diff options
Diffstat (limited to '39121-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 39121-0.txt | 1791 |
1 files changed, 1791 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 *** |