Bo y c o t t e d h ak esp e a re Fac t s

B E I N G A P R E LI M I N A RY R E P O RT U P O N T H E

A D M I SSI BLE BUT HITH ERTO UNALLOW E D - FO R EV I DE NC E A FFE CTING TH E PRO BLE M OF THE PO ET SHAKE S PEARE ’ S I DENTITY

M P SO S J. DENHA AR N

“ ’ ‘ A u x/t o r o The Na tu r e a nd P u r ose o the Univ‘ er sc M o to F or m a c f p f ; , ’ — S p o n ta n cita a ser ies of a r ticles on pli ilosop/y r co n tr ib u /ed

t a n I t l n o a ia $ 7 .

L o m D o zx

P U B L I S H E D B Y T H E A U T H O R C O N T E N T S

P RE FA CE

THE LA BEO - S HA K E SP E AR E E V I D E NC E

N OTE S RE GAR D I N G LA BE O

TH E TH RE E AUT H O RI Z E D TI TL E P AGE S

‘ TH E GR E AT TA BOO I N E N G L I S H L I TE R AR Y C I R C LE S ’

‘ SI R S I D N E Y L E E AN D A BSO LUT E P RO O F ’

AP P E N D I X E N TI T L E D BE N JO N SO N A N D SI R S I D N E Y L E E P R E F A C E

Altho ugh fro m yo u th a ridic uler o f a ll t he lit erat ure k n o w n

to him as suppo rti n g t he Bac o n - Shakespeare th eo ry— fo r exa mple

fi s the D o ell dec i herin s a n d la e d e the O e r t nn y p g , at a t r at w n

dec i herin s a n d t he Ga ll dec i herin s a n d e e l a en t p g up p g , a g n ra rgum

' sed c e po l t e a a lle l the t o has a l ba hi fly u n i r ry p ra isms, au h r ways h e ld th e Stra tfo rdia n tra ditio n to b e illo gi c al in o n e n o t u n im po r

e ec is to sa to t he e e n o f i t c n as the tant r sp t that y , xt t f rs pi turi g

o e t a e ea e o f o W c e b o n o f p Sh k sp r , a y ung man r m arwi kshir r

llt e t e e t a n d c o e to L o do t o t v e t i i ra par n s, m n n wi h u a uni rsi y

o to ee his fo e an d e fa l to e la ho w educ a ti n s k rtun , th n i ing xp in it

e e a b e e o f o c l a n d e en c e o n is that an ntir s nc pr vin ia isms, a pr s l prac tic ally e v ery page o f what o n e a utho rity has w e l styled ’ ‘ c o lle e e le e d t s es his w r ea r liest poet r — e g ganc , is ingui h y y V nus

’ ’ ’ ’ ’

L c ec e a n d L o e L b o L o . a n d do , t A nis, u r v s a ur s s

An entire ly independe n t inquiry int o the pro blem o f t he identity o f t he po et Shakespeare w as th ere fo re start ed by t he

A n d o e o f the o e o a n o f t he f es f c c o e a utho r . s m m r imp rt t r h a ts m

c o b a re se t fo c o l ec e ed o fo r e e a r ss y him rth in this l tiv iti n , r vi w ,

ed le o f c ertain privat e ly distribut pamph ts .

E N A AR SO N D H M P . J. S

’ RA V E NSW D OO ,

S UTT N U RT R A D 4 5 , O CO O , W w x . C m s m ,

1 2 0 - 8 - 2 6 9 .

es 5 ost ree. Copi 3 . p f

A th e re ues o f a w ell-k n o w n h ak es ea rian the s ub - s u rfa e o in ide n es t q t S p , c c c c

L il E s . W S . u d ed b M la r . i e o f s i n a llin ha e b een a i . . . s uggest v g g v t y JS , q ,

THE L ABEO SHA KESPEA R E EV I D ENCE

BE ING T HE FIRST OF T w o SE TS O F FA CTS PRE SSE D UPON THE NOTIC E OF T HE SH A K E SPE A RE TE RCE NTE NA RY

C MM E E I N 1 1 A S A F E CT I NG T HE P ROBL E M O ITT 9 5 , E I O F T HE PO E T S HA K E SPE A R E ’ S I D E NTITY

P O J. DENHAM ARS NS

’ ' cA u tb o r o Tb e Na tu r e a n d P u r ose tlze Uniz 'er se M o to F o r m a e on ta flet ta f p of , Sp ' ° a ser ies o a r ti les o n iti/os ll n tr bu te! t n I t n r f ' o o i o a a lia e vtew 59 C. f c p p y c ,

L 0 ag o 0 S‘Q

P U B L I HE D BY TH E AUTH O R S , A T UTTO N C OURT R OAD C HI C 4 5 , S , SWI K

TH E LA B E O - S HA K E S P E AR E EV IDENCE

. In almost every S hakespearian ’ s library there is a copy of u o f e o f o an exceptionally seful work referenc ver pages , ’ Th e o an d called Shakspere Allusi n Book , published by Chatto

W . e and indus But it has two bl mishes . i The first s its title . For although the traditi o nal poet Shakespeare usually (and many auth o rities have said always e th e u signed in the spelling Shaksper , first v ol me , though 5 28 t o presenting in its pages all the allusions the p o et as a. o n o t e poet for the first fifty years and more , d es pres nt even o n e allusion to the p o et as a p o et whose name was spelt as the i . o o actor usually s gned There is a st ry of an anonym us diary , e e e to which may be a myth , onc having be n referr d as if ’ o o th e o e o c ntaining such an allusi n and that is title s s l supp rt .

e i Th . h s th e e chief flaw , owever , the manner in which evid nce e about Labeo is pr es nted .

E ight pages are devoted to the Labeo- Shakesp eare ques — i wo o ti o n alm o st s x t o quotations and more than t t o c mment . And y et it must be submitted that th er e is n o Clea r sign o f genuine willingness to pres ent th e actual case fo r a belief that e fo r e F o r Lab eo was a nicknam the po t Shakespeare . while ther e are repeat ed editorial assurances that it is certain that e n o t n o c e Shaksp re was meant , in as does Labeo mean ’ e s o o o n e e e t o eo Shaksp re , and on , John Marst n s ref r nce Lab o e e to is presented with ut , and even without any r ferenc , its illuminating and Shak espeare - pointing co nt ext ; while out o f C e o f eo e the many lues to the id ntity Lab given by Jos ph Hall , th o s e most favo urable to an argument that Lab eo was the poet Shakespeare are either n o t shown s o to be or omitted altogether . III

All that the Shakspere Allusion Bo o k quot es about Labeo th e from Marston , consists of two lines

S o L a beo c o m lain e his did p love was stone , flin r elen tle e e O t ss . bdurate , y , so non x There is n o accompanying e planation . And the nearest m in approach to co ment , is a statement a general summing up ‘ note to the effect that there may be a reference to Venus and ’ Adonis . ’ Now even if one be wh o lly unaware of Hall s earli er reference c an to L abeo as a writer of poetry in anothers name , this ’ be seen to be a misleading way o f presenting Marston s only

allusion to Labeo by such nicknam e . IV

The essential facts are as follows . M arston in 1 5 9 8 pub ‘ ‘ ’ ’ lish ed m M p P i m alio n s a poe , The etamor hosis of g Image , ‘ ’ which was an i mitati o n Of Venus and Adonis : for like it the introduction mentions that the poem is an initial effort the b lo o m es o f o e i t 1s Ov first my P sie , like the plot taken from id , i ’ and is a story of love and metamorphos s , like it tis told in o f c c stanzas six lines , like it the rhyme is a b a b , and like it th e conclusion is about Paphos and Venus ; the last two lines ’ of Shakespeare s poem runni ng P a ho s w Holding their course to p , here their queen h ers elfe Meanes to immure and not be seen . And the last two lines of Marston ’ s poem running ’ C m s P a ho s and yp was p call d , evermore I lan d ers Ven u s e e Those do nam ador . Appended to this imitati o n of Venus and Adonis by ‘ M o f arston , was a piece verse by him entitled The Author in ’ t em p ray s e of his preceden P o . The second and shorter o f its two divisions a pp ai en tly includes allusions to Hall and his r ecently published vo lumes of satires— as t o o u r knowledge ’ o f o l does at least the fourth Marston s five f l owing satires . ‘ ’

The first and longer part censures his own precedent Poem , and concludes

And in the end , (the end of love I wot) ’ l o n P igm a z hath a jolly boy begot . c o m lain e e So Labeo did p his lov was stone , O flin t r elen tless e : bdurate , y , so none Y et L n ceu s y knowes that in the end of this , o o He wrought as strange a metam rph sis . E nds not my P o em then surpas s ing ill ? cr o wn e Come , come , Augustus , my laureat quill .

o f The censure his own poem by Marston which thus ends , d r a s e and is satirically hea ed p y , is in the next two lines

said to be a device to escape being lasht. by some rival — — satirist d o ubtless Hall for its faults . And the question of O o t o the last quoted line but one , is an bvi us reference a line ’ i n ear the end of Hall s final satire (VI . runn ng N OW hath ’ ? not Labeo d o ne wondrous Well which o f itself suggests that Labeo might be a nickname fo r the author of the poem fo r o n e o f Marston had imitated , the things said of Labeo by Hall just befo re the commendation o f wondrous well thus ’ “ e b u vidently replied to y Marston s s rpassing ill , was that h e had marred h is poetry with to o liberal a use o f two - word adjectives— which is the outstanding fault o f Venus and ’ Adonis . This reason for thinking t hat Labe o might be a nickname fo r o o f the auth r Venus and Adonis is , however , neither the n o r only the best such reason supplied by the quoted passage . ’ F o r Marston s c o uplet

So L a b o c o m lain e o e did p his l ve was stone , O fiin t s o r elen tless e : bdurate , y , none is an obvious u s e o f lines 200— 1 o f Venus and Adonis flint Art thou Obdurate , y , hard as steel , o r elen teth P Nay m re than flint , for stone at rain And as Lynceus was but the conventional corrob o rat o r o f ’ e — o n e x b m statem nts , as an all seeing , Marston s ne t two es Y et L n ceu s o f y knowes , that in the end this , ” as m o He wrought strange a etam rphosis , ’ o Ch affi n sh w that Marston is g the author of Venus and Adonis , to ch affin e that is say , g the actual poet Shakespeare , b cause ’ ’ o o f his , Marston s , imitati n Shakespeare s tale of love and e o e m tamorph sis , supplies much the liv lier metamorphosis is wh o o story . Labeo , the He wr ught as strange a meta morphosis and the metamorph o sis o f a beloved hero into e o a flow r without the c nsummation of love , was certainly eclipsed in cheerfulness by the metamorph o sis o f a statue into ” e a jolly boy producing girl of surpassing lov liness .

’ W o ith directness , and clarity , theref re , does Marston identify ’ Labeo with the author of Venus and Adonis , and thus with the poet Shakespeare . V Of the many proper names used by Hall as a satirist , all o f o — o r save Labeo were either names g ds like Jove , of ancient

— - notables as such like Lynceus the all seeing Argonaut , or c fo o n e r . ni knames types And as Labeo was the and only , name o f a fabled o r historical hero o r notable person of bygone t o days that had been applied by Hall a living contemporary , it is quite certain that Marston must have referred to the same o o r living c ntemporary by the name Labeo as a nickname mask , o e h as Hall had previ usly ref rred . Hence as we ave found e t o o Marston , the lat r satirist , use Labeo as a mask for the auth r ’ o f Hall Venus and Adonis , we should find to have so used such name . ’ No w Hall s first mention o f Lab eo is in the first satire of the th e 1 5 9 7 second of three books of his first or volume of satires. The satire begins thus m e L a beo o r For sha , write better , write none , Or e o r L a beo e better writ , l ave alone th e C n ick t Nay call y but a wittie oole , Thus t o abjure his handsom e drinking bole

And on the assumption that , as Marston a year later indicated , ‘ ’ o u Labe stands for the author of Venus and Adonis , we wo ld here have an o bvious reference to the Ovidian motto of Venus and Adonis — which is about Ap o llo handing the water of o cu lu m poetical inspiration to the poet in a p or bowl . Further on seven italicised lines which end with the advice " ’ i Th er s Then , Labeo , or write little or wr te none , begin so much labour lost . And on the stated assumption , this would ’ alm o st certainly b e a r efei en ce to Shakespeare s earliest comedy ’ ’ ’ I ove s Labour s Lost .

h r nI 3 7 5 4 o n assu m T en again , line to line is , the same p C ’ tion , learly a reference to Shakespeare s earliest Tragedy Titus ’ ’ Andronicus —for Vulcan s own forge echoes Vulcan s badge (II . , and black story is a fit description of so W in ar e repulsive a tale , hile the satire as in the play there three i 4 . s 5 or four references to Troy Justified line , For shame r L a beo o e o . or better write , write n n

c o n There follow ten lines of general allusion , the satire ! ” luding For shame write cleanly , Labeo , or write none . e And four things should be noted . The satir is from the point of view o f a young student for holy orders at Cambridg e who was a Puritan . It is definite censure directly addressed to a e — n living cont mporary . It is deserved censure o the ass u m p tion that Marston identified Lab eo with the author of Venus ’ — and Adonis . And it is friendly censure for the o b vious o b j ec tive is that Labeo should be induced to go on writing p o etry but poetry of a more elevating character . VI

’ ' Only in one satire of Hall s first vo lume d o es th e mask name ’ o f L abeo occur . But it occurs in several satires Hall s second in 1 5 98 volume , issued early ; beginning with its very first satire . 1 r id . Wh o u a This satire (IV , ) commences , dares p these r i e o open imes of m ne . And though the mask nam Labe does 3 7th e not occur till the line , and th n there are eight lines directly th e about him , satire is evidently addressed to him from the t o c o r first , as a trusted acquaintan e correspondent who had e been discussing with him the d tails of his satires . For example ,

6 Hall alludes to Labeo a s a friendly reader of my crabbed ” pamphlet who had somehow conveyed his candid Opinion of each peevish line L As to the eight lines directly about abeo , they run as f o llows ’ L a beo an d is whip t , laughs mee in the face

Wh y for I smite and hide the galled place . Gird but the Cy n i clcs Helmet o n his head Cares he for Ta lu s or his flay le o f lead Long as the cr aftie Cu ttle lieth sure In the blacke Clo u d of his thick vomiture Wh o list c o m plain e o f wronged faith o r fam e When hee may shift it to anothers nam e

’ e H re we have what is , so to speak , the summing up of Hall s second volume reply to the criticism by the contemporary ’ writer nicknamed Labeo of the satire aimed at h im in Hall s first volume 7’ l . Labeo aughs mee in the face , says Hall And why

Because , says Hall although I have whipped him with satire , I have to hide something about Labeo — h e c alls it the ’ L ab eo s place , but shows that it was identity . Labeo wore e e a H lmet that protected him from the flayl , says Hall o f o Obviously the fabled helmet Plut conferring invisibility . y was c r aftie wh o Labeo , sa s Hall , a Cuttle by ejecting an inky fluid had secured fo r hi m self a protecting cloud of dark Th e ness laughing Labeo , says Hall , had no great desire to a o r compl in , because , even had I wronged his faith fame , he s m e co uld shift it to an other n a .

’ h e o a The S aksper Allusion Book , though it dev tes p ges to ’ o L ab eo s n the q uesti n of ide tity , does not quote this passage and d o es not even mention it . But its importance cannot be C e denied . It is a lear stat ment by Hall that the living poet e c o n nicknamed by him Lab o , who happens to be the only tempo rary writer addressed m his satires — and I S there addressed ‘ ’ again and again , wrote his poetry in anothers name . And as has been shown this same Labeo is identified by Marston ’ o f with the author Venus and Adonis .

The next line deals with a character nicknamed Calvus , and the n ext line to that with a character n icknamed P o n tice an d s o . on to the end of the satire But after two satires , we come to another addressed to Labeo at the beginning . 4 . L This satire (IV , ) allots abeo the additio nal nickname of Si alio n — o r the silent one , wisher of silence . For it opens g , Can m - h il I not touch so e upstart carpet s ield , and after a wh e goes o n S i a li o n o b ro wes But straight g n ds and knits his , win k es i e r And and wa t s his warning hand for fea e , And lisps some silent letters in my ear e ’ Have I not vo w d for shunning such debate 9

L a beo l Let , or who else ist for me , ' ear es A lchi m ie Go loose his and fall to .

o n And yet another three satires further (IV . , we come to a three word mention of Labeo in a list of things I loathe Or La bea the three words s poems . VIII

’ We then meet with n o th ing more about Labeo in Hall s o n Of 3 001 ; satires , till we c me to his lo g concluding satire over ines This co mmences L a beo n a le reserves a long y for the nonce , To wound m y M argent throu gh ten lines at once Much worse than A ri star chu s h is black Pile ’ That pier c d Old Ho m ers side

And makes such faces , that mee seames I see

’ o M e a era Some f ule g in the tragedie , s Th r eatn in g her twined snakes at Ta m a le ghost . ’ - o And as Aristarchus was the far famed editor of Homer s p ems , this wo uld appear to be an admissi o n by Hall that L abeo had r helped him with f iendly criticisms of his satires . 1 6 3 At line begins what , from drifting on to an allusion to

B alb u s . Labeo , would appear to be an allusion to Labeo as This starts But why doth B alb u s his dead - doing quill

Parch in his rustie scabbard all the while , His golden fleece o r e- gr o wn e with moldy hore As tho he had his witty wo rk es forswo re ? And it is a reference to the circumstance that B alb u s only worries the printing press when in debt ag ain e and shrinking ” - from the Catch poles fist . There is then an allusion to that — bold Satyre apparently IL 1 the first addressed to L abeo . And then the connected coupl, et , e etern all So Labeo w ens it my shame ,

To prove I never earn d a poets name . Then at line 21 5 we come to the couplet e Now as it is , b shrew him if he might , b r aes a rs That would his o wes with C laurell dight . o f e 1 And this should remind us thr e things , ( ) that Lucius l r Cornelius B a b u s maj or wrote a history o f Julius Cm s a (Suet . ‘ ’ 2 s m Caes . ( ) that Lucius Cornelius B alb u inor wrote a play

8 about Julius C aesar Itei and ( 3 ) that at the date Hall pub lis ed B alb u s 1 5 9 8 h this allusion to , the early spring of , the poet e was e i n Shakespeare either had rec ntly written , or eng ag d ‘ i i a - is o wr t ng , his play entitled Julius C esar which kn wn to o n 1 5 9 9 have been the London Stage in September , , and may

have been produced a considerable time befo r e . 245 Passing on . we come at line to a passage packed full ’ with clues to L ab eo s identity L a beo Tho reaches right (who can deny , ) s tra n es Hero icke o The true y of P esie , For he can tell how fury reft his sense P hce bu s fild And him with intellig ence ,

He can implore the heathen Deities , To guide his bold and busy enterprise Or filch wh o le Pages at a clap fo r need P etrarch E From honest , clad in nglish weed ; W B ut Ohs s tr an z ae hile big ech can begin , Whose trunk and t ay le sluttish and hartlesse bin He knows the grace o f that new elegance ’ ’ W P hilis z des e o f l F ra n ce hich sweet f tch t ate from , ’ ’ b eseem d - s til d A rca d That well his high y , Tho others marre it with much liberty E o n e In pithets to join two words in , n Forsooth for Adjectives can ot stand alone , B acchu s As a great Poet could of say , m eZe- em o r i- en a That he was S e f g . L A stro /z ell astly he names the spirit of p , 3 Now hath not L a beo done wondrous well ’ Little else that needs conc ern us is still t o be t old of Hall s final satire the next line running But ere his Mus e her weapo n learn t o weild and all that fo llo ws about L abeo b eing to th e e f sh e e- e e f ect that as a poet The p cote first had b en his nurs ry , “ ’ en u s r in Or else h ath been in V chamber t a d . But having w started out with a knowledge that Marston , riting some months after Hall published his second and last v o lum e o f satires includ ‘ o o e ing the one bef re us , alluded to the auth r of V nus and o to s ee Ad nis as Labeo , it is our duty if the ap parently Specially ’ designed bunch o f clues to the identity of Hall s Labeo given in the just q uoted passage ending in the wondrous well to

which Marston arguably retorts with his surpassing ill , can

be accommodated to what we kn o w o f the po et Sh akespeare . Now the poet Shakespeare undoubtedly had at this date ’ 1 5 98 stra n es o f Hero z cke early in , reached the true y Poesie ‘ having left off producing such poetry as Venus and Adonis , ’ ’ ’ o r L and Lucrece , and Love s Lab u s ost and Titus Andro ’ ’ o R niens , and having given to the w rld omeo and Juliet , R ’ Richard ichard and Henry IV . So the clue of

the first couplet dovetails well enough ,

9 As to the next four lines ab out P hoeb u s fillin g L ab eo w ith ‘ n o u a th e i telligence , this w ld be but a paraphr se of Venus and Adonis motto about Apollo handin g its author a bowl full of e the water of po tic inspiration . Then comes th e couplet about filch in g whole P ag es from P etr a r ch C E honest lad in nglish weed . Now though Drayton h ad four years earlier denounced as a fault too common the ” filch e tendency to from Desportes or from P trarchs pen , he referred to th e publication as if o rigin al E nglish sonnets of what were little more than translations of short poems by French o r Italian poets a n d not to filch in g from any E nglish l o O o r f . o trans ati n Desportes Petrarch Moreover , th ugh a few n o t o f odd poems by Petrarch had been translated , it was true 1 5 98 E On Petrarch in that he stood clad in nglish weed . E n the other hand , Plutarch did stand clad in glish weed ’ ’ ’ o n in the shape of N rth s famous tra slation of Plutarch s Lives . And though no writer could accurately b e said to have taken a whole Pages from Petrarch , the poet Sh kespeare had j ust n e e P taken , or was just taki g , whol Pag s from lutarch , for his play Julius C ae sar a play arguably elsewhere referred to by Hall e io O in this very satir , as we have already had occas n to bserve . There follows the couplet about big B u t 0l begi n n i n g ’ b eo No w ' b each stanza of L a s poetry . y no possible chance c an a n y poet to whom Hall wou ld have thought it wo rth his t o a while address satire after satire , have begun many st nzas e B u t On with such an in legancy as a , whether big or little . And as a matter of fact a long search by the writer o f this essay in the stanzaic poetry by Hall ’ s living contemporaries and already h o u t e o n e ec publis ed when his satires came , reveal d but sp imen b e a r n . y of a stanza so comme cing It was the po t Sh kespea e . ’ n And it was in Venus and Adonis . After a stanza e ding with Venus saying to Adonis s tillito rie For fro the of thy face excelling , e erfu m d b r eed eth m Corns br ath p , that love by s elling the next (and 74th ) stanza begins “ e But o h wh at banqu et wert thou to th tast .

Thus if Hall was , as a Puritan satirist , putting in a few addi ’ l e tio n a criticisms of V nus and Adonis , it was a most likely

point for remark . Next as to the new elegance of two words in one P h ilis id es E pithets or Adj ectives fetched by , Sir Philip Sidney , ” c e e . from Franc , and used with too mu h liberty by Lab o th e Here th e poet Shakespeare is most plainly man . His e n e - very first stanza as a po t , contai ed four such doubl barreled ’ u o — ch eek d adj ectives in its six lines p rple r se , ’ — - o . sick th ughted , and bold fac d And although his creative e n e energy greatly enrich d our la guage with oth r examples , “ m uch liberty can certainly be found in an adventure that

1 0 included among its very numerous creations such specimens in

- - - the later stanzas as such distilling , deep sweet , deep sore , angry Ch afin - s n u ffi n - -w g , scent g ; foul cankering , foolish itty , sounds — -m d ee ~ d ark - resembling , cold pale , flap outhed , p , true sweet , and ’ - o e l S em ele s . illy mild M r over Ha l s second and Latin example , em o ri - en a o f f g , is by its triple instead double form suggestive that Labe o had indulged even in a three words in o n e Adj ective o e and the p et Shakespeare had so indulged , for in the sev nth —to - stanza o f Lucrece he has the adjective all o timeless . e e - o f Ther remains , ere Hall sums up his tw nty line list clues ’ to L ab eo s identity with the q uestion Now hath not Labeo done wondrous well the sixth and fin al clue o f the set Of ] Lastly he names the spirit Astrophel . o f And here again , as in each the other last and best clues of t e C e h . the set , only the poet Shakesp are will fit lue provided Not only was Shakespeare the foremost and most florid adopter ’ ’ ‘ ’ o f Sidney s ( an d th erefore Astro phel s) innovation in Arcadia ‘ ’ Of two o n e — fo r e words in Adjectives he continu d in Lucrece , - l e - o - with such examples as rash fa s , ambitious foul , po r rich , - - o - n cursed blessed , and feeling painful , his ver free creatio s ‘ ’ Ad e n is o . e there f But Shakespear in Venus and , like Sidney ‘ ’ o (and therefore Astrophel) in Astr phel and Stella , sang a ’ passion that was n ever c o nsummated— c o mpare Shakespeare s ’ sh all y They that love best their loves not enj o , and Sidney s ’ o f fo re t from Stella ever dear . By iron lawes duty to ’ ’

depart . Moreover Spenser s fine poem Astrophel , an elegy o n the death of Sidney , is known to have been circulating in manuscript years before the publicati o n of Venus and Adonis ‘ ’ and Shakespeare like the author o f Astrophel had gone to O vid for inspiration , like the author of Astrophel in his But b e fo r none of them did care a whit had pictured h is hero as ’ n o t o f a male wooed but won , like the author Astrophel had

pictured his hero as fighting a Boar , like the author of e m o Astrophel represented his hero as undergoing m ta rphosis ,

like him employed a six line stanza , and like him favoured the rhyme a . b . a . b . c . c .

’ L ab eo s Such are the definite clues to identity . And such is i l the way n which those clues taken as a set , and more especia ly ’ th e to L ab eo s e as s et final clues id ntity given by Hall taken a , point t o the poet Shakespeare as Labeo . But there is also the clue of the selection of L abeo as the mask name o f this E liza o f o al am bethan writer p etry in , as H l tells us , anothers n e a clue that is indirect rather than direct . In this connection the Shakspere Allusion Book quotes ’ ‘ Smith s Latin dictionary as saying that Labeo signifies th e

1 1 ’

s . one who has large lips . Quite o But the Shakspere Allusion ’ Book conspicuously omits to q uote Lewis and Short s Latin

“ ’ W ~ l o o dictionary or hite and Ridde l s Latin dicti nary , b th of which g o further and also point out that Labe o was a well kn o wn c o gnomen or family surname among the Romans of Classic a n d A n tis tiu s times , both of which standard works specify e y e e m wh o f Lab o the younger , the law r and stat s an o fended his sovereign by exercising his power to select a senator other

than as such sovereign had desired , as the most famous bearer ’ n o n of such cognomen . There is logic in assumi g that Hall s o n e nickname , not for a particular type , but for the living r m u st person directly satirised by him as a contemporary write , C - have been hosen because of its root meaning . And the real f - E di ficulty is not to find a large lipped lizabethan , but to decide whether the Labeo of a bygon e age this E lizabethan writer o f poetry in anothers nam e was pr esumably named after as t o bearing some historical likeness to , was so named in relation ” n the poetry standing in a others name , or as regards his masked identity a matter int o which o n e c o uld n o t go without consider e ing the larger problem of the identity of the poet Shak speare . ’ o L ab eo s As t the previous suggestions regarding identity, — b VVar t o n th e I I I th namely Chapman y in XV century , Drayton — b e y XI Xth y Sing r earl in the century , first Marston then W — b Thomas atson , and then Drayton or Chapman y ‘ Gr o s art — b r , and Marston y Professor Routh in the Camb idge E i o n e c an o t to History of ngl sh Literature , not of them be g ’ m eet th e full set o f definite clues to Labeo 5 identity taken as o fi a set . Indeed , n ne pass even the rst test ; for Chapman had not written any amatory poetry to which Hall ’ s denunciation o as uncleanly could apply , the same is true of Drayt n Marston identified Labe o with the author of Venus and Adonis and so c o uld n o t h im s elf have been Labeo and Watson was dead ” long years b efore Hall advised Labeo to write better .

X

e - It has be n shown , however , that every one of the many direct and definite Clues to the identity of the cont emporary poet alluded to by the E lizab ethan satirists Hall and Marst o n as

c an . Labeo , be associated with the poet Shakespeare The

‘ Cl e o e m a b e aim is th ref re r spectfully made that , whatever y Of inferred from the choice Labeo as his nickname in satire , Labe o stands demonstrated to have been a nickname for the e t o actual p o et Shak speare . And as Hall alluded Labeo as a ” e e e ! writ r of poetry in anothers nam , it must at the same tim

“ be urged that there should be an inquiry and rep o rt by r ep r e s en t ative Shak espearians as to what was the nam e m a sked by . ” anothers name ; the identity of the true auth o r of the

’ Shakespearian poems and plays being very p lainly at issue 1 3 !

The three autho rised title pages

[Rom a n n u m er ica l letter s Other letter s : 8 0 ]

V E NV S A ND ADO NI S

Vilia m iretu r v ulg u s m i hi flay o s Apo llo P o cu la Cas talia plena m in is tret aq u a

L VC R E CE

MR WI I . LL AM SHAKE SP EARE S CO M I S ED E , ISTO I S H R E , T G I S RA ED E .

P l ub i s hed ac co rdi ng to the Tr u e O r igin all Co pi es

T HE GR E A T T A B OO

I N E N G L I S H L I TERARY C I RC L E S

B eing a set offi fve qu estion s r ela ted ther eto p u h/ieiy a ddr essed to the a u thor ity Sir Sidn ey L ee p r o viding ou r 8 0 0 pag e ter een ten a tj y hiog r aphy of Sha hsper e of Str a t for d upon Jo an a s h) » a ssu m ption iden tica l with the poet Sha hespea r e

DE HA M P A R S J. N O N S

‘ Au o r o f O u r Su n -Go d o r C ris ia n i efo re C r is The No n — C ristia n th , h t ty b h t h ‘ C ro ss T he N a u re a n d ur o se o f the n i erse M o o o rm a t P p U v t , F e Spo n ta n eita — a series o f articles o n ph ilo so p hy co n t ribu ted to a n Italia n review a n d The R ead ifth o u c a n st E pitaph at Stratfo rd u po n A v o n a ’ S u d in C o in ciden ce t y .

L o m D o aQ

P U B L I S H E D B Y TH E A U TH O R P R E F A C E

The herewith presented b ooklet m ay be said to e x plain

f ° itsel . But a sort o f Contents Table is perhaps desirable

E T - Th P lim n ei m b l f QU S ION I . e o a t a se ance o suppression

: Th II . e Ben Jo nso n

: Th L III . e abe o

IV Th e Medio c r ia fi r m a

V : ll f . The Spe ing o Name

’ L E N V OI

And it sh o uld perhaps b e o bserved that Copies o f the earlie r a n d only privately circulated bo o klet to which reference is

‘ m Th e if E a f d ade herein , Read thou canst pit ph at Strat or

’ o o b e th e h M up n Av n , are to seen at Britis useum and

G l ll L n L b l U n i ui dha and ondo i raries in the metropo is , the

L C d he l f t o O o d . versity ibrary at ambri ge , and B d eian at x r

Also that copies o f the present bro chure will fo r twelve

o r b e b l f m a o months more o tainab e by post ro the uth r , post

l him d l f e 1 o n o to . r e , / app icati n at the a dress given be ow

E N H A M P A R S N S J. D O .

RAV E N O O D SW ,

45 UTTO N O U RT ROAD , S C ,

HI I C K W 1 9 1 9 2 . 9 C SW , , iv, . THE GR E A T TA BOO

I N E NGL I SH LI TE R AR Y CI R CL E S

Q U E s T I O N I

THE ‘ P O L I MA NTE I A ’ S E MB LA NC E O F S U PPR E SSIO N I

th e 1 78 4 e In year died the r nowned Dr . Johnson , the dicta t e c e s wh o to ial l xi ographer , biographer , ssayist , and Shake pearian , as a Shakespearian declined to

as e c r c is m u o n u n r es is in i ec ili u o n f u s t o o w t iti p t g mb ty , p a lt e viden t fo r d e t ec tio n a n d t o o gro s s fo r e x agg er atio n in the shape o f Cymbeline (the play by Shakespeare that Tennyson ‘ ’ fo r o n e e all r has judg d beyond p ice) , declared that Macbeth ’ c o f e e e in it no nice dis riminations charact r , and h ld Haml t to b e rem arkable for (save the mark th e mirth - prod ucin g quality Of e e h e e th e the scen wh re t hero feigns madn ss . His preface to o f e e e e him 1 765 e edition of the plays Shak sp ar issu d by in , allud s “ to the traditional po et as having arrived in Lond o n as a needy ' to e e we . e adv ntur r . And later on find Dr Johnson ref rring a f e . rm o close friend , Dr Fa er Cambridg , as having in the most o n e o f c o e e his successful treatise a subj ct ntroversy ver writt n , ’ E e o f e e e 1 76 7 c o m ssay on the L arning Shak sp are issu d in , pletely finish ed the Old standing disput e as to wh eth er th e poet — ' was a learned m an or an ignorant m an in favour of h is ig n o ra n ce . h e e th e e c t e 1 79 7 e . In y ar di d the said Dr Farm r , who in pr fa e ’ E e e e to the second edition of his ssay on the L arning of Shakesp ar , e e e which was issued the sam y ar as the first dition , inserted the self- approbative remark

’ ' I o e a s s um e s o m e c o n fi d e n c e o n e f e fi s t _ h p I m y a with what O th r Cr itick s o f th e A g e w a s p leas ed t o dec lar e o n r ead in g th e fo rm er E ' d o n th e u es o n is n o w fo r e e d ec ed . iti , that Q ti v r id

c e e e o - The two learned roni s , ach influ ntial , and t gether all powerful E e l in nglish lit rary circ es , had ruled our national poet not learned ,

C t m . but ignorant , as ompared with his con e poraries 3 1 2 M l h e th e 1 8 a o e . t In year died n , first big biographer of the needy a dventurer from Stratford- upon - Avon as by assumption iden tical with the actual author of th e Shakespeare poems and ll plays . Malone was we acquainted with Dr . Johnson , and was an

Of m . affectionate friend and frequent correspondent Dr . Far er m P 28 4 L ’ And we find Sir Ja es rior , on page of his ife of Malone , quoting a letter from Malone to the Vicar o f Stratford - upon - Avon his about the poet Shakespeare , written after edition of the plays and poems came out— and thus after his criticism s of Rowe had been adopted and after he h a d come to the support of the current belief about Shakspere of Stratford as the poet with the illogical Shak e- scene and Chettle accretions accepted owing to his in flu en ce f , to the e fect that I thin k I s hall b e able t o o vert u rn every rec eived trad itio n resp ec t ” n in g this very ex trao rd i ary m an . Sir James P rior alluding to this passage as a hint by Malone ’ e r of som e essential discov ry in the poet s histo y . all After , however , Malone never did anything to overturn the traditions then received , and that he had done so much to support and one can but guess what his essential discovery m ay h ave been . II i ' Now t is known through a surviving catalogue that in Dr . ’ ’ Farm er s library was a Copy of a Cam bridge graduate s work of 5 95 P o li an tei C — 1 m a W . . the year , by otherwise (and as some

' ’ Copies stated) William Covell and that in Covell s essay therein entitled

‘ E n t o H er ee D u e s C m e Ox fo d I n n es o f gland Thr a g ht r a bridg , r , ’ Co urt is the earliest critical allusion to a poet as a poet nam ed Shake M n speare . oreover it is also k own that such essay is an argum ent about the honour conferred upon their respective universities by the living or recently deceased E nglish writers of acknowledg ed e distinction , poets or otherwis , who had been educated at one or

other o f the centres of learn ing specified in the title of the essay . This allusion to Shakespeare is usually referred to as a m arginal

. W W note W , — m M M n m w fl m W M Nine lines of

' the text are set far back , and in the Space thus formed are the two or three remarks an d h h e n u el fi m a t at suc refer nces , u fort nat y not Speci ed , are the g netic centre of all else. Now in 1 5 9 9 we find Ben Jonson ridiculing Shakspere of Strat f . M P ord For , as the Rt . Hon . J . M . Robertson , . . , says in a work L ee praised by Sir Sidney as confuting the Baconians ,

I ‘ B en fo r h is p art in E very Man Ou t o f h is ‘ H u m o u r j eered at ’ S es e e s c o o f r m s o d n th e No n s n z D ro ich t hak p ar at a , p ar y i g a h e o o No t o u u s d by t m tt with t M tar .

Th e B a co n ia n H eres : a Co n fu a i n 5 6 o . 1 y t t , p .

’ I S o liardo h It s Ben Jonson s character g , who c ooses such motto and stands for Shakspere of Stratford ; while So gliardo is at the outset described as possessed of land and m oney and deter l h l mined to be a gent eman w atsoever it cost me , and as a resu t going to the College of Heralds -and purchasing arm es that are Of as m any Colours as ever you saw any fo o les coat in your A ct l so . life ( III , And it is barely conceivab e that Ben Jonson l n in ater years , and after reprinting this offe sive parody the ’ l very year of the actor s death , could have repeatedly ca led the same individual gentle Shakespeare with com plim entary intention . Further on in the play S o gliardo is m ade 110” ask P un tarvo lo How like you the Crest sir ? whereupon P un tarvo lo replies B en that he cannot understand it . And Jonson then puts in the mouth of So gliar do the ex planation

R m n s ir is o u B o r e o u e . Marry , it y r with t a h ad a p a t

SOgliardo is then represented as reading the tricking of his just m l purchased ar oria shield , which runs

G r o n o f e i ec es A z u e a n d Gu les e een h ee es y y ig ht p r , b tw t r p lat a ’ C ev r o n en i ed Ch ec k e O V er a n d E r m n es o n C ef h gra l y , r , t , i ; a hi ’ ” A r en e een tw o A n n let s S es B o es e d P r o e g t b tw abl a r h a p r ,

P u n tarvo lo h e all whereupon , asked what thinks of it , replies

L et th e o r d b e No t o u u s d o u C es is ver e w with t m tar , y r r t y rar i ” s r . II Now the paternal or descending coat granted to Sir Nicholas ll Bacon as that of his ancestors , and that though occasiona y quartered with the arms of a wife of an ancestor is alone credited to him by the P ursuivant of Arms John Gu illim — see page 1 01 of ’ o f his Display of Heraldry , is , as given in the Dethick grant 1 5 68

Th e fi s fo r B c o n es o n c i ef s lve tw o m u e s s es r t a , gul , a h i r , ll t abl

’ and as given to - day in Debrett s Baronetage

s es Gules ; o n a c hief A rg en t two m u llet s abl . 6 th e b o re ' assan t And , as regards the Crest , in first instance a p ” e e e E . rmines and , in the s cond instanc , a Boar passant rmines

Thus th e base of th e coat of arms of th e Bacon family as grant ed — an e for Bacon , and as would be known to Ben Jonson exp rt B en e r th e o n e . in h rald y , is described by word Gules And Jo nson arguably enough was contrasting with the learned Francis o a e o f o n e So liard o Bac n and his b re shi ld base but colour , the g parody Of Shakspere Of Stratford as a character who by way o f contrast sh o uld hav e a Shield base of many co lours — fo r it is in th e base the tinctures sugg estive o f a fo o les c o at were put by him . As So liardo to the remainder of the shield , the g chief like the e is So lia rd o c c Bacon chi f divided off , the g hief like the Ba on chief is r So liard o C tinctu ed Argent , and the g chief like the Bacon hief has among its charges two objects Of a kind which if placed singly and centrally between base and chief would b e a mark of Cadency . And in the case o f the S o gliard o chief these two obj ects of o n e kind are Annulets— and thus well calculated to remind the alert li l e a ke that an Annu et is the mark of Cad ncy for a fifth son , and that Francis Bacon had four older broth ers named Nicholas and E Nathaniel and dward and Anthony . ‘ ‘ th e R m e e o e Then again , a pant xpr ssi n in it is your Bor ” e e i without a h ad Rampant , would certainly hav had the r ght parody touch if u sed in allusion thro ugh a parody to a real Crest e th e prop rly described as a Boar passant . And more so , inasmuch as imm ediate use is made of the expression as ground fo r th e e So lia rd o o s statem nt that g , therwise Shak pere , was Ramp Gen tilitie ing to . IV Many points here are only o f the nature o f supplementary ’ s o reason for suspicion . But Ben Jonson s putting int the mouth of his character representative of Shakspere o f Stratford the dec lara tion that his Crest was th e Crest of another armiger m in u s some thing , your Bore without a head , coupled with the facts that th e missing head is a charge on th e shield and that decapitated is th e o f Boar Bacon and that crest Francis Bacon was a Boar , c e e e e e is a quite definite ground for hall ng . Strange , th r for , must be acc ounted th e o mi ssi on o f all Shakespearian biograph ers to deal with this putting by Ben Jonson into the mouth ofhis character representing Shakspere of Stratford of an admission that he was i th e e o f o us ng Cr st an ther . V

Mo reo ver whether ta kin all these a cts in to con s ideration o r o n l , g f , y the g en eralfa ct tha t in this play of 1 5 9 9 reprin ted pa r ody a n d all in ’ the y ear of the a cto r s dea th B en j on so n ridicu led S haksp ere of S tra t ord what ade uate reas on have bio ra hers o S haks er o f , q g p f p e f Stratford as a ssum edly iden tical with the p o et S hakesp eare for tim e after tim e a llu ding to the testim ony of B en j on son as a s ure foun dation for the S trat ordian traditio n withou t on ce m en tion in in su ch c t on f , g on n ec i this ridicule of S ha kspere ofS tratfo rd by B en j on s on R i a S U P RE ME Then again , to take an emphasising c rcumst nce , the complim ent paid by Ben Jonson to the poet Shakespeare in 1 623 of having surpassed as a writer all that

in s o len t Greece o r h a u gh tie R o me

’ m also had written (see To the emory , and paid by Ben him Jonson , and paid by in these identical words , to Francis Bacon at a ' later date (s ee quite clearly should not have f been paid to two di ferent contemporaries . Hence the question arises as to how it comes about that no Shakespearian biographers s as x have stre sed or even mentioned what , it stands e pressly stated by Ben Jonson in the com pliment Openly addressed to Francis “ ”

Bacon that it was in our tongue and our language . that

insolent Greece or haughty Rome . had been surpassed by him , is the m ost important detail that this could not have applied to in his o wn n am e what Francis Bacon had written , as Ben Jonson died before Bacon ’ s philosophical works were translated from Latin ’ E l m l into ng ish , and he could not have referred to Bacon s s a l book ’ E : m x of very short ssays , and the by no eans e tensive and already superseded Advancement of Learning —rewritten in Latin as ’ ’ m en is two of the nine books of Bacon s De Au g t . Why have Sha kespearian biographers with o n e con sen t ign ored this s econ d s em blan ce o a wide an d elem en tal ssu re in what the f fi , y “ claim as the s o lid groun d fo r the S tratfo rdian tradition ex isting ’ in B en j on son s testim ony ?

Q U E S T I O N I I I

THE ' LA B E O S E MB LA NC E O F S U PPR E SSION I 1 5 9 M m 8 , In . the year John arston a connection by arriage of l as Francis Bacon , a luded to the author of Venus and Adonis ’ Labeo .

N o f. P i ow Joseph Hall , a rival satirist uritan upbring ng who three or four years later accepted a living in the Church from ’ Francis Bacon s eldest niece Anne , had just previously referred to

L abeo as a writer of poetry in anothers nam e . Hence If 8 we are to j udge by appearances Marston referred to the author o f ’

Venus and Adonis , to wit the actual poet Shakespeare , not only as l him the author thereof , but a so as knowing to be said to have e written his po try in anothers name , and as accepting such statem ent concerning h im — for this was a point upon which as Marston did not reply to his rival a satirist .

II

’ Marston s first volume o f poetry cam e out two months after ’ th e i Hall s last volume of poetry , and chief poem therein is an mita ‘ ‘ tion of Venus and Adonis called The Metamorphosis o f P ig ' ’ m li n s A r m a o Image . ttached the eto are so e satirical lines entitled ’ Th e ra se his receden t e h Author in p y of p P o m . And among t ese appended lines are the eight about to be cited

A n d in th e en d th e en d o f o ve w o t , ( l I ) i li n b h o l o P gm a o a t a j ly b y b eg o t . S o L a b eo did c o m la in e hi s o ve wa s s o n e p l t , O r e fiin t s o r e en ess n o n e : bdu at , y , l tl Y et L n ceu s n o s in th e en d o f i s y k w that th , H e o u a s s r n e e o o s s wr g ht t a g a m tam rp h i . E n s n o t m P o em en s u a ss in ill ? d y , th , rp g Co e c o e A u u tu s c o n m e ill m m s l . , g , r w y aur at q u

Here the first two lines a bou t Labeo are in the very words of ’ l 200- 1 ines of Venus and Adonis , which run

A rt o u d e fiin t a s s ee th Ob urat , y , hard t l , N n n fo r s o n n el n e a m o e fl e r e t th . y r tha i t , t at rai And the next two lines by Marston refer to the fact that while ’ ’ ’ L ab eo s sa o em lik e poem , that is to y Shakespeare s p f Marston s poem deals with a m etamorphosis— that o f dead Adonis into a ’ r is flower , his (Ma ston s) story of metamorphosis the livelier and to ill l preferable one . As the sarcastic surpassing , this wou d P appear to be a hit at his uritan rival for , after attacking Labeo

about his earliest poetry , describing him as having done wondrous

” ' ’ well in later poetry— see Hall s fin al satire 42 lines from the

end . Nothing is clearer than that Labeo was with Marston a nick n am e that stood for Shakespeare— the actual poet whatever his l l identity . And if with Marston , certain y a so with Hall as indeed ’ Of al c the various allusions H l s satires , if arefully analysed , taken in their totality put beyond reasonable doubt .

III

ll e L 1 5 9 7 Ha c nsured abeo in his first or volume of poetry , Vir idem iaru m 1 ‘ g book II satire , for writing poetry of a kind h l e other t an clean y . And the satire contains in its fourth lin phrase his handsome dr inking bole a fairly clear allusion to 9 the motto on the titlepage of Venus and Adoni s In its twentieth ’ line italicised phrase Ther s so m u ch la bo ur lost a lik ely enough ‘ ’ allusion to the earliest comedy by the author of Venus and Adonis , and in lines 3 7 to 5 3 vari ous references to a black story by ’ Labeo which would apply well enough to Shakespeare s earliest tragedy ‘ Titus Andronicus ’ the last line of the satire running

F o r s m e r e c e n L a b eo o r r e n o n e ha w it l a ly , w it .

’ e o r 1 5 98 m Th n , in the very first satire of Hall s second volu e , Vir id em iarum 1 th e o g book IV satire , we have most notew rthy reference to Labeo

’ L a b eo is wh ip t a n d lau g h s m e in th e fac e W h fo r s m e a nd i e th e ed c e y I it h d g all pla . Gird b u t th e Cy n ick s H elm et o n h is h ead C es fo r Ta lu s o r h is fla le o f e d ar he , y l a L o n g a s th e c r a ftie Cu ttle lie th s u re I n th e blac k Clo u d o f h is thic k vo m it u re ; W h o lis t c o m pla in e o f wro n g ed faith o r fam e ” W h en h e may s h ift it t o an o th ers n am e ?

— Shift it to anothers name . to the name of wh at other person ? co u ld it be shifted Of a certainty the blame by this Puritan satirist of the author of Venus and Adonis for having written t ‘ C c poetry tha was not leanly , ould not be shifted by such author

— to a friend for this would not be a friendly action . And j ust as surely h e could not shift it to an enemy— for an enemy wo uld so a ct as to make matters worse . Thus the only possible explanation would seem to be that Labeo was known to have published his

“ c o poetry in the name of an agent who in return for ash c nsideration , r e e or as the esult of some other business arrang m nt , acted as his

e o f m e . mask , accepting what ver came along whether bla or praise IV

Taking the whole eight lines of this passage , too , instead of th e e c e only last line , nothing to an unpr judi d inquirer can be more evident than that we have here not a single allusion but a s eries of ‘ ’ L e o f allusions to ab o , and thus to the author Venus and Adonis , a n d hence to the actual author of the Shakespearian poetry , as a writer of such poetry under the name of another person who was ’ th e s only the ostensible poet . For reason why Labeo by Hall own admission ca n laugh Hall in th e face — a sure Sig n that at e l they were heart fri nds , is the fact that he , Labeo , can re y upon H Hall keeping the secret— th e galled place is av' owedly hidden . e e e as e by the satirist . Then again , Labeo is repr s nt d w aring a ’ Helmet — and a Helmet was a recognised symbol o f invisibility

owing to the classic story about th e Helmet of P luto . Moreover ‘ ‘ the reference to Labeo as a crafty Cuttle fish disguising his e O presenc by a black cloud , is an equally bvious pointing to him as a poet whose real identity was not that actually or apparently 1 0 l l assumed by him in the vo umes of poetry he had pub ished . And the concluding allusion to h im as o n e who could not complain of ’ 1 5 9 7 Hall s satire of the year censuring him , because he , Labeo , ” e dd could Shift such censure to anoth rs name , is but a itional proof ’ that Labeo , to wit the author of Venus and Adonis , is throughout being alluded to as a writer of poetry under a name concealing rather than revealing his identity because the name of another , o r so like the name of another as to be certain to be taken a s such ’ other individual s name . Wh then ha s this a ten t act that the a utho r o Ven u s a n d y , , p f f A don is was referred to by a co n tem po ra ry satirist as a writer of o etr in an others n a m e n ever been ut be o re the world b S hake p y , p f y spearian biog raphers P

Q U E S T I O N I v

TH E ME D I O C R I A FI RMA S E MB L A NC E O F S U PPRE SSIO N I

’ allu d er to Of as Marston , the the author Venus and Adonis ’ l allud er Labeo , by general admission replied to Hal , the to Labeo ” ’ e e as a writ r of poetry in anothers nam , both in his (Marston s)

first. volume of poetry and in his second volume , but was obliged ’ to keep back nearly th e whole of his reply to Hall s Second volume for his own second volume . Now the only contemporary writer whether of poetry o r prose ’ plainly attack ed in Hall s first volume (o r dwelt upon in his second is th e e . M volume) , one attack d as Labeo And arston , replying in ’ m som eon e his first volu e to Hall s first volume , defends attacked l n by Ha l , in the li e

W hat n o t m edi o cr i a fi r m a fr o m thy s pig ht ’ Th e Me a m o r o s is & V i c S a t I l n e 73 . t p h , . ,

W c e hom could Marston have indi ated as the person d fended , o f m m e m by this use the Bacon family otto , but so ember of that ’ W e e family here , if not in this line , is Marston s first volum r ply ’ to Hall s first volume attack upon Labeo ? A n d why ha ve n o t S hakes ea ria n au tho r ities two o who m in cludin a am ou s bio p ( f , g f ’ ra her o S ha kes eare have edited edition s o Ma rston s o em s g p f p , f p ) o in ted o ut this a r u a ble eviden ce that L a beo the writer o o etr in p g , f p y ‘ ‘ a n others n am e who wrote Ven u s an d A don is wa s kn o wn to , , Ma rston a con n ection b m a rria e o F ran cis B acon as— F ran cis , y g f , B acon 5’

1 1 Q U E S T I O N v

TH E SPE L LI NG O F NA ME S E M BL A NC E OF S U PPR E SSION I l In every biography of the traditiona poet Shakespeare , o f - u o u — e i Shakspere Stratford p Avon , as by g neral assert on of the authorities and almost general assumption b y the instructed public i t identical with the actual poet Shakespeare , is taken for granted that when Shakspere of Stratford left Stratford - upon - Avon for

‘ 1 5 8 5 1 5 8 6 o r l5 8 7 London in search of a fortune in or , he left it m c e possessed of a patrony i , or inherited surname , which was som times ii not always spelt in his native town as the author Of Venus 1 5 93 and Adonis Spelt his publication name in , and again as the 1 5 94 author of Lucrece in , and as the publishers of the First Folio and all the contributors of prefatory m atter to such famous l 1 E vo um e spelt it in 623 ; that is to say as SHAKE SP E AR . N l - P ow as Ma one knew , as Halliwell hillipps knew , and as Sir L ee Sidney can but know , this is not the case . There are over three hundred and eighty surviving official E cclesiastical or Muni cip al or Legal Stratford - upon - Avon references by nam e to the l earlier d ate traditional poet or his father or their chi dren of ‘ than ’ th e 3 8 0 the issue of Venus and Adonis , including in more than such references ex amples of twenty different spellings of their m e f patrony ic , and yet not one of the tw nty or so di ferent Spellings , r O m l whethe ften or seldo occurring , is the spe ling invariably adopted as that of the poet ’ s publication name in all the authorised first issues of the Shakespearian poetry . II The consequent m isunderstanding on the part of 99 people 1 00 out of every , is kept up by our Shakespearian biographers alluding to the traditional poet ’ s grandson as given the baptismal m E PE E him all na e of SHAK S AR after , although as they have known the name was entered in the Church Register on baptism SHAKSPE R l E E as , and on buria as SHAKSP R Also by our Shakespearian biographers alluding to the c orpse of the actor as ‘ having been entered on burial as that of Will : SHAKE SPE ARE ’ l I R i gent . a though it stands entered n the Church eg ster as that of W ll : S E i HAKSPE R gent . III

m F o r l The atter is no unim portant one . the actor usua ly if not always— and many o f the great est authorities have held alway s — th e E signed In the spelling SHAKSPE RE . And spelling SHAK ’ E RE o i e u m SP A , that of the p et s publ cation nam , and a Spelling applied to the actor or his father at Stratford till after the publi 1 2

l . Stratfordian , dec ared , in his introduction to the tercentenary ’ r l Book of Homage , that the t aditional poet Shakespeare eft

n o in tim at e wo rd o r p ers o n al trac e Of hig h d esig n outside his poetry - o r let us rather say the poetry attributed to him . II

’ l Halldm E Quite so . It is what Co eridge and and merson pro m clai ed before the Bacon Shakespeare theory was started , and what has always been present to the mind of the writer of these l E . remarks as a student of lizabethan iterature The creation ,

f . and the alleged creator , a ford the widest possible contrast III Wh l y , then , the great Taboo in our iterary circles of all dis c u ssio n as to whether there has or has not been a m istake as to the P Wh m identity of our national poet y , too , the see ing suppression of points of importance whereupon a challenge to the Stratfordian tradition could logically be b ased ? IV

m Then again , to strike a inor because personal note , why the repeated refusal of the Sk ak esp eare Tercentenary Committee in ’ the autumn of 1 9 1 5 to consider the results o f the author 5 years of ’ o f n 5 research on the subject our ational poet . identity , although the author was known from his defence of Halliwell - Phillipps ‘ in the Stratford Bust controversy in a series o f letters to the P all ’ 25 2 . . 9 1 9 10 Mall Gazette (Nov , Dec , Dec . , ) and his criticisms of ’ th e then P resident of the Bacon Society i n Notes and Queries 28 4 1 . 24 . . 1 1 2 s ee . ( Jan , Feb , Mar , Apl , and May , to be a fairly well qualified student of E lizab ethan literature and neith er P c rank nor partisan Wh y the inability of th e author on privately printing and circulating his booklet entitled Th e Read if thou ” ’ canst E pitaph at Stratford upon Avon : a Study in Coincidence 1 9 1 9 early in , to come across a single well known Shakespearian willing to confirm or refute the fac ts and inferences therein tenta P Wh e tively put forward . y the r fusal of Sir Sidney Lee to meet the repeated request of the author to , in the interests of Truth , help him to a definite conclusion by pointing out any faults of fact ’ or logic ? Wh y the limitation of Sir Sidney Lee s first and only l to rep y , a remark that no scheme of cryptography however skilfully devised is applic able to things Shakespearian ; although ’ th e x m s e code e peri ented with is one used in Shake p are s time , while the coincidences form an aggregation presenti ng every appear P ance of m arsh alrn en t Again an d again has this o r that or the other authority been approached concerning the general results of the author ’ s investi 1 4 ’ v gatio n s as to our national poet s identity . It has e en been duly notified to o n e permanent seat o f authority in matters literary that ’ am ong the results of the author s ten years o r more of research in both ordinary and cryptographic directions is absolute proof of the exist ence of signalling about th e poet Shakespeare in the First Foli o — absolute proof both in its own obvious value and b y ’ th e written and signed testimony of o n e of the wo rld s m ost r en own ed a e m athem a tician s . . But , no , brick wall attitude was maintain d

c o b e ed o . E e e u n The matter uld not look int v n there , howev r c e cons iously , and though p rhaps only as an immediate result of e e red tape , the gr at Taboo is in full force And ven our publishers so far support the great Taboo as to o n e aft er another say that ’ there is no money in any fresh facts of Anti - Stratfordian cha racter m ex o si , however free fro absurdity and partisanship their p b e e fe tion may ; and th refore , if not also from fear of o f nding , — they can take no risk . Thus nothing can be done the author being the very reverse of a millionaire V And yet something can be attem pted— b y m ean s of a direct if e o o e e e necessarily bri f appeal against the great Tab . Here , th r for , F o r is such an appeal . of a surety the author cannot be the only ’ e o f e e ee c e to th e e lov r Shakesp ar who s ks ertitud as po t s identity , and wh o desires on such no wadays often challenged point an adh e e i t e e i t l m r nce n h spirit , as w ll as n hg eng , to that glorious maxi l m en e o t sev h e of iterary as w ll as lawyers , adapted fr m he gm Sen can is h e e l 7 e t e1 . trag dy, which first principl of ag i -3 VI

th e e o f e a e th e e In nam fair play th n , y , and in nam of friendly e - e e e let Shak sp ar hims lf , us have done with all branding of Anti S tra tfo rdia n is m a n d Anti —Stratfordians as perverse Dictionary ’ o f N y 1 8 9 7 e c e e o ational Biograph , , and t r nt nary bi graphy , ’ o fo r e s with ut rational ground disput Time , March and with no ratio nal right to a h earing Life o f William ’ e e e o e e - Shak sp ar , S m manif stations of Anti Strat e - e e e and som Anti Stratfordians d s rv branding no doubt , and branding deeply but what shall b e said o f the great Taboo th ese e e e e e e hundred y ars and mor , now mor pat nt and pot nt than ver , that has led to the breeding o f th e wo rst features of th e Opp o sition ‘ to th e Stratfordian tradition ? Has all the perversity b een on ? to e o ur e one side And , go b yond attention , as follow rs (so far o f th e o e e o f e e as may be) authority , to pron unc m nts our g n ralissimo , and to attend also to a notable prono unc em ent by a named c olla b o r ato r in a signed review of an Anti - Stratfordian work by a well We ec e e th e c o m known university man , utterly d lin to do th m plim en t of rec ognising that th ey have a prirnd facie case Book ’ a n o f l m , August as the actor was the son provincia 1 5 n either m l all a rio ri el m tradesfolk of who cou d write , the p e ent

' inh eren t in su ch i ns , admitted fact is ag a t the tradition , while the very evidence herewith shown to have been kept in the background by Stratfordian scholars of itself constitutes a strong prirn d facie

- d m e . case for Anti Stratfor ians , even if no or

’ Or o m l take the tercentenary B ok of Ho age , and its so icited homage for him who least of all E nglishm en who ever lived was in l need of solicited homage , and its one and on y reference to Anti Stratfo rdian s w n o n e of whom though equally lovers of the actual poet Shakespeare would appear to have been asked to contribute Of Baconians and other enemies of the Stratfo rd er who need talk P - do they not one and all bear on their arm s the badge of ? ” Moria (p . Speaks even there the true Master , willing e P Or ver to help the , ignorant and doubting inquirer is the voice authentic to be found in that silencing high - Toryism which for ’ generations past h as kept debate as to our national poet s identity out of the agenda of all Shakespeare Associations and Societies ?

v111

- All triumphant is the great Taboo . But away with it ! A s 1 - b scuran ists thing of darknes ra sed bw t , it must be fought and r l i 1 a Crusade is hereby p o c a m e against t . Is such Crusade to be m — w o a Crusade li ited to one for the call is only to those h , like the n o - author , are d partisan inquirers Let authority itself act And let us have everything of the nature of admissible eviden ce and criticism in any way touching the question of o ur national poet ’ s identity at long last freely discussed in open court by those E th e m best acquainted with things lizabethan , and tre endous power of authority in all its many ramifications no longer eith er directly or indirectly set against letting in the light up o n th e chief E n problem of glish literature .

N FI IS .

» — na nd A lesbu r . 1 o o . P rinted b H az ell Watso n 6 Vine Ld . Lon do y , y , , y y 9 74 SI R SI D NEY L E E 6? A B SO L UT E P R O O F

B E ING T HE CA SE FOR A N E XHA USTIV E I NQ JI RY A S TO T HE L L E X E N A ND C RR E C N E R RE A N FU T T , O T I T P T TIO , O F T HE SUB — SURFA C E SIGNA L L ING A BOUT T HE PO E T SHA K E SPE A R E S HOW N BY T HE A UTHOR ’ S FOUR L E TT E RS IN ‘ T HE A T HE NZ E UM ’ TO HA V E COM E D OW N TO US ON A T L E A ST ONE PA G E OF T HE FIRST FOL IO

M P SO S J. DENHA AR N

‘ ° ‘ tu r nd P u r se the M oto For m a e on ta neita d u th r o The .f a e a o o S o f \ p f , p ‘ t n tr ib u ted to a n I ta lia n r eview The a ser ies of a r icles o n philosophy co ; ' ‘ ’ d— u n - A v‘ Read if thou ( am t Epitap h a t Str a yor po orz ‘ The Gr ea t Ta boo in eng lisb L iter a ry

Cir cles fi e.

L o WED o SQ

U L D Y T H E AUTH OR A T P B I S H E B , UTTO N P AR K R OAD C H I I C K 4 5 , S , SW

1 9 2 0

SI R SIDNEY LEE an d A BSOLUTE P ROO F

Abs o lute proo f that s u b - surface signalling has com e down the centuries to us in th e earliest collective editi o n of the plays — 1 623 W A . D ascribed to illiam Shakespeare the First Folio of . , th e 1 9 1 0 was discovered by the present writer in year , in the shape o f a s et of word numerical value c o incidences found by him in the commendatory p o em initialled L M. And the o f e discovery , vouched for as a discovery genuin cryptography by mathematicians of the very highest rank , had , and has , s o me importance ; inasmuch as sub - surface signalling in the o prefatory matter of the First F lio could hardly be other than , o f o r or than a part , some hint , more than hint , of a masked authorship , and as to the identity of the true author . Moreover , - to f o ne given sub surface signalling such e fect in place , likely enough there would be sub - surface signalling to the same effect in other places also .

1 9 1 5 Of In the author , a member the Shakespeare Association th e e to e e at time , wrot the Shakesp ar Tercentenary Committee urg ing that its members should consider this absolute pro o f of the existence Of sub - surface signalling in the First Folio ; alrn o st as also a proof , simultaneously discovered by the author , that the poet Shakespeare ’ s contemporaries John Marston and Jos eph H all alluded to the actual p o et as a writer of poetry in a name concealing his identity— Marston referring to th e author

Of e &c . V nus and Adonis as Labeo (see The Metamorphosis , The Author in pray s e after H all had 1 eferr ed to Labeo as ” ’ n ( Vir id em iaru m writing his poetry in anothers ame see g , io e iv , A notificat n of the Committee s refusal to consid r such absolute proo f of the existence of sub - surface signalling an in the First Folio , d such anothers name evidence , however , was received from Professor I . Gollancz . An appeal to th e n E u o e Chairma , the arl of Plymouth , res lted in an ther r fusal . o f e A request for the names and addresses the Committ e , so th at some details of the fresh facts might be sent to them by 1 a 5 0 . a eal o post , was wice refused And a sp eci l a fr m these ‘ a t p ‘ d ecisio rig o ffhe Secretary and the Chairman tii Sir Sidney Lee — as without doubt the most influential member of the Com m ittee o , led but to confirmation there f .

Three years or s o later the author issued a pamphlet showing the existence of sub - surface signalling in th e inscription on the e e mural monum nt to the traditional poet Shak speare , and asked n o t e th e l only Sir Sidn y Lee , but also Director and Principa Of r Librarian the B itish Museum , to consider it , in addition to the said absolute proof of the existence of sub - surface signalling

in the First Folio . But again , only refusals came to hand . In 1 9 1 9 the author at last obtained the names and addresses Of Of the members the Shakespeare Tercentenary Committee , ‘ and sent ro und to them a pamphlet of protest entitled The ’ o Great Taboo in E nglish Literary Circles . This t ok the form

' o f a series of questions to Sir Sidney Lee on the subject Oi ‘ arguable suppressions of unwelcome Shakespeare evidence

during the l ast two hundred years . Incidentally the central points of the anothers name ” evidence were presented though none of the many and weighty other reasons for holding

Labeo to have stood for the poet Shakespeare . And there I M wa s . f e a passing reference to the . poem set O coincidenc s as presenting absolute proof of the existence o f sub —surface “ Signalling in the First Folio both in its own obvious value ’ and by the written and - signed testimony of one of the world s ’

m o st renowned mathematicians . But Sir Sidney Lee s only t o answer , apart from say ing tha his c py of the pamphlet had o f s e come to hand , consisted the ingle sent nce I do not see

how your conclusions follow from your premisses . E arly in January 1 920 the author wrote letters to each of Of Of O U e the three chief ficials xford niversity , nclosing two pamphlets and details of the absolute proof Of the existence o f - sub surface signalling in the First Folio , and very respectfully

challenging the University to Show such proof not to be absolute . - o The Vice Chancellor replied that though , as stated , now wner ‘ ’ th e o f o and publisher of Dictionary National Bi graphy , the University disclaimed any responsibility as regards its account f O the poet Shakespeare .

Letters presenting by degrees the particulars of such portion I M f . o the . commendatory poem set of coincidences as is arrived at withou t the h elp o f any interpre tative theory o f mistaken e e identity regarding the poet Shak spear , were then sent by the o f two warwickshire friends both of whom advised him that the passage attacking him had been kept o u t of the report at ’ Sir Sidney Lee s special request — other de tails learned being ’ ‘ ’ that the author s pamphlet The Great Taboo , the questions put to Sir Sidney in which he had Six months before written r e e fusing to answer , was stated by him to hav been issued as a “ ” reward for his coolness with respect to the proof o f sub ’ in th e o surface signalling First Folio , and that the auth r s crypt o gram discovery was the one and only thing specified by ' Sir Sidney L ee am o ng th e things roundly denounced by him in Stratford upon Avon Town Hall as Opposition to th e Stratfordian tradition of a kind that is most fallacious and hurtful to any reputation for sanity .

No t wishing to shine as the only individual specified in a ‘ o n o r class so den unced , even to be included by accepted ’ r c th e autho ity in such a lass , the author sent a letter to ’ fo r Stratford upon Avon Herald , appearing in the issue May 1 4 i , in which he asked Sir Sidney Lee to g ve in that journal o f t h e s o the exact terms attack , that he could answer it , and wh o e that those had h ard the attack might know the answer . a d to f But Sir Sidney Lee replied privately only , n only the e fect t hat he had not been adequately report ed (a queer way o f a o lluding to the suppressi n of a passage owing to his request) , and that his warning was a very general one (which avo ids o t e c the p int that the author was h only individual parti ularised) . o f e The requested exact terms the attack wer not given , and for the fourth tim e a request o f the author for the result Of the consultation about the cryptogram with Professor Forsyth was ignored .

A stronger pro test from the auth o r was th en kindly inserted ‘ ’ th e o o by editor of the Stratf rd upon Av n Herald , and then — 28 e 1 1 o n e str o nger still see issues for May and Jun . But L ee e Th e Sir Sidney made no mov . terms of his attack were t o e o f o remain suppressed , and the r sult his consultati n with o Professor F rsyth uncommunicated .

S O stands the matter o f the recepti o n by th e accepted ’ a uthoriti es on the p o et Shakespeare o f the author s fr esh facts ’ a em o f o e e ffecting the probl the p et s id ntity , if it be add d that ’ ‘ ’ the auth o r s two first letters to the H erald remind ed Sir Sidney Lee that he had n ev er m et the po int that Marst o n alluded to Labeo as th e auth o r o f Venus and Adonis aft er Hall alluded ° o to Labe as a writ er o f p o etry in an o thers name . And if e o n 4 it be also add d that April Professor Saintsbury , and on 5 th e o f o April Keeper Printed B oks at the British Museum , ’ o wrote declining , despite Profess r Forsyth s testim ony regarding an involved coincidence that it m ust have been purposely ’ o I M . s arranged , to consider the {crypt gram discovered in . m poe . And also that o n May 3 0 Sir Israel Gollancz wrote notifying the refusal Of the Shakespe are Association to look ’ s et ae into the coincidences forth in The Athen um .

W Of f hat , then , is this absolute proof the existence o sub surface signalling in the First Folio which The Athenaeum i fo r th e O o nl has publ shed author , but that quite bvi usly is o y u ’ part of a cryptogram , and the a thor s tentative com pletion and interpretation Of which is denied inserti o n— despite both ’ the custom when s o much of a disc o verer s report has been i ’ P nserted , and the editor s written promise

Let us first take th e already published part Of the crypto s o m gram , being much of the cryptogra as is arrived at without the aid Of any theory Of mistake n identity regarding the poet

Shakespeare .

No w if any sub - surface signalling about the poet Shakespeare m e o u s a e two has co d wn to from his g , the most likely places 1 for finding any of it could most reasonably be held to be , ( ) the ten line poem put by Ben J o ns o n even before the title page o f o o 2 o m o the First F li , ( ) the eight line p e which in pr perly b o und copies o f the First Folio is the piece o f literature placed

next before the plays . I M This eight line poem , initialled . . , has the same number Of - lines that a chess b o ard has rows of squares . And the play o n e m o f placed just after it , is the only entioning the game e Ch ss . But some lines Of the po em contain l ess words than the f - number o squares in a ch ess board r o w Of squares . Hence any sub —surface signalling in this poem about th e poet Shak espeare o t o Should be found connected with , or acc mmodated , the f - o e . arrangement squares upon a ch ss board But , as there are f e to o f o insu fici nt words cover the squares a full board , m st probably to the arrangem ent o f squares upo n half a chess

board .

- There are 3 2 squares upon half a ch ess board . And the cross sum ( o r digit addition t o tal) o f the p o siti o n al numbers of e — 77 No w h e e o f 1 3 2 1 . such squar s , , is this is t equival nt ’ W e o e m — n o t illiam Shakesp are , the p t s publication na e but ’ o s itio n al - the actor s usual signature , by the p letter number ‘ c o de o f th e E lizabethans fo r as c an be seen fro m Swan s 1 5 78 A D 1 6 3 5 o A D . o e . . Speculum Mundi n t in ab ut , they used

5 = 1 Z = 24 o n the A to code , with both I and J allotted the positi and value 9 and both U and V allo tted the position and value 20 ’ . Hence it is arguable that the spelling of the p o et s pu blica tion n am e a s a va ria tio n o the su rn am e o the acto r was ix ed u o n , f f , f p with a view to cr to ra h y p g p y .

Here is the poem in its original spelling :

’ WE E wondred (S hake-speare) th at thou wen t s t so soone

Wo rld s s Sta e - - o From the g to the Graves Tyring ro me . Wee o th ught thee dead , but this thy printed worth , ’ we t s t Tels thy Spectators , that thou n but forth

To enter with applause . An Actors Art ,

Can dye , and live , to acte a second part . ’ ° That s but an E x it of Mo rtalitie ; R e— P This , a entrance to a laudite .

As we cannot cover the 6 4 squares of a chess - board with o 3 2 o f words from the poem , let us supp sedly cover the squares hal - th e f a chess board therewith . This means taking first four o f two columns words . And at once we find that there are o o n alternative first four columns of w rds , there being the ptio of taking the double n o un Worlds - Stage as o n e word o r

. Ou r o e two words first experiment , h w ver , as this double n o t noun is in any lexicon of the time , clearly should regard it two as words . And we thus get as our operating area the representative word numerical values 78 1 03 47 3 2 8 5 5 0 9 5 3 7 1 4

5 3 5 0 1 29 47 3 3 5 9 5 7 8 6 1 7 3 2 1 8 45 6 5 41 1 4 5 5 5 4 I 9 8 3 3

r Off m e the three top ows being marked , in appearance , for so o r o f WE E purpose other , by the repetition , the first word

o f . of the first line , as also the first word the third line

Now for an analysis Of the figures o f these word numerical values s upposedly occupying the 3 2 squares of half a chess b e we e oard , an ar a that have found sugg stive of the poet Shake ‘ s e o - di it additio n p are s publicati n name . The cross sum or g total h o f e o f th e o l , w ich necessity is gr ater than that positi na

r 1 o = W numbe s of the squares ( t illiam Shakespeare) , I 28 0 we o l S . If any signalling be about , then sh uld find a signa by deducting the o n e cross su m from the other . And the ’ ‘ — difference is lOS the equivalent Of Shakespeare .

6 e e o — Then again , if th r be any signalling ab ut , this cross sum o f 28 0 e could , and therefore should , be divided in the mann r mentioned as regards the thre e to p arguably marked Off rows — . s o fo r and the five other rows And this is , the cross sum the three top ro ws being 1 03 and for the five 1 77 = W e bottom rows ( illiam Shakespear ) .

o Moreover , as the values are supposed to ccupy the squares Of - o half a chess b ard , then , if there be any signalling about , there could and therefore Sho uld be a similar co lo u r of s qu a re divi s ion o f the cross - s u m o f 28 0 taking all eight r o ws t o gether o - e o n And this is actually so , the cr ss sum Of the valu s white squares being 1 03 and the cross —sum o f the o n 1 77 =VVilli m e values black squares ( a Shakespear ) .

w o o e e This last coincidence , ith ut menti n of the quival nts Of 1 03 and 1 77 and presented m erely as a po ssible three centuries Old cross - sum signal o f 28 0 with a compartmental division as three to p rows 1 03 five bott o m rows 1 77 which is duplicat ed by a 1 03 and 1 77 c o lour o f square divisi o n fo r all eight rows e a o tak n together , was years g submitted by the author to o th e e e o o f e Pr fessor A . R . Forsyth , Chi f Prof ss r Math m atic s at the Imperial College o f Science and Technology . th e o And author received a kind reply which , after s me intro d u c to r o y remarks , ran as f llows

I have thought eno ugh t o see that the chances against

the m ere c hance wo uld be multitudinously overwhelming . u But now fo r a more important suggesti o n to y o . The impressi o n left up o n me is that y o u a r e in th e presenc e o f o n e o f thos e crypt o grams so dear to som e m inds through

many ages . Y e ours sinc rely ,

H O T . R . R A . F SY

In thanking the Professor the auth o r m entioned that a

m o f , seem ing cryptogra , or portion of one , in the shape initials had so m e years before been o bserved by h im in th e sam e i u o perating area ; and asked if the pronouncem ent m u lt t f din o u sly o verwh elming ruled m er e chance quite o u t o court as the origin o f th e c o l o ur o f square dupli c ati o n coincidence that had been submitted . And Professor Forsyth explained in a sec o nd l etter that he had meant that the chance o f such a - o e e cross sum c incid nc occurring by chance , was

absolutely negligible from the point of view of human judgm ent o r hum an estimate As t o the original figuring out of the cryptogram as a thing s et th e o of shape as well as a of equivalents , auth r had reflected that any series Of signals in an eight line poem wo uld almost t o o r certainly have been made take the shape of a letter , more ’ — e o s probably two letters as someon s initials . Als that in uch th e l e o ff to case arguab y mark d three p rows , should be found hea d to be the Of the letter , or first initial .

The wholly logical rule that all loops as well as strokes of o r e letters should , when figured out by words th ir numerical

‘ e o n Of - valu s arranged squares like those a chess board , be of the same thickness throughout , then showed that the only e e lett rs with a three row d ep head , possible in the total depth o f o r . e but eight rows , would be an F a T And furth r reflection showed that a three row deep head is unlikely to have been o pitched upon for a T , as the extension fr m the starting point o f the head would only touch the ext erior of the Operating area t o e e at the very finish . Hence one is logically driven exp rim nt

first with an F .

1 5 Here such F with a three top row head , together with the o utside word numerical values of the operating area

1 3 1 " 78 1 03 47 3 1 78 1 03 47

‘ 49 3 2 8 5 5 0 49 5 0 3 1 9 5 3 7 1 4 3 1 1 4 5 3 5 3 47 3 3 5 9 3 3 8 6 1 7 1 7 45 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 l 9 8 3 3

o Analysis of the supposed initial and its frame , sh wed that 90 each has a total word num erical value o f 9 . Also that in each case th e co lo u r of squ ar e division o f the valu es t o talling 9 90 5 5 1 43 9 e is the same , black and white , wh n the values are arranged on a chess - board— whi ch logically should mean a signal by th e d o uble difference of 1 1 2 as well as by th e double 9 90 total of .

S O far and no further wo uld Th e Ath en wu m publish the ’ author s disco very in th e shortest poem o f th e First F o li o pre fato ry matt er — that is to say only to the ex t ent that th er e is no u se o f any mistaken identity theory regardin g th e p o et Shakesp eare as an arguable mode of completion and in ter pr e ’ t atio n th e o . c e e But here , in the coinciden es pres nt d in auth r s Th e a 6 M 5 — 1 2 letters to Athen eum of Feb . , arch , and April 3 0 1 9 20 e e , , everyon arriv d at without the use of any mistaken e o f n c - e id ntity theory , is absolute proof the existe e of sub surfac o o e t o th e Signalling in the First F lio . M reover , incid ntal entirely non - partisan expositi o n of such absolut e proof is a m o st ’ striking arg-u ab ility that the spelling of the poet s publication ’ o f th e name , the difference which from that of actor s usual e signature has never been satisfactorily explain d , was fixed upon c — 1 77 with a view to ryptography as having a numerical value , , thrice that of CONCE ALE D and exactly equal t o the - o f 1 t o 3 2 o f cross sum the positional numbers , , the squares - F o r o e o es o . of half a ch s b ard s me r as n , perhaps the powerful Of to influence Professors Lee and Saintsbury , the matter was wa be closed down , half y , without discussion ; Professor ’ Forsyth s testimony notwithstanding .

‘ As to the tentative completion o f the cryptogram which ’ a was refused insertion in The Athen eum , the author , as he said o to in its c ncluding paragraph , would be most happy substitute better e is any compl tion . It simply the best that he , as the o f th e set o discoverer of c incidences already set forth , and all Of which were arrived at without the use o f any the o ry of n e o mistaken identity regardi g the poet Shakespear , can with ut help suggest as apparently the completion and interpretation

I M o . arranged by . . And it runs as f llows

Neither the numerical valu e o f the name o f the central o f E Of e — W figure the arl D rby theory illiam Stanley , nor that Of the name of the central figure o f th e E arl of Rutland theory t o set o f e e Roger Manners , will , when applied the coincid nc s ’ I M s e u e in . . poem shown to have been arrived at without th s o f e o f any th ory mistaken identity regarding Shakespeare , and to ' be (as P rofessor F o rsyth has said o f o n e of th e set) the Of to result purposed arrangement , help us any further and e Of o n e e connect d series coincidences . But applying th r to the num erical value Of the name Francis Bacon l o o f e a logica ly arguable completi n the cryptogram , and int r retatio n o . p thereof , is at nce observable

TO e 9 90 begin with , the doubly signall d is the numerical e 3 3 c e 3 0 valu , , of the surname Ba on , multipli d by the years , 1 5 9 3 1 6 23 W e n o t to , that the name illiam Shakespear , the ’ c e spelling usually if ever adopted in the a tor s signatur s , had o e o f been in use as the publicati n nam the poet . And another 3 0 — years suggesting coincidence exists see end Of appendix .

AS to the doubly signalled colo ur of square differenc e o f 1 1 2 w c o 9 90 ith regard to the mposition of each , this is the ’ o f o o equivalent C ncealed P et .

e m o ff e to Tak also the diagonals in the arked thr e p rows . The first is fro m th e value r epresenting the opening o f word the poem , giving an arguable key diagonal signal o f

9 1 00 -the equivalent of Francis Bacon An d th e 7 e d second . is from the value repres nting the secon o f word the poem , giving an arguable companion diagonal signal Of 1 77 - the equivalent of William Shakespeare

Moreover the outside columns of the marked Off three t o p o r th e both rows head of F , and total 1 1 1 — the equivalent of Lord St Alban . And the full stem of 3 3 3 o f the F totals , or thrice the equivalent Lord St Alban , o 1 1 1 — 222 with a c incidental division as at the required spot .

— o f 3 3 x 5 9 Lastly , as to the cross bar the F , its product , o r 1 1 09 79 an d , is a double exact multiple of the Bacon William Shakespeare ( 2 1 77) equivalents ; each equivalent f being contained an exact number o times . Thus our tentative interpretation of the F arrived at without the u se of any mistaken identity theory regarding the po et m a Shakespeare , y be said to suggest that we should be able , o f by means the interpreting theory , to find an accompanying s o B and complete the cryptogram .

For the figuring out of any associated B so as to get th e o f E B signal . as the initials of Francis Bacon , the cryptographer o to o must , wing the positi nal digit addition total equivalence — i e 1 t o o f 3 2 . the words or squares o f the first fo ur columns . V = V illiam o t o Shakespeare , be supp sed have wanted , s eco n d a ltern a t ve rs t not a four columns of words , but an i fi

four columns of words . And it is not the likely thing , but this th e O th e o unlikely thing , which exists ption of taking monstr us V d o uble n o un V o rld s - Stage either as two words o r as one o x e e w rd , giving us , as the ne t word is to the alt rnativ sets of numerical values for the first four columns of words

- - a a wo d Wo rlds S ta e a s two wo r s Wo rlds S t e s o n e r . g d . g 3 1 78 1 03 47 3 1 78 1 03 47 49 3 2 8 5 5 0 49 3 2 1 3 5 3 3 3 1 9 5 3 7 1 4 3 1 9 5 3 7 1 4

5 3 5 0 1 29 47 5 3 5 0 1 29 47 3 3 5 9 5 7 8 6 3 3 5 9 5 7 8 6

, 1 7 3 2 1 8 45 1 7 3 2 1 8 45 5 6 5 41 1 4 5 5 6 5 4 1 1 4. 5 5 4 1 9 8 3 3 5 4 1 9 8 3 3

F B c o f e s ets o f Now in signalling . . on a ouple alternativ e c o word num ri al values , a clever crypt grapher could signal it u n o o n e in d plicate . And as there is middle row in eight rows ,

W - = d Moreover , as on the orlds Stage two wor s basis the digit addition total for all eight rows o f word num erical e t o 28 0 1 03 fo r o ff o values has b en found be , the marked r ws 1 77 o and for the five b ttom rows , we thus have for all eight rows an alternation fro m a Shakespeare equivalent crowning a W to illiam Shakespeare equivalent , a Francis Bacon equivalent W e crowning a illiam Shakespear equivalent .

colou r o s ua re lim it ed t o On e Nor are f q coincidences basis . I M For on reflecting that . . could have arranged for this cross sum cro wn of 1 00 : Francis Bacon to have been to the extent o f 6 7 = o n o n e o f x o f ( Francis) colour square , and to the e tent 3 3 = c o f e Bacon) on the other olour square , we mak experiment m a re e but to find that atters actually so arrang d .

There remains the general point that on ly o n e word in this e - First Folio poem besides the brack ted name (Shake speare) , s a e t e viz E is in the m yp as such name , . xit and that 5 5 th e - what thus should be the special signal , is cross sum 1 B A C O N — c n of F6R 17A 1N 13 C 3 9 S 18 2 1 3 I 4 13 as a be seen by adding the o e digits t g ther .

‘ e ’ f I M O . Such was the tentative compl tion the . poem o in c o m cryptogram , as in its so far published state an bviously plet e arrangement disco ver ed with o ut the use o f any theory Of mistak en identity r egarding the p o et Shakespeare but as Obviously needing some such theory for its completion and w interpretation as a discovery , hich the author sent to The ae m o n 29 1 9 20 Of o Athen u April , save that two the c incidences were not m entioned to the editor till a later date . Any idea that the author set out o n his researches intending to find something that would fav o ur the Bacon - Shakespeare m a m theory , y be dis issed ; for although never a ridiculer of

“ o n t o o f e the the ry itself , what was know him the literatur favouring it repelled him , while the Stanley and Manners theories c were given just as good a chance . He has simply in a scientifi o u t Spirit looked for fresh facts in all directions , and then tried o n o w to secure justice for those f und . And he has but to record ‘ ’ the reason given by the editor Of The A th en m u m fo r going o o e n e e back up n his written pr mise , and ev n upo lit rary prec dent ’ when half of a discoverer s account of his discovery has b een

' inserted , in refusing to insert his tentative completion and o interpretati n .

o o f o It was this . The edit r was pinion that the author ’ — Of O o should , with his tentative completion what bvi usly ’ (and by Professor Fo rsyth s testimony as an exp ert) presents

1 2 to th e wo rld absolut e proo f Of th e ex ist enc e o f sub —surface l e l e t e o f signa ling , hav supp i d exhaus iv verification his assumption that the res ults c o uld not b e Obtained from o ther e mat rial .

“ Th e s et They could not . of coincidences is a quit e u m

Of . Of matchable set coincidences Moreover , as a set coincidences th e e th e - it is in connecting po t Shakespeare and chess board , the o n e a n d o n l a ro riate la ce in a ll the wo rld y pp p p . And the ’ e fo r o e o f o ditor s request the imp ssibl , in the shape pro f Of a e o w m 1 o o negativ , n t ithstanding , the facts re ain ( ) that the p rti n ‘ I M e fo r o o f th e . . po m cryptogram published the auth r in Th e ’ Ath en wum is arrived at without the use o f any theory o f th e 2 mistaken identity regarding poet Shakespeare , ( ) that such portion o f its elf presents absolute proof o f th e e x istence o f sub in o 3 a surface signalling the First F lio , and ( ) that whatever m y ’ b e thought o f the author s tentative completion and in terp re t atio n th e Of e o , q uestion the full xtent and true significati n Of the sub - surface signalling to be found in the First Fo li o should n o t be evaded .

FINIS .

’ ‘ OTE - m N . The author s earliest Shakespeare pa phlet The ’ R o E o o n o w ead if th u canst pitaph at Stratf rd up n Avon , o u t o f o f s u b of print , supplies clear evidence the existence surface signalling ih the chiselled inscription o n the m ural o to o in r o ot- m nument the traditional p et , the shape of digit c o incidences point ed to by th e gross m is —Spelling SI E H or o m a ll va SITH) by ro t digit , eaning that double figure es 1 8 9 1 9 to 1 e to . F o r are reduc d digits , like to and instance , the root digit addition total for the numerical values o f all words o r o f 404 o r 1 77 227 o f contractions words is , + while all words t e . t o the end o f the fourth line ( . to and including plast

i . e 1 77 227 e . it is , followed by for the remaind r ( to and including o f o r E the final Ap . and all words of the challenging nglish section down to and including the filu m la by rin thi SIE H 227 66 fo r o it is , preceded by the Latin section and f llowed by I l l— s o fi 3 3 3 3 o and con rming the for the first line , for the sec nd 1 1 1 o f 1 77 fo r to line , and for next two lines , the all words end Of fourth line three obviously arranged signals of 1 77 and 227 capable Of the interpretatio n William Shakespeare 7) Lord Viscount St Alban reminding one of the diagonal I M o f 1 77 227 . . m y o alternation and in the poe cr pt gram , and significantly supported by a fo u rth epitaph exam ple in the fact that the root digit addition total for all th e letter num erical e 1 46 6 1 77 values taken separat ly is , which is And there is the related coincidence that while the root digit t o tal o f two o f 1 77 — W the lines Latin , is the equivalent of illiam o f 3 27— t h e Shakespeare , the total for the whole the Latin is e quivalent o f Francis Bacon Lord Viscount St Alban ‘ This pamphlet was revi ewed in The Athen aeum ’ I M. when the author s first letter to that journal about the . c — 6th 1 9 20 ryptogram appeared therein Feb . , , and the coin c i en ce d s put forward admitted to exist .

e e o f Append d to the present pamphl t , is a report the results ’ o f an inquiry as to how far the auth o r s t entative completion I M o f . m the . cryptogram is supported by ore or less similar c oincidences in other go o d positi o ns for any sub - surface signalling o o f 5 1 5 about the poet Shakespeare . It c nsists pages to of , C m ten opies apart , an otherwise unissued pa phlet entitled ’ U 1 1 e Ben Jonson and Sir Sidney Lee . pon page are sev ral slips needing correcti o n letters o n lines 4 and 6 should be ’ “ 1 5 3 1 4 o f words , is the rd on line should be is at the end ’ “ 1 ‘ ’ 1 5 3 rd o n 5 . the , and letter line should be word

1 4 B E N j o NSON AND SI R S IDNEY L E E

I

has all m th e It been offici y ad itted , in a signed note held by t e h i present writer , and incidentally confirming h results of s e o al e e e r res arches upon such p int , that though th r surviv ove 3 80 Stratford - upon- Avon references by name to the traditional poet Shakespeare o r his fath er which are Of earlier date than the ‘ publication o f Venus and Adonis — and thus of earlier dat e than th e first reference to a poet as a poet named ’ W l o n e 3 80 o e il iam Shakespeare , not of those and m r ’ references are in th e spelling o f the poet s publication name . SO o e e far as his patronymic was c nc rn d , it was as a William Twenty - Spellings that th e traditio nal poet Shak espeare left Stratford upon Avon in 1 5 8 5 or 1 5 8 6 o r 1 5 8 7; and n ot o n e o f th e twenty lo c al ways o fSpelling his inherit ed sur name was Moreover his son was aft er e e in th e e e e wards ent r d burial r gister as nam d Shaksp re , his e as a daughter in the marriage r gister n med Shakspere , himself, e e as e o n in the burial r gist r named Shaksper , and his grands in th e baptism register as named Sh aks per and in the burial e register as named Shaksper . Th e account Of Shakspere of Stratford as assumedly id entical with th e po et Shakespeare that th e Dictionary Of National ’ Biography puts before th e wo rld fl m an ag es to give a totally e e e et e al diff r nt impr ssion . And as in y oth r directions so our popular identifications o f Shakspere Of Stratford with the poet Shakespeare are more o r less Open to the charge o f being ex hib i tion s o fadvocacy o n b ehalf o fa none too surely founded tradition ; th ere aris es fo r all non - partisan stud ents of E lizabethan literature the question as to wh e th er there be any considerable am ount of evidence availabl e o n beh alf o f a contention that even B en ’ Jonson s allusion to th e poet as the Sweet Swan o f Avon e e ca m ou a e o e e ni n may have b en m re fl g , and that fr m the v ry b gin g

“ wh at h as passed as orthodo xy regarding the poet Shakespeare e has be n somethin g very different indeed . II The last seventy years have seen three definite challenges o f mistaken identity as regards the g en erally ’ accepted or Swan Of Avon theory as to the identity Of the poet Shakespeare ; t 5 1 W . 1 8 5 ( ) that of Mr . . H Smith of Brompton in 6 to the effect

’ th at F ran cis Bacon Viscount St Alban was the true author o f th e 2 Shakespeare poems and plays , ( ) that of Mr . J . H . Green street in 1 8 9 1 to the effect that William Stanley E arl of Derby

' Was 3 1 907 the true author , and ( ) that of Herr Carl Bleibtreu in to the effect that Roger Manners E arl of Rutland was the true ’ ' al o author . And if Ben Jonson s lusi n to the poet Shakesp eare ” as e e the Sweet Swan of Avon was m re camouflage , ther s e — o hould be discoverable in the sam volume the First F lio , Open signals of the initials and surname terminals Of one or other o f these contemporaries of Ben Jon son ; Open signals - e F r that should prove to be clues to sub surfac signalling . o the o f h k ag e S a esp eare was an age Of Cryptography .

There is no arguable app earance in the First Folio of open signals b y way of the Roger Mann ers initials and surnam e

' f O e M MS . O o t rmin als R . and And none pen signals by way f a W S the William Stanley initials and surn me terminals . . and S Y . . But as regards the Francis Bacon initials and surname

N. m B . ter inals E B . and the same cannot correctly be said F o r e e - Ben Jonson b gan the First Folio ven before its title page , and so began it in lines printed thus

e e This Figure that thou h re s est put , It was for gentle Shakespeare cut ; Wherein the Graver had a strife

° N Ou t- : with ature , to doo the life O c d rawn e , ould he but have his wit

As well in brasse , as he hath hit th e P His face , rint would then surpasse

All , that was ever writ in brasse . lo o k e But , since he cannot , Reader ,

P o . Not on his icture , but his Bo ke IV

e o A fair preliminary report , after a first vi w examination f these lines with reference to th e possibility of Open o r concealed signalling therein by Ben Jonson regarding the authorship o f e th e the collection of plays pres nted in the volume , would be to effect that n o better vehicle of cryptography about a masked f authorship could ex ist than ten lines o editorial verse placed . - f even before the title p age . And to the further e fect that there ” O is an pen authorship claim in the last two words, his Booke , which with almost absolute certainty would include the summa tion o f a concealed claim about the authorship were there an y cryptography about the true author to be found in this intro r d u cto y poem . 6 V The pivotal o r claim ative his of this op en authorship c e e o o laim his Booke pr fix d by Ben Jonson to the First F li , 67th o is the word of his intr duction counting all words , but the 3 3 rd word co unting only the words o n th e indented lines like e b e that on which th e word occurs . And if th re any crypto e g raphy anywhere in the introduction , there should be discov rable s ome letter numerical value code of the period according to which 67 is the numerical value o f o n e Of the two nam es o f the 3 3 l e r . t ue author , while is the numerical va ue of his oth r name It is therefo re noteworthy that acco rding to the n atu rall ro w e in position in the alphabet or crosse code , a code utilis d E lizabethan E ngland in connection with a prophecy that the world would come to an end in the year 1 5 78 and allotting both al 9 U th e e 20 6 7 I and J the v ue and both and V valu , is the ’ ’ 3 e e Of e 3 . quivalent of Francis , while is the quival nt Bacon VI M M f r . S . o Of R . R e any outstanding or oger Manners , ther is o f an W e . . S . S Y . no arguabl sign And y outstanding or . for

William Stanley there is no arguable sign . But the last possible c a ital al o f o p letter , the initi the last w rd , is both a capital and e al a B , whil , as the fifth letter from the end , it is b anced by a c apital F as th e fifth l etter from the beginning ; making an arguable initialling o f the wh o le poem with the initials of Francis B F B acon , . . e Mor over the initial letters of the last two lines are , in such

B . N e al Of order , . ; the t rmin s the surname Bacon . And on t o f B N o u e . . Spelling Bacon b ginning with the B such , the

s e n h e B . N e p ller ends o t N o f such . wh ther starting forward o n e e o n ex o r the sam lin and back the n t , starting upward and r o n all ound the outside letters of the poem . VII Now in the event of any major signal by the number o f w ords— and a separate signal o f the Francis and Bacon eq u iva lents by the penultimate word would be a major signal , there al h e should be a minor sign by t number o f letters . And the ’ total number o f l etters in B en Jonson s ten introductory lines ’ is 272— th e equivalent o f Francis Bacon th e true author

Mo reover as th e Baco n family mott o was about the safety o f the m iddle o sition e wa p , ther might well be middle or half y signals Of a confirmatory charact er if any signalling at all about . o Francis Bacon . And the half way numb er Of w rds is 3 3 al f e the equiv ent o Bacon . This could not be repeat d as regards th e e th e 6 7th second half , if the p nultimate word was to be as e the equival nt of Francis . But the total num ber of letters i n the ten lines could have been ex actly halved— as 1 3 6 in th e t an d 1 3 6 firs five lines in the second five lines . This has been

1 6 - done . And 3 is the equiv alent o f Bacon Sh akespeare VIII Under no circumstances could signalling be expected through ’ o u t Ben Jon son s second acknowledged contribution to th e s et First Folio , in the sense of an elaborate of signals stretching m e en d B ut fro b ginning to ; it being eighty lines long . Ben e e Jonson , if a signaller in his earli r and shorter poem as a mor e conveni nt vehicle for cryptography , could have arranged a general confirmatory signal b y this second poem of eight times t e the length of the first . And h total numb er of letters used am u 2720 - th e in this f o s eulogy of the poet is , exactly ten fold number us ed in the introductory lines ; a coincidence that

cannot be paralleled . It is also most noteworthy that while the penultimate word ’ ” Of n o r th e its Ben Jo son s first ten line poem , word his , is by placing as both the 67th word and the 3 3 rd word an equivalent ’ Of th e e Francis Bacon , p nultimate word of Ben Jonson s second m its e 100 th e poe , the word volumes , is by numerical valu , ,

equivalent of Francis Bacon . IX

’ As every one of the ten lines Of Ben Jonson s introduction to the First Folio ref ers to th e ostensible portrait Of th e poet On - O as d the title page pposite , and Ben Jonson editor woul have supplied the d etails fo r such ostensible portrait of th e e p oet to the youthful ngraver Droeshout , any signalling in the ten introductory lines m ight well be supplemented by some c pi torial hint i n the o stensible portrait . Now the Stratfordian tradition asks us to believe that alth o ugh the poet Shakesp eare was a famous man in 1 5 98 e s o e e when Mer s highly praised him , and increas d in fam till ’ at le ast as late as 1 6 1 1 — wh en his farewell play The Tempest r o f e t was put on the stage , no port ait the most celebrat d poe Of that age has come down to u s which is of e arlier date than this ostensible portrait of 1 623 — unless it be a perhaps five years e arlier mortuary bust presenting a man of totally different e e i app aranc And that s much to ask . The background Of this ostensible p ortrait of 1 623 that Ben n e a t o lo o k e ab s o Jo son both suppli s and sks us Not on , is l u tely plain ; and nowh ere are th ere any accesso ries . All that i s s i o f o f e r hown , cons sts a face , a part a collar , and the gr ate o f o p ortion the forefront o f a do ublet or coat . Thus the nly b o f o f chance of a signal , is y way the tailoring of the forefront a as doublet , indicated by the braid . 8

sheets of paper used in the volume as a whole , and the number o f l eaves respectively to the left and to the right of the double e 227 centr , in each instance the number , should be a signal . And 227 h appens to be the equivalent of Lord Viscount St ’ th e Alban , title by which Francis Bacon was formally addressed at the date Of the First F o lio — as in th e debates of the House of

1 621 e . Lords in , and in the letters of his fri nd Tobie Matthew

e e . Clearly , howev r , if we be m eting with actual signalling , then with any appearance o f a signal o f the formal title of Francis e a Bacon , might well b found an ssociated appearance of a signal Of m e l such n a . Hence it is both logically and artistical y in order that the page number imprinted upon the 45 4th or half e o f all 9 08 a s it way page of this volum , in , pages , should be , is l — OO . , the equivalent of Francis Bacon

th e O o Again , word BAC N occurs , as a separate W rd , exactly

twice in the First Folio . And if Ben Jonson , as the editor of l such vo ume , arranged any signalling at all about Francis Bacon 1 therein , then ( ) on each occasion the word should be found e e 2 e to have be n allotted a capital B as its initial l tter , ( ) on ach occasion th e page number allotted to th e page on which the word o e 3 ccurs should be found to be the sam , and ( ) the repeated

page number should be found to have a significant equivalent . Now on each occasion the word is given a capital B fo r its is — 5 3 initial , on each occasion the page number the same , and 5 3 n P OE as P = l5 this number , , is the equivale t of T ( B = 5 = 1 9 T ) . XIII Given any signalling by Ben Jonson through any page number in the First Folio however (and we have noted arguable = appearances of the signals 1 00 Francis Bacon an d 5 3 : Poet fin d al by way of page numbers) , we should certainly a sign by the grand total o f pages in h is Booke as indicated by the No last imprinted page number of each section . w this grand 3 03 — 1 23 2 993 l 1 5 3 0. total is 4 , + , + + ; or And this is just

1 5 3 e l z 6 2 7 . 3 3 ten fold , the quiva ent of Francis ( ) Bacon ( ) P oet Moreover if Ben Jonson was signalling by the desire of s as Franci Bacon , and if Francis Bacon , the true author of the e r e Shak spea e poems and plays , had himself ver arranged such as 1 5 3 : e o f a signal Francis Bacon Poet , th n this appearance a al - 1 5 3 = P final sign of ten fold Francis Bacon oet , should be ' u o f s m o f 1 5 fo nd to be an echo o e much earlier signal 3 . m 1 623 1 5 93 Turning therefore fro the year to the year , let us Obser ve that the number 1 5 3 could have been signalled precisely three times at the very beginning of Venus and 1 0 Adonis by the numerical value o f the three Words forming th e Of 2 title such poem , ( ) by the cross count of the numerical values of all the words o n th e title page — that is to say in ludin g th e th e 3 th e é e Latin motto with title , ( ) by number of us d f c al e is 1 5 e o . 3 in the lett r dedication For such numeri al v u , - is 1 5 3 s ed is 1 5 3 . such cross count , and such number of ’ b Of o u r e o o The first eire master poet s inv nti n , a p em displaying every sign associated with the coll ege elegance o f the t as m - e ime , w given an anony ous title page a Latin coupl t ’ being put in place o f the author s nam e . Twic e does such - 1 5 anonym ous title page supply the sub surface value 3 . And ‘ the e at the end o f the very first appearance in print Of th e a e W l th n m i liam Shakespeare , which is to the dedi “ ‘ c ato r o n e 3125 e y letter t following leaf , Francis ’ Bacon Poet o f the dedication sso signed . Hence it was a triple comm encing coincidence without a parallel as regards th e first publish ed wo rk o f an author o fafterwards to be disputed e B en o r e id ntity , that Jonson consciously unconsciously echo d w e Of 1 5 3 0 ith his concluding First Folio page number coincidenc , following upon minor p ag e num ber coincidenc es of 100 and of 5 3 . XI V

S O far , however , we have been assuming that Ben Jonson , even if a signaller that Francis Bacon was the true author of e e tex t o f the Shakespear poems and plays , would hav left the

h im a . the plays edited by as a collection , severely lone But if indeed indulging in cryptography about the authorship o f th e h e m e l plays , would al ost c rtainly have signa led by the ’ last word Of the poet s farewell play— unless o f course the poet ’ “ l F r e had himse f done s o . o Shakespear s farewell play though

produced on the stage a dozen years before , had not previously b een printed ; and as its first editor he could easily add an

o r e o ne l x e . epilogue , substitute a fresh epilogu if a ready e ist d th e e Hence , a whole decade ago present writ r looked into th e question o f what is given by Ben Jonson as the poet Shake ’ speare s farewell word that is to s ay as th e last word o f the ’ ’

poet s farewell play The Tempest , which Ben Jonson placed o f first all . And in this connec tion we want before us the 1 2 following quotations from The Tempest as printed in 6 3 . XV m e b o o telesse And left to a Inquisition , : Concluding , stay not yet .

‘ " 3 E : P e ( ) At the end is the pilogue spoken by rosp ro , ru n m n

m all o re- y Charmes are thro ‘ e , q 2 ’ / . M u d m in t n what strength I have s we . ’ 3 Which is most faint : now tis true ‘ ‘ ' m h eere t o n n d eb 7 I ust be fi y you , / Or e N Let n o f . s nt to aples me t, ' Duk ed o m e 6 Since I have my got , A ’ A n d ard o n d th e e 7 p deceiver , dw ll

9 In this bare Island , by your Spell , 7 But Rlease me from my bands I 0 With ee h elp e o f your good hands e e o f [ 1 G ntle r ath yours , my Sailes M failes [ 1 ust fill , or else my project , W : No 1 3 “ hich was to please w I want e l e Spirits to enforce , Art to inchant , d es air e 5 And my ending is p , \ ’ 1 5 Un less e I be feliev d by pr aier W s so 1 7 hich pierce , that it assaults

I ee . f Mercy it selfe , and fr s all faults ’ I o ei d o n d Q As you fr m crimes would p L be , s e f { 0 Let your Indulgence t me ree . XVI

Let us first consider the central quotation . For it presents e O a e e c an arguabl half pen h lf conc al d signal whi h , if purposed

as e e . such , must have be n arranged by the po t himself The Open or half Open signals of authorship possible in ’ Bacon s favour in the main t ext of a poem or play away from o 1 its first or last word , w uld have been ( ) where the noun bacon ‘ ’ or Bacon o ccurs— a matt er already explored as involving 5 3 o c 2 the page number on each such c asion , and ( ) where the a ' letters B . A . C . occur s capitals next to each other in such order — and s o far as the writ er is aware that is only in th e short speech before us . l e . . . as a Giv n B A C immediately adjoining capit s , however ,

’ e e E b e o f much more is n c ssary . ither the C must the initial ‘ — o n . th e word Con and so provide a clean cu t B . A . C which

e Or e b e th e Of . is not her the case . lse the C must initial a ’ e e e word b ginning with Con , and the remaining l tt rs of which ’ are an equivalent of Baco n s Christian nam e Francis .

o e . . More v r the capitals B . A C while im mediately adjoining e e h o each oth r ither rizontally or vertically , must not be imme i l d ate y adjoined by any o th er capital .

- All the conditions are met in this four line Speech allotted . 1 2 . o f th e to Miranda For the last seven letters , cluding , word — e e al 67 . Con eluding , hav the total num ric value , which is ’ th e e th e total numerical valu of Bacon s Christian name . And

Of . . . l isolation the B A C as adjoining capitas is very noticeable . XVII e The first quotation is valu less apart from the last . And ’ there thus remains o nly the question o f the poet Shakespeare s

farewell word . h E E th e e e t e R . As will have be n se n , it is word F And , as present writ er Observed on giving it Special co nsid eration some t en a o th e E e years g , it was the only word in nglish languag o f their time that either Fran cis Baco n or Ben Jonson co uld e have pitch d upon , had they reason for contriving that what ’ was to app ear as th e poet Shak espeare s farewell word should o n e e o f e e th e c be capabl s parat ly signalling name Fran is , and e a the nam B con . The nam e Francis appears in the general list o f words in seventeenth century lexic o ns — fo r instance in that o f E dward ee Phillipps , and was then as always given the meaning Fr ; so ’ that Shakespeare s farewell wo rd free is an equivalent Of f= 6 r = l7 e = 5 e = 5 o c Francis . And as , , , , a t tal numeri al ’ valu e o f 3 3 ; Shak espeare s farewell word is at the same time an equivalent of Bacon XVIII Of e e o e cours , corroborations would have b en p ssibl . F o r e e o th e y xampl , the initial of this last w rd of last pla th e e e e o e e e written by po t Shak spear , c uld hav be n mad to h t e o f o . combine with initial the first w rd And , arguably wa s e th e o n e th e enough , this arrang d for initial is an F , and o ther a B . ’ e i bo th Of o best o o Of Th n aga n , Bac n s kn wn f rms Signature , ‘ ’ d . . e en Fr Bacon and Fr St . Alban , b gin with an F and f c s . SO o with an N the epilogue , if arranged as a signal Fran i ’ o e n Bacon s authorship , sh uld have b en begu with an N and the words s o selected that o n Spelling o ut eith er signature o n th e initials of the wo rds from th e initial F o f th e last wo rd “ ee o r - o n e c e o fr , in a backward Bac dir ction , the pro ss sh uld en d o n the initial N Of the first word in clean cut fashio n . A ll is a s ifthis a ctu ally had been p u rpo s ely co n trived in suppo rt ’ of the u n m a tcha ble do u ble equ iva len cy of the p o et S ha kesp ea re s a rewell wo rd e o f o u t f . Spell either well known signatur Bacon o n l Of is to e e the initia s words either way , that say ith r always beginning o n th e initial Of the last word o f a line o r returning o n o f th e Of th e e we the initial first word next lin , and if start from th e last initial o f all the sig nature exac tly c overs th e epilogue . 1 3 L ’ E NVOI

The pieces Of evidence available on behalf of a contention ’ that B en Jon s o n s allusion to the poet Shakespeare as the “ was e Sweet Swan of Avon mere camouflage , a purpos ly misleading remark about the poet o n the part of an editor bound by p ersonal friendship and perhaps also his word Of honour to keep up the long assum ed mask o f a still living con e o e s et t mp rary , are not , howev r , limited to this formidable from ’ — the First Folio . They b egin earlier with Ben Jonso n s reprinted ’ parody of Shaksp ere of Stratford s application fo r coat - armour a n d arguable heraldic hints both m 1 5 99 and 1 6 1 6 that the actor in some way represented Francis Bacon (see The Great Taboo ’ And they are continued later— with B en Jonson s paym ent to Bacon Of the supreme compliment previously paid to the poet ‘

Shakespeare , but with the postscript that Bacon , whose philo Sophical wo rks as finally approved were then all in still n u e h ad e translat d Latin , surpassed the ancients in our tongu .

S eddin e O advo Neither p g , however , wh n pposing the early - e L ee cates of the Bacon Shakespeare th ory , nor Sir Sidney ‘ ’ in the Di c ti o nary of National Biography and a score of printings of h is popular life of Shakspere of Stratford as assumedly h as identical with the poet Shakespeare , ever conceded or even ’ mentioned such matt ers when assuming that B en Jonson s testimony puts the actor ’ s identity with the poet b eyond rational

dispute . And this should remind us that if there can be a literary camouflage in which the cam o ufleu r is but a dasher- ih o f a touch of alien col o ur or Shap e calculated to lead a mere

a e e . e e a . b c sual obs rv r stray , there can also a lit rary camouflage in which the cam oufieu r is a leaver - o u t Of so many of the facts favourable to a tot ally different general appreciation Ofthe actual situation as to enthrone even for earnest students a legend in f the place O Truth . This is no t so inconceivable a present state of affairs regarding e a matt ers Shakespearian as som readers m y think . For which o f the accepted authorities has , in combating the now sixty years Old - o ll e to o f Bacon Shakespeare the ry , a ud d the fact that one ’ Bacon s earli est and warm est friends was the son and heir o f o the Recorder of Stratford upon Av n , and himself in turn P R ecorder Or the fact that an uncle o f Francis Bacon whose a ffairs were legally managed by Bacon left a country house W in arwickshire adjoining the Forest of Arden , and within walking distan c e of th e Win co t alluded to by the poet Shake S e p are in connection with its Alewife , and by a poet of the ‘ succeeding generation as famous for its Ale (see Taming of ’ e P Or th e e e al Shr w , Ind . ) fact that the Glouc st rshire lusions O f th e e o n th e p o t Shakespeare include , one and same page , 1 4 o n to ’ three arguable allusi s by his full name Francis Bacon s . e W o e 1 1 e Gloucestershir cousin , illiam C ok ( H nry IV , v, Or th e fact that such Gloucestershire co usin Of Francis Bacon , e e e e e n r sident near Glouc st r , was , wh th r we do or do o t co unt ce e in the circumstan s that his wif was a relative of , and hims elf - in - fo r th e e Of th executor trust the estate Of , own r e mano rs ” Wo o dm an co te Wo n c o t c e of or , and Stin hcom b or the Hill , at least as likely to co mmunicate th e tidings of a coming Visor e t o e Perk s law suit Francis Bacon , wh_o hims lf had interests . e e th e in Gloucest rshir , as was Stratford or London actor to h ear

P ' Of such coming suit Nev er Sp eddin g And never Sir Sid n e Lee y e as e Th n again , an indep ndent and inquiring Shakesp earian Of th e o o f a n d o sch ol Coleridge Hallam the auth r must express . equ al surprise and regret at y et anoth er strange feature in the attitude of authority towards th e th eory that the actual po et e e as e Shakesp ar w Francis Bacon , and Shaksp re of Stratfo rd upon O Avon only his agent and mask . bviously if a well known b e t o e e e h e man able write po try und r a mask nam , is also able to writ e poetry under his own nam e which sh o uld help to keep th e r o n up mask , and any poetry w itten under his w nam e would be utterly unsafe evidence on th e question o f th e identity o f th e o f th e e author poetry issu d in the mask name . N ever th e th e E th e o f o less ditor o i Dictionary Nati nal Bio graphy h as . fo r over twenty years been trying to make matt ers more diffi cult fo r supporters of the Bacon - Shakespeare theo ry with au th o ri t ative assertions that Bacon could only write doggerel and ’ as t o al w e . o . no po t This , , though Bacon s contemporaries e o f e e 1 6 10 E 1 6 15 Davi s H r ford in , dmond Howes in , and Dr . 1 6 1 9 b n Thomas Campion in , ore witness that Baco was a poet

and a good one . And th o ugh twice in the seventeenth century

‘ did a s tan d ard work list him as o n e of the repres en ta tive p o ets of ’ ‘ E n lan d e d es g Annal s , Jugements Savants MOI r ver , i u c t P why the Official Sile o n s h very pertinent poin s

14 DAY USE ’ RETU RN TO DESK FR OM W HI CH B OR R OWED

E T LOAN D P .

is b o o k is du e o n th e last d a e st am ed elo w o r Th t p b ,

o n th e date to which ren ew ed .

R n e e b o ks a re su ect to im m e ia e w d o bj d te recall.

R E C ’ D L O

1 JUN"5 1959