Shakspeare the Actor purchased New Place at Stratford-on-Avon in 1597 for £60 and he became a "gentleman" and an esquire when he secured a grant of arms in 1599.
How did the stage "honour" the player who had bought a coat of arms and was able to call himself a "gentleman"?
Three contemporary plays give us scenes illustrating the incident:
1st. Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his humour" which was acted in 1599 the very year of Shakspeare's grant of arms.
2nd. Shakespeare's "As you like it" which was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1600, although no copy is known to exist before the folio of 1623.
3rd. "The Return from Parnassus" which was acted at St. John's College, Cambridge in 1601, though not printed till 1606.
In addition to these three plays, there is a fourth evidence of the way in which the Clown who had purchased a coat of arms was regarded, in a pamphlet or tract of which only one copy is known to exist. This tract which can be seen in the Rylands Library, Manchester, used to be in Lord Spencer's library at Althorp, and is reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps in "Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare," 1889, Vol. I, pages 325-6.
[Illustration: PLATE XV. Bacon's Crest from the Binding of a Presentation Copy of the Novum Organum, 1620.]
To commence with Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his humour." The clown who had purchased a coat of arms is said to be the brother of Sordido (a miser), and is described as an "essential" clown (that is an uneducated rustic), and is styled Sogliardo which is the Italian for the filthiest possible name.
The other two characters in the scene (act iii. sc. I) are Puntarvolo who, as his crest is aBoar, must be intended to represent Bacon;[2] and Carlo Buffone who is a buffoon or jester.
Enter Sogliardo (the filth), who is evidently the Stratford Clown, who has just purchased a coat of arms:—
Actus Tertius, Scena Prima,Sogliardo, Punt., Carlo.Sog. Nay I will haue him, I am resolute for that,by this Parchment Gentlemen, I haue benso toil'd among the Harrots [meaningHeralds] yonder, you will not beleeue, theydoe speake i' the straungest language, andgiue a man the hardest termes for his money,that euer you knew.Car. But ha' you armes? ha' your armes?Sog. Yfaith, I thanke God I can write myselfeGentleman now, here's my Pattent, it costme thirtie pound by this breath.Punt. A very faire Coat, well charg'd and full ofArmorie.Sog. Nay, it has, as much varietie of colours in it,as you haue seene a Coat haue, how like youthe Crest, Sir?Punt. I vnderstand it not well, what is't?Sog. Marry Sir, it is your Bore without a headRampant.Punt. A Bore without a head, that's very rare.Car. I, [Aye] and Rampant too: troth I commendthe Herald's wit, he has deciphered him well:A Swine without a head, without braine, wit,anything indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie. Youcan blazon the rest signior? can you not?. . . . . .. . . . . .Punt. Let the word be,Not without mustard, yourCrest is very rare sir.
Shakspeare's "word" that is his "motto" was—non sanz droict—not without right—and I desire the reader also especially to remember Sogliardo's words "Yfaith I thanke God" a phrase which though it appears in the quartos is changed in the 1616 Ben Jonson folio into "I thankthem" which has no meaning.
Next we turn to Shakespeare's "As you like it." This play though entered at Stationers' Hall in 1600 and probably played quite as early is not known in print till it appeared in the folio of 1623. The portion to which I wish to refer is the commencement of Actus Quintus, Scena Prima.
Act 5, Scene i.Enter Clowne and Awdrie.Clow. We shall finde a timeAwdrie, patience gentleAwdrie.Awd. Faith the priest was good enough, for all theolde gentlemans saying.Clow. A most wicked SirOliver, Awdrie, a most vileMar-text.ButAwdrie, there is a youth heerein the forrest layes claime to you.Awd. I, I know who 'tis: he hath no interest in meein the world: here comes the man you meane.(Enter William)Clo. It is meat and drinke to me to see a clowne,by my troth, we that haue good wits, hauemuch to answer for: we shall be flouting: wecannot hold.Will. Good eu'nAudrey.Awd. God ye good eu'nWilliam.Will. And good eu'n to you sir.Clo. Good eu'n gentle friend. Couer thy head,couer thy head: Nay prethee bee couer'd.How olde are you Friend?Will. Fiue and twentie Sir.Clo. A ripe age: Is thy nameWilliam?Will.William, Sir.Clo. A faire name. Was't borne i' the Forrestheere?Will. I [Aye] Sir, I thanke God.Clo. Thanke God: A good answer: Art rich?Will. 'Faith Sir, so, so.Clo. So, so, is good, very good, very excellentgood: and yet it is not, it is but so, so: Artthou wise?Will. I [Aye] sir, I haue a prettie wit.Clo. Why, thou saist well. I do now remembera saying: The Foole doth thinke he is wise,but the wise man knowes himselfe to be aFoole.... You do loue this maid?Will. I do Sir.Clo. Giue me your hand: art thou Learned?Will. No Sir.Clo. Then learne this of me, To haue is to haue.For it is a figure in Rhetoricke, that drinkbeing powr'd out of a cup into a glasse, byfilling the one, doth empty the other. For allyour Writers do consent, thatipseis hee:now you are notipse, for I am he.Will. Which he Sir?Clo. He Sir, that must marrie this woman.
Firstly I want to call your attention to Touchstone the courtier who is playing clown and who we are told "uses his folly like a stalking horse and under the presentation of that he shoots his wit." Notice that Touchstone refuses to be married to Awdrey (who probably represents the plays of Shakespeare) by aMar-text, and she declares that the Clown William "has no interest in mee in the world." William—shall we say Shakspeare of Stratford?—enters and is greeted as "gentle" (i. e. he is possessed of a coat of arms). He says "Thank God" he was born in the forest here (Ardennes, very near in sound to Arden). "Thank God" is repeated by Touchstone and as it is the same phrase that is used by Sogliardo in Ben Jonson's play I expect that it was an ejaculation very characteristic of the real man of Stratford and I am confirmed in this belief because in the folio edition of Ben Jonson's plays the phrase is changed to "I thankthem" which has no meaning.
The clown of Ardennes is rich but only rich for a clown (Shakspeare of Stratford was not really rich, New Place cost only £60).
Asked if he is wise, he says "aye," that is "yes," and adds that he has "a pretty wit," a phrase we must remember that is constantly used in reference to the Stratford actor. Touchstone mocks him with a paraphrase of the well-known maxim "If you are wise you are a Foole if you be a Foole you are wise" which is to be found in Bacon's "Advancement of Learning" Antitheta xxxi. Then he asks him "Art thou learned" and William replies "No sir." This means,unquestionably, as every lawyer must know, that William replies that he cannotreadone line of print. I feel sure the man called Shackspeare of Stratford was an uneducated rustic, never able to read a single line of print, and that this is the reason why no books were found in his house, this is the reason why his solicitor, Thomas Greene, lived with him in his house at New Place (Halliwell-Phillipps: Outlines, 1889, Vol. i, p. 226);—a well-known fact that very much puzzles those who do not realize the depth of Shakspeare's illiteracy.
The next play to which attention must be called is "The Return from Parnassus" which was produced at Cambridge in 1601 and was printed in 1606 with the following title page:—
The Returne from ParnassusorThe Scourge of Simony.Publiquely acted by the Studentsin Saint Johns Colledge inCambridge.At LondonPrinted by G. Eld for John Wright, andare to bee sold at his shop atChristchurch Gate.1606.
The portion to which I wish to direct attention is:—
Actus 5, Scena i.Studioso. Fayre fell goodOrpheus, that would rather beKing of a mole hill, then a Keysars slaue:Better it is mongst fidlers to be chiefe,Then at plaiers trencher beg reliefe.But ist not strange this mimick apes should prizeVnhappy Schollers at a hireling rate.Vile world, that lifts them vp to hye degree,And treades vs downe in groueling misery.Englandaffordes those glorious vagabonds,That carried earst their fardels on their backes,Coursers to ride on through the gazing streetesSooping it in their glaring Satten sutes,And Pages to attend their maisterships:With mouthing words that better wits haue framed,They purchase lands, and now Esquiers are made.Philomusus. What ere they seeme being euen at the bestThey are but sporting fortunesscornfulliests.
Can these last two lines refer to Shakspeare the actor seeming to be the poet? Note that they are spoken by Philomusus that is friend of the poetic muse. Mark also the words "this mimick apes." Notice especially "with mouthing words thatbetterwits haue framed, they purchase lands and now Esquiers are made" i.e. get grants of arms. Who at this period among mimics excepting W. Shakspeare of Stratford purchased lands and obtained also a grant of arms?
That this sneer "mouthing words that better wits have framed" must have been aimed at Shakspeare is strongly confirmed by the tract (reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps in his "Outlines of Shakespeare," 1889, Vol. I, p. 325) which is called "Ratsei's Ghost or the second part of his mad prankes and Robberies."
This pamphlet bears no date, but was entered at Stationers' Hall May 31st 1605. There is only a single copy in existence, which used to be in Earl Spencer's library at Althorp but is now in the Rylands; Library at Manchester. As I said, it is reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps, and Stratfordians are obliged to agree with him that the reference is unquestionably to "Wm Shakespeare of Stratford." The most important part which is spoken by Ratsei the robber to a country player is as follows:—
Ratsei. And for you sirra, saies hee to the chiefestof them, thou hast a good presence upon astage; methinks thou darkenst thy meriteby playing in the country. Get thee toLondon, for if one man were dead, they willhave much neede of such a one as thou art.There would be none in my opinion fitterthen thyselfe to play his parts. My conceiptis such of thee, that I durst venture all themony in my purse on thy head to playHamlet with him for a wager. There thoushalt learn to be frugall,—for players werenever so thriftie as they are now aboutLondon—and to feed upon all men, to letnone feede upon thee; to make thy hand astranger to thy pocket, thy hart slow toperforme thy tongues promise, and whenthou feelest thy purse well lined, buy theesome place of lordship in the country, that,growing weary of playing, thy mony maythere bring thee to dignitie and reputation;then thou needest care for no man, nor notfor them that before made thee prowdwith speaking their words upon the stage.
The whole account of buying a place in the country, of feeding upon all men (that is lending money upon usury) of never keeping promises, of never giving anything in charity, agrees but too well with the few records we possess of the man of Stratford. And therefore Stratfordians are obliged to accept Halliwell-Phillipps' dictum that this tract called Ratsei's Ghost refers to the actor of Stratford and that "heneeded not to care for them that before madehimproud with speakingtheirwords upon the stage." How is it possible that Stratfordians can continue to refuse to admit that the statement in the "Return from Pernassus" "with mouthing words that better wits haue framed they purchase lands and now Esquiers are made" must also refer to the Stratford Actor?
There is only a single letter extant addressed to Shakspeare, and this asks for a loan of £30 It is dated 25th October 1598, and is from Richard Quiney. It reads
"Loveinge Countreyman I am bolde of vow as of a ffrende,craveinge yowr helpe wth xxxll vppon mr Bushells & mysecurytee or mr Myttons wth me. mr Rosswell is nott cometo London as yeate & I have especiall cawse. yow shallffrende me muche in helpeinge me out of all the debttes Iowe in London I thancke god & muche quiet my mynde wchwolde nott be indebeted I am nowe towardes the Cowrte inhope of answer for the dispatche of my Buysenes. yow shallnether loase creddytt nor monney by me the Lorde wyllingeand nowe butt perswade yowr selfe soe as I hope & yow shallnott need to feare butt wth all hartie thanckefullenes I wyllholde my tyme & content yowr ffrende & yf we Bargainefarther yow shalbe the paie mr yowr selfe. my tyme biddes mehasten to an ende & soe I committ thys [to] yowr care & hopeof yowr helpe. I feare I shall nott be backe thys night ffromthe Cowrte. haste, the Lorde be wth yow & with us allamenffrom the Bell in Carter Lane the 25 October 1598.yowrs in all kyndenesRyc. Quyney(addressed)LS To my Loveinge good ffrend& contreymann mr wmShackespere d[e]l[ive]r thees."
This letter is the only letter known to exist which was ever addressed to William Shackspere, the illiterate householder of Stratford, who as has been pointed out in these pages was totally unable to read a line of print, or to write even his own name. There are however in existence three, and three only, contemporary letters referring in any way to him, and these are not about literature with which the Stratford man had nothing whatever to do—but about mean and sordid small business transactions.
One is from Master Abraham Sturley, who writes in 1598 to a friend in London in reference to Shakspeare lending "Some monei on some od yarde land or other att Shottri or neare about us."
Another is dated Nov. 4th 1598, and is from the same Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney in which we are told that "our countriman Mr Wm Shak would procure us monei wc I will like of."
A third from Adrian Quiney written (about 1598-1599) to his son Rycharde Quiney in which he says "yff yow bargen with Wm Sha or receve money therfor, brynge youre money homme."
There exists no contemporary letter from anyone to anyone, referring to the Stratford actor as being a poet or as being in any way connected with literature. But from the Court Records we learn that;
In 1600 Shakespeare brought action against John Clayton in London for £7 and got judgment in his favour. He also sued Philip Rogers of Stratford for two shillings loaned.
In 1604 he sued Philip Rogers for several bushels of malt sold to him at various times between March 27th and the end of May of that year, amounting in all to the value of £1. 15s. 10d. The poet a dealer in malt?
In 1608 he prosecuted John Addenbroke to recover a debt of £6 and sued his surety Horneby.
Halliwell-Phillipps tells us that "The precepts as appears from memoranda in the originals, were issued by the poet's solicitor Thomas Greene who was then residing under some unknown conditions[3] at New Place."
Referring to these sordid stories, Richard Grant White, that strong believer in the Stratford man, says in his "Life and genius of William Shakespeare," p. 156 "The pursuit of an impoverished man for the sake of imprisoning him and depriving him both of the power of paying his debts and supporting himself and his family, is an incident in Shakespeare's life which it requires the utmost allowance and consideration for the practice of the time and country to enable us to contemplate with equanimity—satisfaction is impossible."
"The biographer of Shakespeare must record these facts because the literary antiquaries have unearthed and brought them forward as new particulars of the life of Shakespeare. We hunger and receive these husks; we open our mouths for food and we break our teeth against these stones."
Yes! The world has broken its teeth too long upon these stones to continue to mistake them for bread. And as the accomplished scholar and poetess the late Miss Anna Swanwick once declared to the writer, she knew nothing of the Bacon and Shakespeare controversy, but Mr. Sidney Lee's "Life of Shakespeare" had convinced her that his man never wrote the plays. And that is just what everybody else is saying at Eton, at Oxford, at Cambridge, in the Navy, in the Army, and pretty generally among unprejudiced people everywhere, who are satisfied, as is Mark Twain, that the most learned of works could not have been written by the mostunlearned of men.
Yes! It does matter that the "Greatest Birth of Time" should no longer be considered to have been the work of the unlettered rustic of Stratford; and the hour has at last come when it should be universally known that this mighty work was written by the man who had taken all knowledge for his province, the man who said "I have, though in a despised weed [that is under a Pseudonym] procured the good of all men"; the man who left his "name and memory to men's charitable speeches, and to foreign nations, and the next ages."
In discussing the question of the Authorship of the plays many people appear to be unaware that Bacon was considered by his contemporaries to be a great poet. It seems therefore advisable to quote a few witnesses who speak of his pre-eminence in poetry.
In 1645 there was published "The Great Assises holden in Parnassus by Apollo and his assessours" a facsimile of the title of which is given on page 57. This work is anonymous but is usually ascribed to George Withers and in it Bacon as Lord Verulan is placed first and designated "Chancellor of Parnassus" that is "Greatest of Poets."
After the title, the book commences with two pages of which facsimiles are given on pages 58, 59.
[Illustration: Plate XVI. Facsimile Title Page]
[Illustration: Plate XVII. Facsimile of Page III of "The Great Assises"]
[Illustration: Plate XVIII Facsimile of Page IV of "The Great Assises"]
Apollo appears at the top, next comes Lord Verulan as Chancellor of Parnassus, Sir Philip Sidney and other world renowned names follow and then below the line side by side is a list of the jurors and a list of the malefactors.
A little examination will teach us that the jurors are really the same persons as the malefactors and that we ought to read right across the page as if the dividing line did not exist.
Acting on this principle we perceive that George Wither [Withers] is correctly described as Mercurius Britanicus. Mr. Sidney Lee tells us that Withers regarded "Britain's Remembrancer" 1628 and "Prosopopaeia Britannica" 1648 as his greatest works.
Thomas Cary [Carew] is correctly described as Mercurias Aulicus—Court Messenger. He went to the French Court with Lord Herbert and was made Gentleman of the Privy Chamber by Charles I who presented him with an estate at Sunninghill.
Thomas May is correctly described as Mercurius Civicus. He applied for the post of Chronologer to the City of London and James I wrote to the Lord Mayor (unsuccessfully) in his favour.
Josuah Sylvester is correctly described as The Writer of Diurnals. He translated Du Bartas "Divine Weekes," describing day by day, that is "Diurnally," the creation of the world.
Georges Sandes [Sandys] is The Intelligencer. He travelled all over the world and his book of travels was one of the popular works of the period.
Michael Drayton is The Writer of Occurrences. Besides the "Poly-Olbion," he wrote "England's Heroicall Epistles" and "The Barron's Wars."
Francis Beaumont is The Writer of Passages. This exactly describes him as he is known as writing in conjunction with Fletcher. "Beamount and Fletcher make one poet, they single dare not adventure on a play."
William Shakespeere is "The writer of weekely accounts." This exactly describes him, for the only literature for which he was responsible was the accounts sent out by his clerk or attorney.
Turning over the pages of the little book on page 9 the cryer calls out "Then Sylvester, Sands, Drayton, Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, Shakespeare (sic) and Heywood, Poets good and true." This statement seems to be contradicted so far as Shakespeare is concerned by the defendant who says on page 31 "Shakespear's (sic) a mimicke" (that is a mere actor not a poet).
"Beamount and Fletcher make one poet, theySingle, dare not adventure on a play."
Each of these statements seems to be true. And on Page 33 Apollo[4] says
"We should to thy exception give consentBut since we are assur'd, 'tis thy intent,By this refusall, onely to deferreThat censure, which our justice must conferreUpon thy merits; we must needs declineFrom approbation of these pleas of thine."
That is, Apolloadmitsthat Shakespeare is not a poet but a "mimic," the word to which I called your attention in the "Return from Parnassus" in relation to "this mimick apes." In this little book Shakespeare's name occurs three times, and on each occasion is spelled differently.
This clear statement that the actor Shakespeare was not a poet but only a tradesman who sent out his "weekly accounts" is, I think, here for the first time pointed out. It seems very difficult to conceive of a much higher testimony to Bacon's pre-eminence in poetry than the fact that he is placed as "Chancellor of Parnassus" under Apollo. But a still higher position is accorded to him when it is suggested that Apollo feared that he himself should lose his crown which would be placed on Bacon's head.
Walter Begbie in "Is it Shakespeare?" 1903, p. 274, tells us:—That Thomas Randolf, in Latin verses published in 1640 but probably written some 14 years earlier says that Phoebus was accessory to Bacon's death because he was afraid lest Bacon should some day come to be crowned King of poetry or the Muses. Farther on the same writer declares that as Bacon "was himself a singer" he did not need to be celebrated in song by others, and that George Herbert calls Bacon the colleague of Sol [Phoebus Apollo].
George Herbert was himself a dramatic poet and Bacon dedicated his "Translation of the Psalms" to him "who has overlooked so many of my works."
Mr. Begbie also tells us that Thomas Campion addresses Bacon thus "Whether the thorny volume of the Law or the Schools or theSweet Museallure thee."
It may be worth while here to quote the similar testimony which is borne by John Davies of Hereford who in his "Scourge of Folly" published about 1610, writes
"To the royall, ingenious, and all-learnedKnight,—Sr Francis Bacon.Thybountyand theBeautyof thy WittComprisd in Lists ofLawand learnedArts,Each making thee for greatImploymentfittWhich now thou hast, (though short of thydeserts)Compells my pen to let fall shiningInkeAnd to bedew theBaiesthatdeckthyFront;—And to thy health inHeliconto drinkeAs to herBellamourtheMuseis wont:For thou dost her embozom; and dost vseHer company for sport twixt grave affaires;So vtterst Law the liuelyer through thyMuse.And for that all thyNotesare sweetestAires;My Muse thus notes thy worth in eu'ry Line,With yncke which thus she sugers; so, to shine."
But nothing can much exceed in value the testimony of Ben Jonson who in his "Discoveries," 1641, says "But his learned, and able (though unfortunate)Successor[Bacon in margin] is he, who hath fill'd up all numbers, and perform'd that in our tongue, which may be compar'd or preferr'd either to insolentGreece, or haughtyRome."
"He who hath filled up all numbers" means unquestionably "He that hath written every kind of poetry."[5]
Alexander Pope the poet declares that he himself "lisped in numbers for the numbers came." Ben Jonson therefore bears testimony to the fact that Bacon was so great a poet that he had in poetry written that "which may be compar'd or preferr'd either to insolentGreeceor haughtyRome."
But in 1623 Ben Jonson had said of the AUTHOR of the plays
"Or when thy sockes were onLeaue thee alone, for the comparisonOf all, that insolentGreeceor haughtieRomeSent forth, or since did from their ashes come."
Surely the statements in the "Discoveries" were intended to tell us who was the AUTHOR of the plays.
After perusing these contemporary evidences, and they might be multiplied, it is difficult to understand how anyone can venture to dispute Bacon's position as pre-eminent in poetry. But it may be of interest to those who doubt whether Bacon (irrespective of any claim to the authorship of the plays) could be deemed to be a great poet, to quote here the words of Percy Bysshe Shelley, who in his "Defence of Poetry" says
"Bacon was a poet. His language has a sweet and majestic rhythm, which satisfies the sense, no less than the almost superhuman wisdom of his philosophy satisfies the intellect. It is a strain which distends and then bursts the circumference of the reader's mind, and pours itself forth together with it into the universal element with which it has perpetual sympathy."
The immortal plays are the "Greatest Birth of Time," and contain a short summary of the wisdom of the world from ancient times, and they exhibit an extent and depth of knowledge in every branch which has never been equalled at any period of the world's history. In classic lore, as the late Mr. Churton Collins recently pointed out, they evince the ripest scholarship. And this is confirmed by classical scholars all the world over.
None but the profoundest lawyers can realise the extent of the knowledge not only of the theory but of the practice of Law which is displayed. Lord Campbell says that Lord Eldon [supposed to have been the most learned of judges] need not have been ashamed of the law of Shakespeare. And as an instance of the way in which the members of the legal profession look up to the mighty author I may mention that some years ago, at a banquet of a Shakespeare Society at which Mr. Sidney Lee and the writer were present, the late Mr. Crump, Q.C., editor of theLaw Times, who probably possessed as much knowledge of law as any man in this country, declared that to tell him that the plays were not written by the greatest lawyer the world has ever seen, or ever would see, was to tell him what he had sufficient knowledge of law to know to be nonsense. He said also that he was not ashamed to confess that he himself, though he had some reputation for knowledge of law, did not possess sufficient legal knowledge to realise one quarter of the law that was contained in the Shakespeare plays.
It requires a philologist to fully appreciate what the enormous vocabulary employed in the plays implies.
Max Muller in his "Science of Language," Vol. I, 1899, p. 379, says
"A well-educated person in England, who has been at a public school and at the University ... seldom uses more than about 3,000 or 4,000 words. ... The Hebrew Testament says all that it has to say with 5,642 words, Milton's poetry is built up with 8,000; and Shakespeare, who probably displayed a greater variety of expression than any writer in any language ... produced all his plays with about 15,000 words."
Shakspeare the householder of Stratford could not have known so many as one thousand words.
But Bacon declared that we must make our English language capable of conveying the highest thoughts, and by the plays he has very largely created what we now call the English language. The plays and the sonnets also reveal their author's life.
In the play of "Hamlet" especially, Bacon seems to tell us a good deal concerning himself, for the auto-biographical character of that play is clearly apparent to those who have eyes to see. I will, however, refer only to a single instance in that play. In the Quarto of 1603, which is the first known edition of the play of "Hamlet," we are told, in the scene at the grave, that Yorick has been dead a dozen years; but in the 1604 Quarto, which was printed in the following year, Yorick is stated to have been dead twenty-three years. This corrected number, twenty-three, looks therefore like a real date of the death of a real person. The words in the Quarto of 1604 are as follows:—
Hamlet, Act v, Scene i."[Grave digger called.] Clow[n] ... heer's a scullnow hath lyen you i' th' earth 23 yeeres ... thissame scull, sir, was, sir, Yorick's skull, the Kingsjester ...Ham[let]. Alas pooreYoricke, I knew himHoratio, a fellow of infinite iest, of most excellentfancie, hee hath bore me on his backe a thousandtimes ... Heere hung those lyppes that I hauekist, I know not howe oft, where be your gibes now?your gamboles, your songs, your flashes of merriment,that were wont to set the table on a roare, not onenow to mocke your owne grinning...."
The King's Jester who died about 1580-1, just twenty-three years before 1604 (as stated in the play), was John Heywood, the last of the King's Jesters. The words spoken by Hamlet exactly describe John Heywood, who was wont to set the table in a roar with his jibes, his gambols, his songs, and his flashes of merriment. He was a favourite at the English Court during three if not four reigns, and it is recorded that Queen Elizabeth as a Princess rewarded him. It is an absolutely gratuitous assumption that he was obliged permanently to leave England when she became Queen. Indeed it is believed that he was an intimate friend of the Bacon family, and must have carried little Francis Bacon any number of times upon his back, and the little fellow must have kissed him still more oftentimes. The story in the play of "Hamlet" seems, therefore, to fit in exactly with the facts of Bacon's life; but it is not possible that the most fertile imagination of the most confirmed Stratfordian can suppose that the Stratford actor ever saw John Heywood, who died long before Shakspere came to London.
Bacon also reveals much of himself in the play "As you like it," which of course means "Wisdom from the mouth of a fool." In that play, besides giving us much valuable information concerning his "mask" William Shakespeare, he also tells us why it was necessary for him to write under a pseudonym.
Speaking in the character of Jaques, who is the alter ego of Touchstone, he says,
Act ii, Scene 7."O that I were a foole,I am ambitious for a motley coat.Duke. Thou shalt haue one.Jag. It is my onely suite,Prouided that you weed your better judgementsOf all opinion that growes ranke in them,That I am wise. I must haue libertyWiithall, as large a Charter as the winde,To blow on whom I please, for so fooles haue:And they that are most gauled with my folly,They most must laugh....Inuest me in my motley: Giue me leaueTo speake my minde, and I will through and throughCleanse the foule bodie of th' infected worldIf they will patiently receiue my medicine."
He also gives us most valuable information in Sonnet 81.
Or I shall liue your Epitaph to make,Or you suruiue when I in earth am rotten,From hence your memory death cannot take,Although in me each part will be forgotten,Your name from hence immortall life shall haue,Though I (once gone) to all the world must dye,The Earth can yeeld me but a common graue,When you intombed in men's eyes shall lye,Your monument shall be my gentle verse,Which eyes not yet created shall ore read,And toungs to be, your being shall rehearse,When all the breathers of this world are dead,You still shall liue (such vertue hath my Pen)Where breath most breaths euen in the mouths of men.
Stratfordians tell us that the above is written in reference to a poet whom Shakespeare "evidently" regarded as a rival. But it is difficult to imagine how sensible men can satisfy their reason with such an explanation. Is it possible to conceive that a poet should writeagainst a rival
"Your name from hence immortall life shall haueThough I (once gone) to all the world must dye"
or should sayagainstarival,
"The Earth can yeeld me but a common graueWhile you intombed in men's eyes shall lye."
or should have declared "againstarival,"
"Your monument shall be my gentle verse"
No! This sonnet is evidently written in reference to the writer's mask or pseudonym which would continue to have immortal life (even though he himself might be forgotten) as he says
"Although in me each part will be forgotten."
It is sometimes said that Shakespeare (meaning the Stratford actor) did not know the value of his immortal works. Is that true of the writer of this sonnet who says
"my gentle verseWhich eyes not yet created shall ore read"
No! The writer knew his verses were immortal and would immortalize the pseudonym attached to them
"When all the breathers of this world are dead."
Perhaps the reader will better understand Sonnet 81 if I insert the words necessary to fully explain it.
Or shall I [Bacon] live your Epitaph to make,Or you [Shakespeare] survive when I in Earth am rotten,From hence your memory death cannot take,Although in me each part will be forgotten.Your name [Shakespeare] from hence immortal life shall have,Though I [Bacon] once gone to all the world must die,The earth can yield me but a common grave,When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie,Your monument shall be my [not your] gentle verse,Which eyes not yet created shall ore read,And tongues to be your being [which as an authorwas not] shall rehearse,When all the breathers of this world are dead,You [Shakespeare] still shall live, such vertuehath my pen [not your own pen, for you never wrote a line]Where breathe most breaths even in the mouths of men.
This Sonnet was probably written considerably earlier than 1609, but at that date Bacon's name had not been attached to any work of great literary importance.
After the writer had learned the true meaning of Sonnet 81, his eyes were opened to the inward meaning of other Sonnets, and he perceived that Sonnet No. 76 repeated the same tale.
"Why write I still all one, euer the same,And keep inuention in a noted weed,That euery word doth almost sel my name,Shewing their birth and where they did proceed?"
(Sel may mean spell or tell or possibly betray.)
Especially note that "Invention" is the same word that is used by Bacon in his letter to Sir Tobie Matthew of 1609 (same date as the Sonnets), and also especially remark the phrase "in a noted weed," which means in a "pseudonym," and compare it with the words of Bacon's prayer, "I have (though in a 'despised weed') procured the good of all men." [Resuscitatio, 1671.] Was not the pseudonym of the Actor Shakespeare a very "despised weed" in those days?
Let us look also at Sonnet No. 78.
"So oft have I enuoked thee for my Muse,And found such faire assistance in my verse,As everyalienpen hath got my use,And under thee their poesy disperse."
Here again we should understand how to read this Sonnet as under:—