Actual Author of Shakespeare's Works

[quddusaliquddus]

Have a read of the above - post number 57. Then please look at it carefully and you will see concrete facts about the geographic knowledge - not obscure connections and generalisations like 'He jus [Italics] couldn't [/Italics] know Italy'

 

[quddusaliquddus]

The tragedy of Hamlet was written in or about 1586, but not printed until 1603. In this first draft of the play we find a letter, written by the prince to Ophelia, in which she is told she may doubt any proposition whatever, no matter how certain it may be, but under no circumstances must she doubt the writers' love. From this letter, which is partly in verse, we quote:

"Doubt that in Earth is fire,
Doubt that the stars do move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,
But do not doubt I love."--ii.2.
Among the certainties here specified, which Ophelia was at liberty to question before she could question the writers' love, is the doctrine of a central fire in the earth. "Doubt that in Earth is fire." The belief in the existence of a mass of molten matter at the centre of the Earth was then, as it is now, universal; but for some reason the author of he play changed his mind in regard to it within one year after the play was published. The second edition of Hamlet came from the press in 1604, and then the first line of the stanza, quoted above, was made to read as follows:

"Doubt that the stars are fire."
The doctrine of a central fire in the Earth was thus taken out of the play some time between the appearance of the first edition in 1603 and that of the second in 1604. How can this be accounted for? was there another person known to fame in all the civilized world at that time, besides the author of Hamlet, who entertained a doubt as to the Earth's interior? Yes, there was one, and perhaps one only. Francis Bacon wrote a tract, entitled Cogitationes de Natura Rerum , assigned to the latter part of 1603 or the early part of 1604. Mr. Spedding, the last and best editor of Bacon's works, thinks it was written before September, 1604. In this tract, evidently a fresh study of the subject, Bacon boldly took the ground that the Earth is a cold body, cold to the core, the only cold body, as he afterwards affirmed, in the entire universe, all others, sun, planets, and stars, being of fire.

It appears, then, that Bacon adopted this new view of the Earth's interior at precisely the same time that the author of Hamlet did; that is to say, according to the record, in the brief interval between the appearance of the first and that of the second editions of the drama, and, furthermore, against the otherwise unanimous opinion of the physicists throughout the world. Bacon writes:

"The heaven, from its pefect and entire heat and the extreme extension of matter, is most hot, lucid, rarefied, and moveable; whereas the earth, on the contrary, from its entire and unrefracted cold, and the extreme contraction of matter, is most cold, dark, and dense, completely immoveable...The rigors of cold, which in winter time and in the coldest countries are exhaled into the air from the surface of the earth, are merely tepid airs and baths, compared with the nature of the primal cold shut up in the bowels thereof."--Bacon's De Principiis atque Originibus

 

[quddusaliquddus]

In the second edition of Hamlet, 1604, we find the tides of the ocean attributed, in acordance with popular opinion, to the influence of the moon.

"The moist star,
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands,
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse."--i. 1.
This was repeated in the third quarto, 1605; in the fourth, 1611; in the fifth or undated quarto; but in the first folio (1623), the lines were omitted. Why?

During the Christmas revels at Gray's Inn in 1594, Bacon contributed to the entertainment, among other things, a poem in blank verse, known as the Gray's Inn Masque. It is full of those references to natural philosophy in which the author took so much delight, and especially on this occasion when Queen Elizabeth was the subject, to the various forms of attraction exerted by one body upon another in the world. Of the influence of the moon, he says:

"Your rock claims kindred of the polar star,
Because it draws the needle to the north;
Yet even that star gives place to Cynthia's rays,
Whose drawing virtues govern and direct
The flots and re-flots of the Ocean."
(The masque is not in Bacon's name, but no one can read it and doubt its authorship. Bacon was the leading promoter of these revels.)

At this time, then, Bacon held to the common opinion that the moon controls the tides; but later in life, in or about 1616, he made an elaborate investigation into these phenomona, and in a treatise entitled De Fluxu et Refluxu Maris, definitely rejected the lunar theory.

" We dare not proceed so far as to assert that the motions of the sun or moon are the causes of the motions below, which correspond thereto; or that the sun and moon have a dominion or influence over these motions of the sea, though such kind of thoughts find an easy entrance into the minds of men by reason of the veneration they pay to the celesial bodies.

Whether the moon be in her increase or wane; whether she be above or under the earth; whether she be elevated higher or lower above the horizon; whether she be in the meridian or elsewhere; the ebb and flow of the sea have no correspondence with any of these phenomona."- Bacon's De Fluxu et Refluxu Maris

In every edition of Hamlet published previously to 1616, the theory is stated and approved; in every edition published after 1616, it is omitted.

The titles are attributed to the influence of the moon in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and the 'Winter's Tale'; but both these plays were written long before the date of Bacon's change of opinion on the subject. The former we know was not revised by the author for publication in the folio; and we have no reason to believe that the latter, then printed for the first time, underwent any revision after 1616.

The same theory is stated, also, in 'King Lear' and the 'First Part of Henry IV'; but the tragedy was in existence in 1606, and the historical play considerably earlier. The 'Tempest' was written in 1613.

It should be added, however, that the spring or monthly tides were ascribed by Bacon to the influence of the moon.

The passage from ' Hamlet' has been restored to the text by modern editors.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

In 'Hamlet', again, we have a singular doctrine in the sphere of moral philosophy, advanced by the author in his early years but subseqently withdrawn.

The prince, expostulating with his mother in the celebrated chamber-scene where Polinus was hidden behind the arras, says to her,--

"Sense, sure, you have,
Else could you not have motion." iii. 4 (1604).
The commentators can make nothing of these words. One of them suggests that for "motion" we substitute notion; another, emotion. Others still contend that the misprint is in the first part of the sentence; that "sense" must be understood to mean sensation or sensibility. Dr. Ingleby is certain that Hamlet refers to the Queen's wanton impulse. The difficulty is complicated, too, by the fact that the lines were omitted from the revised version of the play in the folio of 1623, concerning which, however, the most daring commentator has not ventured to offer a remark. But in Bacon's prose works we find not only an explanation of the passage in the quarto, but also the reason why it was excluded from the folio.

The 'Advancement of Learning' was published in 1605, one year after the quarto of ' Hamlet' containing the sentence in question appeared; but no repudiation of the old doctrine, that everything that has motion must have sense, is found in it. Indeed, Bacon seems to have had at that time a lingering opinion that the doctrine is true, even as applied to the planets, in the influence which these wanderers were then supposed to exert over the affairs of men. But in 1623 he published a new edition of the 'Advancement' in Latin, under the title of De Augmentis Scientiarum, and therein expressly declared that the doctrine is untrue; that there can be motion in inanimate bodies without sense, but with what he called a kind of perception. He said:

"Ignorance on this point drove some of the ancient philosophers to suppose that a soul is infused into all bodies without distinction; for they could not conceive how there can be motion without sense, or sense without a soul."

The Shake-speare folio with its revised version of Hamlet came out in the same year (1623); and the passage in question, having run through all previous editions of the play,-- i.e., in 1604, in 1605, in 1611, and in the undated quarto,--but now no longer harmonizing with the author's views, dropped out

 

[quddusaliquddus]

In Bacon's Apotheghems it is said that, "The book of deposing Richard the Second, and the coming in of Henry the Fourth, supposed to be written by Dr. Hayward, who was committed to the Tower for it, had much incensed Elizabeth, and she asked Mr. Bacon, being then of her learned counsel: Whether there were no treason contained in it? Mr. Bacon, intending to do him a pleasure, and to take off the Queen's bitterness with a jest, answered:

"No, madam, for treason I cannot deliver opinion that there is any, but very much felony." The Queen apprehending it gladly, asked: "How and wherein?" Mr. Bacon answered: "Because he had stolen many of his sentences and conceits out of Cornelius Tacitus."

In an early number of Baconiana, a writer showed that whole pages of The Annals of Tacitus were used in Richard II. The play was staged in 1597, during the Essex Rebellion and before, and Bacon, at the trial of Essex makes the cryptic remark: "It is said I gave in evidence mine own tales." All these indications point to Bacon's connection with Richard II.

Mr. Henry Seymour pointed out the extraordinary fact that this play was published annonymously in the first instance, and that only when the Queen was hunting for it's author to rack him, the new edition of 1598 was issued with the name of "William Shakespeare" as author! Was this the moment to print a real author's name upon it? It plainly shows that this name was but a pseudonym, that Bacon was the concealed author, and that his knowledge of its "cribbing" from Tacitus was an unconscious admission of the fact.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Bacon speaks again and again of Richard II, and in a letter to the Earl of Devonshire, says:

" I remember an answer of mine in a manner which had some affinity* with my Lord's cause; which, though it grew from me, went after about in other's names; for her Majesty being mightily incensed with that book which dedicated to my Lord Essex, being a story of the first year of King Henry IV, thinking it a seditious prelude to put into the people's heads boldness and faction, said, she had an opinion there was treason in it, and asked me if I could not find any places in it that might be drawn with case of treason... And, another time, when the Queen could not be persuaded that it was his writing whose name was to it, but that it had some more mischievous author...said with great indignation that she would have him "racked to produce his author."
==============================================================
*the prose work of Henry IV, ascribed to John Hayward, was to all intents and purposes, the life of Richard II. Only a small portion at the end is concerned with Henry IV, the main text with Richard.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

How do you explain this:

The "Shakespeare" Play, Timon of Athens, was never printed in quarto and, so far as is known, never produced on any stage, previously to its appearance in the First Folio of 1623. Contemporary literature gives no hint of its existence prior to 1623. The question may therefore be asked ''If this play was written by Will Shaksper, where was the manuscript during the period between Shaksper's death in 1616 and its appearance seven years afterwards in the Folio?"

If it was sent by Shaksper to Heminge and Condell, then it is remarkably strange that they did not inform the literary coterie in London that they had in their possession a brand-new play by Shaksper which had never been heard of before! If for some unknown reason they wished to keep this fact secret, then surely when they were gathering together the plays for publication in the Folio they would have been only too delighted to have informed the Reader that they were printing for the first time a Shakespeare play which had never been performed on any stage.

On the other hand, they give the reader the impression that all the plays printed in the Folio were known to the public, because in their preface

"To the Great Variety of Readers'' they state that ''these Plaies have had their triall alreadie and stood out all applause" and "before you were abused with diverse stolne and surreptitious copies."

They also say 'What he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers,'' which implies that they had received the manuscripts of the plays direct from the author's hands.

Will Shaksper having died seven years before the publication of the Folio, this must mean that Shaksper had handed over this play of Timon of Athens to Heminge and Condell in his lifetime, and if this was so it is certainly extraordinary that Heminge and Condell never mentioned this fact to anybody.

Ulrici referring to this play, writes that ''no one could have painted misanthropy with such truth and force without having experienced its bitter agony." Yet Sir Sidney Lee writes that "Shakspere's career shows an unbroken progress of prosperity and there is no support for the suggestion of a prolonged personal experience of tragic suffering."

On the other hand, the experiences of Francis Bacon after his fall from power are precisely similar to those of Timon in this play, because he suffered from the ingratitude of a great number of his so-called friends who deserted him, as witness his letters to Buckingham and King James. It must be remembered that Bacon fell from power in 1621, and the play of Timon is first heard of two years afterwards, in 1623.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

A handwriting expert has added weight to claims that the Elizabethan author and philosopher Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

Maureen Ward-Gandy claims it is "highly probable" that Bacon was the author of a recently discovered manuscript describing a scene which bears a striking similarity to one from Henry IV. She compared a copy of the handwritten document, thought to date back to the 1590s when Henry IV was written and published, with the handwriting of 30 well-known scholars and statesmen of the Elizabethan era.

Mrs. Ward-Gandy's strong belief that the handwriting is Bacon's has been hailed by Bacon supporters as a major breakthrough in proving the true authorship of the 38 plays, 150 sonnets and two long poems which bear William Shakespeare's name.

The debate over who wrote what, which has dogged literary critics for more than a century, resurfaced recently when the manuscript went on sale at Sotheby's. Comprising a single sheet of 57 neatly handwritten lines, the document was expected to fetch up to £12,000 but was unsold. It has since been returned to its secret owner.

Mrs. Ward-Gandy, who outlined her findings in a 20-page report, is a forensic document examiner, a job which often involves studying handwriting for the police and Home Office to establish fraud. She said "The shapes of the letters and style of writing in the manuscript point to the writing being that of Bacon. It is very exciting and could settle the argument once and for all that the Shakespeare plays were in fact written by Bacon."

The scene in the manuscript describes a conversation in which an innkeeper tells two thieves of "a man that lodged in our house/Last night that hath three hundred markes in gold." Similar conversations in an almost identical setting are described in Henry IV.

Francis Carr, historian and the Director of the Shakespeare Authorship Information Centre in Brighton, believes the document was a reject script for Henry IV. Mr. Carr, who dedicated 30 years to proving authorship, believes Bacon was writing under the pseudonym of William Shakespeare. "I think this is probably a breakthrough to the whole authorship mystery," he said. "It could bring the whole subject into the open again. The information we have built up pointing to Bacon could blow the whole of Stratford sky high."

From London Evening Standard, July 30, 1992

 

[quddusaliquddus]

1587 Sir Francis Bacon assists in presenting at Gray's Inn Revels an anonymous play The Tragedy of Arthur, a reminiscence of King John, containing many extracts found in his notebook, the Promus (With The Promus alone might a brief be made for the plaintiff)

Can speculate that his Order of the Knights of the Helmet was forming with the University wits around this time?

Shake-speare a mature poet by this time :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Bacon's name is hidden throughout the original 1623 Folio of Shakespearean plays. This "B" with "Francis" and "Bacon" inserted in the scrollwork is from the first word of The Tempest, Boteswaine The story was first published in 1931 in the Cincinnati Times-Star newspaper and in the Literary Digest:

1624 November: The Great Shakespeare Folio of 1623 , edited by Ben Jonson, consisting of thirty-six plays, many never heard of before, is published.

 

[honestrosewater]

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

Yes, but there was a body, a walking, talking body. Unless you deny that there had to be a face to the poet, then your case is mightily weakened if you do not have an explanation for whose face it was. I say it was player Shakespeare.

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)

Yes, but this goes back to my post about the reliability of evidence. Some assumptions are reasonable- like that people had eyes and could recognize a face by looking at it.

I have barely gotten into my theories. If you would kindly answer my question. Who was Greene referring to as the "upstart crow"? That is a very straightforward question.

There are some interesting things in your posts, sure. But there are some troubling problems with them as well.

Do you reject the evidence that the 1622 Othello quarto was published from a copy at least 16 years old?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

None of those posts contains a scrap of reliable evidence.

It looks like trying to find a reliable piece of evidence in support of Bacon is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

If you have reliable evidence in support of Bacon- please share.

So far, your case is airy nothing.

The author had a local habitation and a name.

Who was the person walking the streets of London and being called William Shakespeare?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I believe there might be a flaw in your logic. It is ok that you turn to the question of 'who was the walking-talking Shakespeare?'. It's ok that you criticize the evidence.
But its not ok that you call the evidence unreliable without saying why. It's not ok that you use the existence of a man called Shakespeare to dismiss the evidence.

You're running in circles my friend.

None of those posts contains a scrap of reliable evidence.

Please explain.

Who was the person walking the streets of London and being called William Shakespeare?

I haven't denied Shakespeare's existence. I have showed you however that all the evidence points to Sir Francis Bacon being the author of the Plays. I am also showing you the lack of information on the person by the name of Shakespeare and the improbablity of his having the basic knowledge to have written the plays.

Please show how the evidence is faulty.

Please show proof of the authorship of the plays by Shakespeare [not just the existence of a man by that name]. When you cannot do this - please show the sources of his vast knowledge - knowledge only comparable to that of Sir Francis Bacon.

Show how Bacon could not have written the plays using Shakespeare as a mask.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Have a read of the above - post number 57. Then please look at it carefully and you will see concrete facts about the geographic knowledge - not obscure connections and generalisations like 'He jus [Italics] couldn't [/Italics] know Italy'

As I said, all he needed to include any information about Italy in his plays was to have talked to people who'd been to Italy. The fact he seems to speak from first hand knowledge is, as I said, what all playwrites do with all situations they treat. Shakespeare did not have to be a King to write so effectively about Kings. Nor did he have to have been to Italy, or speak Italian.

Shouldn't we, by your logic, assume that Bacon, if he actually wrote these plays, must also have been secretly a Monarch to write so knowingly about the emotional details that only someone in the position of Monarch could actually experience? Was "Bacon" not really a pseudonym for "Elizabeth"? If not, why not? Why otherwise the fascination with Monarchy in these plays? Doesn't this constitute evidence, by your logic, of the hand of a Monarch behind these plays? Think about it. Isn't there a woman who dresses up to pass herself off as a man in one of "Shakespeare'"s plays? Goodness, that must be some kind of clue! Let's play connect the dots and what do we end up with? It was a secret admission by Elizabeth of the male pseudonym under which she authored the plays of "Shakespeare".

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, here is an example of what I consider the difference between reliable evidence and pure speculation.

In the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27328:

Ahhhh, so that's what you meant. In that case, let's get those philosophers to the wheel.

Now, to what wheel is Les referring? I could speculate the he was referring to the wheel they used to strap people to for torturing during the middle ages. This makes sense, but is pure speculation.

Reliable evidence, however, would be the previous post in the same thread:

All philosophers should eb rounded up and made to pull a big wheel around like the one in Conan the Babarian.

That is the difference. One explanation is pure speculation, the other is reliable evidence. And, in the face of reliable evidence, I think pure speculation must be abandoned. Evidence beats speculation, IMO.

Of course, I don't *know* what was in Les's mind, so I must make an assumption. But all assumptions are not equal, and I can still make the distinction of how *reasonable* an assumption is.

More in a bit.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Ok. We can argue on what a reasonable assumption is etc ... and explore the boundaries of our definitions etc ... It will get us nowhere unless we happen to agree. Where we differ on reasonability - we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think it'd be better to stick to the specifics when possible.

Sticking to specifics means as you said looking at the evidence or of lack thereof.

Thank you for your analogy. If you can apply it to the information I have provided above - then please do so.

Very simple thing I'm saying here - if you have an objection to a piece of information above - then state your objection to it by saying what you find objectionable. If you say a piece of information is unreliable - state your reason. Surely you can't expect me to agree with your views if you don't provide reasons for them.

 

[honestrosewater]

As I said, all he needed to include any information about Italy in his plays was to have talked to people who'd been to Italy... [entire post]

For what it's worth, I am a writer, and zoobyshoe is correct- that is how I write, it is how many writers write- though I can't speak for *all* of them- some are whackos ;)

I realize the intention of your remarks, but I want to point out something.
There were many times women dressed up as men, and not only in Shakespeare's, but in other people's plays as well- even before Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare also concealed women in darkness- several times.
In Measure for Measure:
"He persuades Isabella to feign acceptance of Angelo's offer; when the moment comes, Mariana will switch places in the dark with Isabella (the bed trick of All's Well That Ends Well being used again)."
And think also of Don John's trick with Hero and her Maid in Much Ado About Nothing.

And it's not only women.
Henry V disguises himself and talks to the soldiers in their camp before the battle.

All of these are old tricks. Sure, they could point to Elizabeth as the author. BUT that is just speculation. They could point to lots of things. For instance, that the author thought they were useful dramatic devices.

The Queen Elizabeth theory meets with the same problem- there was a face to the name. If the poet Shakespeare was not the already familiar player Shakespeare (who performed before the Queen), who was it?

BTW I too keep notes of sayings, ideas, etc. for use in my writing. And I hardly use any of them- some may spark something that gets transformed into something barely recognizable. The process of writing- especially great writing- is not so straightforward.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Ok HRW. I welcome your remarks. I guess I have been putting off on making an affirmitive statement on the existence of actor Shakespeare because I am not 100% sure of Baconian theories. I am open to new (or old ;D) opinions. I will for the moment say yes - actor Shakespeare did exist as a mask for Bacon's creative output. This is because it helps in the debate and is not because I am convinced of this - as yet anyway ;D

Hopfully this will an obstacle lifted ib our conversations

i.e.

I accept 1)the man 2) the player as having existed.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I see what zoobyshoe is trying to say. But he should really do more homework on the plays. There are some things on the play that *cannot be from a traveller's mouth. I will post a specific example below. Many things however can be explained off as having been gained from travellers/friends. But it is improbable for some information to have been gained like that - and other literary trnaslations of foreign works are impossible without knowledge and skill Bacon possessed-but also concentrated and excelled in which.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Professor Elze gives us, some curious information regarding "Shake-speare's" knowledge of Italian art,--knowledge that could have been derived, it would seem, only from personal inspection on the spot. For instance, in the 'Winter's Tale,' "Shake-speare" tells us that the statue of Hermione was the work of Giulio Romano; he dwells upon the merits of it, and of Romano's artistic qualities as a sculptor, with discriminating and enthusiastic praise.


"There is, perhaps, no description of statuary extant so admirable for its truth and beauty."--Green's Shakespeare and the Emblem Writers, p. 108.


But who ever heard, until recently, that Romano was a sculptor? Certainly not the Shakespearean critics, for they have almost universally assumed that this great master in the art of painting, Raphael's favorite pupil and successor, simply colored in this case the work of another artist. Such coloring was then, indeed, quite in vogue. Shakspere's bust at Stratford was treated in this manner, and continued so--with red lips, brown eyes, and auburn hair--until Mr. Malone, himself a learned critic, employed a common house-painter to cover it with a coat of white paint. Other critics, such as the editor of the 'Saturday Review' and Mr. Andrew Lang, characterize this reference to Romano as one of "Shake-speare's" blunders.1

It happens, however, that Vasari, who published in 1550 a work on Italian art, and who was a contemporary and personal acquaintance of Romano, states distinctly that Romano was not only a painter, but an architect and sculptor also. The statement appears in a Latin epitaph given in the book. Vasari revised and enlarged his work for a second edition in 1568, but, curiously enough, omitted the epitaph. The first edition (which was, of course, in Italian) was never translated into a foreign tongue. It was the second edition only that became known, through translations, outside of Italy. "We now stand," says Professor Elze, "before this dilemma": Either the author of the plays had read, when he wrote the 'Winter's Tale,' a copy of Vasari in the first edition (one that had long been supplanted by another, and that has not been translated to this day), and found what nobody else found for nearly three hundred years afterwards, or he had been in Mantua and seen Romano's works.

It is hardly necessary to add that every effort to find the slightest hint of foreign travel in the life of Shakspere, though made with great persistence, has thus far signally failed.

 

[honestrosewater]

qudd,
I welcome you comments as well And I hope any attack on a piece of evidence is not taken personally, as an attack against you.

I have provided reasons for my rejection of some of your arguments. I cannot provide specific reasons for all of them- this would take several days and isn't necessary because I have provided general reasons for why I reject them- I think most of them are pure speculation.
The handwriting analysis one is probably the best one so far, but even it has problems.Think of the Shroud of Turin- it has a similar bunch of problems.
http://sindone.torino.chiesacattolica.it/en/welcome.htm

As I see it, Shakespeare the player *must* be at least the face of the true author- whoever the true author is. Whether player Shakespeare was *just a mask* is the next question.
Do you agree that player Shakespeare was the face known throughout London to be the author of the plays and poems?
In addition to his contemporaries crediting Shakespeare as the author, there are records of poems being registered under that name. I'll find the links if you want; I know The Rape of Lucrece was registered in 1594. The First Folio compilers were fellow players of Shakespeare, and they would reasonably have known the name and face of player Shakespeare. And think of all the poems and plays that were published before the FF that were credited to Shakespeare. The fact that some of them were miscredited shows how famous Shakespeare was- and could not have been a name without a face.

 

[honestrosewater]

Give me some time to respond properly to the Romano argument- I want to make it a proper response should be done by 9:00 or so- I have other stuff going on too...

 

[quddusaliquddus]

9? Sorry-its 12 midnight here! wats the time there?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

"I welcome you comments as well. And I hope any attack on a piece of evidence is not taken personally, as an attack against you."

Not at all, I welcome it, infact I believe I've been asking for it :D

 

[quddusaliquddus]

The Promus needs explanation. The changes in scientific viewpoints of the plays in exact synchronisation with that of Bacon's must be explained - and reasonably so.

The names of Francis Bacon in the lettering (an image of which i posted) needs explanation.

The knowledge of Italian-things only available to Italians e.g. italian book not translated for hundreds of years into any other European language, needs explanation. Keep in mind Bacon's extensive travels there and his expertise in the language.

I don't think the handwriting analysis is the best piece of evidence I have submitted so far. Since you are impressed by numbers and not historical associations, chronological analysis (or for that matter the little problem of the lack of knowledge on part of Shakespeare-the-actor) I will submit more numbers for you to crunch...soon :D

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, Romano is something I can dig my teeth into
And here is my rebuttal, for your consideration.

First, some information:
The book is Vasari’s “The Lives of the Artists” or “The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects” (Vite de' più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori Italiani). This book was well-known, even back then. It was written by request:

One evening, in Cardinal Farnese's house, probably in 1546, the bishop of Nocera spoke of the need for a literary account of famous artists. Vasari volunteered to help Paolo Giovio in the project, but when Giovio gave up the idea of writing the book, Vasari accepted the challenge.

It was in “Lives of the Artists” that Vasari coined the term Renaissance (Rinascita). It might be fruitful to find if other writers had adopted this and other terms and used them in books available to Shakespeare; over 50 years elapsed before Shakespeare wrote “Winter’s Tale”. But I hardly have that much time ;)

The Latin epitaph in question is:

Giulio died in I546 on All Saints' Day, and the following epitaph was placed on his tomb:
Romanus moriens secum tres Julius arteis Abstulit (haud mirum) quatuor
unus erat.

Unfortunately, I cannot find the epitaph as it appeared in Vasari’s book, and it was not given in the post.

My sources date The Winter’s Tale to 1610-1611. This leaves plenty of time for knowledge of both Vasari’s 1550 and 1568 editions to spread from Italy, and be available to Shakespeare, whether by word of mouth, printed references, or otherwise. Indeed, the exact date of the play is not that important, as Shakespeare wasn’t even born until 1564.

Was Vasari’s 1550 edition the ONLY way Shakespeare could have thought Giulio Romano was a sculptor? I don’t think so, here are some alternate speculations:

Many people could have seen the tombstone and provide more ways for the knowledge of it to reach Shakespeare.

The epitaph is in Latin and Shakespeare admittedly knew a little.

Shakespeare could have had another source for this knowledge.

Shakespeare could have surmised from the title, “The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects” and the inclusion of Romano in the book that Romano was a sculptor.

Shakespeare could have inferred that Romano was a sculptor from the fact that Romano was Raphael’s chief assistant.

Shakespeare could have made a mistake about the name of the sculptor. For instance, he could have confused him with another Renaissance sculptor, Gian Romano.

Gian could have been mistranslated as Giulio in something Shakespeare read.

And so on. There is yet another possibility.

Here are 2 versions of the quote, for thoroughness. To my knowledge, there was no quarto edition; the FF was its first publication.

No: The Princesse hearing of her Mothers
Statue (which is in the keeping of Paulina) a Peece many
yeeres in doing, and now newly perform'd, by that rare
Italian Master, Iulio Romano, who (had he himselfe Eter-
nitie, and could put Breath into his Worke) would be-
guile Nature of her Custome, so perfectly he is her Ape:
He so neere to Hermione, hath done Hermione, that they
say one would speake to her, and stand in hope of answer.
Thither (with all greedinesse of affection) are they gone, [3110]
and there they intend to Sup.

No; the princess hearing of her mother’s statue, which is in the keeping of Paulina—a piece many years in doing, and now newly performed by that rare Italian master, Julio Romano; who, had he himself eternity and could put breath into his work, would beguile Nature of her custom, so perfectly he is her ape: he so near to Hermione hath done Hermione that they say one would speak to her and stand in hope of answer: thither with all greediness of affection are they gone, and there they intend to sup.

Note the lines:

a piece many years in doing, and now newly performed by that rare Italian master, Julio Romano

Shakespeare says that Romano was not the original artist, but only copied the original. Romano was well-known for his 2D copies of 3D art, for his designs/plans of such works and as an architect. And so the choice of Romano as the sculptor seems like a natural choice for Shakespeare to make- whether or not Romano was known to be a sculptor.

Add to that the fact that Shakespeare was especially fond of double meanings, and the original to which he was referring could also be Hermione the person. A statue of a person being comparable to a 2D copy of a 3D piece: missing the extra dimension, the breadth, or "breath".

Happy thoughts
Rachel

P.S. It's 9:48 here.
I spent a great amount of time trying to find the quote in the 1550 edition, which I never found. The Latin epitaph says nothing about Romano being a sculptor, unless I have mistranslated it.

 

[honestrosewater]

The Promus needs explanation. The changes in scientific viewpoints of the plays in exact synchronisation with that of Bacon's must be explained - and reasonably so.

Give me time. Besides, as I have already said, there is more reliable evidence, and I think the more reliable evidence should be considered first.

I don't think the handwriting analysis is the best piece of evidence I have submitted so far. Since you are impressed by numbers and not historical associations, chronological analysis (or for that matter the little problem of the lack of knowledge on part of Shakespeare-the-actor) I will submit more numbers for you to crunch...soon :D

The handwriting analysis is best because it is *physical* evidence, and it can possibly be connected to Bacon. Of course, there is still the problem that it is only *similar* to one of Shakespeare's works. Similarities are not reliable evidence- and they must be given their due weight.

The "lack of knowledge" is an assumption on your part. I have already explained that I think it is an unwarranted assumption. You cannot prove that Shakespeare *didn't* have access to such knowledge.
A lack of proof that he did have the knowledge is not proof that he didn't have it. And anyway, it is reasonable to assume that he *did* have access to such knowledge, as has been stated by not only myself but others as well.

I am NOT impressed by numbers. I am impressed by reliable evidence.

I think I have been fair in responding to your case, and I would like you to respond to mine.
Since you accept the existence of man, player, and poet Shakespeare. I will make the case for why man, player, and poet Shakespeare are one and the same person. And attempt to show why poet Shakespeare was not just a mask, but the true author.

I have to go now, so I'll begin my case tomorrow

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[quddusaliquddus]

To begin with - I understand there are different possible explanations as to these strange facts about Shakespeare's works; but you seem to be willing to accept any exaplanation no matter how unnatural they seem for a man of Shakespear'e's position from that period.

Yes, you are right. It's about time I responded to your pointers, therefore my next postwill deal exclusively with this-hopefully.

 

[honestrosewater]

To begin with - I understand there are different possible explanations as to these strange facts about Shakespeare's works; but you seem to be willing to accept any exaplanation no matter how unnatural they seem for a man of Shakespear'e's position from that period.

a man of Shakespeare's position?

HAMLET
'Tis well: I'll have thee speak out the rest soon.
Good my lord, will you see the players well
bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used; for
they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the
time: after your death you were better have a bad
epitaph than their ill report while you live.

LORD POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.

HAMLET
God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man
after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less
they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
Take them in.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Ben Jonson:

To the Reader.
This Figure, that thou here seest put,

It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;

Wherein the Grauer had a strife

with Nature, to out-doo the life :

O, could he but haue drawne his wit

As well in brasse, as he hath hit

His face ; the Print would then surpasse

All, that vvas euer vvrit in brasse.

But, since he cannot, Reader, looke

Not on his Picture, but his Booke.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Having looked @ previous posts I have more questions for you than before:

"But now we are to step back a little to that, which by premeditation we
passed over, lest a breach should be made in those things that were so
linked together."

-- Francis Bacon

I will return your favour of having numbered the pointers/problems
with which to deal with:

[The 'Shakespeare' referred to below is Shakespeare the actor]

1) Shakespeare's U-turns on topics e.g. scientific explanations, that
coincide with that of Bacon's U-turns

There are too many for it to attributed to chance.

2) How can Shakespeare-the-actor have detailed and thorough knowledge of
legal, scientific, linguistic, geographic, areas etc ... ?

Simple Proof
If you say 'he picked it up' please give us an example of another person
of that time who 'picked it up' - so as to prove the possibility of a
normal man (finance-wise and class-wise) to have had contact with enough
people of that rank in society or to have had access to such rare and
'live' sources of information to use.

3) Bacon's Notebook: Promus - Only Shakespeare notebook, a collection of
expressions, phrases, and sentences, too many of which appear in the
Shakespeare plays to be ignored.

4) 'HONORIFICABILITUDINITATIBUS' (The longest word in any Shakespearean
work). Apears in Love's Labours Lost.

Its a nonsense word - with no apparent meaning.

This word is also found in the collected papers of Francis Bacon in the

British Museum, in the form of a diagram:
[arranged in a pyramid]
ho
hono
honori
honorifi
honorifica
honorificabi
honorificabili
honorificabilitu
honorificabilitudi
honorificabilitudini
honorificabilitudinita
honorificabilitudinitati
honorificabilitudinitatibus

I appears again in Bacon's The Northumberland Manuscript.

Proof
What are the chances of this happaning by accident? Answer this first
before proceeding to ask why it was done so.

[I have more to say on this in future-hopefully.]

5) Shakespeare's friends Wouldn't keep Secrets? - Timon of Athens

6) Richard II - Why new edition printed with Shakespeare's name exactly coinciding with when the Queen was after Shakespreare to 'Rack' him

7) Vocabulary - Is it a coincidence that the vocabulary of Shakespeare is

Only matched by that of Francis Bacon?

It is said that a common farm labourer uses 500 words, and educated
business man 3,000, the average novelist 5,000 and great scholars and
public men 7,000.
"Shakespeare" in his poems and plays uses 21,000, the
largest vocabulary ever possessed by any member of the human race.

Dr. Samuel Johnson (the great lexicographer): "a Dictionary of the
English language might be compiled from Bacon's works alone."

8) Northumberland Manuscript bear the names of Shakespeare and Bacon and the titles of two Shakespeare plays: Richard II & Richard III listed
under the words "by Francis William Shakespeare"

Expain:

9) Bacon's Letter to King James

[Nov 1622]

"...for my pen,if contemplative,going on with The Historie of Henry
the Eighth."
===============================
Bacon's Letter to the Duke of Buckingham

[21 February 1623]

"...Prince Charles "who, I hope, ere long will make me leave King
Henry VIII and set me on work in relation to His Majesty's adventures."
===============================
Bacon Letter to the Duke of Buckingham

[26 June 1623]

"...since you say the Prince hath not forgot his commandment
touching my history of Henry VIII."
===============================
[January 1623]

Bacon applied to the records office for the loan of archive

documents relating to the reign of Henry VIII.
===============================
[December 1623]
' The Historie of King Henry VIII' printed for the first time in the
Shakespeare First Folio.

A brief,30-line summary of Henry's reign was printed after Bacon's death
under his own name.

Coincidence?

10) ++