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 .