Actual Author of Shakespeare's Works

[quddusaliquddus]

It has brought to my attention that PF members are willing to discuss the author of Shakespeare's works. This issue has a long and varied history with many a claims as there are skeptics and believers. I myself have held the view that Sir Francis Bacon as the only real candiate for the authorship of such works. Let us discuss the issue.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Appetiser: [The following are minute quotes from www.sirbacon.org

"There be some whose lives are as if they perpetually played a part upon a stage, disguised to all others, open only to themselves." Francis Bacon from The Essay of Friendship found only in the 1607 & 1612 edition

Tobie Matthew's letter to Bacon , in 1623, written from France:

"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."

In 1603, Bacon wrote to a friend of his, the poet, John Davies, who had gone north to meet the King:

"So desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue, yours very assured, Fr. Bacon."

The only Shakespeare notebook, a collection of expressions, phrases, and sentences, many of which appear in the Shakespeare plays. This is the Promus, written by Francis Bacon.

" To write with powerful effect, he must write out the life he has led, as did Bacon when he wrote Shakespeare." Mark Twain

"Will be ready to furnish a Masque" Francis Bacon in Letter to his Uncle, Lord Burleigh .

 

[arildno]

I thought some guy from Stratford-upon-Avon was responsible for those plays

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Do you mean the original publisher of his works? I always thought Shakespeare wrote his own plays.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Sumtime, long ago, people thought the world was flat ...

 

[arildno]

Interesting site, quddu, but get the link right..

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Thanks for that arildno

 

[honestrosewater]

Ah, I was waiting for this :)

Do we agree there was someone named Shakespeare, or Shaksper- however you want to spell it, and that the records of Shakespeare's life are accurate? (Records being his will, coat of arms application, records of baptism and mariage, and so on.)

As for what you have posted, I'm sure there are several such similarities- which is why there are so many different claims to authorship.

I understand that it was customary for 'noble' people, or people of high stature (like Bacon) to write and circulate poetry, but never to publish it. Writing for money or fame was looked down upon. So this could explain a lot of those references to masks and concealed poets and such. They also could refer to the flattery and pageantry of the court. Of course, it could also explain why Bacon would have published under a pseudonym- granted.

How would you explain Greene’s comments:
"There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that, with his 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide,' supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; being an absolute Johannes Factotum, in his conceit the only shake-scene in a country."
Robert Greene
Groatsworth of Wit (1592)
Doesn’t “tiger’s heart wrapped in a player’s hide” and "Johannes Factotum" suggest that Shakespeare was a known player? Did Bacon disguise himself and work as a player? Or was Greene in on the trick? Or did Greene just not have any idea what he was saying?

("In the 16th century, "factotum" was often used in English as if it was a surname, paired with first names to create personalities such as "Johannes Factotum" (literally "John Do-everything"). Back then, it wasn't necessarily desirable to be called a "factotum"; the term was a synonym of "meddler" or "busybody."-http://www.42geeks.com/index.php?page=yourblog&blogger=25)

Happy thoughts
Rachel

It's been a while, but when I researched this, I was leaning toward Edward de Vere. I've changed my mind, obviously.

 

[honestrosewater]

"It is incredible that Ben Jonson, who knew both Shakespeare and Bacon intimately, who himself dubbed Shakespeare the “swan of Avon,” and who survived Bacon for eleven years, could have died without revealing the alleged secret, at a time when there was no reason for concealing it."
-http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/l_bacontheory.html

I was looking for something like this. One must also explain away all the people who knew Shakespeare- as in dealt personally with him- and made references to him as a poet.

Shakespeare was certainly involved in the theatre in London- he was a member of The Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men. People would have known "Shakespeare the player". How could someone other than "Shakespeare the player" be "Shakespeare the poet"?
Shakespeare played roles in his own plays- how does that work?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Thallium]

William Shakespeare could not write. On the one paper that has been found with his handwriting, he has written four signature on the sides, all misspelled in four different ways!

But I love Shakespeare anyway! His literature is awesome!

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Now there are so many avenues of thought I feel like exploring - it's like being a child again - sweet days in the sweet shop.

I shall start with a fair question on your views if you will. Am i right is supposing that you are agree with the orthodox authorities on the authorship of the Plays?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Shakespeare misspelling his signature could be an attribute to high intelligence. It's said that people with extremely high IQ rates often have handwriting in which the lines are parallel and the design is unique in a way that the signature can be written efficiently and quickly. I glanced over an example of this on the Internet in which two different letters were written as identical "g" like figures.

He could've been perfecting the most efficient signature he could rather than incorrectly spelling his name. Was the other sentence structure and spelling within the letter found to be misspelled as well?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

In Ben Jonson's Discoveries (1641) he gives Bacon the highest praise, and describes his writings in these peculiar words:

"He who hath filled up all numbers and performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred to insolent Greece and haughty Rome...so that he may be named as the mark and acme of our language."
Bacon is here compared to Homer and Virgil in the same words that Jonson used about the author of the Shakespeare Folio in 1623:

"Leave thee alone for the comparison
Of all that insolent Greece and haughty Rome...
Sent forth... "

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I am not worried of the spelling - as you shall see - spelling had not yet 'crytallised' in the Elezebethan times as it is now. Far from it - this fact will in another way prove to be useful in the proof of the *real authorship of the plays i.e. Sir Francis Bacon

 

[arildno]

William Shakespeare could not write. On the one paper that has been found with his handwriting, he has written four signature on the sides, all misspelled in four different ways!

This is without any significance whatsoever, because at the time we're talking about, there existed no correct way of writing English
(Grammar was invented later)

I believe it is Ben Johnson who have written something to this effect:
"I consider any man to be boorish, if he lacks the imagination to spell a word in more than one way.."

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Why should he reveal that which is a secret? A very partial peck at a partial view of the full story.

It is amazing that Ben Jonson looked down on the works of Shakespeare publicly - and many years later would make a u-turn on his views once he got to know Sir Francis Bacon. The phrase "swan of Avon" has been most grossely misconstrued.

Has it ever struck anyone that if this phrase is to be taken at its face value, it is singularly inept as a simile? The verses of a poet are melodious,or should be. A poem may often be termed a song, and the poet himself the singer of it. Hence are poets described as sweet singers and compared to singing birds, as when Edmund Waller spoke of Sir Philip Sidney and Sir Francis Bacon as "nightingales." But what of the swan?
Is it a bird of song? Hardly!
And Jonson is not even alluding to the mythical "swan song" ; in fact a few lines lower he speaks of "those flights." He is thinking of the movements of the bird, not of its song-- and quite naturally too. Here are the lines in question :

Sweet Swan of Avon! What a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza and our Iames!

If we are meant to take these lines even in a partially metaphorical sense, Queen Elizabeth and King James are represented as having taken pleasure in the sight of the "Sweet Swan," thus pointing rather to an actor on the stage than to an author in his study; especially as the theatres of those days were situated close to the Thames Bank. In other words, Jonson was not so foolish as to compare the melodious verses of the author to the harsh tones of a swan. He was not thinking of the author's writings at all, and there is another explanation to the whole matter.

 

[honestrosewater]

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html

is a nice compilation of records.

Thallium, what piece of paper?
"The will was written on 3 pages of paper and Shakespeare's signature appears 3 times, adding to the value of the document because only 3 other copies of his signature are known to survive."
-http://www.pro.gov.uk/virtualmuseum/millennium/shakespeare/will/default.htm

This contradicts what you have said. What is your source?

qudd, may I call you qudd? :) I'm not sure what the orthodox view is- can't I just play Socrates? I believe "Shakespeare the player" was "Shakespeare the poet". How could someone be one, but not the other? It would be a whopper of a deception.
Were you planning on answering my questions? ;)

Dooga, nice point. Besides, a signature is a signature- have any of you never practiced your signature or doodled on a sheet of paper? (not THAT kind of doodle )

One also has to ask how much thought and effort was put into the types of records that we have. Is it fair to expect to find a poem in a legal document? Perhaps he should have expected people to question whether or not he was who he was, and taken more time to provide us with sufficient evidence.?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

EDIT- seems our posts crossed paths- this is not in response to your last post, but the post before it.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

"Were you planning on answering my questions? ;)"
I intend to 'play the game' as I observe yiou are doing when you want to "play Socrate" - everyone wants to play a part on the stage ;D

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I would like to post the following:

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/chronos.html

As a contrast-complement to your chronology.

 

[honestrosewater]

Why should he reveal that which is a secret? A very partial peck at a partial view of the full story.

Already answered, "at a time when there was no reason for concealing it." You realize those were not my words- that was a quote which I quoted more for the 11 years part than anything else. I realize the author makes a mistake in assuming to know Jonson’s reasons.

It is amazing that Ben Jonson looked down on the works of Shakespeare publicly - and many years later would make a u-turn on his views once he got to know Sir Francis Bacon.

Or after he got to know Shakespeare, even. Is Jonson not allowed to change his mind for any reason other than Bacon?

The phrase "swan of Avon" has been most grossely misconstrued.
Has it ever struck anyone that if this phrase is to be taken at its face value, it is singularly inept as a simile? The verses of a poet are melodious,or should be. A poem may often be termed a song, and the poet himself the singer of it. Hence are poets described as sweet singers and compared to singing birds, as when Edmund Waller spoke of Sir Philip Sidney and Sir Francis Bacon as "nightingales." But what of the swan?
Is it a bird of song? Hardly!
And Jonson is not even alluding to the mythical "swan song" ; in fact a few lines lower he speaks of "those flights." He is thinking of the movements of the bird, not of its song-- and quite naturally too. Here are the lines in question :

Sweet Swan of Avon! What a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza and our Iames!

If we are meant to take these lines even in a partially metaphorical sense, Queen Elizabeth and King James are represented as having taken pleasure in the sight of the "Sweet Swan," thus pointing rather to an actor on the stage than to an author in his study; especially as the theatres of those days were situated close to the Thames Bank. In other words, Jonson was not so foolish as to compare the melodious verses of the author to the harsh tones of a swan. He was not thinking of the author's writings at all, and there is another explanation to the whole matter.

I feel like the judge in My Cousin Vinny:
Judge: Mr. Gambini?
Vinny: Yes sir?
Judge: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection.
Vinny: Thank you, your honor
Judge: Overruled.

How do you know what Jonson was thinking? Poetry is ambiguous if nothing else, and you could read several meanings into it.

My reading goes this way: Jonson is surprised to see the son of a glover from Avon, a poor player become the delight of kings and queens, the “star of poets”. Swans are gray & ugly as babies and grow to be white & beautiful.
This adds to the idea that Jonson changed his own mind about Shakespeare- not because of someone else, but because of Shakespeare himself- he says so much in this poem.

Jonson is not referring to the author’s writings? Wait, what author?

And all this means so little in comparison to the fact that Shakespeare would have had to interact with people, face-to-face. Who is the face to the name?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

P.S. yes, it is fun, isn't it? :)

 

[quddusaliquddus]

The family of William Shakspere, the actor, was grossly illiterate. His father and mother made their signatures with a cross. Of his two children, Judith, at the age of twenty-seven, was also unable to write her name; Susanna could not read her husband's manuscript, nor even identify it by sight among others. The little we know of his own youth and early manhood affords presumptive proof of the strongest kind that he was uneducated.

Nature only helped him."--Leonard Digges, 1640.

"His learning was very little."--Thomas Fuller's Worthies, 1662.

"Old Mother-wit and Nature gave Shakespeare and Fletcher all they have."

Sir John Denham, 1668.

"Shakespeare said all that Nature could impart."--Chetwood, 1684.

"Never any scholar, as our Shakespeare, if alive, would confess himself."--Winstanley, 1684.

"He was as much a stranger to French as Latin."--Gerard Langbaine, 1691.

"The clerk that showed me this church is above eighty years old. He says that this Shakespeare was formerly bound in this town to a butcher, but that he ran away from his master to London."--Letter from Dowdall, visiting Stratford, 1693.

"In him we find all arts and sciences, all moral and natural philosophy, without knowing that he ever studied them."--Dryden.

"Without any instruction either from the world or from books."--Hume's History of England, III. 110.

"The constant criticism which his contemporaries, from Greene to Ben Jonson, passed on him was that he was ignorant of language and no scholar."--Richard Simpson's School of Shakspere, II. 398.

"Where this wonderful creator gained the knowledge of human nature and experience of human motives which have presented him to posterity rather as something divine than a mere mortal artist, it is impossible to learn."--Prof. Shaw's English Literature, p. 121.

"And thou, who did'st the stars and sunbeams know,
Self-school'd, self-scann'd, self-honor'd, self-secure,
Didst stand on Earth unguess'd at."

--Matthew Arnold's Sonnet to Shakespeare.

"The only author that gives ground for a very new opinion, that the philosopher and even the man of the world may be born, as well as the poet."--Alexander Pope.

"The untaught son of a Stratford yeoman."1--Richard Grant White.

P.S.
Don't tell anyone, I Love it! ... eh-hem...compose yourself man!... :D

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Looks like people might have known him as quoted above ;D

The interpretation of the Swan I will soon add. Pleeease don't argue over interpretation like that - you have just interpreted his Ben Jonson's quote in your way and then put me down for showing there are different possible interpretaions to it! You agree there is a different possible interpretation? - then your interpretation doesn't add strength to your view, does it? Now I feel like cousin vinny ...

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I will add piece of evidence after another - there's so much that I cannot post in one go. Maybe you can do the same for evidence of the authorship by Shakespeare? ... if you have the time and inclination. Thank you

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now is as good a time as any to reveal that I am that author of the plays of Shakespeare. Threw them together in my spare time one summer.

 

[Evo]

Michael Wood did an excellent documentary on Shakespeare. The Sir Frances Bacon theory is interesting though. Who really knows?

Check out this link to the BBC documentary by Wood.

"The scarcity of real knowledge about William Shakespeare, especially his early years, has led to theories that he didn't exist as an individual at all, but was really another writer working under a pseudonym. Most serious historians however, regard these theories as baseless: the later years of Shakespeare's life are in fact relatively well documented, for someone of his standing."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/art/shakespeare_later_01.shtml

 

[BoulderHead]

I was going to give Zoobieshoe the benefit of the doubt, but that was before I heard William Shatner do; Hamlet, It Was a Very Good Year.

See the link provided in this thread for more;

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27645

 

[honestrosewater]

I didn't mean to put you down in any way. My point is that there are several interpretations. And they are just that- interpretations- a very dubious business. I like mine better because I think it is supported more strongly by the rest of the poem. Of course, I have to interpret the rest of the poem, which is still debatable.

As for the quotes you give about Shakespeare's lack of formal education, the extent of his formal education says nothing much to me about Shakespeare's *knowledge*. I dropped out of school on my 16th birthday. Formally, I have an eighth grade education. Am I less knowledgeable than a typical high school freshman because I never earned a high school credit? I have continued to educate myself independently and know more than I did when I dropped out of school- an enormous amount more! :) What did he need to know, other than how to read, observe, and think?
Granted, Shakespeare didn’t have the internet, but there were books and libraries, for goodness’sake. What was to stop Shakespeare from learning on his own?
Was “Shakespeare the player” illiterate? How could he be? What would have stopped him from picking up a book or turning his eyes to the world around him?
“A witty saying proves nothing.”-Voltaire.
I don’t understand why self-education is so far-fetched a concept. Learning under your own steam and by your own inclination breeds character too, of which Shakespeare had a full store ;)
If that came off strong, it’s not from offense, but passion :)

On a less personal note, because of the difficulties in interpreting people’s words, looking for cryptic messages, and such, I would like to concentrate on the more reliable evidence.
We have
1) “man Shakespeare” -the person named in the records (see the link I gave) as the son of John Shakespeare, wife of Anne Hathaway, etc.
2) “player Shakespeare” –the person who was a player in London, member of The Chamberlain’s Men, later The King’s Men, who is named as a performer in several plays (I’ll find links for this), and who had to have interacted *in the flesh* with other people in the theatre, including the audience members, including Elizabeth and James.
3) “poet Shakespeare” –the person who is referred to as the author of the plays by his contemporaries, and given credit for them by the majority of academics ever since.

What evidence do you have to refute the simpler claim (Ockham's Razor- entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily) that all 3 Shakespeares are one and the same?

I’m also curious about who you think is buried in Shakespeare’s grave, if anyone, and whose likeness graces the First Folio. Surely you’re familiar with the bust of Shakespeare.
“The monument to Shakespeare in Holy Trinity Church , Stratford-upon-Avon, where the playwright is buried, may be a likeness. It was possibly commissioned by his son-in-law, John Hall, and Shakespeare's wife, Anne Hathaway, was still alive at the time the monument was erected (it was in place by 1623). Clearly both these people knew what Shakespeare looked like.”- http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/main/1/16

The above link links to a picture of the bust, which, together with the inscription, clearly indicates the Shakespeare memorialized there was a poet. From Digges’s poem in the First Folio (hence the date):
“Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,
Here we alive shall view thee still. This Booke,
When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke
Fresh to all Ages”

It would seem the whole country was in on the secret ;) (Do you mind me joking like that?)

Well, I guess that’s enough for now.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[quddusaliquddus]

The link you gave us has the following disclaimer:

"What Did Shakespeare Look Like?
We don't really know.

There is no painting, drawing or sculpture that we can say with any certainty is a true likeness of Shakespeare or, indeed, that was made by anyone who knew the playwright. There are a number of pictures that, over the years, people have claimed - or willed - to be a likeness, but proof is hard to come by. In what follows you'll notice the repetition of qualifiers such as 'may be' or 'possible'"

Everyone including the 'establishment' accept the dubious nature of all the pictures/busts of Shakespeare, this does not need further comments.

The demand you put on the Baconian theory is understandably more stringent than that of your own beliefs, but this still doesn't hold in the light of evidence un-fortunately. I will show you further examples of what I mean.

The 3 points you gave shall be explained soon.

"(Do you mind me joking like that?)"

Who am I to restrain your passions?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

"What evidence do you have to refute the simpler claim (Ockham's Razor- entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily) that all 3 Shakespeares are one and the same?"

It is interesting you should say that at that point - since after you had talked of the 3 of them, you should put the burden of proof on me ... :D ...then encourage me to refute the simple claim.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Can you also account for the knowledge of distant lands like France n detailed knowledge of other places visited in those plays for which you have no proof of the Shakespeare you speak of having ever visited.
In contrast however - I shall show you that the life of the plays as wel as their contents fit in with Sir Francis Bacon's life so snugly as to arouse the suspicion of the most doubtful of critics.

 

[honestrosewater]

The link you gave us has the following disclaimer:

"What Did Shakespeare Look Like?
We don't really know.

Yes, I have read it has been restored and such. Here is a link I found discussing the bust in more detail.
http://www.hollowaypages.com/Shakespearemonument.htm

It's been a while since I studied this, so I'm having to research this all over again.

 

[Njorl]

Can you also account for the knowledge of distant lands like France n detailed knowledge of other places visited in those plays for which you have no proof of the Shakespeare you speak of having ever visited.
In contrast however - I shall show you that the life of the plays as wel as their contents fit in with Sir Francis Bacon's life so snugly as to arouse the suspicion of the most doubtful of critics.

Shakespeare did not need to know anything about the foreign lands of which he wrote. His plays based in foreign lands were taken from existing novelas or from chroniclers. Indeed, when he strays from his sources, he gets it wrong. This tends to support that an intelligent but untravelled man without a broad education wrote the plays.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

"The seacoast of Bohemia".

 

[honestrosewater]

"What evidence do you have to refute the simpler claim (Ockham's Razor- entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily) that all 3 Shakespeares are one and the same?"

It is interesting you should say that at that point - since after you had talked of the 3 of them, you should put the burden of proof on me ... :D ...then encourage me to refute the simple claim.

Okay, I should clarify some things. By evidence I mean public records and references made by his contemporaries. In the case of evidence, the references are only used to establish that there was a person named Shakespeare who was a player and/or a poet in the right place, at the right time. The rest of the reference, like that Shakespeare was uneducated or honey-tongued, is not evidence as I’m now using the term. I think this kind of evidence is more reliable than interpretations, cryptic messages, and similarities in style, ideas, or vocabulary. If you disagree, please say so. I certainly have reasons for thinking this is the most reliable, which I will gladly share, but for brevity’s sake (too late), I won’t go into them now.

I separated them into 3 categories to make it easier, since it may be the case that you accept the evidence for the man Shakespeare, but reject the poet Shakespeare evidence. I have evidence for each one: the man, the player, and the poet. I don’t know if there is sufficient evidence to directly connect all 3 because I haven’t gotten that far in my (re)research.

Do you see my point that poet Shakespeare had to be in direct physical contact with other people? If Bacon was the author, then someone would have had to pretend to be poet Shakespeare. Player Shakespeare could have done this, but this is a complication and needs to be backed by evidence.
If I can establish that there was a person named William Shakespeare who was working as a player, and there was a person named William Shakespeare who was working as a poet, and they were both working at the same time, in the same city, in the same theatres, with the same people, writing and acting in the same plays, then what is the likelihood that these were two different people?

If there is equal evidence for both Shakespeare and Bacon as the author, Shakespeare is the simpler case, since the Bacon case involves a conspiracy. I think considering evidence first is perfectly reasonable. I’m not holding my own beliefs to a lesser burden of proof; I haven’t seen any evidence that Bacon is the author.

Of course, there isn’t expected to be much evidence (as I’ve defined the term) in support of Bacon, if they were any good at keeping it a secret. This is not my problem- it’s yours ;)

Well, I will take some time and make a proper list of some evidence.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

qudd, sorry, two small points I forgot:
1) Yes, I'm sorry, refute was not the right thing to say. That whole paragraph was rather muddled. I hope I've explained the rest above. I should have asked if you rejected any of the the evidence provided.
2) The bust and Folio image are connected to man, player, and/or poet Shakespeare, by virtue of their locations, references made about them, etc. The fact that people who knew man, player, and/or poet Shakespeare were aware of and saw the bust and images is important. How accurately they depict Shakespeare is less important.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Thank you for your response.

"If Bacon was the author, then someone would have had to pretend to be poet Shakespeare."

Yes, there is view I have on this. But for the benefit of the audience I would like to deal with other points first, if you don't mind ;D

The reason for this is that I don't have common knowledge on my side - and yes, I am aware of the conspiratorial nature of the Baconians. Again, I am trying to ignore fringe elements of the ideas @ hand and concentrate on the core claims (of ourselves). There are very good reasons for the Baconian tale to involve intrigue as we cannot avoid the issue of Freemasonry and other such groups operating at that time. I stray. I will begin with the core claims of ourselves and the explanation of the person of Shakespeare.

The methodology I follow is to show that Sir Francis Bacon was the author, and only then show the holes in the character of Shakespear.

As for the interested people reading these posts - I want to say that this is no attack on the persons of Shakespeare - but rather an overdue clarification of the actual anf Great merits of the man behind the mask. Tha man who was as the forefront of the Scientific Revolution and spearheaded that future we live today.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

King John
Many years ago, (see article in Baconiana, Nov. 1894) Professor Bengough made a detailed analysis and comparison of the play of King John and Bacon's History of Henry VII, with results which convinced him that the same mind was responsible for both works. I quote a few sentences from his article in Baconiana :

"parallel use of quaint words strikes one as peculiar---e.g. tickling, coop, brag, copy (noun), gall, prate, parley, cincture, under-prop." To quote every such instance we need to transcribe a large portion of the tragedy. Henry VII contains a dozen such words, of which the quaint use receives perfect illustration from as many lines scattered over the tragedy. Reversing the process of comparison, it would be difficult to hit upon any single volume containing illustrations of those twelve passages from the Play so apposite as those which we could quote from a single page of Bacon. And this is but one of fifty different items of evidence. Let us briefly sum up the details...
The twenty-two metaphors cited from both works are... At least twelve of these metaphors are rather unusual, some very much so ; and that any short works by different authors should contain them all is beyond the doctrine of chances... Instances are to be met with, no doubt, of popular authors with favourite words and mannerisms being imitated in a slavish way, but Francis Bacon was not just the man to do this. To anyone reads the Play and History together, the supposition of conscious imitation is too absurd... but we challenge any scholar who rejects the Baconian theory to cite an example of unintentional literary coincidence in two works of equal length which shall approximate in number and exactitude to the parallelisms adduced from a single play and from one only of Bacon's works."

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Othello
In connection with the publication of Othello and Richard III we have one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Shakespeare could not possibly have been the true author .

It is very probable that Othello was virtually the same play as The Moor of Venice , produced on 1st November, 1604, before the Court, and played again as part of the marriage festivities of the Princess Elizabeth in 1613. That play was also given on the public stage. But no printed version is known prior to the quarto of 1622. This was not a pirated edition, since the publisher states that he obtained his copy from the Master of the Revels. Accordingly, this quarto is authentic, though it may have differed from the acting version. But the real difficulty is that only one year afterwards the Folio of 1623 appeared, and Othello is seen to contain some 160 new lines, besides extensive emendations, admittedly by the hand of the author. Yet the presumed author died in 1616. How is it possible to reconcile these facts with the orthodox theory? It could only be done by conjecturing, for example, that although Shakspere mentioned neither books nor manuscripts in his otherwise detailed will, this revised copy did not exist prior to 1616, and, after lying in some place of concealment for seven years after his death, was discovered by Heming or Condell or Ben Jonson and utilised for the 1623 Folio. But if Shakspere took the trouble to make all these alterations and additons to the play, why did he not also take the obvious step of either seeing that these emendations were incorporated in the play when printed, or leaving the revised copy to his executor and residuary legatee, his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall? Should it be argued that he had sold his copyright out and out and had no further legal rights in it, then why bother to make any emendations at all? It is evident that whatever conjectures of this nature are made, no reasonable story can be built up which will give a satisfactory explanation of the facts and also support the orthodox theory.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Mr. Edwin Reed wrote on the startling similarities between charcaters: Caius in Merry Wives ...

"It may astonish some of our readers to learn that this ridiculous character in the play was drawn from life. The prototype was Dr. John Caius of Cambridge University, a physician, the re-founder of Gonville Hall (which still in part bears his name), and in his relations with the students an exceedingly choleric and revengeful instructor. His true name was Kaye, but as he had been educated abroad, and was inclined to ape foreign manners, he changed his English cognomen into its Latin form, Caius, by which he was then and is now generally known."
Mr. Reed then quotes some particulars from the Dictionary of National Biography , and continues :

"To complete the likeness between the two characters, dramatic and historical, we find that Caius had an especial antipathy to Welshmen, for in the ordinances of the college founded by him, Welshmen are expressly excluded from the privileges of fellowship. It appears then--
1. That both were physicians.
2. That both came from abroad.
3. That both were phenomenally quarellsome, even to the extent of inflicting chastisement upon others with their own hands.
4. That both hated Welshmen.
Now how did William Shakspere of Stratford become acquanited with these idiosyncrasies of a Cambridge professor...? Dr. Caius died in July, 1573, at which time the reputed poet was living at Stratford, nine years old. The controversy, as it raged in Cambridge and as it is reflected in the play, was a personal one, and in the absence of newspapers or equivalent means of disseminating general information, could hardly have been beyond university circles. Francis Bacon...entered the university in April 1573, three months before Dr. Caius' death and in the height of the prevailing excitement."

In my judgement, this is another powerful piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the Baconian theory.

It is worth quoting, in addition, that curious anecdote told of Sir Nicholas Bacon, and obviously referred to in this play. A malefactor was being tried by Sir Nicholas and was about to be sentenced to death, when he appealed for mercy on the ground that Sir Nicholas and he were kindred.

"Indeed?" said the Judge, "how can that be?"
"Why, if it please your Honour, my name is Hogg and yours is Bacon."...
"Nay," replied Sir Nicholas, "but hog cannot be bacon until it be well hanged."
In Act IV, Scene i, of Merry Wives, occurs the scene between Mistress Page, Quickly, and Evans, in which after some absurd colloquy, Quickly comes out with the remark,

"Hang-hog is latten for Bacon, I warrant you."
It is likely that this family joke among the Bacons should have been known to the Stratford actor? It might have been the rounds of legal circles, but not likely in theatres. Notice that this scene does not occur in the quarto of 1602, and there was no further reprint until 1619, after Shaksper's death, and then in the 1623 Folio. This is not actual proof that the scene did not appear in the original manuscript,since the 1602 quarto is very imperfect ; but it points strongly in that direction. It would almost seem that the scene was introduced by Bacon for the purpose of dragging in this reference to the Hang-hog anecdote.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

The following is a link to an appendix of terms that appear in Sir Francis Bacon's private notebook Promus correlated against Shakespeare's works.

This shall prove to be very interesting ;D

 

[quddusaliquddus]

The Promus is by itself sufficient evidence to show that the man who wrote the Promus also wrote the "Shakespeare" Plays.

Bacon kept a private memorandum book which he called The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies which from time to time he jotted down any words, similies, phrases, proverbs or colloquialisms which he thought might come in useful in connection with his literary work, gathering them together so as to be able to draw upon them as occasion should require. The word Promus means storehouse, and Bacon's Promus contains nearly 2,000 entries in various languages such as English, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and French.
The Promus which was in Bacon's own hand-writing, fortunately was preserved and is now in the British Museum. It was reproduced and published for the first time by Mrs. Henry Pott in 1883. No one, of course, knows the date when he commenced to make this collection, it may have been written during the years 1594 to 1596. Folio 85 being dated Dec. 5, 1594(This is a sample page), and Folio 4 being dated 27 Jan. 1595. The Promus was a private note book and was unknown to the public for a period of more than 200 years after it was written.
Now it is a significant fact that Bacon in the works published under his own name makes very little use of the notes he had jotted down in the Promus . What was the object of making this collection of phrases, etc.? The answer is that they were used in his dramatic works published by Bacon in the name of ''William Shakespeare.'' A great number of these entries are reproduced in the ''Shakespeare'' plays. An appendix to the book has a table illustrating the many entries which also appear in the works of Shakespeare.

Yoiu may try to get over this fact by contending that these expressions were in common use at the time, but Bacon would not be such a fool as to waste his time by making a note of anything that was commonly current. The words and expressions in the Promus occur so frequently in the ''Shakespeare'' plays that it is quite clear that the author of the Plays had seen and made use of the "Promus "and Will Shakesper could not have seen Francis Bacon's private notebook.

The most important evidence in the Promus is the word ALBADA, Spanish for good dawning (Folio 112). This expression good dawning' only appears once in English print, namely, in the play of King Lear where we find "Good dawning to thee friend," Act 2, Scene 2. This word ALBADA is in the Promus 1594-96 and King Lear was not published until 1600's.If Will Shaksper had not seen the "Promus", and as he could not read Spanish, it would mean that some friend had found this word ALBADA, meaning good dawning and told Shaksper about it, and that Shaksper then put the word into King Lear, which sounds highly improbable. A part of one of the folios in the "Promus "is devoted by Bacon to the subject of salutations such as good morrow, good soir, good matin, bon jour, good day. From this it would appear that Bacon wished to introduce these salutations into English speech. These notes were made in the Promus in 1596 and it is a remarkable co-incidence that in the following year 1597 the play of Romeo and Juliet was published containing some of these salutations, and they afterwards appeared in other "Shakespeare" plays good morrow being used 115 times; good day, I5 times; and good soir (even), 12 times. These words are found in the ''Shakespeare'' Plays and nowhere else.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

HRW [if you dnt mind me calling u so], you have said that it has been a while since you researched Shakespeare - or at least in view of authorship. May I ask what interest you have/had in this field? ... I ask out of curiosity ...

I will await a response.

 

[honestrosewater]

"The seacoast of Bohemia".

Or could Shakespeare have taken Greene's words,

"For it so happened that Egistus King of Sycilia, who in his youth had bin brought vp with Pandosto, desirous to shew that neither tracte of time, nor distance of place could diminish their former friendship, prouided a nauy of ships, and sailed into Bohemia to visite his old friend and companion"

to mean that Bohemia had a port (and seacoast)?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Are you aware of the legal and scientific excerpts in the Works that an ordinary individual could not have access to? Are you also aware of the correspondence between the NEW scientific theories Sit Francis Bacon was theorising about that 'happened' to appear literally in the plays? I will post them for you if you are not aware of these.

 

[honestrosewater]

King John
"Instances are to be met with, no doubt, of popular authors with favourite words and mannerisms being imitated in a slavish way, but Francis Bacon was not just the man to do this."

That's quite an assertion- "Bacon was just not the man to do this."?

Anyway, Shakespeare was the man to do something like that- he copied sometimes almost word-for-word. Which was published first? If Bacon's was available to Shakespeare, it's not so surprising. Even if they don't have access to each other's work publicly (as in by being published), they still could have access to each other's work through their private circle of friends and associates. This is still similarities and speculation.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

What of the Promus? Did Shakespeare have access to that? It seems like no-one had access to it until 200 years after Bacon's death.

And yes, he was just not the man to do this [- this being slavishly following other's works]. Shakespeare was not the man to do this as compared to the people of his time. They were not the kind of people to do this. That is what made Bacon the brilliant man he was - and to sum of us - still is. Bacon created the English language because he lived his works. Simple example - his Promus. He set out to create this work in order to have the effect it had. This is not that far fetched as you might think - he did the same for English law, Science, and every other concievable parts of Elizebethan society.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I'll leave you to it Stratfordian ;D

 

[honestrosewater]

Othello
Yet the presumed author died in 1616. How is it possible to reconcile these facts with the orthodox theory? It could only be done by conjecturing, for example, that although Shakspere mentioned neither books nor manuscripts in his otherwise detailed will,

From Shakespeare’s will:
“All the rest of my goodes Chattels, Leases, plate, jewles and Household stuffe”
Could books and manuscripts not possibly fall into this catchall?

There are several other assumptions made in this. The most important thing the author fails to mention:

“According to the Accounts of the Masters of the Revels (published in 1842) Othello was performed in 1604. The full entry reads: 'By the King's Majesty's Players. Hallowmas Day, being the first of November, a play in the banqueting house at Whitehall called "The Moor of Venice"'. Other evidence supports the fact Shakespeare wrote the play in or before 1604. As William Rolfe explains in his book A Life of William Shakespeare:
Stokes (Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays) shows that it was written before 1606 by the fact that in the quarto of 1622 (i.1.4) we find the oath "S'blood" (God's blood), while this is omitted in the folio. This indicates that the quarto was printed from a copy made before the act of Parliament issued in 1606 against the abuse of the name of God in plays, etc. So "Zounds" and "by the mass" (in ii.3) are found in the quarto but not in the folio. (293)
Eighteen years passed before Othello was first put into print in 1622 by Thomas Walkley. Walkley's was a quarto edition, known as Q1, and it was the last Shakespearean edition of a single play before the collected edition, known as the First Folio collection by Heminge and Condell, in 1623."

The quarto is dated to before 1606- it was at least 16 years old when published. Shakespeare could have made changes to the play in the meantime, before he died. This is even more likely because Othello was one of his most popular plays and was performed several times.

 

[honestrosewater]

Now how did William Shakspere of Stratford become acquanited with these idiosyncrasies of a Cambridge professor...?

How, indeed. How did you become familiar with them, you were not even alive then, were you?
People tell stories, and they get passed along to other people. Again, Shakespeare and Bacon were contemporaries, it does not surprise me that they would know some of the same stories. They had friends, friends tell stories to each other, especially back then when there was no tv, especially a bunch of actors and writers- stories are their business. It is not difficult for me to imagine Bacon telling his friends about this horrid professor at Cambridge.
That is still a similarity. There are lots of them, between lots of people.

“Hang-hog is latten for Bacon, I warrant you."

does not necessarily refer to that anecdote- one Bacon site said it clearly does- I heartily disagree- these things defy clarity.

Can you explain why the judge is now the mistress? Or is F. Bacon the mistress? Or is that not the point? Or is that precisely the point?

"SIR HUGH EVANS Remember, William; focative is caret.

MISTRESS (QUICKLY) And that's a good root.”

Did one of Bacon's relaitives have a carrot farm?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I'll repeat what I had already posted:

"Dr. Caius died in July, 1573, at which time the reputed poet was living at Stratford, nine years old. The controversy, as it raged in Cambridge and as it is reflected in the play, was a personal one, and in the absence of newspapers or equivalent means of disseminating general information, could hardly have been beyond university circles. Francis Bacon...entered the university in April 1573, three months before Dr. Caius' death and in the height of the prevailing excitement."

Coincedence? Maybe. Coincedence? Maybe not if we add everything up. Don't you think it is possible there maybe some link?

"SIR HUGH EVANS Remember, William; focative is caret.

MISTRESS (QUICKLY) And that's a good root.”

Did one of Bacon's relaitives have a carrot farm?



I understand your reserve in linking the two sentences together, but you cannot ignore hundreds of these - many more convincing links between Bacon and Shakespeare. You are denying the 'necesseity' for certain clues to mean Bacon was the author. True. For all you're evidence nothing necessitates Shakespeare to be the author. You have to weigh the total evidence on both sides. Do not jumpt the gun - deny the possibilities - or attribrute evidence to be improbable on whatever grounds you feel necessery. But you can't force a conclusion from me on a signal piece of evidence ... anyway - the best is yet to come ;D

I'll let you sift through the rest.