/L53 
 
 . 1 
 
 A = 
 
 
 A3 
 
 c/:. 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 =:= -JZ 
 
 = 
 
 = JD 
 
 3 W 
 
 
 7 ^=. 
 
 > 
 
 n = 
 
 — ' Ft: 
 
 
 
 7 = 
 
 ro 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 ^^^ :r= 
 
 M = 
 
 S,^^ r— 
 
 
 
 ^^s 
 
 "■ ^ 
 
 8 
 
 
 Leftvd.ch 
 
 Bacon is not Shakespeare!
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 BACON 
 
 
 IS NOT 
 SHAKESPEARE ! 
 
 BY 
 
 Ralph Winnington Leftwich, 
 
 A REPLY TO SIR EDWIN DURNING-LAWRENCE. Bt. 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
 -:o:- 
 
 London : Simpkin Marshall & Co. 
 Stratford-on-Avon : A. J. Stanley, Tudor House.
 
 s 
 
 aeon 
 
 is not 
 
 Shal^espeare ! 
 
 h 
 
 Ralph Winnington Leftrvich, M.D. 
 
 -:o:- 
 
 Ji reply to Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence. Bt. 
 
 ■.O.- 
 
 London : SIMPKIN MARSHALL & Co 
 Stral/ord-on-J uon : Jl. ]. STANLEY, Tudor House
 
 Preface. 
 
 :o: 
 
 The theory that Bacon wrote the plays commonly attri- 
 buted to Shakespeare began, not during the lifetime of those 
 who would have detected an imposture, his contemporaries, 
 but in 1848, and one of the originators died in a mad- 
 house. The idea made but little progress and, amongst 
 literary men, practically none. 
 
 Personally, I have never troubled to read the arguments ; 
 for ciphers do not appeal to me. I have heard of a Shake- 
 spearean cipher which proved that the plays were written by 
 Bernard Shaw, and of another which fathered them upon 
 Rudyard Kipling ! 
 
 Sir Edward Durning-Lawrence's book " Bacon is Shake- 
 peare ! " appeared in 1910 and as far as I remember was not 
 taken very seriously by the reviewers. But having recently 
 come across it, and finding that the author boasts of having 
 sent a copy of his misleading work to every public library 
 in the world, I realise that something must be done. 
 Many will read it in these institutions who know nothing of 
 the arguments which refute it and their judgment may be 
 warped for life. Failing stronger pens than mine, I hope this 
 little work will do something to mitigate the mischief. 
 
 Since the publication of the book. Sir Edwin has sent to 
 school teachers and others a copy of a pamphlet " The 
 Shakespeare Myth." As this often gives only the conclusions 
 and not the fallacious reasons upon which those conclusions 
 are based, its effects may be serious. In a note accompanying 
 it, he says " Now that it has been proved that William 
 Shakespeare was unable to write so much as his own name, 
 
 people should no longer profess to believe that the 
 
 " Immortal Plays " were written by the illiterate householder 
 of Stratford, neither of whose daughters could read or write, 
 and in whose house not a single book was found." Some of 
 the criticism in the text is directed against statements made 
 in the pamphlet, for Sir Edwin honoured me with a copy and 
 I hope I have made good use of it. 
 
 My data are taken from many sources; l)ut chief!}- from 
 Sir Sidney's Lee's " Life of Shakespeare." 
 
 May 31ST, 1912. R.W.L. 
 
 Qr
 
 Bacon is not Shakespeare ! 
 
 BY 
 
 RALPH WINNINGTON LEFTWICH. 
 :o: 
 
 It has been said of Charles the First that the charm of 
 his lineaments as pourtrayed in the canvases of Van Dyck, 
 still wins adherents to his cause. Similarly the reader of the 
 works of Shakespeare is conscious of a love and sympathy 
 for the writer like that felt for a personal friend, and 
 feels equal resentment when either is made the subject 
 of attack. Ben Jonson must have been under this 
 magnetic influence, for he said '* I loved the man and do 
 honour his memory (on this side idolatry) as much as any." 
 Now within the last two years, thanks to the almost super- 
 human efforts of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, the Baconian 
 heresy has again raised its head. He asserts that his con- 
 clusions are absolutely incapable of refutation. Well, we 
 shall see ; but if this be so, my own work in originating the 
 Shakespeare Commemoration Service and Memorial at 
 Southwark Cathedral will be stultified.* 
 
 Bacon is a typical example — the finest to be found in 
 our national biographies — of a dual personality. The Dr. 
 Hyde and Mr. Jekyl of fiction are hardly finer. On the one 
 hand, he was perhaps the wisest man of any age. Not even 
 the wise men of Greece, not even Solomon himself, had his 
 breadth of outlook or his grasp of the key of knowledge. On 
 the other hand, he proved himself one of the meanest of 
 mankind — but of this, later. 
 
 Now, according to our Baconian, this wisest of men 
 contemplated writing a number of plays ; and, thinking that 
 their association with his name would be very dangerous, he 
 determined to father them upon some one else ; and 
 although for a long time he was very poor and often in debt, \ 
 he was prepared to pay a suitable person very handsomely 
 for co-operating with him. 
 
 ' See Note A. 
 t See Note B.
 
 Here let the reader endeavour to put himself in Bacon's 
 place and think out the course of reasoning the pliilosopher 
 would follow in selecting the right man. It would require 
 the greatest of care, for if people became incredulous about 
 the genuineness of the alleged authorship, ([uestions would 
 be asked, investigations made, and, if trouble arose with the 
 Court, even a judicial inquiry might be held. The result of 
 an unwise selection would mean the exposure of Bacon as 
 the real author and his attempt at concealment would make 
 matters worse, for he would be held to have written the 
 plays with some sinister intent. 
 
 Now Bacon would say to himself, "I must have a writer 
 with some literary reputation ; for no absolutely unknown 
 man can suddenly blossom forth as the author of these 
 undoubtedly fine plays, without evoking some scrutiny of his 
 claim to them. And, if suspicion arises, he may be required 
 to write something of literary value in the presence of 
 witnesses. Secondly, as his handwriting would be compared 
 with that of the plays, he must either be able to imitate my 
 writing or I must employ him personally as my amanuensis. 
 He must therefore be handy with his pen in a mechanical 
 sense. Thirdly, as many classical passages and allusions are 
 interspersed through my plays and he may be questioned 
 about them, he must be a fair classical scholar. Fourthly, 
 he must be a man of strictl}' sober and somewhat unsociable 
 habits, for " when the wine is in, the wit is out," and, in his 
 unavoidable association with actors, he might otherwise 
 blurt out the truth. Fifthly, as his presence will be 
 essential at rehearsals, he must be a resident of IvOndon. 
 Sixthly, since he might easily blackmail me, and there is no 
 legal process by which I can bind him, he must be of unim- 
 peachable honour ; though, here, there is a difficult}-, for he 
 must be too honest to betray me, but not too honest to mind 
 abetting deception. 
 
 Bacon would hesitate long and ponder much before 
 making his choice. Finally, he selected, according to Sir 
 Edwin, "a mean, drunken, ignorant, and unlettered rustic 
 who never in his life wrote so much as his o\\n name and in 
 all probability was totally unable to read a single word of 
 print"! A man whom "he banished to vSlratford in 1594." 
 What a course for the wisest man of his time to follow ! 
 
 Our author claims in this work that Bacon was a great 
 prophet ; but he was a very poor one in this case, for not the 
 smallest trouble with the authorities ever arose in connection 
 with the plays. All that happened w^as that one scene of 
 Richard the Second was omitted during Elizabeth's reign 
 and this not because any action was taken against the
 
 dramatist. It was the author of a book on Henry the Fourth 
 who got into trouble for the way he wrote of Richard the 
 Second's deposition. With his usual keen logical sense, Sir 
 Edwin says that it was the play rather than the book that 
 enraged Queen Elizabeth. If so, it was rather hard to send 
 the author of the book to prison and to take no notice of the 
 playwright. What possible danger would be incurred by 
 writing most of the comedies it is difficult to see. A courtier's 
 position was infinitely more dangerous. 
 
 But, as regards the other half of his personality, 
 Bacon was "the meanest of mankind." The relentless 
 opposition of his uncle to Bacon's otherwise just claims to 
 preferment was due I believe, not as has hitherto been 
 supposed, to Lord Burleigh's tear that his nephew might 
 outstrip his son, but to his knowledge of the moral obliquity 
 of Bacon's character — a point of which the shrewd Elizabeth 
 no doubt was also fully cognisant. Otherwise, it is difficult 
 to understand why a man of phenomenal ability, the son of 
 a previous minister, and the nephew of an existing one 
 should be passed over for years. And it must be remembered 
 that Elizabeth was anything but wax in the hands of her 
 advisers, and had Bacon been a man in whom full trust 
 could be placed, she would have had her own way and 
 promoted him. Instead of this his highest honour during 
 her reign was that of Q.C. It was not that he did not 
 humble himself enough to gain her favour. He did and 
 beyond the limits of self respect ; for when he said some- 
 thing in Parliament which offended his sovereign, he 
 hastenened to grovel before hei and promised in future 
 to keep a strict guard upon his tongue. Later, he 
 spurred on the prosecution to drive to the block his ever 
 staunch friend and benefactor, Essex ; and, not content with 
 that, he blackened his memory after death. He held secret 
 interviews with parties to actions in his court, received bribes 
 from suitors without even showing enough " honour among 
 thieves " to give his judgment in their favour, and abetted 
 others in putting a poor and probably innocent clergyman 
 upon the rack, although torture had then practically dropped 
 into disuse. 
 
 Now the strong point among Baconians is the interpre- 
 tation given by them to certain cryptic letters, numbers, and 
 emblems; which, with or without a cipher, give certain words 
 or dates and afford information as to the authorship of the, 
 plays. 
 
 But, instead of endea vouring to controvert this evidence 
 I am prepared to assume for the sake of argument that all 
 such references in the plays or elsewhere are strictly true.
 
 8 
 
 I will admit that Bacou inspired " contemporary " title pages 
 which were first published manj- years after his death. I will 
 allow that capital letters may have a hidden meaning in a play, 
 but none in the lines to the Droeshout engraving. I will not 
 contradict the statement that Bacon edited, and must have 
 the credit for the style of, The Authorised Version 
 of the Bible. Nor will I gainsay the inference that Bacon was 
 one of the greatest of prophets in that, while Daniel was 
 content to indicate a date vaguely by a " time and times and 
 the dividing of time," Bacon foretold the exact year of the 
 appearance of that great work of Sir Edwin which has 
 finally exploded the " Shakespeare Myth " ! Nay, I will go 
 farther and generously place at Sir Edwin's disposal a 
 Baconian argument from the plays which seems to have escaped 
 his notice. His namesake Friar Lawrence is described as a 
 " Franciscan " ! 
 
 I have no uneasiness in taking this course, for what 
 after all do these cryptic references prove ? 
 
 lu the most tragic scene in all history, the Roxnan 
 Governor is asked to write down the Culprit not as King of 
 the Jews, but as having said that he was King. And all this 
 part of Baconian evidence only proves that Bacon has said 
 that he was the author of the plays of Shakespeare. We are 
 not bound to believe him. Now I contend that if cryptic 
 allusions to Bacon's authorship really are incorporated in the 
 plays and elsewhere, it is quite consistent with the philoso- 
 pher's moral character to suggest that, seeing evidence of such 
 commanding genius in the works, he fraudulently or perhaps 
 perversely determined to associate his name with them. 
 This, he may have done by bribing compositors to insert 
 certain words and engravers certain emblems. But, 
 since Durning-Lawrence implies that Bacon passed the first 
 folio through the press, and destroyed all proofs of Shake- 
 speare's connection with the plays, have we to thank him 
 that not a word of the manuscript remains ? 
 
 No, I will not charge Bacon with such a terrible 
 offence ; for, although many writers seem to think this dis- 
 appearance most extraordinary, there is nothing at all 
 wonderful about it. The same is true of the works of the 
 other Elisabethan dramatists — Peele, Green, Marlow, Beau- 
 mont, Fletcher, Webster, Marston and Ford; not one of 
 whose plays remains in manuscript. All that we have is one 
 play of Massinger, one play of Heywood, and one masque of 
 Ben Jonson ! The loss of Ben Jonson's MSS. is far more 
 surprising, for he was very careful with his works and pub- 
 lished a collected edition of his plays himself. 
 
 The writer of "Bacon is Shakespeare " bases his opinion
 
 of absolute illiteracy largely upon his disbelief in the authen- 
 ticity of the signatures, and this notwithstanding that the 
 will is attested by four witnesses, and that the word " seal " 
 has been erased and " hand " substituted. Well, the evidence 
 of experts in handwriting does not carrj' much weight even 
 in our day, and when it comes to the crabbed writing of 
 Elizabeth's time, the number of those who can even decipher 
 it is limited and none is so expert that he can prove beyond 
 question the genuineness or the reverse of a signature. 
 Even if it could be proved that another's hand wrote one 
 of the signatures, this might only mean that the seal was 
 the more important. The absence of the genuine signature 
 would therefore not prove inability to write. 
 
 But we need not worry ourselves over the question 
 as to whether Shakespeare could write. For we have absolute 
 contemporary proof that he could not only write, but write 
 well and, considering that Sir Edwin quotes from the same 
 work, it is surprising that he does not refer to the passage. 
 Ben Jonson says in his "Discoveries" "I remember the 
 players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare 
 that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted 
 out a line." Hemyng and Coudell make a similar statement. 
 
 Sir Edwin " proves " so many remarkable things that it 
 is not surprising to find him proving that Shakespeare was 
 unable to write when three days old ! And I am not disposed 
 to dispute the point. The explanation of the assertion is 
 this. He says that Judith Shakespeare could not write 
 because, against her name in the marriage register, there is 
 a cross. Now the writing on that page is all in one hand — 
 probably that of the vicar. There are the names of some 
 twenty couples, but not a single signature against even one 
 of them, and only one cross — that against Judith's name. 
 The fact is that when such great interest began to be taken 
 in Shakespeare — a hundred years or more after his death, a 
 cross was placed against the name of each member of his 
 family so that the eye could alight upon the entry without 
 the trouble of rea'iing through the other names. Against 
 the poet's own name, in the baptismal register, three crosses 
 were placed ! He was therefore trebly illiterate. 
 
 Another " proof of illiteracy" is the statement that "no 
 books were found in the house," because forsooth they are not 
 specially mentioned in the will ! If these are fair examples of 
 the care taken by Sir Edwin in collecting evidence, his other 
 statements become suspect. Shakespeare's brother Gilbert 
 could write well as shown by his signature in the Birthplace, 
 yet being two years younger he must have received his 
 education when John Shakespeare was poorer. Further, as
 
 lO 
 
 shown by the Stratford archives, his father could write with 
 facility. 
 
 Of course, much is made of the usual argument that 
 Shakespeare's upbringing and career make it impossible 
 that he could have acquired the knowledge of the classics, 
 of court life, of the law, and of foreign countries, that is so 
 evident in the plays. Now at Stratford there was a Grammar 
 School ; and grammar in Shakespeare's time meant the Latin 
 grammar. The headmaster of this school received a larger 
 stipend than that paid to the headmaster of Eton and even 
 the usher was required to be a graduate of Oxford. Further 
 there is shown at the birthplace a long letter written in 
 Latin in 1598, by a connection of the poet, a pupil aged 
 eleven. If, therefore, Shakespeare was educated at this 
 school he must have been taught the classics. It would be 
 very surprising if he did not go there, for the school was free 
 and his father had been chief alderman of Stratford. The 
 presumption is that he did receive his education there and 
 the burden of proving that he did not lies with the other 
 side. Ben Jonson, admitted his classical knowledge though 
 he says that Shakespeare had small Latin and less Greek, 
 but this was only by comparison with his own very extensive 
 knowledge. The relatively few instances of deep classical 
 knowledge given by Churton Collins may very well have 
 been prompted by Ben Jonson. Genius can do much with 
 scanty materials. Few poems have a more purely Greek 
 atmosphere than Endymion ; yet Keats had never learnt 
 Greek. He derived his knowledge from Lempriere. As 
 regards Law, Shakespeare brought several actions and 
 had much to do with leases. In this way he would 
 acquire a good deal of legal knowledge and the law terms in 
 one of his plays are said to have been taken bodily out of one 
 of his leases. With court life, he had also a good deal to 
 do ; for his plays had many what are now called " command 
 performances " before both Elizabeth and James, and as a 
 practical actor his powers of mimicry would help him to 
 acquire such knowledge more rapidly than another. But all 
 adverse criticism of this nature leaves out the consideration 
 that he was a great genius and genius has a royal road to 
 knowledge. Still genius has its limitations. It cannot 
 acquire technical knowledge without actual contact and 
 experience, and to my mind it is far easier to account for a 
 knowledge of the law in Shakespeare than for a knowledge 
 of practical stagecraft in Bacon. An acquaintance with 
 " masques " is not sufficient. There is, too, plenty of low life 
 in the plays and Bacon's knowledge of this would be small. 
 It must be remembered further that several years of Shake- 
 speare's life are unaccounted for, and during this period
 
 II 
 
 there are many ways in which he might have acquired 
 special knowledge. It is quite likely that he went abroad. 
 But it is not essential to prove that Shakespeare had been 
 on the Continent. Anne of Geierstein for instance has 
 excellent local colour and was much appreciated by 
 the Swiss ; but when it was written, Scott had not been 
 to Switzerland. 
 
 The fact that Shakespeare often criticised the craze for 
 foreign travel is cited as evidence that he had never been 
 abroad. To my mind it points to the opposite conclusion. 
 When a person gives an opinion about travelling it is alwa5'S 
 assumed that he is speaking from experience, and without 
 this experience Shakespeare would probably have expressed 
 noviews upon the question. His belittling of it only shows that 
 he had been abroad and did not like it — and it is likely enough 
 that he did not travel in luxury. It has been thought that 
 Shakespeare could not have belonged to one of the many 
 companies that travelled abroad because it was " actors of 
 small account at home who mainly took part in them." But 
 Shakespeare, like other people, had in technical matters to 
 crawl before he could run and at an early period of his life 
 was not skilled enough to gain admission to a London com- 
 pany. Even at the present day, the budding actor begins 
 by joining a touring company. 
 
 This is what, I suggest, happened. Shakespeare stole 
 or killed deer at Fulbroke Park. It could not have been at 
 Charlecote partly because there were no deer there at that 
 time, partly — and I think this point is new — because Sir 
 Thomas Lucy could not act as both prosecutor and judge, 
 and it is as a j udge that Shakespeare lampooned him. Stratford 
 having becom.e too hot for him, he ran away ; but Loudon 
 would offer no secure retreat ; for did not the Queen's writ 
 run there ? Therefore, hearing of a company of actors being 
 bound for the Continent and having a bent for the theatre, he 
 decided that there lay his salvation and joined them. But 
 why, it will be asked, is it that Shakespeare's name 
 does not occur on any of the lists of Englishmen playing 
 abroad ? Simply because, being under the ban of the law, 
 he would naturally enter under a false name. 
 
 English companies are known to have played at Elsinore. 
 He probably belonged to one. The manager of a company 
 going to Italy would say *' We cannot find time or money 
 enough to go right through the country, so we will take a 
 few cities that lie close to each other in the part nearest 
 home." Now except in the classical plays it is towns 
 in this part of Italy, — Venice, Verona, Milan, Padua, 
 and Mantua, which form the scene of his Italian plays. Later,
 
 12 
 
 his experience as an actor commended him to the notice of 
 the London managers. This view, being based upon rational 
 grounds and sound analogies deserves more notice than mere 
 conjecture, and should suffice to satisfy those who insist 
 that the writer of the plays must have visited Italy. 
 
 Comparing some of the plays as they were first printed 
 with the form they took in the folio edition, it is true that many 
 additions and corrections appear. This is easily accounted 
 for. Each play was bought outright by the manager of the 
 theatre and asthere was no effective copyright law, publication 
 was carefully guarded against. Of the five plays in which the 
 greatest alterations occur. The Merry Wives and Henry the 
 Fifth were pirated by Thomas Crede whose agent no doubt 
 took down, with many inaccuracies, the words as spoken in 
 the play; while the first publication of King John, The Taming 
 of the Shrew, and Henry the Sixth (second part) were old 
 plays by other writers or at the most revised by Shakespeare. 
 Even the titles were different. These were respectively "The 
 Troublesome Reign of King John," " The Taming of a 
 Shrew," and " The Contention between York and Ivancaster.'' 
 
 The one play which, if Bacon were its author one would 
 expect to find re-modelled in the folio is that in which the 
 cipher word Honorificabilitudinitatibus occurs, " Love's 
 Labour's Lost," but that is practically unaltered. The 
 long word is not peculiar to it, for it dates from the 
 twelfth century and occurs in Dante. Since so much has 
 been made of it b}" Baconians, the reader will naturally ask 
 where it occurs in the acknowledged writings of Bacon. 
 The answer is "Nowhere ! " It is not even in Promus, the 
 collection of words and phrases which he left in MS. 
 
 Next, passages are given from "The Great Assises holden 
 in Parnassus." But here it is difficult to follow Sir Edwin's 
 reasoning. On the ground that Bacon in this mock trial 
 occupies the position of Chancellor of Parnassus, it is held 
 proved that he was considered the greatest of poets. But he 
 was far from being the greatest, if judged by his own acknow- 
 ledged poems, and it could not have been b}' reason of his 
 authorship of the plays for that was still a secret. Sir Edwin 
 cannot have it both ways. But there is no mystery about it. 
 He was Chancellor of Parnassus because, he was both man of 
 letters and chancellor. 
 
 The composition of the court is given in fac-simile. In 
 the first column are the names of the jurymen and in the 
 second column, divided from the first by a vertical line, is a 
 list of the malefactors. Now Sir Edwin advances the 
 extraordinary proposition that the jurors were identical with 
 the malefactors ! Shakespeare comes about seventh on the
 
 13 
 
 first column as a juror while the malefactor on the same level 
 in the second column is "The writer of weekly accounts." 
 Therefore says our Baconian, Shakespeare was not a i^oet, 
 he was only a book-keeper ! Even this is surely an odd 
 occupation for a man who could not write ! By the same 
 reasoning, Massinger, who had nothing whatever to do with 
 Scotland, would be " The Scottish Dove " ! Shakespeare's 
 real status however is made abundantly clear by the cryer, 
 who calls out " Sylvester, Sandes, Drayton, Beaumont, 
 Fletcher, Massinger, Shakespeare and Heywood, Poets Good 
 and True" ! Later, says Sir Edwin, this description is con- 
 tradicted because the defendant says: — "Shakespeare's a 
 mimic (that is a mere actor not a poet)." But surely a man 
 may be both mimic and poet. 
 
 The next extract is from " The Return from Parnassus" 
 a play acted by Cambridge students in 1601, and containing 
 words complaining of the actors of the time that " With 
 mouthing words that better wits have framed. They purchase 
 lands and now esquires are made." The view held up to now 
 has been that the lines refer to Alleyn, who writing nothing 
 himself, purchased the manor of Dulwich. They cannot 
 refer to Shakespeare because he was known much better as 
 a writer than as an actor, and in the same play our poet is 
 spoken of as "sweet master Shakespeare." Our author does 
 not quote this ; he has indeed a very convenient way of 
 not mentioning points that clash with his theory. Further, 
 it was not he, but his father who applied for the grant of arms. 
 The player in Ratsei's Ghost and even Sogliardo, may possibly 
 be meant for Shakespeare whose prosperity naturally excited 
 the envy of his fellow writers, and, temporarily, even of 
 quarrelsome Ben. The balance of opinion is overwhelmingly 
 in favour of Shakespeare's good nature. His debtors were 
 very likely quite undeserving of sympathy. 
 
 Bacon's Promus, which was first printed by the erudite 
 and industrious Mrs. H. Pott, is a kind of Commonplace 
 Book containing an immense number of phrases, sentences 
 and quotations. Many of these occur in Shakespeare's 
 plays and the question is : — Did Bacon get some of them from 
 Shakespeare ? Bacon made but small use of them in his writings 
 and I suggest that he intended them not for his books but 
 for use in his speeches ; and, indeed, many of them are 
 too colloquial and trivial for printing. Speddiug says that 
 much of Promus must have been written down from memory, 
 as it contains so many inaccuracies. Memory of what ? Not 
 often of a book, for that would be thereto refer to, and the ex- 
 tracts from books would mostly have been made while reading 
 them. But it may well have been memory of a play or a speech.
 
 14 
 
 Our author quotes a number of writers to prove that 
 Bacon hml a high reputation as a poet amongst his contem- 
 poraries. Well, the opinions of critics are no more infallible 
 in the case of Bacon than the}- were in that of Keats, and 
 posteritj' has not endorsed either view. A poet in the 
 etymological sense of creahr he certainly was, and an 
 epoch-making one. 
 
 Bacon is said to have written a sonnet, but it has been 
 lost. The only poems we have from his hand are the trans- 
 lations of a few of the Psalms ; but not much poetical skill 
 is required here because the imagery is already provided 
 
 The following specimen is from the 149th Psalm : — 
 
 " Let not your voice alone His praise forth tell, 
 But move withal and praise Him in the dance. 
 Cymbals and harps let them be tuned up well ; 
 'Tis He that doth the poor's estate advance. 
 Do not this only on the solemn days, 
 But on your secret beds your spirits raise ! " 
 
 The reader can judge for himself whether the author of 
 such poetry as this could have written the plays. 
 
 Sir Edwin quotes some opinions adverse to Shake- 
 speare's authorship of the plays and includes those of 
 Palmerston, Bismarck, and Mark Twain amongst them ; 
 but hardly one of them gives a downright denial of its 
 possibility; and, except Wiq fat/ier of an editor of Shake- 
 speare's plays, not one pronounces for Bacon. It would be 
 easy to give names far more eminent where the contrary view 
 has been held ; except that the whole of this brochure w-ould 
 be required for their insertion. To my mind, one 
 thing that definitely excludes Bacon, is the fact that the 
 characters in the plays are living men and women — as 
 much alive indeed as any of our own personal friends — and 
 Bacon's other works show no trace of his possession of this 
 rare power. 
 
 Shakespeare's use of such odd local surnames as Bardolph 
 and Fluellen as well as Sly, Page, and Broome, and of places 
 near Stratford, such as Barton-on-the-Heath, Wincott and 
 Woncott cannot be reconciled with Baconian authorship 
 partly because Bacon could never have heard of them, and 
 partly because, even if he had, he would have scrupulously 
 avoided mentioning them. Christopher Sly says he has run 
 up a score with Marian Hacket the fat ale-wife of Wincot. 
 The parish of Quinton includes Wincot, and in 1591 a child 
 named Hacket was baptised in Quinton Church ! But the 
 most remarkable is the case of Woodmancote. This village 
 is still pronounced locally, Woucot. Now in Henry the 
 Fourth, Second Part, the names of William Visor of Woncot,
 
 15 
 
 aud Clemeut Perkes of the Hill appear, and in the sixteenth 
 ceutur}', there were living a Visor of Woncot and a Perkes 
 of Stinchcombe Hill, which latter adjoins Woncot ! 
 
 If Shakespeare was not thought much of at Stratford it 
 would not be surprising. A prophet has no honour in his 
 own country. The author quotes a passage from a French 
 writer (1645) that Stratford owes all its glory to an Archbishop 
 of Canterbury aud Sir Hugh Clopton — no mention of Shake- 
 speare. This mode of arguing is characteristic of our 
 author. He lays great stress upon Dugdale's sketch of the 
 bust ; but ignores his evidence when it tells against his 
 theory. Now Dugdale says " One thing more in reference to 
 this ancient town (Stratford) is observable, that it gave birth 
 to our late famous poet, Will Shakespeare." 
 
 In discussing the cause of the poet's death, the author 
 naturally makes much of the tradition that he died of a 
 fever, following a drunken carouse in the respectable company 
 of Ben Jonson and Michael Drayton. But bad water would 
 engender fever, and wine would not, and the inference is that 
 he drank more water than his friends ! Because Shakespeare 
 was a good companion and would not deign to " pose," 
 far too much stress has been laid upon his convivial and 
 sociable habits. 
 
 The question of the Droeshout portrait touches me 
 personally because, although the presentment of the poet in 
 the Shakespeare-Spenser Window at Southwark is taken 
 from the Chandos portrait, I used my influence, ably 
 seconded by that great authority Mr. M. H. Spielmann, to 
 have the figure based upon the portrait engraved by Martin 
 Droeshout for the first folio. This Martin was only the 
 engraver, aud I prefer the view that has been advanced that 
 it was his uncle of the same name who drew the original 
 picture. He was described as a painter of Brabant, but was 
 married in London in 1602. And I suggest that it was un- 
 fortunately by his influence that so j'oung and inefficient 
 an engraver was employed. It is not likely that the publishers 
 and editors of the first folio would entrust the work entirely 
 to a man who, being only 15 when the poet died, had at 
 most a fading memory of his subject. 
 
 If, as Sir Edwin says, the engraving is meant for a stuffed 
 dummy, I had better have advocated the Chandos which re- 
 presents at least a real man. Bad engraving has much spoilt 
 the picture as given in the folio, and it could never have been 
 great as a work of art ; but there are better impressions — 
 notably one that has unfortunately for us gone to America. 
 The best we have is in the Bodleian Library. This to my 
 eye, is full of charm. There is humour and a sug-
 
 i6 
 
 gestion of large tolerance in the curve of the lips ; there 
 is the lambent fire of genius in the eyes, and, in the domed 
 forehead and the lateral broadening out of the head above 
 the temples, theie is evidence of great mental capacity. But 
 many who have no sympathy with the Baconians seem 
 unable to find in the Droeshout portrait any indication of 
 genius. This however does not prove that the original was 
 a fool, for Robert Bruce and General Wolfe both looked 
 idiotic. The profile in each case can be represented by a 
 caret placed horizontally. Bruce's head is almost exactly like 
 that of the pre-historic Neanderthal man ; and Wolfe looked 
 so idiotic that somebody told George the Third that he was 
 mad! "Mad?" said the King "Well I wish he would bite 
 some of my other generals ! " 
 
 The wrinkle behind the jaw, which is due to a fold 
 of fat, is claimed by the author to indicate that the face is 
 covered by a mask ! As if Ben Jonson would have agreed to 
 write the well known adulatory lines to the portrait knowing 
 all the time that it was a "dummy !" 
 
 But Sir Edwin's strong point is the coat. And it must 
 be admitted that it appears to be made up of a left front and 
 a left back, and anything left-handed he insists appertains 
 to Bacon and is certainly a not unsuitable emblem of the baser 
 half of his personality. But the explanation is easy. The back 
 of the coat was no doubt made up of two right halves, and the 
 effect of the whole would be what one might term " parti- 
 patterned." The design in fact was a modification and 
 survival of the well-known parti-coloured costume. Curi- 
 ously enough the portrait of the Earl of Essex, now at Earl's 
 Court, has a similar design as also has Ben Jonson's coat in 
 Westminster Abbey. 
 
 The bust is objected to because the face is unlike that 
 shown by Dugdale (1656) ; but the point is weakened because 
 that shown by Rowe (1709) resembles neither ! In both, the 
 cushion looks rather sack-like and Sir Edwin insists that it 
 is really a sack. But in this he is mistaken ; for it shows a 
 tassel or at least a knot at each of the four corners, and a 
 sack would not have more than two. There is no pen ; but 
 this means nothing, since it is on record that an Oxford 
 student once broke the pen and the same thing may have 
 happened before. Now not much importance need be 
 attached to these and other differences for in 1748, Mr. John 
 Ward devoted the profits of a representation of Othello to 
 the repairing of the bust because the soft stone was much 
 decayed in parts. It would hardly be possible to patch the 
 stone and retain the exact likeness, and it would not be easy 
 to make a good job of it in any case so that it is quite likely
 
 17 
 
 that the present face, apart from the fact that it has been 
 painted several times, differs from the original one. But the 
 architectural details also differ from that shown by Dugdale. 
 The fact is that both Dugdale and Rowe each made a rough 
 sketch with marginal notes and drew the finished picture 
 afterwards. This will account for the legs of the cherubs 
 resting on the cornice in one case and dangling from it in 
 the other. 
 
 In 1621 Bacon, after attaining an earldom and the highest 
 position in the Law, was disgraced. He survived his fall five 
 years and having no promotion to hope for, and Shakespeare 
 being dead, why did he not then proclaim his authorship of 
 the plays ? Such a course might even have helped him with 
 a king who had shown his appreciation of them. For a very 
 good reason. Benjonson ivas alive and in his bluff way 
 would have laughed him to scorn and challenged him to 
 sit down and write another ! 
 
 The object of this paper is to disprove Bacon's author- 
 ship of the plays ; but incidentally a good deal of evidence 
 of Shakespeare's authorship has been included. I will here 
 add that over forty existing documents mention his name 
 and that there are no less than a hundred-and-fifty contem- 
 porary allusions to him. I will quote a few. Ben 
 Jonson's opinion is absolutely impartial for he was a friend 
 and admirer of both men. One quotation from him has 
 already been given. In addition he says " He was indeed 
 honest and of an open and free nature, had an excellent 
 phantasy and gentle expressions" Hardly the man to 
 conspire with Bacon or to lend himself to a humiliating decep- 
 tion ! Again, " Thou art alive while still thy book doth live " 
 and " Shine forth thou star of poets " and " Which crowned 
 him Poet first, then Poet's King." Surely a fellow-actor 
 would soon discover the deception if Shakespeare had not 
 written the plays ! This is the testimony of the leading 
 member of his company, Richard Burbage : — 
 
 " And Shakespeare, thou whose honey-flowing vein 
 Pleasing the world, thy praises doth obtain." 
 
 Heywood says " Mellifluous Shakespeare whose enchanting 
 quill " Leonard Digges " Be sure our Shakespeare, thou 
 canst never die, but crowned with laurel live eternally." 
 Hemyng and Condell in the preface to the first folio give 
 an estimate of his personal qualities, and say that one 
 object they had in publishing the work was " To keep the 
 memorie of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our 
 Shakespeare." (Why did Bacon permit this testimony to 
 appear) ? Francis Meres says " As the soul of Euphorbus 
 was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the sweet wittie soule
 
 i8 
 
 of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honej'tongued Shakespeare." 
 Of those whose lives overlapped that of the poet, Milton 
 in "An Epitaph on the Admirable Dramatic Poet, W. 
 Shakespeare" (1632), referring to the monument he had 
 raised to himself by his works, says " kings for such a tomb 
 would wish to die." Fuller (1608-1661), says "Many were 
 the wit combats between him and Ben Jonson, which two, 
 I behold, like a great Spanish galleon and an English man*- 
 of-war. Master Jonson was built far higher in learning, 
 solid but slow ; Shakespeare, lesser in bulk, but lighter in 
 sailing, could turn with all tides and take advantage of all 
 winds by the quickness of his wit and invention." 
 
 Is it possible that these men could have failed to detect 
 the imposture had Shakespeare not written the plays ? 
 
 No ; these extracts alone should have prevented Sir 
 Edwin from coming to his absurd conclusions. All that he 
 has proved is that Bacon may have said or implied that he 
 was the author of Shakespeare's Plays. 
 
 I venture then to claim that I have undermined 
 all this l)oasted evidence, and not till it is proved that 
 Michel Angelo was the real architect of Henry the Seventh's 
 Chapel, Constable the real painter of Turner's pictures, and 
 Tate and Brady the authors of Shelley's Ode to the Skylark, 
 will I believe that Bacon wrote Shakespeare. 
 
 '^ Parturiunt monies, nascetur ridiculus inus.'^
 
 19 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Note (a). — This beautiful memorial, by Mr. H. 
 McCarthy, will, thanks largely to the liberality of Mr. J. 
 Sanford Saltus, be in position by the autumn. 
 
 Professor Wallace, to whose labours all Shakespeareans 
 are deeply indebted, affirms that the poet lived for many 
 years with a family named Mountjoy,in Silver Street, Cripple- 
 gate; but the supposition is based almost entirely upon the 
 statement of a servant that Shakespeare then " lay in the 
 house ; " but because he lay in the house it does not follow 
 that he was more than an occasional lodger. The case was 
 one of alleged unpaid dower and as the action was brought 
 eight years after the marriage, it must have involved prolonged 
 talk and bickering. Shakespeare was therefore unlikely to 
 forget the essential details if he had lived long with the family. 
 But the contrary is the case. He remembered neither the 
 amount of the marriage portion nor when it was to be paid 
 and he says he did not know what household " stufFe " the 
 daughter received on her marriage. The professor has heard 
 no doubt ad nauseam about his mistake in suggesting that the 
 French herald Montjoie St. Denis was named by Shakespeare 
 after the Mountjoy family, but a further error is his inference 
 that the Shakespeare who left Bishopsgate in 1596 could not 
 have been the poet because the pipe roll is headed Sussex. The 
 roll refers to an unpaid contribution to a subsidy and on the 
 margin in MS. is Episcopo Wintonensi. This is to inform the 
 sheriff that his writ would not run because Shakespeare was 
 living in the Bishops's Liberty of the Clink and the point 
 about the county is the fact that at that time, there was only 
 one sheriff for Sussex and Surrey. The pipe roll was only 
 brought to light in 1904, but it confirms in a striking manner 
 the memorandum left by Alleyne that Shakespeare lodged in 
 1596 near the Bear Garden in Southwark. 
 
 Note (b). — Our author says that in 1597 Bacon bribed 
 Shakespeare with a gift of ;^iooo. Now in 1597 Bacon was 
 hard pressed by a gold.smith named Sympson for the return 
 of a loan and in 1598 the usurer had him arrested and 
 thrown into a spunging house for a debt of ;^30o.
 
 26 
 
 An Appeal and a Suggestion. 
 
 / venture to take this opportunity to make an appeal to the 
 "powers that be ''to wipe out the slur that their predecessors have so 
 long put upon the reputation of the nation Jor common sense and transjer 
 Shakespeare's will or at least one sheet ofitjrom the uncongenial cellar 
 where it noiv lies to the Birthplace, where, neither fire nor artificial 
 light is permitted. 'I housands of scholars and sympathisers come every 
 year to Stratford and their time is generally limited. At Stratford they 
 hope to see everything relating to the poet and not even his signature 
 is there ! 
 
 Further I should like to point out to the trustees of the Birthplace 
 that the cellar, which is the only absolutely untouched part of the house, 
 might be shoivn ivithout risk ij a light ivere placed so as to shine through 
 a ivindoiv of vertical prismatic glass, the rays being deflected right and 
 left. An acetylene motor lamp would do admirably and could be 
 placed at a safe distance. 
 
 *^* Those who possess Sir Edwin's book should insert this pamphlet 
 at the end oj it.
 
 *fe 
 
 & JUN14 1971 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Vf .i; li 
 
 ^^ 
 
 W 
 
 \:il]«i?iiQ 
 
 l\i_v .^ 
 
 URL JM 
 
 
 n 1 
 
 / 
 
 Form L9-50j«-4.'61(B8994s4)444 
 
 UNIVERSITY O^ 
 ■LOS A?^^-'^ 
 
 ,- ^. ^--^f
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 PR 
 
 2yuU LeftTffich - 
 L53 Bacon is not 
 Shakespeare! 
 
 iie^r^nw At^r 
 
 I, 
 
 3 1158 00907 0771