to the time he was made Attorney-General in 1613, was constantly engaged in secret +literary work. But not so secret as to be unknown</p> +<p class="pnext">[24]</p> +<p class="pnext">to a circle of friends and perchance a few enemies; for, +in 1599, when he interceded with the Queen for his +dear friend Essex, then under arrest on account of a +treasonable pamphlet being dedicated to him, her +Majesty flung at Bacon “a matter which grew from +him, but went after about in others’ names,” being in +fact the play of “Richard II,” which, in that and the +preceding year, had a great run on the stage, and had +gone through two editions, but, for prudential reasons, +with the scene containing the deposition of the king +left out.</p> +<p class="pnext">But even in the “Sonnets” the fact appears that +the author has been writing for the stage:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Alas, ’tis true I have gone here and there, + And made myself a motley to the view, + Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear, + Made old offenses of affections new; + Most true it is that I have looked on truth + Askance and strangely; but by all above, + These blenches gave my heart another youth, + And worse essays proved thee my best of love.” + +“O, for my sake do you with Fortune chide, + The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds, + That did not better for my life provide + Than public means which public manners breeds. + Thence comes it that my name receives a brand, + And almost thence my nature is subdued + To what it works in, like the dyer’s hand: + Pity me then and wish I were renewed.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Here is not only a private confession of being compelled to produce plays for subsistence, but a sorrowful acknowledgment that thereby his “name receives +a brand.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Yet it must not be supposed that Bacon was publicly known at any time as a play writer. His first</p> +<p class="pnext">[25]</p> +<p class="pnext">publication, the “Essays,” was in 1597, and Shakspere’s +name first appeared on the title page of a +Play in 1598, by which time nearly half of the Plays +had been written or sketched, and six had been printed, +all without the author’s name. And when the first +collection was published in the “Folio” of 1623, (seven +years after Shakspere’s death,) it included some Plays +never before heard of, and eighteen never before +printed.</p> +<p class="pnext">Lord Coke, who was Bacon’s most jealous rival +and adversary, seems never to have suspected him of +play writing. Nor did the watchful Puritanic mother +of the two bachelors of Gray’s Inn ever dream that +her studious younger son was engaged in such sinful +work.</p> +<p class="pnext">In Sonnet 76 the writer deplores his want of variety +of style, and fears that this fault will almost disclose +his secret authorship:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “Why is my verse so barren of new pride, + So far from variation or quick change? +Why with the time do I not glance aside, + To new-found methods and to compounds strange? +Why write I still all one, ever the same, + And keep invention in a noted weed, +That every word doth almost tell my name, + Showing their birth and where they did proceed?” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Bacon having begun to produce plays for Shakspere’s +theater before 1590, the authorship of which +was afterward assumed by the actor and proprietor, +it became necessary also to avoid being publicly known +as a writer of sonnets. Therefore, in view of the circulation and ultimate publication of this poem, he facetiously disguised the identity of the writer by calling +himself “Will.” Three years later he dedicated a</p> +<p class="pnext">[26]</p> +<p class="pnext">published poem to his young friend Southampton +under the name of “William Shakespeare,” and again +another in 1594. But the “Sonnets” were not published until 1609, when Essex had been dead eight +years, and his widow had been married six years to a +third husband. It would never do for the Solicitor-General to be known as the author of such a poem; +so when it came out in print it was dedicated to “Mr. +W. H.” by “T. T.,” and no one until a few years ago +ever seems to have suspected that Bacon wrote the +poem, nor, so far as we are aware, has any one ever +suspected until July 31, 1883, that “W. H.” was the +accomplished and famous Earl of Essex.</p> +<p class="pnext">The young widow Sidney was the only daughter of +the Queen’s principal secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham, +for whom Bacon drafted an important state paper +in 1588 on the conduct of the government toward +Papists and Dissenters. And that Bacon was intimate +with the Secretary’s daughter, aye, even one of her +lovers, appears from many of the Sonnets addressed +to her. He describes her playing on the harpsichord, +envies the keys “that nimbly leap to kiss her hand,” +and says:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Since saucy jacks so happy are in this, +Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">And from other passages it is quite evident that he +had often kissed her.</p> +<p class="pnext">No fact has been found incompatible with Bacon’s +authorship of the “Sonnets.” The following line +might seem to indicate a writer past the age of 29:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Although she knows my days are past the best.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">But in 1599, when Shakspere was only 35, this very +verse was published as his in the “Passionate Pilgrim,” where Sonnet 138 appears as number one.</p> +<p class="pnext">[27]</p> +<p class="pnext">But again, we have a letter written in 1592 by +Bacon to his uncle, Lord Treasurer Burleigh, in which +he says:</p> +<p class="pnext">“I wax somewhat ancient; one and thirty years is a great +deal of sand in the hour-glass.”</p> +<p class="pnext">At the age of 31 he thinks himself “somewhat +ancient” two years earlier he apprehends that forty +winters will entirely deface the youthful Earl’s beauty; +and to the lovely young widow he says: “My days +are past the best.”</p> +<p class="pnext">This misconception therefore, whether pretended or +real, becomes a strong proof of Bacon’s authorship.</p> +<p class="pnext">It has been boldly alleged by some that Bacon was +no poet. Such, however, was not the judgment of +his biographer, the late James Spedding. Before he +could have heard it claimed that Shakspere did not +write the plays he said that Bacon might have taken +the highest rank as a poet. And that judgment was +based upon the versification of a few Psalms by the +old man on a sick bed. Since 1867 the substantial +proofs of Bacon’s secret authorship have been adduced. Aside from innumerable parallels in the +works of Bacon and Shakspere there is much external +evidence. For example:</p> +<p class="pnext">We know that Bacon wrote Sonnets to Queen +Elizabeth and excused himself by saying: “I profess +not to be a poet.”</p> +<p class="pnext">We know that he composed Masques anonymously +before Shakspere’s name appeared as a play writer, and +that those Masques were essentially poetical compositions, in the nature of plays, and sometimes contained verses in rhyme equal in merit to the average +of Shakspere’s.</p> +<p class="pnext">[28]</p> +<p class="pnext">In one of those Masques a speaker is made to say: +“The monuments of wit survive the monuments of +power; the verses of the poet endure without a syllable lost, while states and empires pass many periods.” +Two years later, in 1596, the composer of that speech, +writing to Sir Fulke Greville on his studies, said: +“For poets I can commend none, being resolved to be +ever a stranger to them.” Greville (1554-1628) was a +poet, and wrote the life of Sir Philip Sidney.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1603 Bacon wrote a private letter to the poet +John Davies, begging him to speak a good word for +the writer to the incoming King James I., and closing +with these words: “So, desiring you to be good to +<em class="italics">concealed poets</em>, I continue.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Bacon’s most intimate friend, Toby Matthew, in a +letter with cancelled date, but as late as 1605, acknowledged the receipt of some work by Bacon, and added +this postscript:</p> +<p class="pnext">“I will not return you weight for weight, but <em class="italics">Measure for +Measure</em>.”</p> +<p class="pnext">“Mesur for Mesur,” by “Shaxberd,” was played +before King James, at Whitehall, December 26, 1604.</p> +<p class="pnext">Again, about the time of the publication of the +Shakespere Folio, 1623, Matthew acknowledged in a +letter without date, the receipt of a “great and noble +favor,” and added the following:</p> +<p class="pnext">“P. S.—The most prodigious wit that ever I knew, of my +nation and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s name, +though he be known by another.”</p> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +</div> +<div class="level-2 section" id="bacon-identified-as-the-concealed-poet-ignoto"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title"><a class="toc-backref" href="#id5">BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO</a></h2> +<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 3.00em">S</span><span class="dropspan">penser’s</span> “Faery Queen” was begun in 1582, and +published in 1590. The Dedication to Sir Walter Raleigh is dated 23 January, 1589 (i. e., 1590.) Raleigh +in return praised the poem in two Sonnets. These, +together with five other versified encomiums by “Hobynoll” (Gabriel Harvey,) “R. S.,” “H. B.,” “W. L.,” +and “Ignoto,” are prefixed to Spenser’s work.</p> +<p class="pnext">In 1599 “The Passionate Pilgrim,” a collection of +twenty-one sonnets, songs, etc., was published with the +name of W. Shakspere on the title page. The authorship of several of the pieces is disputed.</p> +<p class="pnext">In regard to No. xviii. “My flocks feed not,” Mr. +Halliwell-Phillipps, says:</p> +<p class="pnext">“There is a somewhat brief version of this song in the collection of Madrigals, etc., by Thomas Weelkes 1597, this person +being the composer of the music, but not necessarily the author +of the words. A copy of it as it is seen in the Passionate Pilgrim +also occurs in England’s Helicon, 1600, entitled ‘The Unknowne +Sheepheards Complaint,’ and is there subscribed <em class="italics">Ignoto.</em>”</p> +<p class="pnext">Again, in regard to No. xx, “Live with me and be +my love,” the same author, says:</p> +<p class="pnext">“The first of these very pretty songs is incomplete, and the +second, called ‘Love’s answer,’ still more so. In England’s +Helicon, 1600, the former is given to Marlowe, the latter to +<em class="italics">Ignoto</em>; and there is good reason to believe that Christopher</p> +<p class="pnext">[30]</p> +<p class="pnext">Marlowe wrote the song, and Sir Walter Raleigh the nymph’s +reply; for so we are positively assured by Isaac Walton, who has +inserted them both in his Complete Angler under the character +of ‘that smooth song which was made by Kit Marlowe, now at +least fifty years ago; and an answer to it which was made by +Sir Walter Raleigh in his younger days:—old fashioned poetry +but choicely good.’ Both these songs were exceedingly popular +and are afterwards found in the street ballads. The first is +quoted in the Merry Wives of Windsor.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Again, in regard to No. xxi, “As it fell upon a day,” +Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, says:</p> +<p class="pnext">“This charming idyl occurs, with the absence of two lines, +amongst the Poems in Divers Humours appended to Bamfield’s +Encomion of Lady Pecunia, in 1598, and the first twenty-six +lines with the addition of two new ones are found in England’s +Helicon, 1600. This latter version follows in that work No. +xviii of this list, [“My flocks feed not,”] is also subscribed +<em class="italics">Ignoto</em>, and is headed: ‘Another of the same Sheepheards.’ +The probability is that the copies of these little poems, as given +in the Helicon, were taken from a Common Place book in which +the names of the authors were not recorded; the two supplementary lines just noticed having the appearance of being an +unauthorized couplet improvised for the sake of giving a neater +finish to the abridgment.”</p> +<p class="pnext">We will now reproduce the aforesaid poems from +“England’s Helicon,” second edition, 1614. A brief +version of the first song, No. xviii of “The Passionate +Pilgrim,” says Halliwell-Phillipps, appeared in 1597:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + *The unknown Shepherd's Complaint.* + + + My flocks feed not, my ewes breed not, + My rams speed not, all is amiss; + Love is denying, Faith is defying; + Hearts ren[e]ging, causer of this. + + All my merry jigs are quite forgot, + And my lady’s love is lost, God wot: + Where her faith was firmly fixed in love, + There a nay is placed without remove. + +[31] + + One silly cross wrought all my loss; + O frowning fortune, cursed fickle Dame, + For now I see, inconstancy + More in women than in men remain. + + In black mourn I, all fears scorn I, + Love hath forlorn me, living in thrall; + Heart is bleeding, all help needing, + O cruel speeding, fraughted with gall. + + My shepherd’s pipe can sound no deal, + My wether’s bell rings doleful knell. + My curtail dog that wont to have played, + Plays not at all, but seems afraid. + + With sighs so deep, procure to weep, + In howling-wise to see my doleful plight, + How sighs resound, through heartless ground, + Like a thousand vanquished men in bloody fight. + + Clear wells spring not, sweet birds sing not, + Green plants bring not forth their dye; + Herds stand weeping—flocks all sleeping, + Nymphs back peeping fearfully. + + All our pleasures known to us poor swains, + All our merry meeting on the plains, + All our evening sports from us are fled, + All our love is lost, for love is dead. + + Farewell sweet lass, thy like ne’er was, + For sweet content, the cause of all my moan: + Poor Corydon must live alone, + Other help for him, I see that there is none. + + Finis Ignoto +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The variations from the version of 1599 are few, +the only important one being “ren[e]ging” for “renying.” The latter has no meaning; <em class="italics">the former is used +twice in the plays.</em></p> +<p class="pnext">The only question in regard to the authorship of +this poem is, whether Shakspere or “Ignoto” wrote it.</p> +<p class="pnext">The next poem printed in the “Helicon” is a part +of No.xxi of the “Passionate Pilgrim.”:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +[32] + + Another of the Same Shepherds. + + As it fell upon a day + In the merry month of May, + Sitting in a pleasant shade + Which a grove of myrtles made; + Beasts did leap, and birds did sing, + Trees did grow and plants did spring; + Everything did banish moan, + Save the nightingale alone. + + She, poor bird, as all forlorn, + Lean’d her breast against a thorn; + And there sung the dolefull’st ditty, + That to hear it was great pity. + + Fie, fie, fie, now would she cry; + Teru, teru! by and by; + That to hear her so complain + Scarce I could from tears refrain; + For her griefs, so lively shown, + Made me think upon mine own. + + Ah! thought I, thou mourn’st in vain! + None takes pity on thy pain: + Senseless trees, they cannot hear thee, + Ruthless beasts they will not cheer thee: + King Pandion he is dead; + All thy friends are lapp’d in lead; + All thy fellow birds do sing, + Careless of thy sorrowing! + Even so, poor bird, like thee, + None alive will pity me. + + Finis. Ignoto. +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The last two lines, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps says, are +new ones added to the first twenty-six in “The +Passionate Pilgrim.” Our own edition of the latter has +those two lines, and the only variation is in the tenth +line—“up-till” for “against.” There are thirty lines +more in our edition. But we have another version of +the whole, omitting the aforesaid two lines and a +subsequent couplet. This version, curiously enough, is</p> +<p class="pnext">[33]</p> +<p class="pnext">Leaded “Address to the Nightingale,” and is credited +to Richard Barnfield, “about 1610.” (Encyc. of Poetry +No. 121.) In 1598 it is said that the first twenty-six +lines of this idyl appeared in an appendix to +Barnfield’s “Encomium in 1599 it reappeared enlarged to +twice the length and was credited to Shakspere; in +1600 the first twenty-eight lines were republished in +“England’s Helicon” and subscribed “Ignoto.”</p> +<p class="pnext">We now transcribe from the “Helicon,” No. xx of +“The Passionate Pilgrim” much amended and enlarged:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + The Passionate Shepherd to his love. + Come live with me, and be my love, + And we will all the pleasures prove, + That valleys, groves, [and] hills and fields, + Woods, or steeple mountains yields.(1) + + (1) The grammar of this verse is shocking both here and in + the version of 1599. And there are considerable variations + in the two versions. In that of 1599 the first word “Come” + is omitted, without which the song could hardly be sung. + Other slight defects of measure appear in both. But the + editor of Marlowe’s Works has carefully corrected the + grammar and the measure. + + And we will sit upon the rocks, + Seeing the shepherds feed their flocks, + By shallow rivers, to whose falls + Melodious birds sing madrigals. + + And I will make thee beds of roses, + And a thousand fragrant posies, + A cap of flowers and a kirtle + Embroidered all with leaves of myrtle. + + A gown made of the finest wool, + Which from our pretty lambs we pull, + Fair lined slippers for the cold, + With buckles of the purest gold: + A belt of straw, and ivy buds + With coral clasps and amber studs. + +[34] + + And if these pleasures may thee move, + Come live with me and be my love. + The shepherd swains shall dance and sing + For thy delights each May-morning; + If these delights thy mind may move, + Then live with me and be my love. + + Finis. Chr. Marlowe. +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Here we have Marlowe credited with this song in +1600, seven years after his death. Is there any other +evidence that he wrote it? A single line at the close of +a ditty in his “Jew of Malta” parallels with the first +line of this, except the first word:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Shall live with me and be my love.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The song, with many verbal amendments, and omitting the last stanza, is inserted in his “Works,” 1826.</p> +<p class="pnext">In the “Merry Wives of Windsor” act iii, scene ly +Sir Hugh Evans sings the following four lines:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “To shallow rivers, to whose falls + Melodious birds sing madrigals; +There we will make our peds of roses, +And a thousand fragrant posies.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">This play was written in the latter part of 1599. In +the earliest form of it Sir Hugh transposes and varies +the lines thus:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“And then she made him beds of roses, +And a thousand fragrant posies.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Then after three lines of incoherent speech:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“To shallow rivers, and to falls + Melodious birds sing madrigals.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">It would seem as if the song was familiar to the +public in 1599 +We now add from the “Helicon” the rest of No. +xx of “The Passionate Pilgrim,” enlarged from one +stanza to six:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +[35] + + The Nymph's reply to the Shepherd. + If all the world and love were young, + And truth in every shepherd’s tongue, + These pretty pleasures might me move, + To live with thee, and be thy love. + + Time drives the flocks from field to fold, + When rivers rage, and rocks grow cold; + And Philomel becometh dumb; + The rest complain of cares to come. + + The flowers do fade, and wanton fields + To wayward Winter reckoning yields; + A honey tongue, a heart of gall, + Is fancy’s Spring, but sorrow’s fall. + + Thy gowns, thy shoes, thy beds of roses, + Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies, + Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten, + In folly ripe, in reason rotten. + + Thy belt of straw, and ivy buds, + Thy coral clasps and amber studs, + All these in me no means can move, + To come to thee and be thy love. + + But could youth last, and love still breed, + Had joys no date, nor age no need, + Then these delights my mind might move, + To live with thee and be thy love. + + Finis. Ignoto. +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The editor of the third edition of the “Helicon” +1812, says in regard to “Ignoto:”</p> +<p class="pnext">“This signature appears to have been generally, though not +exclusively, subscribed to the pieces of Sir Walter Raleigh. It +is also subscribed to one piece since appropriated to Shakspere, +[No. xviii,] and to one Which, according to Ellis, belongs to +Richard Barnfield [No. xxi.] The celebrated answer to Marlowe’s, +'Come live with me,’ here subscribed <em class="italics">Ignoto</em>, is given +expressly to Raleigh by Isaac Walton in his ‘Complete Angler,’ +first published in 1653.”</p> +<p class="pnext">[36]</p> +<p class="pnext">What could Walton know about it fifty years after +the publication of the song and answer as above? On +such worthless testimony the Nymph’s Answer is credited to Raleigh. And we have in the “Encyclopedia +of Poetry,” 1873, first the song by Marlowe, “<em class="italics">about</em> +1590,” and then the Nymph’s Reply by Raleigh “<em class="italics">about</em> +1610.” Strange that the Nymph should wait <em class="italics">about</em> +twenty years to reply, and should then repeat the lines +credited to Shakspere in 1599 and to “Ignoto” in +1600! The song perhaps existed before the death of +Marlowe in 1593, but was probably composed by +“Ignoto,” who also wrote “The Nymph’s Reply” and +numerous other poetical pieces that were published +in the “Helicon” in 1600.</p> +<p class="pnext">“Ignoto” was undoubtedly a concealed poet. +Marlowe, Raleigh and Barnfield were not. As early as +January 1590, if not a little sooner, “Ignoto” +contributed to Spenser’s first publication of the “Faery +Queen” the following lines:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “To look upon a work of rare devise + The which a workman setteth out to view, + And not to yield it the deserved prize + That unto such a workmanship is due, + Doth either prove the judgment to be naught, + Or else doth show a mind with envy fraught. + + “To labor to commend a piece of work + Which no man goes about to discommend, + Would raise a jealous doubt that there did lurk + Some secret doubt whereto the praise did tend: + For when men know the goodness of the wine + ’Tis needless for the host to have a sign. + + “Thus then, to show my judgment to be such + As can discern of colors black and white, + As als to free my mind from envy’s touch, + That never gives to any man his right: + I here pronounce this workmanship is such + As that no pen can set it forth too much. + +[37] + + “And thus I hang a garland at the door; + Not for to show the goodness of the ware; + But such hath been the custom heretofore, + And customs very hardly broken are; + And when your taste shall tell you this is true, + Then look you give your host his utmost due.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">In No. viii of “The Passionate Pilgrim” the writer +says:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Dowland to thee is dear, whose heavenly touch + Upon the lute doth ravish human sense; + +Spenser to me, whose deep conceit is such + As, passing all conceit, needs no defense.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Is not this praise of Spenser a substantial repetition +of the sentiments expressed by “Ignoto”?</p> +<p class="pnext">Again, in Shakspere’s Sonnet lxxx we read:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“O how I faint when I of you do write, + Knowing a better spirit doth use your name, +And in the praise thereof spends all his might, + To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your fame!” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Spenser praises Essex in one of the Sonnets prefixed +to his “Faery Queen,” which antedates the Sonnets +of Shakspere.</p> +<p class="pnext">Once more. In No. xviii of “The Passionate Pilgrim” +we read:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Poor Corydon must live alone, +Other help for him I see that there is none.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Compare this with the following lines from Spenser’s +“Colin Clout,” dedicated to Sir Walter Raleigh, December 27, 1591, and published in 1595:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“And there is Corydon, though meanly waged, + Yet ablest wit of most I know this day.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Was not Bacon the ablest wit of that time? Was</p> +<p class="pnext">[38]</p> +<p class="pnext">he not a concealed poet? Was he not “Corydon”? +Was he not “Ignoto”?</p> +<p class="pnext">But what evidence is there that Raleigh used that +signature? The “Faery Queen” was publicly dedicated to him, and in the Sonnet addressed to him as +one of Spenser’s patrons, a forthcoming poem by +Raleigh is announced thus:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “Yet, till that thou thy poem wilt make known, +Let thy fair Cynthia’s praises be thus rudely shown.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">That poem was known to Spenser, who in the +Dedication said he had fashioned his Queen +“according to your [Raleigh’s] own excellent conceit +of Cynthia,” i. e., Queen Elizabeth.</p> +<p class="pnext">Furthermore, Raleigh contributed two Sonnets in +praise of Spenser’s “Faery Queen;” these he subscribed +with his own initials. Did he at the same time +write another encomium and sign it “Ignoto”?</p> +<p class="pnext">There are sixteen pieces in the “Helicon” subscribed +“Ignoto.” One of these, “The Nymph’s Reply” is +ascribed to Raleigh on the testimony of Walton in +1653; and two others are believed by the editor of +the third edition, 1812, to belong to Raleigh, because +in an early copy of the same “Ignoto” was found +pasted over “W. R.” Upon such flimsy evidence the +modern editor infers that the signature “Ignoto” was +“generally, <em class="italics">though not exclusively</em>, (his own italics,) +subscribed to the pieces of Sir Walter Raleigh.”</p> +<p class="pnext">The next piece after “The Nymph’s Reply” in the +“Helicon” is the following by “Ignoto”:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + Another of the same nature made since. + Come live with me and be my dear, + And we will revel all the year, + In plains and groves, on hills and dales, + Where fragrant air breeds sweetest gates. + + + There shall you have the beauteous pine, + The cedar, and the spreading vine; + And all the woods to be a screen, + Lest Phoebus kiss my summer queen. + + The seat for your disport shall be + Over some river in a tree; + Where silver sands and pebbles sing + Eternal ditties with the Spring. + + There shall you see the nymphs at play, + And how the Satyrs spend the day; + The fishes gliding on the sands, + Offering their bellies to your hands. + + The birds, with heavenly tuned throats, + Possess woods’ echoes with sweet notes; + Which to your senses will impart + A music to inflame the heart. + + Upon the bare and leafless oak + The ring-dove’s wooings will provoke + A colder blood than you possess, + To play with me and do no less. + + In bowers of laurel trimly dight, + We will outwear the silent night, + While Flora busy is to spread + Her richest treasure on our bed. + + Ten thousand glow-worms shall attend, + And all their sparkling lights shall spend. + All to adorn and beautify + Your lodging with most majesty. + + Then in mine arms will I enclose + Lily’s fair mixture with the rose; + Whose nice perfections in love’s play, + Shall tune to me the highest key. + + Thus as we pass the welcome night + In sportful pleasures and delight, + The nimble fairies on the grounds + Shall dance and sing melodious sounds. + +[40] + + If these may serve for to entice + Your presence to Love’s paradise, + Then come with me and be my dear, + And we will straight begin the year. + + Finis. Ignoto. +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Who will say that this is not equal to the first song +ascribed to Marlowe? What couplet in that surpasses +this one?:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Where silver sands and pebbles sing + Eternal ditties with the Spring.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Or this?:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Ten thousand glow-worms shall attend. + And all their sparkling lights shall spend.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">For parallels with the first of these couplets take +the following:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Silver stream.” Much Ado, iii, 1. + +“Sing no more ditties.” Ibid, ii, 1. + +“Silver currents.” K. John, ii, 1. + +“The murmuring surge +That on the unnumbered idle pebbles chafes.” + + Ibid, iv, 6. +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">For a single parallel with the second couplet take +this:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Twenty glow-worms shall our lanterns be.” + + M. W. Windsor, v, 5. +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Similar parallels may be found with other lines of +the song. Now are we to believe that Marlowe wrote +the first song, and Raleigh the other two signed “Ignoto”? Is it not far more rational and consistent to +believe that all three were written by the same pen?</p> +<p class="pnext">Again, Barnfield has two pieces in the “Helicon,” +and the editor ascribes to him another signed “Ignoto”—No. xxi, “As it fell upon a day”—while Allibone, in his Dictionary of Authors, makes him the</p> +<p class="pnext">[41]</p> +<p class="pnext">author not only of xxi, but of xx—“Come live with +me and be my love”—and says that Raleigh’s authorship of “The Nymph’s Reply” is questioned.</p> +<p class="pnext">Thus Marlowe is robbed of the only piece ascribed +to him in the “Helicon,” and Raleigh is left out of it entirely, unless he wrote some other poem signed “Ignoto.”</p> +<p class="pnext">And by the way, poor neglected Shakspere has but +a single specimen there—“On a day, alack a day”— +taken from “Love’s Labor Lost.”</p> +<p class="pnext">But the confusion about “Ignoto” is still more confounded. On page 112 of the “Helicon” is a song +entitled “The Shepherd’s Dump,” subscribed “S. E. +D.,” supposed to mean Sir Edward Dyer, and on page +224 the same identical song reappears entitled “Thirsis, the Shepherd, to his pipe,” and signed “Ignoto.” +The editor of 1812 supposes it was reprinted to make +a few corrections in the last stanza; but as the verbal +variations in that stanza make it positively worse, it +is more likely that the compiler did not notice the +repetition, but inadvertently put both in as he found +them.</p> +<p class="pnext">But even this is not all. In Ellis’s “Specimens of +the early English Poets,” 5th edition, 1845, among the +pieces credited to Fulke Greville (Lord Brooke) is a +“Song,” with these words in brackets:</p> +<p class="pnext">“To be found in ‘England’s Helicon,’ where it is signed +Ignoto.”</p> +<p class="pnext">On turning to the edition of 1614 we find that song +entitled “Another, of his Cynthia.” It is preceded by +two, evidently by the same pen, entitled, “To his +Flocks,” and “To his Love” and is followed by still +“Another to his Cynthia.” But all these are anonymous</p> +<p class="pnext">[42]</p> +<p class="pnext">in the edition of 1614, and the editor appends +to the last one the following remark:</p> +<p class="pnext">“These three [or four?] ditties were taken out of Maister +John Dowland’s Book of Tableture for the Lute. The authors’ +names not there set down, and therefore left to their owners.”</p> +<p class="pnext">But it happens that the four ditties are all credited +to “Ignoto” in the Table of Contents, prepared by +the <em class="italics">other editor</em>, so that in the edition of 1614 +“Ignoto” has twenty pieces, besides the one assigned to +Marlowe.</p> +<p class="pnext">With all this confusion what are we to believe in +regard to “Ignoto”? Was he sometimes Raleigh, +sometimes Barnfield, sometimes Dyer, sometimes Greville,</p> +<p class="pnext">and sometimes Shakspere, or some one else? +Or was he a single person who “loved better to be +a poet than to be counted so” and who affected to +hoodwink the above-named Greville by writing to him +in 1596: “For poets I can commend none, being +resolved to be ever a stranger to them”?</p> +<p class="pnext">And here let us note a bit of internal evidence that +Bacon wrote the little poem in praise of the “Faery +Queen” signed “Ignoto.” One couplet of it is as follows:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“For when men know the goodness of the wine, +’Tis needless for the host to have a sign.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">No. 517 of Bacon’s “Promus of Formularies and +Elegancies” is this:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> +“Good wine needs no bush.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">The word “bush” as applied to wine is thus defined +by Webster:</p> +<p class="pnext">“branch of ivy (as sacred to Bacchus) hung out at +vintners' doors, or as a tavern sign; hence a tavern sign, or the +tavern itself.”</p> +<p class="pnext">“‘If it be true that good wine needs no bush, ’tis true that +a good play needs no epilogue.’” Shak.[As You Like It.]</p> +<p class="pnext">We leave the reader to put this and that together +argument or comment is superfluous.</p> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">[43]</p> +</div> +<div class="level-2 section" id="as-the-concealed-poet-ignoto"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title"><a class="toc-backref" href="#id6">AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO</a></h2> +<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 3.00em">A</span><span class="dropspan">nd</span> now what shall we say in regard to Marlowe’s +ostensible authorship of a popular song, which was +attributed to Shakspere in 1599? Is it not presumable +that “Ignoto,” who wrote the “Nymph’s Reply,” and +followed it with “Another of the same nature made +since” in imitation of the song subscribed “Chr. Marlowe”—is it not probable that “Ignoto” ascribed his +own original song to Marlowe?</p> +<p class="pnext">Marlowe was buried June 1, 1593. In the same +year Shakspere’s name first appeared in print as an +author. And now among the startling revelations +hitherto hidden in the Folio of 1623, but made known +through Bacon’s cipher discovered by the Hon. Ignatius Donnelly, is this sentence:</p> +<p class="pnext">“Ever since Marlowe was killed Shakspere has been my +mask.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Another Poem by Bacon in 1590.</p> +<p class="pnext">The 33d anniversary of Elizabeth’s coronation was +celebrated November 17, 1590. Sir Henry Lea, the +Queen’s champion and master of the armory, who had +conducted the exercises from the beginning, appeared +for the last time, and, after the customary performances, +resigned his office to the Earl of Cumberland, whereupon the celebrated vocalist, Mr. Hales, a servant of +her Majesty, pronounced and sung the following verses, +personating the aged man-at-arms:</p> +<pre class="literal-block"> + “My golden locks hath time to silver turned, + (O Time too swift, and swiftness never ceasing!) +My youth ’gainst age, and age at youth hath spurned, + But spurned in vain; youth waneth, by increasing. +Beauty and strength, and youth flowers fading been, + Duty, faith, love, are roots and ever green. + +“My helmet now shall make a hive for bees, + And lovers’ songs shall turn to holy psalms; +A man-at-arms must now stand on his knees, + And feed on prayers that are old age’s alms. + + And so from court to cottage I depart; +My saint is sure of my unspotted heart. + “And when I sadly sit in lonely cell, + I’ll teach my swains this carol for a song: + ‘Blest be the hearts that wish my Sovereign well, + Curst be the souls that think to do her wrong.’ + +Goddess! vouchsafe this aged man his right, +To be your beadsman now that Was your knight.” +</pre> +<p class="pfirst">Parallels are found in Bacon and Shakspere with +almost every sentiment and expression in these lines. +(See Mrs. Pott’s “Promus,” p. 528.)</p> +<p class="pnext">The verses were published anonymously in Dowland’s “First Book of Songs,” 1600, and again in 1844; +both times with the pronouns changed from the first +to the third person—e. g., “His golden locks,” etc. +In the “Works of George Peele,” 1828, they are +credited to that poet, but the only evidence adduced of +his authorship is the fact that he, as an eye-witness, +wrote a poetic description of the celebration in 1590. +Mrs. Pott is doubtless right in claiming for Bacon the +authorship, and is only mistaken in supposing that the +person to whom the verses were intended to apply was +Lord Burleigh, who about that time, on account of the +loss of his wife, had temporarily withdrawn from court.</p> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +</div> +<div class="level-2 section" id="bacon-and-shakspere-a-chronograph"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title"><a class="toc-backref" href="#id7">BACON AND SHAKSPERE A CHRONOGRAPH</a></h2> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page45.jpg" /> +</div> +<div class="align-center auto-scaled figure" style="width: 100%"> +<img style="display: block; width: 100%" alt=" " src="images/page46.jpg" /> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">1. If the Parliament met November 23, 1584, as Mr. +Spedding distinctly says, then Bacon was not yet twenty-four.</p> +<p class="pnext"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 3.00em">A</span><span class="dropspan">n</span> ideal tableau of the youthful statesman is gaily +depicted by Wm. Hepworth Dixon, in his “Personal +History of Lord Bacon:”</p> +<p class="pnext">“How he appears in outward guise and aspect among these +courtly and martial contemporaries the miniature of Hilyard +helps us to conceive. Slight in build, rosy and round in fleshy +dight in a sumptuous suit, the head well-set, erect, and framed +in a thick starched fence of frill; a bloom of study and travel +on the fat, girlish face, which looks far younger than his years; +the hat and feather tossed aside from the white brow, over which, +crisps and curls a mane of dark, soft hair; an English nose, +firm, open, straight; a mouth delicate and small—a lady’s or +jester’s mouth—a thousand pranks and humors, quibbles, whims and laughters lurking in its twinkling, tremulous lines;—such +is Francis Bacon at the age of twenty-four.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Bearing in mind that Bacon is three years and three months older than Shakspere, we will now parallel their +lives by successive years.</p> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<p class="pfirst">[47]</p> +</div> +<div class="level-2 section" id="a-chronographic-parallel"> +<h2 class="level-2 pfirst section-title title"><a class="toc-backref" href="#id8">A CHRONOGRAPHIC PARALLEL</a></h2> +<ol class="upperalpha simple"> +<li><ol class="first upperalpha" start="4"> +<li><ol class="arabic first" start="1585"> +<li></li> +</ol> +</li> +</ol> +</li> +</ol> +<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 3.00em">B</span><span class="dropspan">acon</span> at 24, in a letter to the Queen’s principal +secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham, urges his some time +pending suit, which is to determine his “course of +practice”—supposed to mean a shortening of the five +years’ probation required to become a pleader.</p> +<p class="pnext">He writes an essay entitled “Greatest Birth of +Time,” foreshadowing his scientific works.</p> +<p class="pnext">His mother in her zeal for the Nonconformists urges +their cause in person before Lord Treasurer Burleigh, +and follows it by a letter to the same in which she says:</p> +<p class="pnext">“I confess as one that hath found mercy, that I have profited +more in the inward feeling knowledge of God his holy will, +though but in small measure, by an ordinary preaching within +these seven or eight years, than I did by hearing odd sermons +at Paul’s well nigh twenty years together.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspere at 21 is still living at Stratford, the father +of three children—two of them twins. His father is +said to have been a butcher as well as a dealer in wool; +and gossiping John Aubrey says he was told by some +of the neighbors that when the boy William “kill’d +a calfe, he wold doe it in a high style, and make a +speeche.”</p> +<p class="pnext">Mr. Richard Grant White guesses that William may +have gone to London this year or the next.</p> +<p class="pnext">[48]</p> +<ol class="upperalpha simple"> +<li><ol class="first upperalpha" start="4"> +<li><ol class="arabic first" start="1586"> +<li></li> +</ol> +</li> +</ol> +</li> +</ol> +<p class="pfirst">Bacon at 25 writes a letter, May 6th, to Lord Treasurer Burleigh, his uncle, saying:</p> +<p class="pnext">“I find in my simple observation that they which live as it +were <em class="italics">in umbra</em> and not in public or frequent action, how moderately and modestly soever they behave themselves, yet <em class="italics">laborant +inmdia</em>. I find also that such persons as are of nature bashful +(as myself is,) whereby they want that plausible familiarity +which others have, are often mistaken for proud. But once I +know well, and I most humbly beseech your Lordship to believe that arrogancy and overweening is so far from my nature, +as, if I think well of myself in anything, it is in this, that I am +free from that vice.”</p> +<p class="pnext">He is again elected to Parliament. The conspirators who attempted to liberate Mary of Scotland have +been tried, condemned, and sentenced. The case is +brought before the Parliament. Bacon is one of the +speakers in “the Great Cause,” and one of the committees to whom it is referred.</p> +<p class="pnext">Shakspere at 22 is probably still at Stratford, +though Mr. White presumes he has become connected +with the London stage this year, or perhaps a little +later.</p> +<blockquote> +<div> +<p class="pfirst">[To be continued to the end of both lives, making a book of +300 pages or more, including this pamphlet as an appendix, +with important additions. All the essential facts of Lord +Bacon’s life will be presented, whereby his secret +authorship will be more abundantly proved, and his moral +character vindicated against the aspersions of 260 years.]</p> +</div> +</blockquote> +<div class="clearpage"> +</div> +<hr class="docutils" /> +<!-- -*- encoding: utf-8 -*- --> +<div class="backmatter"> +</div> +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 39121 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/39121-h/images/frontispiece.jpg b/39121-h/images/frontispiece.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7bd712d --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/frontispiece.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page10a.jpg b/39121-h/images/page10a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4ec88f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page10a.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page10b.jpg b/39121-h/images/page10b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..17a93dc --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page10b.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page11a.jpg b/39121-h/images/page11a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8cae47 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page11a.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page11b.jpg b/39121-h/images/page11b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1b27cb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page11b.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page3a.jpg b/39121-h/images/page3a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9c0f771 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page3a.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page45.jpg b/39121-h/images/page45.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..784fe60 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page45.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page46.jpg b/39121-h/images/page46.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..40dc8a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page46.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page4a.jpg b/39121-h/images/page4a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..23fd022 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page4a.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page4b.jpg b/39121-h/images/page4b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c74874b --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page4b.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page4c.jpg b/39121-h/images/page4c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f32c35 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page4c.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page5a.jpg b/39121-h/images/page5a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8bfbfe2 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page5a.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page5b.jpg b/39121-h/images/page5b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..83c99d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page5b.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page5c.jpg b/39121-h/images/page5c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1dbf40c --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page5c.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page5d.jpg b/39121-h/images/page5d.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..699c6b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page5d.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page5e.jpg b/39121-h/images/page5e.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..055d633 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page5e.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page5f.jpg b/39121-h/images/page5f.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a91bc55 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page5f.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page6a.jpg b/39121-h/images/page6a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f1f5b86 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page6a.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page6b.jpg b/39121-h/images/page6b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1841303 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page6b.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page6c.jpg b/39121-h/images/page6c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f91a6b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page6c.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page7a.jpg b/39121-h/images/page7a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5797efa --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page7a.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page7b.jpg b/39121-h/images/page7b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..925ed12 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page7b.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/page7c.jpg b/39121-h/images/page7c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c2de95d --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/page7c.jpg diff --git a/39121-h/images/titlepage.jpg b/39121-h/images/titlepage.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9e9da90 --- /dev/null +++ b/39121-h/images/titlepage.jpg diff --git a/39121-pdf.zip b/39121-pdf.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ed8caf1..0000000 --- a/39121-pdf.zip +++ /dev/null |
