Bacon is Shake-Speare Part 2

If therefore we may read "out-doo the life" as "doo out the life"

meaning "shut out the real face of the living man" we perceive that here also we are told "that the real face is hidden."

The description, with the head line "To the Reader" and the signature "B.I.," forms twelve lines, the words of which can be turned into numerous significant anagrams, etc., to which, however, no allusion is made in the present work. But our readers will find that if all the letters are counted (the two v.v.'s in line nine being counted as four letters) they will amount to the number 287. In subsequent chapters a good deal is said about this number, but here we only desire to say that we are "informed" that the "Great Author" intended to reveal himself 287 years after 1623, the date when the First Folio was published, that is in the present year, 1910, when very numerous tongues will be loosened.

Examine once more the original Stratford Bust, Plate 5, Page 14, and the present Stratford Bust, Plate 6, Page 15, _with the large pen in the right hand_.

If the Stratford actor were indeed the author of the plays it was most appropriate that he should have a pen in his hand. But in the original monument as shewn in Plate 3, Page 8, the figure hugs a sack of wool or a pocket of hops or may be a cus.h.i.+on. For about 120 years, this continued to be the Stratford effigy and shewed nothing that could in any way connect the man portrayed, with literary work. I believe that this was not accidental. I think that everybody in Stratford must have known that William "Sha_c_kspeare" could not write so much as his own name, for I a.s.sert that we possess nothing which can by any reasonable possibility be deemed to be his signature.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Decorative Chapter Heading]

CHAPTER III.

The so-called "Signatures."

In Plate 14, Page 36, are shewn the five so-called signatures. These five being the only pieces of writing in the world that can, even by the most ardent Stratfordians, be supposed to have been written by Shakspeare's pen; let us consider them carefully. The Will commences "In the name of G.o.d Amen I Willum Shackspeare." It is written upon three sheets of paper and each sheet bears a supposed signature. The Will is dated in Latin "Vicesimo quinto die [Januarij] Mtij Anno Regni Dni nri Jacobi, nunc R Anglie, &c. decimo quarto & Scotie xlix annoq Dni 1616", or shortly in English 25th March 1616.

Shakspeare died 23rd April 1616 just four weeks after publis.h.i.+ng his will.

I say after "PUBLIs.h.i.+NG his Will" advisedly, for such is the attestation, viz., "Witnes to the publys.h.i.+ng hereof,"

"Fra: Collyns Julius Shawe John Robinson Hamnet Sadler Robert Whattcott"

Nothing is said about the witnessing of the signing hereof. The Will might therefore have been, and I myself am perfectly certain that it was, marked with the name of William Shakspeare by the Solicitor, Fra (ncis) Collyns, who wrote the body of the Will.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate XIV. The Five so-called "Shakespeare Signatures."

THE FIVE SO-CALLED "SHAKESPEARE SIGNATURES."]

He also wrote the names of the other witnesses, which are all in the same hand-writing as the Will; shewing that Shakspeare's witnesses were also unable to write their names.

This fact, that Shakspeare's name is written by the solicitor, is conclusively proved by the recent article of Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel in the Leipzig magazine, _Der Menschenkenner_, which was published in January 1909.

In this publication, photo reproductions of certain letters in the body of the Will, and in the so-called Shakspeare signatures are placed side by side, and the evidence is irresistible that they are written by the same hand. Moreover when we remember that the Will commences "I Willim Sha_c_kspeare" with a "c" between the "a" and "k," the idea that Shakspeare himself wrote his own Will cannot be deemed worthy of serious consideration. The whole Will is in fact in the handwriting of Francis Collyns, the Warwick solicitor, who added the attestation clause.

I myself was sure that the solicitor had added the so-called signatures, when, many years ago, I examined under the strongest magnifying gla.s.ses the Will at Somerset House.

Look first at the upper writings and never again call them "signatures."

The top one is on the first page of the Will, the second on the second page, the third on the last page of the Will.

The original of the top one has been very much damaged but the "W"

remains quite clear. Look first only at the "W's". If the writings were signatures what could induce a man when signing his last Will to make each "W" as different from the others as possible, and why is the second Christian name written Willm?

Compare also the second and third "Shakspeare" and note that every letter is formed in a different manner. Compare the two "S's", next compare the two "h's", the "h" of the second begins at the bottom, the "h" of the third begins at the top, the same applies to the next letter the "a", so also with respect to the "k's "; how widely different these are.

Plate 14 shews at the bottom two other names also. These are taken, the one on the left from a deed of purchase of a dwelling house in Blackfriars dated March 10th 1612-13 (now in the City Library of the Corporation of London); the other on the right is from a mortgage of the same property executed on the following day, viz: March 11th 1612-13, which is now in the British Museum.

Neither of these doc.u.ments states that it was "signed" but only says that it was "sealed," and it was at that date in no way necessary that any signatures should be written over the seals, but the clerks might and evidently did, place upon these deeds an abbreviated name of William Shakspeare over the seal on each doc.u.ment. In the case of the other two parties to the doc.u.ments, the signatures are most beautifully written and are almost absolutely identical in the two deeds.

Look at these two supposit.i.tious signatures. To myself it is difficult to imagine that anyone with eyes to see could suppose them to be signatures by the same hand.

[Ill.u.s.tration: The Signatures (so called) of "Shakespeare," which are the best possible reproductions of the originals, and shew that all are written in "lawscript" by skilled penman.]

Note on the so-called "Signatures."

When part of the purchase money is what is commonly called "left on mortgage," the mortgage deed is always dated one day _after_, but is always signed one moment _before_, the purchase deed, because the owner will not part with his property before he receives his security.

The Shakespeare purchase deed and the mortgage deed were therefore both signed at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink.

This is evidently true with respect to the signatures of Wm. Johnson and Jno. Jackson, the other parries to both of the deeds.

But as I wrote to the City authorities and the British Museum authorities, it would be impossible to discover a scoundrel who would venture to perjure himself and falsely swear that it was even remotely possible that the two supposed signature of Wm. Shakespeare could have been written at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink, by the _same hand_.

They are widely different, one having been written by the law clerk of the seller, the other by the law clerk of the purchaser.

According to the law of England, anyone may (by request) attach any person's name to any doc.u.ment, and if that person touch it, any third person may witness it as a signature.

Some years ago by the courtesy of the Corporation of London, the Librarian and the Chairman of the Library Committee carried the Purchase Deed to the British Museum to place it side by side with the Mortgage Deed there.

After they had with myself and the Museum Authorities most carefully examined the two deeds, the Librarian of the City Corporation said to me, there is no reason to suppose that the Corporation deed has upon it the signature of Wm. Shakespeare, and the British Museum Authorities likewise told me that they did not think that the Museum Mortgage Deed had upon it a signature of William Shakespeare.

The more you examine the whole five the more you will be certain, as the writer is, after the most careful study of the Will and of the Deeds, that not one of the five writings is a "signature," or pretends to be a "signature," and that therefore there is a probability, practically amounting to a certainty, that the Stratford Actor could not so much as manage to scrawl his own name.

No! We possess not a sc.r.a.p of writing, not even an attempt at a signature, [see also Chapter XIV., p. 161] that can be reasonably supposed to be written by the Stratford _gentleman_.

He is styled "gentle Shakespeare": this does not refer to anything relating to his character or to his manners but it means that possessing a coat of arms he was legally ent.i.tled to call himself a "gentleman."

Chapter IV.

Contemporary Allusions to Shackspere.

Shakspeare the Actor purchased New Place at Stratford-on-Avon in 1597 for 60 and he became a "gentleman" and an esquire when he secured a grant of arms in 1599.

How did the stage "honour" the player who had bought a coat of arms and was able to call himself a "gentleman"?

Three contemporary plays give us scenes ill.u.s.trating the incident:

1st. Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his humour" which was acted in 1599 the very year of Shakspeare's grant of arms.

2nd. Shakespeare's "As you like it" which was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1600, although no copy is known to exist before the folio of 1623.

3rd. "The Return from Parna.s.sus" which was acted at St. John's College, Cambridge in 1601, though not printed till 1606.