Part 3

* Note.--The title page is headed with the figure of a Chameleon, which forms the "53rd" of "Alciati's Emblems." The Chameleon was supposed to assume various appearances, and is therefore used as an emblem for Bacon, who assumed numerous masks in order to do good to all mankind, though in a despised weed."

In Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," 1640, first edition in English, we find a first page "53." In the margin of this page we find "Alexand": (Bacon sometimes alluded to himself as Alexander). But the page 55 is misnumbered "53," and on this second and false page "53" we read in the margin=

`````S. FRAN

`````BACON,=

all in capital letters, almost the only marginal capital letters in the whole of the book, which is Bacon's own book, and yet has this striking reference to himself on the false page "53." The number of pages "53" (very frequently falsely paged "53"), in which some reference to Bacon or to the Plays may be discovered, is very large. I will, however, now quote only two other instances.

In 1664, the third edition of Shakespeare's plays, containing seven extra plays, was issued, and the editors, in order to mislead the initiated and pretend that they had Bacon's authority for so adding some of his inferior plays to his revised selection of the thirty-six plays which formed the great Folio of 1623, numbered two pages 53, which they placed opposite to each other, and on each of these we find "S. Albans" (Bacon was Viscount S. Albans).

In 1709, the fifth edition was published by Nicholas Rowe, and in that edition there is a proper page 53, and also 55 is misprinted 53 (the only mispagination in the whole book of 3,324 pages), and this is made in the false page 53 in order to afford a revelation if we carefully read both pages "53" together.

THE NORTHUMBERLAND MANUSCRIPTS.

|ON page 25 is shewn a type transcript of the cover or outside page of a collection of manuscripts in the possession of the Duke of Northumberland, which were discovered at Northumberland House in London in 1867 Three years later, viz.., in 1870, James Spedding published a thin little volume entituled "A Conference of Pleasure," in which he printed a full size facsimile of the original of the outside page, which is here reproduced in modern script on page 25. He also gave a few particulars of the MSS. themselves.

In 1904, Mr. Frank J. Burgoyne brought out a Collotype Facsimile of every page that now remains of the collection of MSS. in an edition limited to 250 copies, in a fine Royal Quarto at the price of £4 4s. each. Of the MSS. mentioned on the cover, nine only now remain, and of these, six are certainly by Francis Bacon; the first being written by him for a Masque or "fanciful devise," which Mr. Spedding thinks was presented at the Court of Elizabeth in 1592.

The reader's attention is directed to this Masque, which consists of "The praise of the Worthiest Vertue, &c," Lower down we read: "Speaches for my Lord of Essex at the tylt,"

"Speach for my Lord of Sussex tilt,"

"Orations at Graies Inne revells." We must remember that in numerous instances when masques were presented, reference is made to Bacon having in some way countenanced them or assisted them by taking part in the arrangement of the "dumb shew." This teaches us how familiar Bacon was with stage presentations.

Further down on the page we find "Rychard the second" and "Rychard the third." Mr. Spedding declared himself satisfied that these were the (so-called) Shakespeare plays. Immediately above, we read "William Shakespeare," which appears to be part of the original writing upon the page.

It is not necessary here to refer to the remainder of these original writings, but there is a mass of curious scribblings all over the page. Concerning these, Mr. Spedding says: "I find nothing in these later scribblings or in what remains of the book itself to indicate a date later than the reign of Elizabeth." They are therefore written by a contemporary hand.

For the purpose of reference I have placed the letters a b c d e outside of the facsimile.

(a) "Honorificabilitudine." This curious long word, when taken in conjunction with the words "Your William Shakespeare," which are found more than once upon the page, appears to have some reference to the longer word "Honorificabili-tudinitatibus," which is found in "Loves Labors Lost," printed in 1598, the first play to which the name of Shakespeare (spelled Shakespere) was attached. I must repeat that upon no play appeared the name William Shakespeare until that man had been sent permanently away to Stratford in 1597. The long word, as I shew in my book, "Bacon is Shakespeare," Chapter X., page 84, gives us the Masonic number 287, and really tells us with the most absolute mechanical certainty that the plays were Francis Bacon's "orphan" children.

(b) "By Mr. ffrauncis William Shakespeare Baco"---------- observe that ffrauncis is repeated "upside down," over these lines, and that _your/yourself_" also printed upside down, appears at the commencement of the lines. The reader will therefore not be surprised to read at (c) "revealing day through every crany peepes"; which seems to be a particularly accurate account of the object of the revelations afforded by the "Scribblings" so called, viz., to inform us that "Bacon was Shakespeare." The same kind of revelation is again repeated at (d), when we find _your/William Shakespeare_ and then above it "Shak Shakespeare" and "your William Shakespeare." And the reader should remember that, as Mr. Spedding admits, all these so-called "scribblings" were contemporary and written before 1603, the date of the death of Queen Elizabeth.

I also call attention at (e) to the three curious scrolls, each written with one continuous sweep of the pen, which it would take a great deal of practice to succeed in successfully and easily writing. I myself am in a particularly fortunate position with regard to these scrolls, because I possess a very fine large-paper copy of "Les Tenures de Monsieur Littleton," 1591. This work is annotated throughout in what the British Museum authorities admit to be the handwriting of Francis Bacon, and, upon the wide large paper margin of the title page, eight similar scrolls appear, which have evidently some (shall we say Rosicrucian) significance. *

* Note.--A few copies of my book, "Bacon is Shakespeare," published by Gay & Hancock, are still on sale at the price of 2s. '6d. No important statement contained therein has been or ever will be successfully controverted because the facts stated are derived from books contained in my unique library, which includes works that must have belonged to a distinguished Rosicrucian who was well acquainted with the secrets of Bacon's authorship.

Perhaps I should add that here, in this little book, before the reader's eyes, is the knowledge of this revealing page of the Northumberland MSS. given for the first time wide publicity. Spedding's little book, which has been long out of print, was too insignificant to attract much notice, and Mr. Burgoyne's splendid work was too expensive for ordinary purchasers.

BACON AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

|WE owe our mighty English tongue of to-day to Francis Bacon and to Francis Bacon alone. The time has now come when this stupendous fact should be taught in every school, and that the whole of the Anglo-Saxon speaking peoples should know that the most glorious birthright which they possess, their matchless language,was the result of the life and labour of one man, viz.--Francis Bacon, who, when as little more than a boy, he was sent with our ambassador, Sir Amyas Paulett, to Paris, found there that "La Pléiade" (the Seven) had just succeeded in creating the French language from what had before been as they declared "merely a barbarous jargon." Young Bacon at once seized the idea and resolved to create an English language capable of expressing the highest thoughts. All writers are agreed that at the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, English as a "literary" language did not exist. All writers are agreed that what is known as the Elizabethan Age was the most glorious period of English literature. All writers are agreed that our language of to-day is founded upon the English translation of the Bible and upon the Plays of Shakespeare. Every word of each of these was undoubtedly written by, or under the direction of, Francis Bacon.

Max Müller, in his "Science of Language," Vol. I., 1899, page 378, says: "A well educated person in England who has been at a public school and at the university... seldom uses more than about 3,000 or 4,000 words.... The Hebrew Testament says all that it has to say with 5,642 words, Milton's poetry is built up with 8,000, and Shakespeare, who probably displayed a greater variety of expression than any writer in any language produced all his plays with about 15,000 words."

Does anyone suppose that any master of the Stratford Grammar School, where Latin was the only language used, knew so many as 2,000 English words, or that the illiterate householder of Stratford, known as William Shakespeare, knew half or a quarter so many?

But to return to the Bible--we mean the Bible of 1611, known as the Authorised Version, which J. A. Weisse tells us contains about 15,000 different words (i.e. the same number as used in the Shakespeare plays). It was translated by 48 men, whose names are known, and then handed to King James I. * It was printed about one and a half years later. In the Preface, which is evidently written by Bacon, we are told "we have not tyed ourselves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words." This question of variety of expression is discussed in the Preface at considerable length (compare with Max Müller's references to Shakespeare's extraordinary variety of expression) and then we read: "Wee might also be charged... with some unequall dealing towards a great number of good English words... if we should say, as it were, unto certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwaies, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever." This means that an endeavour was made to insert all good English words into this new translation of the Bible, so that none might be deemed to be merely "secular."

* Note.--The forty-eight translators made use of "The Bishops' Bible," but no copy of this work, on which appear any annotations by the translators, can be discovered. See Bishop Westcott's "History of the English Bible," 1905, p. 118.

Is it possible that any intelligent person can really read the Bible as a whole, not now a bit and now a scrap, but read it straight through like an ordinary book and fail to perceive that the majestic rhythm that runs through the whole cannot be the language of many writers, but must flow from the pen, or at least from the editorship, of one great master mind?

A confirmation of this statement that the Authorised Version of King James I. was edited by one masterhand is contained in the "Times" newspaper of March 22nd, 1912, where Archdeacon Westcott, writing about the Revised Version of 1881, says, the revisers "were men of notable learning and singular industry.... There were far too many of them; and successful literary results cannot be achieved by syndicates."

Yes, the Bible and Shakespeare embody the language of the great master, but before it could be so embodied, the English tongue had to be created, and it was for this great purpose that Bacon made his piteous appeals for funds to Bodley, to Burleigh, and to Queen Elizabeth.

Observe the great mass of splendid translations of the Classics (often second-hand from the French, as Plutarch's "Lives" by North) with which England was positively flooded at that period. Hitherto no writer seems to have called attention to the fact that certain of these translations were made from the French instead of from the original Greek or Latin, not because it was easier to take them from the French, but because in that way the new French words and, phrases were enabled to be introduced to enrich the English tongue. The sale of these translations could not possibly have paid any considerable portion of their cost.

Thus Bacon worked. Thus his books under all sorts of pseudonyms appeared. No book of the Elizabethan Age of any value proceeded from any source except from his workshop of those "good pens," over whom Ben Jonson was foreman.

In a very rare and curious little volume, published anonymously in 1645, under the title of "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus by Apollo and his Assessours," Ben Jonson is described as the "Keeper of the Trophonian Denne," and in Westminster Abbey his medallion bust appears clothed in a left-handed coat to show us that he was a servant of Bacon.=

```O, rare Ben Jonson--what a turncoat grown!

````Thou ne'er wast such, till clad in stone;

```Then let not this disturb thy sprite,

````Another age shall set thy buttons right. '

`````Stowe ii., p. 512-13.

In this same book, we see on the leaf following the title page the name of Apollo in large letters in an ornamental frame, and below it in the place of honour we find Francis Bacon placed as "_Lord_ VERULAN _Chancellor of Parnassus_."

This means that Bacon was the greatest of poets since the world began. This proud position is also claimed for him by Thomas Randolf in a Latin poem published in 1640, but believed to have been written immediately after Bacon's death in 1626. Thomas Randolf declares that Phoebus (i.e., Apollo) was accessory to Bacon's death because he was afraid that Bacon would some day come to be crowned king of poetry or the Muses. George Herbert, Bacon's friend, who had overlooked many of his works, repeats the same story, calling Bacon the colleague of Sol, i.e., Phoebus Apollo.

Instances might be multiplied, but I will only quote the words of John Davies, of Hereford, another friend of Bacon's, who addresses him in his "Scourge of Folly," published about 1610, as follows:--=

```As to her Bellamour the Muse is wont;

```For, thou dost her embozom; and dost use,

```Her company for sport twixt grave affaires.=

Bacon was always recognised by his contemporaries as among the greatest of poets. Although nothing of any poetical importance bearing Bacon's name had been up to that time published, Stowe (in his Annales, printed in 1615) places Bacon seventh in his list of Elizabethan poets.

THE SHAKESPEARE MYTH IS DEAD.

|IN 1898 the Shakespeare myth was mortally wounded by the curious collection of "may have beens," "might have beens," "could have beens," "should have beens," "must have beens," etc., collected in Sir Sidney Lee's supposititious life of William Shakespeare. In 1910 it was killed by the Cambridge History of English Literature, edited by Dr. Ward, Master of Peterhouse, and Mr. Waller, also of Peterhouse, for in Volume V., pages 165-6-7, we read: "We are not quite sure of the identity of Shakespeare's father; we are by no means certain of the identity of his wife.... We do not know whether he ever went to school.. . . No biography of Shakespeare, therefore, which deserves any confidence has ever been constructed without a large infusion of the tell-tale words 'apparently,' 'probably,' 'there can be little doubt,' and no small infusion of the still more tell-tale 'perhaps,' 'it would be natural,' 'according to what was usual at the time,' and so forth... John Shakespeare married Mary Arden, an heiress of a good yeomanry family, but as to whose connection with a more distinguished one of the same name there remains much room for doubt."

I should add that no letter addressed to Shakespeare exists excepting one asking for a loan of £30; and that no contemporary letter referring to him has been discovered excepting three which are about money.

In 1910 appeared my own book, "Bacon is Shakespeare," which, placed in every library in the world, has carried everywhere the news of the decease of the myth.

In 1911 Mark Twain's book, "Is Shakespeare dead?" which had been published in 1909 in England, was included in the Tauchnitz collection, and therefore likewise carries the news of the decease of the myth all over the earth. Mark Twain describes Shakespeare as just a "Tar Baby," and says: "About him you can find out nothing. Nothing of any importance. Nothing worth the trouble of stowing away in your memory. Nothing that even remotely indicates that he was ever anything more than a distinctly commonplace person... a small trader in a small village that did not regard him as a person of any consequence, and had forgotten all about him before he was cold in his grave.... * We can go to the records and find out the life-history of every renowned racehorse of modern times--but not Shakespeare's! There are many reasons why, and they have been furnished in cartloads (of guess and conjecture). . . but there is one that is worth all the rest of the reasons put together, and is abundantly sufficient all by itself--he hadn't any history to tell. There is no way of getting round that deadly fact. And no sane way has yet been discovered of getting round its formidable significance."

* Note.--Stratford owes all its glory to two of its sons, John, Archbishop of Canterbury, who built a church there; and Hugh Clopton, who built, at his own cost, a bridge of fourteen arches across the Avon. Translated from Jean Blaeu, 1645.

The Shakespeare myth is now destroyed. Does any educated person of intelligence still believe in the "Tar Baby," the illiterate clown of Stratford, who was totally unable to write a single letter of his own name, and of whom we are told, if we understand what we are told, that he could not read a line of print. No book was found in his house, and neither of his daughters could either read or write.

There exists no "portrait" of Shakespeare. The significant fact that the Figure put for Shakespeare in the 1623 Folio of the plays consists of a doubly left-handed dummy is alone sufficient to dispose of the Shakespeare myth. I have printed in various newspapers all over the world about a million copies of articles demonstrating this fact, which none can successfully dispute.

In modern times Percy Bysshe Shelley--one of England's greatest poets (who knew nothing about the Shakespeare controversy)--wrote as follows: "Bacon was a poet. His language has a sweet and majestic rhythm, which satisfies the sense, no less than the almost superhuman wisdom of his philosophy satisfies the intellect. It is a strain, which distends and then bursts the circumference of the reader's mind, and pours itself forth together with it into the universal element with which it has perpetual sympathy." This statement by Shelley, taken in conjunction with the testimony of "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus," 1645, and the words of Thomas Randolf, 1640, and of Bacon's friends George Herbert and John Davies, together with the contemporary evidence of Stowe in 1615, are sufficient to dispose, once and for all, of the absurd contention that is sometimes put forth that Bacon did not possess sufficient poetical ability to have written his own greatest work, the Immortal Plays.

Lord Palmerston said that he rejoiced to see the reintegration of Italy, the unveiling of the mystery of China, and the explosion of the Shakespeare illusions. Lord Houghton, the father of the present Marquis of Crewe, said that he agreed with Lord Palmerston. John Bright said any man that believed that William Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet," or "Lear," was a fool. Prince Bismarck said in 1892: "He could not understand how it were possible that a man, however gifted with the intuitions of genius, could have written what was attributed to Shakespeare unless he had been in touch with the great affairs of State, behind the scenes of political life, and also intimate with all the social courtesies and refinements of thought which in Shakespeare's time were only to be met with in the highest circles."

The "Tempest" is over, the false crown of the Island (the Stage) has been torn from the head of the dummy that appeared to wear it. It seems difficult to imagine that people possessed of ordinary intelligence can any longer continue to believe that the most learned of all the literary works in the world was written by the most unlearned of men, William Shakespeare of Stratford, who never seems even to have attempted to write a single letter of his own name. It has been proved that the six so-called signatures of Shakespeare were written by various law clerks, and it is now admitted that there exist no other writings which can even be supposed to be from his pen.

E. D-L.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Shakespeare Myth, by Edwin Durning-Lawrence