The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bacon and Shakspere

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Bacon and Shakspere

Author: William Henry Burr

Release date: March 12, 2012 [eBook #39121]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by David Widger

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BACON AND SHAKSPERE ***

BACON AND SHAKSPERE

By

William Henry Burr

PROOF THAT WILLIAM SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE

BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO

1886

CONTENTS

- PROOF THAT SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE

- NO TRUE LIKENESS OF SHAKSPERE

- THE SONNETS OF SHAKSPERE

- BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO

- AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO

- BACON AND SHAKSPERE A CHRONOGRAPH

- A CHRONOGRAPHIC PARALLEL

QUEEN ELIZABETH’S “YOUNG LORD KEEPER.” FROM BUST.

[3]

PROOF THAT SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE

No handwriting of Shakspere has ever been discovered except five autographs. In March 1613, when he was nearly 49 years old, he signed his name to a mortgage, and again to a deed relative to the same transaction. Three years later he subscribed his name to three briefs or sheets of his will. The five facsimiles are here reproduced:

They are all such signatures as an illiterate person, unaccustomed to write, would be likely to scrawl; and

[4]

they are so different that an acquaintance with one is little help to the recognition of another.

In the first signature he writes Wm. for William.

The second and third autographs have William written above Shakspere. Who but an illiterate person would sign his name thus?

In the last two signatures (being told perhaps that his name ought to be written on one line) he puts William before Shakspere; but the fourth William reads Willin.

See now how differently each letter is formed in the name Shakspere, beginning with the initial:

Did anybody ever write the first letter of his name so differently? After four attempts to form a capital S he succeeds tolerably well the fifth time. The second S, though of singular shape, appears to have been a customary one as early as 1598. (See examples of that year below.) Shakspere’s first attempt to form the crooked letter is a failure, but the second passably good. So again in 1616, when he has a different form to copy, his first attempt is futile, the second is passable, and the third quite successful.

But in attempting the next letter he makes it worse every time:

With the letter a he is more successful, making it legible three times out of five:

[5]

But the attempt to form a k is a signal failure:

With the long s he succeeds best the first time, and worst the second and third:

The letter p is legible the first time, but grows worse and worse to the last:

It seems as if in the first attempt to sign his name in 1613 he thought it was complete when he made it end with sp e; but being reminded that it lacked a letter or two he undertook to add one by putting an a over the e thus:

The next time, which was probably the same day,(1) he seems to have written his name Shaksper, though the terminal letters are uncertain:

The third time he gets it more like Shakspoze:

The deed to Shakspere and two other trustees is dated March 10 and signed Henry Walker. The mortgage from Shakspere and the other trustees is dated March 11. But for some unaccountable reason a duplicate verbatim copy of the deed from Henry Walker is signed by William Shakspere. This duplicate is in the Library of the city of London; the mortgage is in the British Museum. The duplicate deed we suspect was signed after the mortgage. Hence the improvement in the autograph; it was probably Shakspere’s second attempt to write. Compare it with the third.

[6]

The fourth time he seems to have tried to disguise the termination with awkward flourishes, making the letters totally illegible:

Finally, he omits the flourishes and comes nearer legibility, but still it is impossible to tell whether he meant to write ear, ere, or eare:

And now let the reader mark, that notwithstanding the orthodox spelling of the name from 1593 to 1616, and indeed up to the present time, was and is Shakespeare, there is no e in the first syllable and no a in the last, although some have imagined the letter a to exist in the last part of the final autograph.

We have said that these signatures are all that. Shakspere is known to have written; we ought to add that he prefixed to the last one the following scrawl:

For a long time we puzzled over this. Could it be an attempt to write “25th of March,” the day of the execution of the will? At last we read the following in Hallowell-Phillipps’s Shakspere:

“It may be observed that the words By me, which, the autograph excepted, are the only ones in the poet’s handwriting known to exist, appear to have been penned with ordinary firmness.”

Presuming that the signatures were made in a sick bed, the author concedes that the words “By me” were penned with ordinary firmness. Very good; but could not almost any five-year-old boy do as well the first time?

[7]

In 1775 certain papers and legal instruments were published, attributed to Shakspere, Queen Elizabeth, and Southampton. In 1796 Edmund Malone proved them to be forgeries. Here is one of the forged autographs of Shakspere:

This is superior to any of the genuine ones, which in some degree it resembles. The letter a is pretty clearly written in the last syllable, as if the forger meant to establish the proper spelling of that part of the name. Malone, who at first pronounced the genuine orthography to be Shakspeare, subsequently declared Shakspere to be the poet’s own mode of spelling his name beyond all doubt. But others do not accede to this decision, because they think there is an a in the last of the five genuine signatures.

The solution of the whole mystery is in the fact that Shakspere was unable to write or even to spell his own name.

In 1598 Richard Quiney addressed a letter to him asking for a loan of £30, and the name was written Shackesper:

In the same year among thirteen names of holders of corn in Stratford the last but one is Shakesper:

The form of the letter a in both these fac-similes

[8]

was peculiar to that time. It occurs in Shakspere’s second autograph. Why did he thus vary the form? Probably because he followed the copy set for him.

Note now the various spellings of his name:

In 1582, as a bridegroom, Shagsper.

In 1593 and 1594, as a poet, Shakespeare; and the same uniformly as a playwright from 1598 to 1623. but sometimes with a hyphen—Shake-speare.

In 1596, as an inhabitant of Southwark, Shaksper.

In 1598, as addressed by letter, Shackesper.

In 1598, as owner of corn, Shakesper.

In 1604, as plaintiff in a suit, Shexpere.

In 1604 and 1605, as author of plays performed at Whitehall before King James, Shaxberd.

In 1609, as plaintiff in a suit, Shackspeare.

In 1612, as plaintiff in a suit, Schackspeare.

In 1614, as written by his cousin, Shakspear.

In 1616, as twice written in his will, Shackspeare; but in signing the same three times he omits the c in the first syllable, and it is impossible to tell what the last three or four letters are. And although in the two Deeds of 1613 the name is written repeatedly Shakespeare, in signing them he omits the e in the first syllable both times, and varies the termination of the name, just as an illiterate person would be likely to do.

But there are more of these various spellings. All the records of Shakspere’s lifetime have been hunted up and printed. From these documents, consisting of deeds, bills of complaint, letters, poems, plays, etc.,— most of which especially concerned either the father or son or both—we extract the following spellings, giving; the dates:

[9]

Shakspere 1558, ’62, ’63, ’64, ’66, ’69, ’71, ’79, 80, ’83,

’85, ’90, ’96, 1616, ’17. (John Shakspere and all his offspring so registered, except Richard Shaks peer, baptized 1574.)

Shaxpere 1558, ’79, 1607, ’08.

Shakspeyr 1567, (“Mr.,” meaning John.)

Shakysper 1568, (“Mr. John.”)

Shackespere 1573, ’89, 1602.

Shakespere 1575, ’79, ’96, ’97, ’98, ’99,1602, ’04, ’06, ’08,

’09, ’10, ’11, ’13.

Shackspere 1579, (Deed. “Joannis Shaxpere -j-.”) 1608.

Shagsper 1582, (Marriage bond—twice so written.)

Shake-scene 1592, (Greene, the playwright, in derision.)

Shakespeare 1593-1594, (Poems,) 1596, ’98, 1603, ’05, ’13, (and all Plays from 1598 to 1623.)

Shaksper 1596, ’98, 1613, (Signature,) 1616.

Shakesper 1598, (Owner of corn.)

Shackesper 1598, (Letter from Quiney to Shakspere.)

Shakspeare 1601, ’03, ’07, ’12, ’13, ’14, 1623.

Shackespeare 1603, ’14, (Agreement.)

Shexpere 1604, (Suit for mult sold.)

Shaxberd 1604, ’05, (Dramatist, Whitehall.)

Shakespear 1605, (Conveyance.)

Shakesphear 1605, (Same conveyance.)

Shackspeare 1608, ’12, ’14, ’16.

Scliackspeare 1612, ’14, (Complaint and agreement.) Shaksp; 1613, (Signature.)

Shakspear 1614, (Cousin’s letter.)

Shaksp.... 1616, (Signatures to Will.)

Shaxper 1616, (“Bell and pall for Mr. Shaxpers

dawghter, viii. d.”)

If we divide the name between the s and p we have the following variations of each part:

Shaks, Shakes, Shakys, Shacks, Shackes, Schacks, Shags, Shax, Shex; per, pere, peer, pear, peare, peyr, phear, berd, pj, p ....

Shakspere’s daughter Judith in 1611 witnessed two instruments by making her mark. And his other

[10]

daughter Susanna in 1642 disputed the unmistakable handwriting of her deceased husband in such a manner as to betray her illiteracy.

Mr. C. F. Gunther, of Chicago, claims to have obtained a copy of the Shakspere Folio of 1632, (i.e., the second Folio,) containing the author’s autograph pasted on a fly-leaf, underneath which is written:

“The works of William Shakespeare. Born in April, 1564, and died in April, 1616. John Ward.”

And on the same fly-leaf is pasted a letter from Charles Godwin, of Bath, dated February 16, 1839, to Dr. Charles Severn, of London, who was then editing “The Diary of the Rev. John Ward, A. M.,” Vicar of Stratford-upon-Avon from 1648 to 1679.

The book is said to have been owned by a Mormon, and is supposed to have been brought from England by an emigrant to Utah. Aside from the impossibility of such an autograph escaping from England to the wilds of America and remaining undiscovered so many years, the fac-simile in the Chicago Current of May 23, 1885, betrays most certain evidence of fraud. Compare it with the five genuine scrawls of Shakspere. It is so exact a copy of the last signature to the will as to indicate that it was traced therefrom.

Shakspere’s last signature:

Pretended autograph in Chicago:

[11]

This close resemblance in so clumsy an autograph would be extraordinary, if not impossible; but how easy to forge it by first tracing it lightly with a pencil and then completing it with a pen. Here is a hair-line tracing of the spurious over the genuine autograph:

Even the most illiterate man who is obliged often to sign his name, will do it uniformly, so that when you have seen his signature once you will know it again. For example, take the following autographs:

The undersigned, aged 78 years, wrote the above autographs in presence of the two subscribing witnesses. And he never wrote and cannot write anything but his name, though he can read print with ease. And he further says that he learned to write his name in the course of one month in the administration of President Polk (1845-’9) while serving as a Capitol policeman; otherwise he would have been obliged to sign the pay-roll with his cross.

Witness:

1. Watson, JOHN W. SMITH.

Wm. Henry Burr.

Bacon required a mask, and he found it in the illiterate play-actor Shakspere.

Washington, D. C., May 31, 1885.

[12]

NO TRUE LIKENESS OF SHAKSPERE

The likeness of Shakspere in the Folio of 1623 has frequently been called “an abominable libel on humanity.” And yet its fidelity is certified by Ben Jonson in laudatory lines. Jonson was Bacon’s friend and enthusiastic admirer. If there was an original portrait of that wooden face it has never been found. If there was a better likeness of Shakspere in existence why was it not reproduced in that famous Folio? The same ugly engraving reappeared in all the later editions up tu 1685.

The bust on the monument at Stratford was first noticed in 1623. It was not taken from life, and is unlike any picture of Shakspere. It presents him in the act of composition, and “the vis comica", says Boaden, “so broadens his countenance, that it is hardly a stretch of fancy to suppose him in the actual creation of Falstaff himself.” More likely, we should say, Falltaff was Shakspere—Fall-staff, Shake-spear.

The most familiar pictures of Shakspere are very different from either of these, and generally far more intellectual and refined. They are pretended copies of what is called the Chandos portrait, but are not much like it. The Chandos picture was painted by an unknown artist, and has been altered by a later hand. It is said to have been owned by Sir William Davenant, who died in 1668; and he is said to have obtained it from an actor named Joseph Taylor, who died about 1653 at the age of 70. This we gather from Boaden’s “Portraits of Shakspere,” 1824. But now comes a further statement purporting to be written in Mr. Gunther’s Folio, by one Charles Lomax,, in 1781, as follows:

“The only original picture now extant of Shakespeare was painted by Joseph Taylor, one of the actors,” &c.

The rest of the pretended information agrees with what we find in Boaden’s book, which has a picture taken from the Chandos portrait quite different from those we generally see, and not much like the Droeshout engraving in the Shakspere Folio.

Shakspere probably never had a portrait taken.

[13]

THE SONNETS OF SHAKSPERE

WRITTEN BY FRANCIS BACON TO THE EARL OF ESSEX AND HIS BRIDE, A. D. 1590

“The mystery of the Sonnets will never be unfolded.” —Richard Grant White, 1865.

“All is supposition; the mystery is insoluble.” —Dr. Charles Mackay, 1884.

The mystery unfolded by W. H. Burr, July 31, 1883.

The first published poem of Shakspere, so far as known, was “Venus and Adonis,” in 1593. It was dedicated to the Earl of Southampton, then about twenty years of age. Five or six editions were called for in nine years. The “Sonnets” did not appear till 1609. The latter poem has 154 stanzas of 14 lines each; the first 126 are addressed to a beautiful and ardently beloved youth; the remainder to the young man’s betrothed.

As to the merits of the composition, the American Cyclopedia says:

“These ‘Sonnets,’ though deformed with occasional conceits, far surpass all other poems of their kind in our own language, or perhaps any other.”

The dedication is in these words:

“To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. H. all happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our everliving poet | wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting forth | T. T.”

[14]

Some have believed that “Mr. W. H.” was William Herbert; and a German critic supposes the initials to signify “William Himself.” But the American Cyclopedia says:

“To whom they were written, and in whose person is among the most difficult of unsolved literary problems.... Who this ‘onlie begetter’ was no man has yet been able satisfactorily to show.”(1)

(1) Dr. Charles Mackay attempts to solve the problem in an elaborate article in the Nineteenth Century, August, 1884, entitled “A Tangled Skein Unravelled.” He claims only to have found indications of mixed authorship. But this only makes the tangle worse, which began with Shakspere’s ostensible authorship; and the last despairing words of the astute un-raveller are: “All is supposition, the mystery is insoluble.”

In regard to the hypothesis that “W. H.” was William Herbert, the same authority says there is almost as much ground for the notion that the person addressed was Queen Elizabeth in doublet and hose.

In 1872 we first read Nathaniel Holmes’s “Authorship of Shakspere;” since then we have never entertained a reasonable doubt that Bacon was the author of the Plays. In 1882 we reread them all in the light of that discovery; but until July 31, 1883, we had never read a page of the “Sonnets,” nor when we began to read them on that day did we remember to have heard who “W. H.” was supposed to be. But coming to the twenty-fifth sonnet, we suspected that the poem was addressed to the Earl of Essex, and subsequent research confirmed that suspicion.

Herbert was sixteen years younger than Shakspere, and nineteen years younger than Bacon. If, therefore, the poem was written in 1590, which we purpose to show, it is impossible for Herbert to have been the

[15]

“onlie begetter of these Sonnets,” for he was then only ten years old.

Of course no one will date their composition as late as 1609, when Shakspere was forty-five and Bacon forty-eight. At that time the former had retired from the stage, and Bacon had been for six years King’s counsel and three years a married man. And certainly two sonnets (138 and 144) were composed as early as 1599, for they are repeated at the beginning of “The Passionate Pilgrim,” which was first published in that year.

All the internal and external evidence points to the year 1590 as the date, Francis Bacon as the writer, and the Earl of Essex as the person addressed.

It is said that Bacon made the acquaintance of Essex about 1590, but it would be remarkable if he did not know him years before. In sonnet 104 the poet says:

“Three winters cold

Have from the forests shook three summers’ pride,

Three beauteous springs to yellow autumn turned

In process of the seasons have I seen,

Three April perfumes in three hot Junes burned,

Since first I saw you fresh, which yet are green.”

Let us suppose that Bacon began to cultivate the Earl’s friendship in 1590. He was then twenty-two years old; three years earlier, when Bacon first saw him, the Earl was “fresh now he is yet green.”(1)

1. A letter from Bacon to the Earl of Leicester, asking for his furtherance in some suit which the Earl of Essex had moved in his behalf, has recently been found, written in 1588. (Sped-ding’s “Bacon,” 1878, i, 50, note.)

Robert Devereux, the second Earl of Essex, was born Nov. 10, 1567, and was beheaded for treason

[16]

Feb. 25, 1601. He succeeded to the title at ten years of age. At twenty he was appointed master of the horse. At twenty-one the Queen created him captain-general of the cavalry, and conferred on him the honor of the garter. In the same year an expedition was undertaken against Portugal, and he secretly followed the armament. This was without the Queen’s permission, but he was quickly reconciled with her after his return, and at once assumed a superiority over Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Charles Blount, rival competitors for royal favor. He was challenged by Blount and wounded in the knee, and the Queen is said to have expressed her gratification that some one had taken him down, as otherwise there would be no ruling him. He was an accomplished scholar and patron of literature. He erected a monument to Spenser and gave an estate to Bacon.

But we have omitted one striking characteristic which has an important bearing on the question of his identity with “Mr. W. H.” The young Earl of Essex was a remarkably handsome man. Now the beauty of the person addressed in the “Sonnets” is a constantly recurring theme, and the burden of the poem is an appeal to the beloved and beautiful young man to marry. It begins thus:

“From fairest creatures we desire increase,

That thereby beauty’s rose might never die.”

The next Sonnet begins:

“When forty winters shall besiege thy brow,

And dig deep trenches in thy beauty’s field,

Thy youth’s proud livery, so gazed on now,

Will be a tattered weed of small worth held.”

The last line of Sonnet 13 reads:

“You had a father; let your son say so.”

[17]

The father of Essex died in 1576. In 1590 the second Earl married the widow of Sir Philip Sidney, Essex being twenty-two years old and she a little younger. The marriage was secret to avoid the opposition of Elizabeth. By October, concealment was no longer possible, and on the 22d of January, 1591, (not 1592 as some have it,) the first child was born. (“Earls of Essex,” 1853.)

The mother of Essex was celebrated for her beauty; his father was not handsome. (See portrait in “Earls of Essex.”) The son’s inheritance of his mother’s features is told in the third Sonnet:

“Thou art thy mother’s glass, and she in thee

Calls back the lovely April of her prime;

So thou through windows of thine age shalt see,

Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.”

For further description of the young Earl’s beauty, take the following:

“If I could write the beauty of your eyes,

And in fresh numbers number all your graces,

The age to come would say, ‘This poet lies;

Such heavenly touches ne’er touched earthly faces.”

“Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit

Is poorly imitated after you;

On Helen’s cheek all art of beauty set,

And you in Grecian ’tires are painted new.”

Essex having become the special favorite of the Queen, of course became an object of envy and slander. Mark now what the poet says:

“Gentle thou art, and therefore to be won;

Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed.”

“That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect,

For slander’s mark was ever yet the fair;

The ornament of beauty is suspect,

A crow that flies in heaven’s sweetest air.

[18]

So be thou good-; slander doth but approve

Thy worth the greater, being wooed of time.”

In 1590 Bacon had acquired a reputation as an orator in the House of Commons, but was without available means of livelihood in keeping with his wants and station. Up to this time his efforts for promotion were thwarted by the Queen’s minister, Lord Burleigh (Cecil) who regarded him as a dangerous rival for his son. With the rise of young Essex into royal favor Bacon turned to him as a friend at court. From 1590 to 1594 the Earl tried in vain to advance Bacon, and at last, when the vacant office of Attorney General was filled by another, Essex, blaming himself for the disappointment, insisted on presenting him with an estate worth £1,800.

With these facts in mind, see how perfectly the following lines fit the persons and the time, 1590:

“Let those who are in favor with their stars,

Of public honor and proud titles boast,

Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,

Unlooked for joy in that I honor most.”

“When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,

I all alone beweep my outcast state,

And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,

And look upon myself and curse my fate,

Wishing me like to one more rich in hope.

Featured like him, like him with friends possessed,

Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope,

With what I most enjoy contented least;

Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,

Haply I think on thee, and then my state,

Like to the lark at break of day arising,

From sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s gate;

For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings

it then I scorn to change my state with kings.”

“I may not evermore acknowledge thee,

Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame,

Nor thou with public kindness honor me,

Unless thou take that honor from thy name;

But do not so; I love thee in such sort

As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report.

“As a decrepit father takes delight

To see his active child do deeds of youth,

So I, made lame by fortune’s dearest spite,

Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth.

For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit,

Or any of these all, or all, or more,

Entitled in my parts do crowned sit,

I make my love engrafted to this store.

So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised,

Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give

That I in thy abundance am sufficed,

And by a part of all thy glory live.”

In 1590 Shakspere was part owner of a theater.

In 1590 Bacon obtained his first show of favor from the court; he became Queen’s counsel extraordinary, but the office was without emolument. At this time plays for the theater were written and rewritten again and again to meet the demand. Young lawyers and poets produced them rapidly. Each theatrical company kept from one to four poets in its pay (Amer. Cyc.) Shakspere appeared to be ready to father anything that promised success, and there are at least six plays published under his name or initials which most critics say are not his, nor have they ever appeared in the genuine canon. In 1591 a poem by Spenser was published containing these lines:

“And he, the man whom Nature’s self has made

To mock herself and truth to imitate,

With kindly counter under mimic shade:

“Our pleasant Willy, ah, is dead of late:

With whom all joy and jolly merriment

Is also deaded and in dolor drent.”

[20]

From 1590 until Shakspere retired from the stage, how could it be said that he was “poor,” bewailing his “outcast state” and “cursing his fate?” But it is certain that Bacon’s condition answered precisely to that description up to November, 1594, when Essex gave him an estate worth £1,800; aye, even until 1604, when King James granted him a pension of £60; if not even up to 1607.

Mark now the modesty of the poet in 1590:

“If thou survive my well contented day,

When that churl Death with bones my dust shall cover,

And shalt by fortune once more resurvey

These poor rude lines of thy deceased lover,

Compare them with the bettering of the time,

And though they be outstripp’d by every pen,

Reserve them for thy love, not for their rhyme,

Exceeded by the height of happier men.”

“My name be buried Where my body is,

and live no more to shame nor me nor you,

for I am shamed by that which I bring forth,

and so should you, to love things nothing worth.”

We have already quoted a verse from Spenser in praise of “Willy,” first published in 1591; we now adduce a passage from one of “Willy” Bacon’s poems first published in 1599 in praise of Spenser:

“Dowland to thee is dear, whose heavenly touch

Upon the lute doth ravish human sense;

Spenser to me, whose deep conceit is such

As, passing all conceit, needs no defense.”

This verse is in “The Passionate Pilgrim,” the first two numbers of which are Sonnets 138 and 144 with slight variations. John Dowland, a musician, was born

[21]

in 1562 and died 1625. Spenser was eight years older than Bacon.

But coupled with this modesty of the author of the “Sonnets,” note how he praises his friend and how famous that friend appears at the time:

“Oh, how I faint when I of you do write,

Knowing a better spirit doth use your name,

And in the praise thereof spends all his might,

To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your fame.

But since your worth, wide as the ocean is,

The humble as the proudest sail doth bear,

My saucy bark, inferior far to his,

On your broad main doth wilfully appear;

Your shallowest help will hold me up afloat,

Whilst he upon your soundless deep doth ride;

Or being wrecked, I am a worthless boat,

He of tall building and of goodly pride;

Then if he thrive and I be cast away,

The worst was this: my love was my decay.”

The other superior (?) poet referred to is undoubtedly Spenser, among whose “Sonnets, addressed by the author to his friends and patrons,” in January, 1590, is one “To the most honorable and excellent Lord the Earl of Essex, great master of the horse to her highness, and knight of the noble order of the garter, etc.” Essex became master of the horse in 1587, and knight of the garter in 1588.

We proceed with the quotations from the Shaksperian Sonnets:

“Or I shall live your epitaph to make,

Or you survive when I in earth am rotten,

From hence your memory death cannot take,

Although in me each part will be forgotten.

Your name from hence immortal life shall have,

Though, I once gone, to all the world must die;

The earth can yield me but a common grave,

When you entombed in men’s eyes shall lie.

[22]

Your monument shall be my gentle verse,

Which eyes not yet created shall o’er-read,

And tongues to be your being shall rehearse

When all the breathers of this world are dead;

You shall still live—such virtue hath my pen—

Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.

From Sonnet 42 it appears that the young Earl had won the heart of the widow Sidney:

“That thou hast her, it is not all my grief,

And yet it may be said I loved her dearly;

That she hath thee, is of my wailing chief,

A loss in love that touches me more nearly.

Loving offenders! thus I will excuse ye:

Thou dost love her, because thou know’st I love her,

And for my sake even so doth she abuse me,

Suffering my friend for my sake to approve her.

If I lose thee, my loss is my love’s gain,

And losing her, my friend hath found that loss;

Both find each other, and I lose both twain,

And both for my sake lay me on this cross:

But here’s the joy: my friend and I are one;

Sweet flattery! then she loves but me alone.”

The second part of the “Sonnets,” after 126, is addressed to the Earl’s bethrothed; we quote Sonnet 134:

“So now I have confessed that he is thine.

And I myself am mortgaged to thy will,

Myself I’ll forfeit, so that other mine

Thou wilt restore, to be my comfort still;

But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free,

For thou art covetous and he is kind;

He learned but surety-like to write for me,

Under that bond that him as fast doth bind,

The statute of thy beauty thou wilt take,

Thou usurer that put’st forth all to use,

And sue a friend came debtor for my sake;

So him I lose through my unkind abuse.

Him have I lost; thou hast both him and me,

He pays the whole, and yet am I not free.”

[23]

Incidentally it may be noted how familiar the writer of the above lines must have been with the practice of law. Shakspere’s legal knowledge has amazed the lawyers.

The next Sonnet introduces the name of “Will,” and puns upon it profusely:

“Whoever hath her wish thou hast thy Will,

And Will to boot, and Will in overplus;

More than enough am I that vex thee still,

To thy sweet will making addition thus,

Wilt thou whose will is large and spacious,

Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?

Shall will in others seem right gracious,

And in my will no fair acceptance shine?

The sea, all water, yet receives rain still,

And in abundance addeth to his store:

So thou being rich in Will add to thy Will

One will of mine, to make thy large Will more.

Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;

Think all but one, and me in that one Will.”

How preposterous to believe that a common-place play actor, with a wife and children, addressed such sentiments to the bride of his dearest friend! At no time do the sentiments or circumstances of the poem fit the person of the actor, of whom the dying and dissipated playwright, Greene, wrote in 1592:

“There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that with his Tygers heart, wrapt in a player’s hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is, in his owne conceyt, the onely Shake-scene in a countne.”

But, on the other hand, frequent evidence appears that Bacon, up to the time he was made Attorney-General in 1613, was constantly engaged in secret literary work. But not so secret as to be unknown

[24]

to a circle of friends and perchance a few enemies; for, in 1599, when he interceded with the Queen for his dear friend Essex, then under arrest on account of a treasonable pamphlet being dedicated to him, her Majesty flung at Bacon “a matter which grew from him, but went after about in others’ names,” being in fact the play of “Richard II,” which, in that and the preceding year, had a great run on the stage, and had gone through two editions, but, for prudential reasons, with the scene containing the deposition of the king left out.

But even in the “Sonnets” the fact appears that the author has been writing for the stage:

“Alas, ’tis true I have gone here and there,

And made myself a motley to the view,

Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear,

Made old offenses of affections new;

Most true it is that I have looked on truth

Askance and strangely; but by all above,

These blenches gave my heart another youth,

And worse essays proved thee my best of love.”

“O, for my sake do you with Fortune chide,

The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds,

That did not better for my life provide

Than public means which public manners breeds.

Thence comes it that my name receives a brand,

And almost thence my nature is subdued

To what it works in, like the dyer’s hand:

Pity me then and wish I were renewed.”

Here is not only a private confession of being compelled to produce plays for subsistence, but a sorrowful acknowledgment that thereby his “name receives a brand.”

Yet it must not be supposed that Bacon was publicly known at any time as a play writer. His first

[25]

publication, the “Essays,” was in 1597, and Shakspere’s name first appeared on the title page of a Play in 1598, by which time nearly half of the Plays had been written or sketched, and six had been printed, all without the author’s name. And when the first collection was published in the “Folio” of 1623, (seven years after Shakspere’s death,) it included some Plays never before heard of, and eighteen never before printed.

Lord Coke, who was Bacon’s most jealous rival and adversary, seems never to have suspected him of play writing. Nor did the watchful Puritanic mother of the two bachelors of Gray’s Inn ever dream that her studious younger son was engaged in such sinful work.

In Sonnet 76 the writer deplores his want of variety of style, and fears that this fault will almost disclose his secret authorship:

“Why is my verse so barren of new pride,

So far from variation or quick change?

Why with the time do I not glance aside,

To new-found methods and to compounds strange?

Why write I still all one, ever the same,

And keep invention in a noted weed,

That every word doth almost tell my name,

Showing their birth and where they did proceed?”

Bacon having begun to produce plays for Shakspere’s theater before 1590, the authorship of which was afterward assumed by the actor and proprietor, it became necessary also to avoid being publicly known as a writer of sonnets. Therefore, in view of the circulation and ultimate publication of this poem, he facetiously disguised the identity of the writer by calling himself “Will.” Three years later he dedicated a

[26]

published poem to his young friend Southampton under the name of “William Shakespeare,” and again another in 1594. But the “Sonnets” were not published until 1609, when Essex had been dead eight years, and his widow had been married six years to a third husband. It would never do for the Solicitor-General to be known as the author of such a poem; so when it came out in print it was dedicated to “Mr. W. H.” by “T. T.,” and no one until a few years ago ever seems to have suspected that Bacon wrote the poem, nor, so far as we are aware, has any one ever suspected until July 31, 1883, that “W. H.” was the accomplished and famous Earl of Essex.

The young widow Sidney was the only daughter of the Queen’s principal secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham, for whom Bacon drafted an important state paper in 1588 on the conduct of the government toward Papists and Dissenters. And that Bacon was intimate with the Secretary’s daughter, aye, even one of her lovers, appears from many of the Sonnets addressed to her. He describes her playing on the harpsichord, envies the keys “that nimbly leap to kiss her hand,” and says:

“Since saucy jacks so happy are in this,

Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss.”

And from other passages it is quite evident that he had often kissed her.

No fact has been found incompatible with Bacon’s authorship of the “Sonnets.” The following line might seem to indicate a writer past the age of 29:

“Although she knows my days are past the best.”

But in 1599, when Shakspere was only 35, this very verse was published as his in the “Passionate Pilgrim,” where Sonnet 138 appears as number one.

[27]

But again, we have a letter written in 1592 by Bacon to his uncle, Lord Treasurer Burleigh, in which he says:

“I wax somewhat ancient; one and thirty years is a great deal of sand in the hour-glass.”

At the age of 31 he thinks himself “somewhat ancient” two years earlier he apprehends that forty winters will entirely deface the youthful Earl’s beauty; and to the lovely young widow he says: “My days are past the best.”

This misconception therefore, whether pretended or real, becomes a strong proof of Bacon’s authorship.

It has been boldly alleged by some that Bacon was no poet. Such, however, was not the judgment of his biographer, the late James Spedding. Before he could have heard it claimed that Shakspere did not write the plays he said that Bacon might have taken the highest rank as a poet. And that judgment was based upon the versification of a few Psalms by the old man on a sick bed. Since 1867 the substantial proofs of Bacon’s secret authorship have been adduced. Aside from innumerable parallels in the works of Bacon and Shakspere there is much external evidence. For example:

We know that Bacon wrote Sonnets to Queen Elizabeth and excused himself by saying: “I profess not to be a poet.”

We know that he composed Masques anonymously before Shakspere’s name appeared as a play writer, and that those Masques were essentially poetical compositions, in the nature of plays, and sometimes contained verses in rhyme equal in merit to the average of Shakspere’s.

[28]

In one of those Masques a speaker is made to say: “The monuments of wit survive the monuments of power; the verses of the poet endure without a syllable lost, while states and empires pass many periods.” Two years later, in 1596, the composer of that speech, writing to Sir Fulke Greville on his studies, said: “For poets I can commend none, being resolved to be ever a stranger to them.” Greville (1554-1628) was a poet, and wrote the life of Sir Philip Sidney.

In 1603 Bacon wrote a private letter to the poet John Davies, begging him to speak a good word for the writer to the incoming King James I., and closing with these words: “So, desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue.”

Bacon’s most intimate friend, Toby Matthew, in a letter with cancelled date, but as late as 1605, acknowledged the receipt of some work by Bacon, and added this postscript:

“I will not return you weight for weight, but Measure for Measure.”

“Mesur for Mesur,” by “Shaxberd,” was played before King James, at Whitehall, December 26, 1604.

Again, about the time of the publication of the Shakespere Folio, 1623, Matthew acknowledged in a letter without date, the receipt of a “great and noble favor,” and added the following:

“P. S.—The most prodigious wit that ever I knew, of my nation and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s name, though he be known by another.”

BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO

Spenser’s “Faery Queen” was begun in 1582, and published in 1590. The Dedication to Sir Walter Raleigh is dated 23 January, 1589 (i. e., 1590.) Raleigh in return praised the poem in two Sonnets. These, together with five other versified encomiums by “Hobynoll” (Gabriel Harvey,) “R. S.,” “H. B.,” “W. L.,” and “Ignoto,” are prefixed to Spenser’s work.

In 1599 “The Passionate Pilgrim,” a collection of twenty-one sonnets, songs, etc., was published with the name of W. Shakspere on the title page. The authorship of several of the pieces is disputed.

In regard to No. xviii. “My flocks feed not,” Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, says:

“There is a somewhat brief version of this song in the collection of Madrigals, etc., by Thomas Weelkes 1597, this person being the composer of the music, but not necessarily the author of the words. A copy of it as it is seen in the Passionate Pilgrim also occurs in England’s Helicon, 1600, entitled ‘The Unknowne Sheepheards Complaint,’ and is there subscribed Ignoto.”

Again, in regard to No. xx, “Live with me and be my love,” the same author, says:

“The first of these very pretty songs is incomplete, and the second, called ‘Love’s answer,’ still more so. In England’s Helicon, 1600, the former is given to Marlowe, the latter to Ignoto; and there is good reason to believe that Christopher

[30]

Marlowe wrote the song, and Sir Walter Raleigh the nymph’s reply; for so we are positively assured by Isaac Walton, who has inserted them both in his Complete Angler under the character of ‘that smooth song which was made by Kit Marlowe, now at least fifty years ago; and an answer to it which was made by Sir Walter Raleigh in his younger days:—old fashioned poetry but choicely good.’ Both these songs were exceedingly popular and are afterwards found in the street ballads. The first is quoted in the Merry Wives of Windsor.”

Again, in regard to No. xxi, “As it fell upon a day,” Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, says:

“This charming idyl occurs, with the absence of two lines, amongst the Poems in Divers Humours appended to Bamfield’s Encomion of Lady Pecunia, in 1598, and the first twenty-six lines with the addition of two new ones are found in England’s Helicon, 1600. This latter version follows in that work No. xviii of this list, [“My flocks feed not,”] is also subscribed Ignoto, and is headed: ‘Another of the same Sheepheards.’ The probability is that the copies of these little poems, as given in the Helicon, were taken from a Common Place book in which the names of the authors were not recorded; the two supplementary lines just noticed having the appearance of being an unauthorized couplet improvised for the sake of giving a neater finish to the abridgment.”

We will now reproduce the aforesaid poems from “England’s Helicon,” second edition, 1614. A brief version of the first song, No. xviii of “The Passionate Pilgrim,” says Halliwell-Phillipps, appeared in 1597:

*The unknown Shepherd's Complaint.*

My flocks feed not, my ewes breed not,

My rams speed not, all is amiss;

Love is denying, Faith is defying;

Hearts ren[e]ging, causer of this.

All my merry jigs are quite forgot,

And my lady’s love is lost, God wot:

Where her faith was firmly fixed in love,

There a nay is placed without remove.

[31]

One silly cross wrought all my loss;

O frowning fortune, cursed fickle Dame,

For now I see, inconstancy

More in women than in men remain.

In black mourn I, all fears scorn I,

Love hath forlorn me, living in thrall;

Heart is bleeding, all help needing,

O cruel speeding, fraughted with gall.

My shepherd’s pipe can sound no deal,

My wether’s bell rings doleful knell.

My curtail dog that wont to have played,

Plays not at all, but seems afraid.

With sighs so deep, procure to weep,

In howling-wise to see my doleful plight,

How sighs resound, through heartless ground,

Like a thousand vanquished men in bloody fight.

Clear wells spring not, sweet birds sing not,

Green plants bring not forth their dye;

Herds stand weeping—flocks all sleeping,

Nymphs back peeping fearfully.

All our pleasures known to us poor swains,

All our merry meeting on the plains,

All our evening sports from us are fled,

All our love is lost, for love is dead.

Farewell sweet lass, thy like ne’er was,

For sweet content, the cause of all my moan:

Poor Corydon must live alone,

Other help for him, I see that there is none.

Finis                         Ignoto

The variations from the version of 1599 are few, the only important one being “ren[e]ging” for “renying.” The latter has no meaning; the former is used twice in the plays.

The only question in regard to the authorship of this poem is, whether Shakspere or “Ignoto” wrote it.

The next poem printed in the “Helicon” is a part of No.xxi of the “Passionate Pilgrim.”:

[32]

Another of the Same Shepherds.

As it fell upon a day

In the merry month of May,

Sitting in a pleasant shade

Which a grove of myrtles made;

Beasts did leap, and birds did sing,

Trees did grow and plants did spring;

Everything did banish moan,

Save the nightingale alone.

She, poor bird, as all forlorn,

Lean’d her breast against a thorn;

And there sung the dolefull’st ditty,

That to hear it was great pity.

Fie, fie, fie, now would she cry;

Teru, teru! by and by;

That to hear her so complain

Scarce I could from tears refrain;

For her griefs, so lively shown,

Made me think upon mine own.

Ah! thought I, thou mourn’st in vain!

None takes pity on thy pain:

Senseless trees, they cannot hear thee,

Ruthless beasts they will not cheer thee:

King Pandion he is dead;

All thy friends are lapp’d in lead;

All thy fellow birds do sing,

Careless of thy sorrowing!

Even so, poor bird, like thee,

None alive will pity me.

Finis.          Ignoto.

The last two lines, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps says, are new ones added to the first twenty-six in “The Passionate Pilgrim.” Our own edition of the latter has those two lines, and the only variation is in the tenth line—“up-till” for “against.” There are thirty lines more in our edition. But we have another version of the whole, omitting the aforesaid two lines and a subsequent couplet. This version, curiously enough, is

[33]

Leaded “Address to the Nightingale,” and is credited to Richard Barnfield, “about 1610.” (Encyc. of Poetry No. 121.) In 1598 it is said that the first twenty-six lines of this idyl appeared in an appendix to Barnfield’s “Encomium in 1599 it reappeared enlarged to twice the length and was credited to Shakspere; in 1600 the first twenty-eight lines were republished in “England’s Helicon” and subscribed “Ignoto.”

We now transcribe from the “Helicon,” No. xx of “The Passionate Pilgrim” much amended and enlarged:

The Passionate Shepherd to his love.

Come live with me, and be my love,

And we will all the pleasures prove,

That valleys, groves, [and] hills and fields,

Woods, or steeple mountains yields.(1)

(1) The grammar of this verse is shocking both here and in

the version of 1599. And there are considerable variations

in the two versions. In that of 1599 the first word “Come”

is omitted, without which the song could hardly be sung.

Other slight defects of measure appear in both. But the

editor of Marlowe’s Works has carefully corrected the

grammar and the measure.

And we will sit upon the rocks,

Seeing the shepherds feed their flocks,

By shallow rivers, to whose falls

Melodious birds sing madrigals.

And I will make thee beds of roses,

And a thousand fragrant posies,

A cap of flowers and a kirtle

Embroidered all with leaves of myrtle.

A gown made of the finest wool,

Which from our pretty lambs we pull,

Fair lined slippers for the cold,

With buckles of the purest gold:

A belt of straw, and ivy buds

With coral clasps and amber studs.

[34]

And if these pleasures may thee move,

Come live with me and be my love.

The shepherd swains shall dance and sing

For thy delights each May-morning;

If these delights thy mind may move,

Then live with me and be my love.

Finis.           Chr. Marlowe.

Here we have Marlowe credited with this song in 1600, seven years after his death. Is there any other evidence that he wrote it? A single line at the close of a ditty in his “Jew of Malta” parallels with the first line of this, except the first word:

“Shall live with me and be my love.”

The song, with many verbal amendments, and omitting the last stanza, is inserted in his “Works,” 1826.

In the “Merry Wives of Windsor” act iii, scene ly Sir Hugh Evans sings the following four lines:

“To shallow rivers, to whose falls

Melodious birds sing madrigals;

There we will make our peds of roses,

And a thousand fragrant posies.”

This play was written in the latter part of 1599. In the earliest form of it Sir Hugh transposes and varies the lines thus:

“And then she made him beds of roses,

And a thousand fragrant posies.”

Then after three lines of incoherent speech:

“To shallow rivers, and to falls

Melodious birds sing madrigals.”

It would seem as if the song was familiar to the public in 1599 We now add from the “Helicon” the rest of No. xx of “The Passionate Pilgrim,” enlarged from one stanza to six:

[35]

The Nymph's reply to the Shepherd.

If all the world and love were young,

And truth in every shepherd’s tongue,

These pretty pleasures might me move,

To live with thee, and be thy love.

Time drives the flocks from field to fold,

When rivers rage, and rocks grow cold;

And Philomel becometh dumb;

The rest complain of cares to come.

The flowers do fade, and wanton fields

To wayward Winter reckoning yields;

A honey tongue, a heart of gall,

Is fancy’s Spring, but sorrow’s fall.

Thy gowns, thy shoes, thy beds of roses,

Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies,

Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten,

In folly ripe, in reason rotten.

Thy belt of straw, and ivy buds,

Thy coral clasps and amber studs,

All these in me no means can move,

To come to thee and be thy love.

But could youth last, and love still breed,

Had joys no date, nor age no need,

Then these delights my mind might move,

To live with thee and be thy love.

Finis.                   Ignoto.

The editor of the third edition of the “Helicon” 1812, says in regard to “Ignoto:”

“This signature appears to have been generally, though not exclusively, subscribed to the pieces of Sir Walter Raleigh. It is also subscribed to one piece since appropriated to Shakspere, [No. xviii,] and to one Which, according to Ellis, belongs to Richard Barnfield [No. xxi.] The celebrated answer to Marlowe’s, 'Come live with me,’ here subscribed Ignoto, is given expressly to Raleigh by Isaac Walton in his ‘Complete Angler,’ first published in 1653.”

[36]

What could Walton know about it fifty years after the publication of the song and answer as above? On such worthless testimony the Nymph’s Answer is credited to Raleigh. And we have in the “Encyclopedia of Poetry,” 1873, first the song by Marlowe, “about 1590,” and then the Nymph’s Reply by Raleigh “about 1610.” Strange that the Nymph should wait about twenty years to reply, and should then repeat the lines credited to Shakspere in 1599 and to “Ignoto” in 1600! The song perhaps existed before the death of Marlowe in 1593, but was probably composed by “Ignoto,” who also wrote “The Nymph’s Reply” and numerous other poetical pieces that were published in the “Helicon” in 1600.

“Ignoto” was undoubtedly a concealed poet. Marlowe, Raleigh and Barnfield were not. As early as January 1590, if not a little sooner, “Ignoto” contributed to Spenser’s first publication of the “Faery Queen” the following lines:

“To look upon a work of rare devise

The which a workman setteth out to view,

And not to yield it the deserved prize

That unto such a workmanship is due,

Doth either prove the judgment to be naught,

Or else doth show a mind with envy fraught.

“To labor to commend a piece of work

Which no man goes about to discommend,

Would raise a jealous doubt that there did lurk

Some secret doubt whereto the praise did tend:

For when men know the goodness of the wine

’Tis needless for the host to have a sign.

“Thus then, to show my judgment to be such

As can discern of colors black and white,

As als to free my mind from envy’s touch,

That never gives to any man his right:

I here pronounce this workmanship is such

As that no pen can set it forth too much.

[37]

“And thus I hang a garland at the door;

Not for to show the goodness of the ware;

But such hath been the custom heretofore,

And customs very hardly broken are;

And when your taste shall tell you this is true,

Then look you give your host his utmost due.”

In No. viii of “The Passionate Pilgrim” the writer says:

“Dowland to thee is dear, whose heavenly touch

Upon the lute doth ravish human sense;

Spenser to me, whose deep conceit is such

As, passing all conceit, needs no defense.”

Is not this praise of Spenser a substantial repetition of the sentiments expressed by “Ignoto”?

Again, in Shakspere’s Sonnet lxxx we read:

“O how I faint when I of you do write,

Knowing a better spirit doth use your name,

And in the praise thereof spends all his might,

To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your fame!”

Spenser praises Essex in one of the Sonnets prefixed to his “Faery Queen,” which antedates the Sonnets of Shakspere.

Once more. In No. xviii of “The Passionate Pilgrim” we read:

“Poor Corydon must live alone,

Other help for him I see that there is none.”

Compare this with the following lines from Spenser’s “Colin Clout,” dedicated to Sir Walter Raleigh, December 27, 1591, and published in 1595:

“And there is Corydon, though meanly waged,

Yet ablest wit of most I know this day.”

Was not Bacon the ablest wit of that time? Was

[38]

he not a concealed poet? Was he not “Corydon”? Was he not “Ignoto”?

But what evidence is there that Raleigh used that signature? The “Faery Queen” was publicly dedicated to him, and in the Sonnet addressed to him as one of Spenser’s patrons, a forthcoming poem by Raleigh is announced thus:

“Yet, till that thou thy poem wilt make known,

Let thy fair Cynthia’s praises be thus rudely shown.”

That poem was known to Spenser, who in the Dedication said he had fashioned his Queen “according to your [Raleigh’s] own excellent conceit of Cynthia,” i. e., Queen Elizabeth.

Furthermore, Raleigh contributed two Sonnets in praise of Spenser’s “Faery Queen;” these he subscribed with his own initials. Did he at the same time write another encomium and sign it “Ignoto”?

There are sixteen pieces in the “Helicon” subscribed “Ignoto.” One of these, “The Nymph’s Reply” is ascribed to Raleigh on the testimony of Walton in 1653; and two others are believed by the editor of the third edition, 1812, to belong to Raleigh, because in an early copy of the same “Ignoto” was found pasted over “W. R.” Upon such flimsy evidence the modern editor infers that the signature “Ignoto” was “generally, though not exclusively, (his own italics,) subscribed to the pieces of Sir Walter Raleigh.”

The next piece after “The Nymph’s Reply” in the “Helicon” is the following by “Ignoto”:

Another of the same nature made since.

Come live with me and be my dear,

And we will revel all the year,

In plains and groves, on hills and dales,

Where fragrant air breeds sweetest gates.

There shall you have the beauteous pine,

The cedar, and the spreading vine;

And all the woods to be a screen,

Lest Phoebus kiss my summer queen.

The seat for your disport shall be

Over some river in a tree;

Where silver sands and pebbles sing

Eternal ditties with the Spring.

There shall you see the nymphs at play,

And how the Satyrs spend the day;

The fishes gliding on the sands,

Offering their bellies to your hands.

The birds, with heavenly tuned throats,

Possess woods’ echoes with sweet notes;

Which to your senses will impart

A music to inflame the heart.

Upon the bare and leafless oak

The ring-dove’s wooings will provoke

A colder blood than you possess,

To play with me and do no less.

In bowers of laurel trimly dight,

We will outwear the silent night,

While Flora busy is to spread

Her richest treasure on our bed.

Ten thousand glow-worms shall attend,

And all their sparkling lights shall spend.

All to adorn and beautify

Your lodging with most majesty.

Then in mine arms will I enclose

Lily’s fair mixture with the rose;

Whose nice perfections in love’s play,

Shall tune to me the highest key.

Thus as we pass the welcome night

In sportful pleasures and delight,

The nimble fairies on the grounds

Shall dance and sing melodious sounds.

[40]

If these may serve for to entice

Your presence to Love’s paradise,

Then come with me and be my dear,

And we will straight begin the year.

Finis.                 Ignoto.

Who will say that this is not equal to the first song ascribed to Marlowe? What couplet in that surpasses this one?:

“Where silver sands and pebbles sing

Eternal ditties with the Spring.”

Or this?:

“Ten thousand glow-worms shall attend.

And all their sparkling lights shall spend.”

For parallels with the first of these couplets take the following:

“Silver stream.” Much Ado, iii, 1.

“Sing no more ditties.” Ibid, ii, 1.

“Silver currents.” K. John, ii, 1.

“The murmuring surge

That on the unnumbered idle pebbles chafes.”

Ibid, iv, 6.

For a single parallel with the second couplet take this:

“Twenty glow-worms shall our lanterns be.”

M. W. Windsor, v, 5.

Similar parallels may be found with other lines of the song. Now are we to believe that Marlowe wrote the first song, and Raleigh the other two signed “Ignoto”? Is it not far more rational and consistent to believe that all three were written by the same pen?

Again, Barnfield has two pieces in the “Helicon,” and the editor ascribes to him another signed “Ignoto”—No. xxi, “As it fell upon a day”—while Allibone, in his Dictionary of Authors, makes him the

[41]

author not only of xxi, but of xx—“Come live with me and be my love”—and says that Raleigh’s authorship of “The Nymph’s Reply” is questioned.

Thus Marlowe is robbed of the only piece ascribed to him in the “Helicon,” and Raleigh is left out of it entirely, unless he wrote some other poem signed “Ignoto.”

And by the way, poor neglected Shakspere has but a single specimen there—“On a day, alack a day”— taken from “Love’s Labor Lost.”

But the confusion about “Ignoto” is still more confounded. On page 112 of the “Helicon” is a song entitled “The Shepherd’s Dump,” subscribed “S. E. D.,” supposed to mean Sir Edward Dyer, and on page 224 the same identical song reappears entitled “Thirsis, the Shepherd, to his pipe,” and signed “Ignoto.” The editor of 1812 supposes it was reprinted to make a few corrections in the last stanza; but as the verbal variations in that stanza make it positively worse, it is more likely that the compiler did not notice the repetition, but inadvertently put both in as he found them.

But even this is not all. In Ellis’s “Specimens of the early English Poets,” 5th edition, 1845, among the pieces credited to Fulke Greville (Lord Brooke) is a “Song,” with these words in brackets:

“To be found in ‘England’s Helicon,’ where it is signed Ignoto.”

On turning to the edition of 1614 we find that song entitled “Another, of his Cynthia.” It is preceded by two, evidently by the same pen, entitled, “To his Flocks,” and “To his Love” and is followed by still “Another to his Cynthia.” But all these are anonymous

[42]

in the edition of 1614, and the editor appends to the last one the following remark:

“These three [or four?] ditties were taken out of Maister John Dowland’s Book of Tableture for the Lute. The authors’ names not there set down, and therefore left to their owners.”

But it happens that the four ditties are all credited to “Ignoto” in the Table of Contents, prepared by the other editor, so that in the edition of 1614 “Ignoto” has twenty pieces, besides the one assigned to Marlowe.

With all this confusion what are we to believe in regard to “Ignoto”? Was he sometimes Raleigh, sometimes Barnfield, sometimes Dyer, sometimes Greville,

and sometimes Shakspere, or some one else? Or was he a single person who “loved better to be a poet than to be counted so” and who affected to hoodwink the above-named Greville by writing to him in 1596: “For poets I can commend none, being resolved to be ever a stranger to them”?

And here let us note a bit of internal evidence that Bacon wrote the little poem in praise of the “Faery Queen” signed “Ignoto.” One couplet of it is as follows:

“For when men know the goodness of the wine,

’Tis needless for the host to have a sign.”

No. 517 of Bacon’s “Promus of Formularies and Elegancies” is this:

“Good wine needs no bush.”

The word “bush” as applied to wine is thus defined by Webster:

“branch of ivy (as sacred to Bacchus) hung out at vintners' doors, or as a tavern sign; hence a tavern sign, or the tavern itself.”

“‘If it be true that good wine needs no bush, ’tis true that a good play needs no epilogue.’” Shak.[As You Like It.]

We leave the reader to put this and that together argument or comment is superfluous.

[43]

AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO

And now what shall we say in regard to Marlowe’s ostensible authorship of a popular song, which was attributed to Shakspere in 1599? Is it not presumable that “Ignoto,” who wrote the “Nymph’s Reply,” and followed it with “Another of the same nature made since” in imitation of the song subscribed “Chr. Marlowe”—is it not probable that “Ignoto” ascribed his own original song to Marlowe?

Marlowe was buried June 1, 1593. In the same year Shakspere’s name first appeared in print as an author. And now among the startling revelations hitherto hidden in the Folio of 1623, but made known through Bacon’s cipher discovered by the Hon. Ignatius Donnelly, is this sentence:

“Ever since Marlowe was killed Shakspere has been my mask.”

Another Poem by Bacon in 1590.

The 33d anniversary of Elizabeth’s coronation was celebrated November 17, 1590. Sir Henry Lea, the Queen’s champion and master of the armory, who had conducted the exercises from the beginning, appeared for the last time, and, after the customary performances, resigned his office to the Earl of Cumberland, whereupon the celebrated vocalist, Mr. Hales, a servant of her Majesty, pronounced and sung the following verses, personating the aged man-at-arms:

“My golden locks hath time to silver turned,

(O Time too swift, and swiftness never ceasing!)

My youth ’gainst age, and age at youth hath spurned,

But spurned in vain; youth waneth, by increasing.

Beauty and strength, and youth flowers fading been,

Duty, faith, love, are roots and ever green.

“My helmet now shall make a hive for bees,

And lovers’ songs shall turn to holy psalms;

A man-at-arms must now stand on his knees,

And feed on prayers that are old age’s alms.

And so from court to cottage I depart;

My saint is sure of my unspotted heart.

“And when I sadly sit in lonely cell,

I’ll teach my swains this carol for a song:

‘Blest be the hearts that wish my Sovereign well,

Curst be the souls that think to do her wrong.’

Goddess! vouchsafe this aged man his right,

To be your beadsman now that Was your knight.”

Parallels are found in Bacon and Shakspere with almost every sentiment and expression in these lines. (See Mrs. Pott’s “Promus,” p. 528.)

The verses were published anonymously in Dowland’s “First Book of Songs,” 1600, and again in 1844; both times with the pronouns changed from the first to the third person—e. g., “His golden locks,” etc. In the “Works of George Peele,” 1828, they are credited to that poet, but the only evidence adduced of his authorship is the fact that he, as an eye-witness, wrote a poetic description of the celebration in 1590. Mrs. Pott is doubtless right in claiming for Bacon the authorship, and is only mistaken in supposing that the person to whom the verses were intended to apply was Lord Burleigh, who about that time, on account of the loss of his wife, had temporarily withdrawn from court.

BACON AND SHAKSPERE A CHRONOGRAPH

1. If the Parliament met November 23, 1584, as Mr. Spedding distinctly says, then Bacon was not yet twenty-four.

An ideal tableau of the youthful statesman is gaily depicted by Wm. Hepworth Dixon, in his “Personal History of Lord Bacon:”

“How he appears in outward guise and aspect among these courtly and martial contemporaries the miniature of Hilyard helps us to conceive. Slight in build, rosy and round in fleshy dight in a sumptuous suit, the head well-set, erect, and framed in a thick starched fence of frill; a bloom of study and travel on the fat, girlish face, which looks far younger than his years; the hat and feather tossed aside from the white brow, over which, crisps and curls a mane of dark, soft hair; an English nose, firm, open, straight; a mouth delicate and small—a lady’s or jester’s mouth—a thousand pranks and humors, quibbles, whims and laughters lurking in its twinkling, tremulous lines;—such is Francis Bacon at the age of twenty-four.”

Bearing in mind that Bacon is three years and three months older than Shakspere, we will now parallel their lives by successive years.

[47]

A CHRONOGRAPHIC PARALLEL

Bacon at 24, in a letter to the Queen’s principal secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham, urges his some time pending suit, which is to determine his “course of practice”—supposed to mean a shortening of the five years’ probation required to become a pleader.

He writes an essay entitled “Greatest Birth of Time,” foreshadowing his scientific works.

His mother in her zeal for the Nonconformists urges their cause in person before Lord Treasurer Burleigh, and follows it by a letter to the same in which she says:

“I confess as one that hath found mercy, that I have profited more in the inward feeling knowledge of God his holy will, though but in small measure, by an ordinary preaching within these seven or eight years, than I did by hearing odd sermons at Paul’s well nigh twenty years together.”

Shakspere at 21 is still living at Stratford, the father of three children—two of them twins. His father is said to have been a butcher as well as a dealer in wool; and gossiping John Aubrey says he was told by some of the neighbors that when the boy William “kill’d a calfe, he wold doe it in a high style, and make a speeche.”

Mr. Richard Grant White guesses that William may have gone to London this year or the next.

[48]

Bacon at 25 writes a letter, May 6th, to Lord Treasurer Burleigh, his uncle, saying:

“I find in my simple observation that they which live as it were in umbra and not in public or frequent action, how moderately and modestly soever they behave themselves, yet laborant inmdia. I find also that such persons as are of nature bashful (as myself is,) whereby they want that plausible familiarity which others have, are often mistaken for proud. But once I know well, and I most humbly beseech your Lordship to believe that arrogancy and overweening is so far from my nature, as, if I think well of myself in anything, it is in this, that I am free from that vice.”

He is again elected to Parliament. The conspirators who attempted to liberate Mary of Scotland have been tried, condemned, and sentenced. The case is brought before the Parliament. Bacon is one of the speakers in “the Great Cause,” and one of the committees to whom it is referred.

Shakspere at 22 is probably still at Stratford, though Mr. White presumes he has become connected with the London stage this year, or perhaps a little later.

[To be continued to the end of both lives, making a book of 300 pages or more, including this pamphlet as an appendix, with important additions. All the essential facts of Lord Bacon’s life will be presented, whereby his secret authorship will be more abundantly proved, and his moral character vindicated against the aspersions of 260 years.]

————

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BACON AND SHAKSPERE ***

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BACON AND SHAKSPERE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

CONTENTS

PROOF THAT SHAKSPERE COULD NOT WRITE

NO TRUE LIKENESS OF SHAKSPERE

THE SONNETS OF SHAKSPERE

BACON IDENTIFIED AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO

AS THE CONCEALED POET IGNOTO

BACON AND SHAKSPERE A CHRONOGRAPH

A CHRONOGRAPHIC PARALLEL

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE