Actual Author of Shakespeare's Works

[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.

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

I am a writer.

I can't respond to the other posts. They are the same as the ones before them.

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

No, thanks. Assumptions, interpretations, similarities- these things will not convince me. Of course, post them for other's sake if you like.
I would love to hear something I can accept as evidence. Like who you think pretended to be poet Shakespeare.

 

[honestrosewater]

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

Yes, I think it’s possible. I also think it’s possible the Bible is true. But since I have so much reliable evidence to the contrary, and so little reliable evidence in the affirmative, I think it is possible, but unlikely.
Lets not confuse quantity with quality. I’m sure you can give examples all day long, but I need a certain kind of evidence to change my mind- the kind of evidence I explained earlier.

I'll look at the Promus and get back to you on this.

For all you're evidence nothing necessitates Shakespeare to be the author.

Do you reject or accept the public records in the link I provided?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I would love to hear something I can accept as evidence. Like who you think pretended to be poet Shakespeare.

If 'Who' or 'What I think' was evidence to you - we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, thanks. Assumptions, interpretations, similarities- these things will not convince me.

Surely not. Assumptions, interpretations, and similarities are the basis of your own theories about the origin of the plays.
(If you can say anything without assumptions of any kind, or discuss history without interpretations - I'll eat my hat collection ;D)

I will further comment on you links soon, as for now I will provide more things for you to think about (Maybe a little maths will help)

 

[quddusaliquddus]

How do you explain the deep intrenchment of the Plays in Freemasonry without referral to Sir Francis Bacon? Do you have the background info on Shakespeare that explains this? How do you explain the presence of these scinetific legal etc... information within the plays?..without saying he piucked it up from sumwhere...you don't mean to say you don't know the life Shakespeare? - read on Bacon. Would you say the expressions of the Plays make it unique - amongst other things - the expressions are the most powerful presence of the Plays influence we can observe to date.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

In the play, "Love's Labour's Lost," the author puns twice in the French language--once when he use the word "capon" in the double sense of a fowl and a love letter, and again when he uses the word "paint" in the double sense of the tip of a sword and a strong French negative. If follows that the author must have had not only a knowledge of the French language, but was also a fluent French scholar. This play also contains many sentences in Latin, Spanish and Italian.
It must be remembered that Francis Bacon spent nearly three years in France in his youth after leaving Cambridge.

Label this fact all you like - can you explain how the ugly ducklin not only turned into swan but also was fluent enough to be witty with so many languages. Convinced you may not be of Bacon (yet) - are you still convinced of Shakespeare being this energetic learner of all without any resources?

In "Henry VI," Part 2, is a character, Lord Saye, a Justice, who is arrested by Cade and accused of various crimes and misdemeanours. In the Quarto Editions of 1594, 1600 and 1619 he answers his accusers in four lines, but in the First Folio of 1623 his speech is enlarged and contains the following lines:

"Justice with favour have I always done
Prayers and tears have mov'd me, gifts could never.
What have I aught exacted at your hands
But to maintain the King, the realm and you?
Large gifts have I bestow'd on learned clerks,
Because my book preferred me to the King."
-Act 4, Scene 7.
Is it a coincidence that three passages in this speech clearly apply to Francis Bacon?
1.- The judge denies that he has received gifts and been guilty of bribery. Why make this denial when he is not accused of bribery in the play? Francis Bacon, who fell from power in 1621 under charges of bribery, always strenuously denied these charges, declaring them to be false and of which subsequent history has proved him innocent.

2. -The judge states that he had sent a book of which he was author to the King and had been "preferred" on account of it.
Bacon sent a copy of his Novum Organon in 1620 to King James, who immediately afterwards created him Viscount St. Alban.

3.- The judge states that he has bestowed large gifts on persons of subordinate rank. Bacon was noted for his generosity to the same class of people, and gave large gratuities to messengers who came to him with gifts from various friends.
Note that the above additions to Lord Saye's speech were made after 1621 when Bacon was accused of bribery, and seven years after the death of Will Shaksper in 1616.

This is not coincedence - its correlation.

Your mentioning the Bible reminds me of this:

It is supposed to be a coincidence that in the 46th psalm the 46th word from the beginning is "shake," and the 46th word from the end is "speare."

In earlier editions of the Bible we find the position of these two words "shake" and "speare" to be as follows:

1535 or Coverdale Bible---56th word dwon is "shook," 47 word up "speare."
1539 or Great Bible---46th word down "shake," 48th word up "speare."
1560 or Geneva Bible--- 47th word down "shake," 44th word up "speare."
1568 or Bishop Bible--- 47th word down "shake," 48th word up "speare."
Is it a coincidence that in the 1611 Bible, the 46th word from the beginning of the 46th Psalm is "shake," and the 46th word from the end "speare?" We submit that Francis Bacon, who on an accumulation of evidence, is believed to have been responsible for the final editing of the 1611 Bible, took the opportunity, by making small verbal alterations in the 46th Psalm, of earmarking his associations as "Shakespeare" with this version of the Bible.

Even Macaulay admits that Bacon "in perceiving analogies between things which had nothing in common had no equal."

Francis Bacon expressed his intentions of reforming the English language, which, in Elizabethan times, was so uncouth that it was necessary for an educated man to express his thoughts in Latin.

Is it a coincidence that "Shakespeare" had exactly the same idea, and proceeded to carry it out by coining entirely new words derived from Latin sources and inserting them in the "Shakespeare" plays?"

The following are a few examples of brand new words coined by "Shakespeare" and used for the first time in the Shakespeare plays:

Abruption, from ab-rumpere, to break off, to terminate suddenly.
Absolute, from absolvere, to free, as from doubt
Admittance, from ad-mittere, to admit, as into Society
Affront, from ad-frontem, to meet face to face, to accost, without any feeling of hostility.
Antre, from antrum, cave.
Assubjugate, from as-subjugare, to debase.
Cadent, from cadere, to fall.
Capitulate, from capitulare, to make terms, not necessarily in surrender.
Captious, from capere, to receive.
Character, from Greek character, instrument for marking.
Circummure, from circummurare, to wall around.
Civil, from civis, citizen.
Conflux, from confluere, to flow together
Conspectuities, form conspicere, to behold
Continuate, from continuatus, enduring.
Constringed, from con-stringere, to draw together
Convent, from con-venire, to come together.
Convive, from conv-vivere, to live or feast together.
Credent, from credere, to believe.
Derogate, from derogare, to rule.
Directitude, from dirigere, to rule.
Expiate, from ex-pirari, to expire, come to an end.
Fluxive, from fluere, to flow.
Iterance, from iterare, to repeat.
Sanctuarize, from Sanctus, holy.


Francis Bacon was a profound and critical classical scholar and so was "Shakespeare," as the above examples of words coined by him clearly show.

In 1595 a book entitled Polimanteia was printed in Cambridge and signed W.C., which is considered to stand for William Clerke, who was a scholar there. The book contains a letter addressed to the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, and the Inns of Court. In the margin of the text of this letter are found the names of many persons who in the author's opinion had done honour to those institutions by their presence as students in one or more of them.

We find the word "Lucrecia" preceding the words "Sweet Shake-speare." This implies that Sweet Shake-speare, the author of Lucrece, was a member of one of these universities. No person of the name of Shakespeare was ever enrolled at any of these institutions. Sir Sidney Lee's only comment on this fact is: "In 1595 William Clerke in his Polimanteia gave all praise to Sweet Shakespeare for his Lucretia." Sir Sidney Lee, who was entirely unscupulous when dealing with "Shakespere," purposely suppresses the fact that the author of Polimanteia tells us that "Shakespeare" was a member of one of those universities, because, had he done so, he would have been asked for some evidence that Will Shaksper had attended a university, of which of course there is no evidence whatsoever. In the same way, in every edition of Lee's Life of Shakespeare, we find the statement that the present monument at Stratford was erected shortly after Shaksper's death, although Lee knew perfectly well that the present statue was erected in 1748.
It must be remembered that Polimanteia was printed one year after "Shakespeare's " Lucrece was published, and before the publication of any of the "Shakespeare" plays.
Is it a coincidence that "Shakespeare" (the author of Lucrece) and Francis Bacon were both educated at a university?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

"Othello" chides Desdemona for losing the handkerchief he had given her as his first love token in the following words:

"There's magic in the web of it,
A Sybil that numbered in the world
The sun to course two hundred compasses,
In her prophetic fury, sew'd the work."

This passage shows us that "Shakespeare" must have been able to read Italian in the original, since the unusual phrase "prophetic fury" is taken form Orlando Furioso by Ariosto, where we find the words "furor prophetico" used in the description of a woman, sibyl-like, weaving a cloth of magic virtues.
There is no evidence that Will Shaksper could either speak or read Italian.
Is it a coincidence that Bacon in his acknowledged works makes free use of Italian literature, and quotes it in its own language?

In "The Merchant of Venice" we find the following

"This night, methinks, is but the daylight sick,
It looks a little paler: 'tis a day
Such as the day is when the sun is hid."
-Act 5, Scen 1
In Italy the light of the moon and stars is almost as yellow as the sunlight in England.
How did Will Shaksper know this if he had never been to Italy(of which there is no evidence?)
In the play "The Winter's Tale" we find the following:

"The Princesse hearing of her mother's statue, a piece many yeeres in doing, and now newly perform'd by that rare Italian Master, Julio Romano."
- Act 5, Scene 2
Here we find Guilio Romano described as a rare sculptor, but in "Shakespeare's" time Romano was known as a painter and architect only, not as a sculptor.
Vasari, however, in 1550 and again in 1568, described him as a sculptor-- on both occasions in Italian, not in English.
This means that "Shakespeare" must have studied Vasari in the original Italian, or else had actually been in Mantua and seen Romano's sculptured works.
No evidence exists that Will Shaksper could read Italian or had ever traveled abroad.
In "Shakespeare's " day there was at Venice a common ferry at two places, Fusina and Mestre--the ferries in Venice being called Traghetti.

In the play "Merchant of Venice" we find the lines:

"Unto the tranect, to the common ferry
Which trades to Venice."
-Act 3, Scene 4
The word "tranect" appears to be a misprint for "traject"; presumably the printers would not understand such an uncommon expression as "traject."
If the author of this play had not personally visited Italy, how did he know that there was such a ferry and such a boat? If he had not visited Italy, how did he know that the exact distance from Mantebello to Padua is twenty miles, for he must have done so because in this play Portia and Nerissa have to travel between these two places, and we find in the play the line:

"For we must measure twenty miles to-day."
Act 3, Scene 4.

The author of this play could not have obtained his knowledge of Venice from any description of that city published in England, because the play was written in 1600, and the first description of Venice is Coryat's dated 1611.
The author of The Taming of the Shrew must also have had a good knowledge of the Italian language, because Cambio (the name taken by Lucentio when he changes places with his servant, Tranio) means exchange.
From 1585 to 1600 Corregio's famous picture of Jupiter and Io was in the palace of the palace of the sculptor Leoni at Milan, and was constantly viewed by travellers.

In the "Introduction" to The Taming of the Shrew we find
the words :

"We'll show thee Io as she was a maid,
And how she was beguiled and surpris'd,
As lively painted as the deed was done."
which is clearly a reference to Corregio's picture at Milan.
In "Shakespeare's" time there were no guide books for the use of travellers, and he could not have gathered his knowledge of Italy from such sources. There is no evidence that Will Shaksper ever left England; on the other hand Francis Bacon spent three years traveling on the continent.

Will Shaksper is stated to have died on the 23rd April, 1616. The same year George Sandys published Journey, in which, referring to the Pontic sea, he says: "This sea is ...much annoyed with ice in the winter. The Bosphorus setteth with a strong current into Propontis."

Is it a coincidence that in the play of "Othello" in the First Folio, we find almost the same words? They read:
"Like to the Pontic sea whose icy current
...keeps due on to the Propontic?'
Act 3, Scene 3.

These words could not have been used by Will Shaksper, who had died shortly after Sandy's book was published.
They do not appear in the play of "Othello," published in quarto in 1622 and first appeared in The First Folio of 1623.

Is it also a coincidence that the two seas east and west of the Bosphorus are mentioned under similar names both by "Shakespeare" and Bacon--Shakespeare calling them "Pontic and Propontic," and Bacon in his treatise entitled "De Fluxu et Refluxu Maris," calling them "Pontus and Propontis?"

Ben Jonson in his Discoveries, writing of Francis Bacon, says:

"He hath performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome;
and in his dedicatory verses in the First Folio of "Shakespeare" Jonson uses practically the same words, as follows :

"for the comparison of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome sent forth."
Is this a coincidence? Does it not show that these expressions were intended to refer to the same man?

In the play of "Henry VI," Part 1, is a scene (Act 3, Scene 3) in which Joan of Arc has an interview with the Duke of Burgundy, and asks him to abandon the cause of the English and join the French King.There is no historical record that this interview ever took place.

In 1780 someone in France printed a letter, dated 17th July, 1429, written by Joan of Arc to the Duke of Burgundy, and this letter contains a passionate appeal to the Duke to take precisely the identical course urged upon him in the play. It is clear that the existence of this letter was unknown in England in Shakespeare's time---if it had been it was so imporant that it would have been mentioned by Hall or Holinshed or some other English chronicler.



The letter appears also to have been unknown in France until it was discovered and printed 350 years after it was written. Is it a coincidence that somehow or other the author of "Henry VI" was acquainted with an important fact in French history that was not discovered until more than 200 years after the date of this play? Not the slightest evidence exists to show that Will Shaksper was ever in France, but the author "Shakespeare" was in France and visited the scenes made memorable in the play, and he may have personally gathered some oh his material from the French and Burgundian national archives.

In "All's Well that Ends Well" we read:
"I am St. St. Jacques' pilgrim, thither gone."
Act 3, Scene 4.

Is it a coincidence that at the time when Francis Bacon visited Orleans there was a church there dedicated to St. Jacques?

It seems doubtful whether this fact was then known in England, and the line quoted above seems to have been dragged in for some purpose, since it has no relation to the dramatic progress of the play. For "Shakespeare's" purpose one saint was as good as another, so why mention St. Jacques in particular?
"Shakespeare" was familiar with the old classical myths and legends, for in the plays there are 174 different names of the characters around which these myths cluster.

Is it a coincidence that Francis Bacon in 1609 published a book in Latin called The Wisdom of the Ancients, which analyses and explains some of the most prominent Greek and Roman myths; and is it also a coincidence that, of the 174 different names of the characters above referred to, 132 are found in Bacon's prose works; there being eighty-five of these names that are common to "Shakespeare's" and Bacon's works?

================
There are many more.
If coincidence then point to another author of the same time who had 1/10th of the number of coincedences as that between Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon - and we are not finished yet ;D

 

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

i don't know who it is, but i don't believe its Shakespear, like you guys said Sir Bacon, how could Shakespear have the knowledge of upper class/royalty trechery, i believe it was "enter name here", Shakespear's mentor kind of deal, if you look at that mentors coat of arms you'll notice a spear held by a hand, with wigle line meaning it is shaken hence Shakespear, besides the way Shakespears writes in his plays is the way the Bourgoisie talked, not the commoner

my 2 cents

 

[zoobyshoe]

This passage shows us that "Shakespeare" must have been able to read Italian in the original, since the unusual phrase "prophetic fury" is taken form Orlando Furioso by Ariosto, where we find the words "furor prophetico" used in the description of a woman, sibyl-like, weaving a cloth of magic virtues.
There is no evidence that Will Shaksper could either speak or read Italian.

Shakespeare was clearly fascinated with Italy and set a few of his plays there. His main source of information about Italy would have been, not from books, but from people he met who had been there. He would surely have pumped them for all the information he could get out of them, including Italian phrases and poems.

Indeed, his knowledge in general was no doubt gained this way. This is the craft of the playwrite: you don't have to know everything about a certain subject. You have to have an ear for the kind of turns of speech and vocabulary that will give a dialog the ring of verisimilitude. That's all. Shakespeare had no need to read or speak Italian. He simply had to pay attention to the kinds of things that those who did speak it said. Hearing what seemed like a witticism, he would naturally stop them and ask them to explain. In this way, he becomes conversant with puns in foreign languages usually only known to people fluent in those languages.

This is how playwrites work. They are sensitive to the flavor of conversations, and to details that give them life.
Shakespeare could create the impression of knowing a great deal he probably didn't actually know in the same way he could create the sense of what it must be like to be a King, without ever having been a King. Or a gravedigger or a scullery maid or "rude mechanical" or common soldier, or a diplomat, or whatever. Is "A Midsummer's Night's Dream" evidence that it's author was good friends with fairies and wood spirits? Of course not.

"The poet's eye
In a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from Earth to heaven,
From heaven to earth,
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown
The poet's pen turns them to shapes,
And gives to airy nothing
A local habitation
And a name."

Shakespeare learned what he did know from talking to people. The rest he made up from his prodigious imagination.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

"This is how playwrites work. They are sensitive to the flavor of conversations, and to details that give them life."

If this is a common occurence amongst playwrite, kindly give us examples from his period of the same thing happening. No-one obviously matches Shakespeare's genius- agreed - but a lesser playwrites must have worked along the same lines.

Right now I am not sure about the conspiratorial side of things of the Baconian Theory as it unsettles me - involves too many weird and obscure people and organisation. What I am sure of however is that there is something to the Baconian story as I will illustrate further, hopefully