The hour has come when it is desirable and necessary to state with the utmost distinctness that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.



CHAPTER X

Bacon is Shakespeare.

Proved mechanically in a short chapter on the long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus.

The long word found in "Loves Labour's lost" was not created by the author of Shakespeare's plays. Mr. Paget Toynbee, writing in the Athenoeum (London weekly) of December 2nd 1899, tells us the history of this long word.

It is believed to have first appeared in the Latin Dictionary by Uguccione, called "Magnae Derivationes," which was written before the invention of printing, in the latter half of the twelfth century and seems never to have been printed. Excerpts from it were, however, included in the "Catholicon" of Giovanni da Geneva, which was printed among the earliest of printed books (that is, it falls into the class of books known as "incunabula," so called because they belong to the "cradle of printing," the fifteenth century).

In this "Catholicon," which, though undated, was printed before A.D. 1500, we read

"Ab _honorifico, hic_ et _hec honorificabilis,—le_ et —hec honororificabilitas,—tis_ et _hec honorificabilitudinitas_, et est longissima dictio, que illo versu continetur— Fulget Honorificabilitudinitatibus iste."

It is perhaps not without interest to call the reader's attention to the fact that "Fulget hon orifi cabili tudini tatibus iste" forms a neat Latin hexameter. It will be found that the revelation derived from the long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus is itself also in the form of a Latin hexameter.

The long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus occurs in the Quarto edition of "Loues Labor's Lost," which is stated to be "Newly corrected and augmented by W. Shakespere." Imprinted in London by W.W. for Cutbert Burby. 1598.

This is the very first play that bore the name W. Shakespere, but so soon as he had attached the name W. Shakespere to that play, the great author Francis Bacon caused to be issued almost immediately a book attributed to Francis Meres which is called "Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury" and is stated to be Printed by P. Short for Cuthbert Burbie, 1598. This is the same publisher as the publisher of the Quarto of "Loues Labor's lost" although both the Christian name and the surname are differently spelled.

This little book "Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury" tells us on page 281, "As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latines, so Shakespeare among ye English, is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy, witness his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love Labors lost, his Love Labours wonne, his Midsummers night dreame, and his Merchant of Venice: for Tragedy, his Richard the 2, Richard the 3, Henry the 4, King John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet."

Here we are distinctly told that eleven other plays are also Shakespeare's work although only Loues Labors lost at that time bore his name.

We refer on page 138 to the reason why it had become absolutely necessary for the Author to affix a false name to all these twelve plays. For our present purpose it is sufficient to point out that on the very first occasion when the name W. Shakespere was attached to any play, viz., to the play called "Loues Labor's lost," the Author took pains to insert a revelation that would enable him to claim his own when the proper time should arrive. Accordingly he prepared the page which is found F 4 (the little book is not paged) in the Quarto of "Loues Labor's lost" which was published in 1598. A photo-facsimile of the page is shewn, Page 105, Plate 22.

So far as is known there never was any other edition printed until the play appeared in the Folio of 1623 under the name of "Loues Labour's lost," and we put before the reader a reduced facsimile of the whole page 136 of the 1623 Folio, on which the long word occurs, Page 86, Plate 20, and we give also an exact full size photo reproduction of a portion of the first column of that page. Page 87, Plate 21.

On comparing the page of the Quarto with that of the Folio, it will be seen that the Folio page commences with the same word as does the Quarto and that each and every word, and each and every italic in the Folio is exactly reproduced from the Quarto excepting that Alms-basket in the Folio is printed with a hyphen to make it into two words. A hyphen is also inserted in the long word as it extends over one line to the next. The only other change is that the lines are a little differently arranged. These slight differences are by no means accidental, because Alms-basket is hyphened to count as two words and thereby cause the long word to be the 151st word. This is exceedingly important and it was only by a misprint in the Quarto that it incorrectly appears there as the 150th word. By the rearrangement of the lines, the long word appears on the 27th line, and the line, "What is A.B. speld backward with the horn on his head" appears as it should do on the 33rd line. At the time the Quarto was issued, when the trouble was to get Shakespere's name attached to the plays, these slight printer's errors in the Quarto—for they are printer's errors—were of small consequence, but when the play was reprinted in the Folio of 1623 all these little blemishes were most carefully corrected.

The long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus is found in "Loues Labour's lost" not far from the commencement of the Fifth Act, which is called Actus Quartus in the 1623 folio, and on Page 87, Plate 21, is given a full size photo facsimile from the folio, of that portion of page 136, in which the word occurs in the 27th line.

On lines 14, 15 occurs the phrase, "Bome boon for boon prescian, a little scratcht, 'twil serve." I do not know that hitherto any rational explanation has been given of the reason why this reference to the pedantic grammarian "Priscian" is there inserted.

The mention of Priscian's name can have no possible reference to anything apparent in the text, but it refers solely and entirely to the phrase which is to be formed by the transposition of the twenty-seven letters contained in the long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus; and it was absolutely impossible that the citation of Priscian could ever have been understood before the sentence containing the information which is of the most important description had been "revealed." We say "revealed" because the riddle could never have been "guessed."

The "revealed" and "all revealing" sentence forms a correct Latin hexameter, and we will proceed to prove that it is without possibility of doubt or question the real solution which the "Author" intended to be known at some future time, when he placed the long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus, which is composed of twenty-seven letters, on the twenty-seventh line of page 136, where it appears as the 151st word printed in ordinary type.

The all-important statement which reveals the authorship of the plays in the most clear and direct manner (every one of the twenty-seven letters composing the long word being employed and no others) is in the form of a correct Latin hexameter, which reads as follows—

HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI These plays F. Bacon's offspring are preserved for the world.

This verse will scan as a spondaic hexameter as under

HI LU DI F BACO NIS NA TI TUI TI ORBI

HI One long syllable meaning "these."

LUDI Two long syllables meaning "stage plays," and especially "stage plays" in contradistinction to "Circus games." (Suetonius Hist: Julius Caes: 10. Venationes autem Ludosque et cum collega et separatim edidit).

F, One long syllable. Now for the first time can the world be informed why the sneer "Bome boon for boon prescian, a little scratcht, 'twil serve" was inserted on lines 14, 15, page 136 of the folio of 1623. Priscian declares that F was a mute and Bacon mocks him for so doing. Ausonius while giving the pronunciation of most letters of the alphabet does not afford us any information respecting the sound of F, but Quintilian xii. 10, s. 29, describes the pronunciation of the Roman F. Some scholars understand him as indicating that the Roman F had rather a rougher sound than the English F. Others agree with Dr. H.J. Roby, and are of opinion that Quintilian means that the Roman F was "blown out between the intervals of the teeth with no sound of voice." (See Roby's Grammar of the Latin language, 1881, xxxvi.) But Dr. A. Bos in his "Petit Traite de prononciation Latine," 1897, asserts that the old Latin manner of pronouncing F was effe. Even if Dr. A. Bos is correct it is not at all likely that effe was a dissyllable, but most probably it would be sounded very nearly like the Greek "[Greek: phi]," that is as "pfe." In any case (even if it were a dissyllable) F would, with the DI of LUDI, form two long syllables and scan as a spondee. The use of single consonants to form long or short syllables was very common among the Romans, but such appear mostly in lines impossible to quote.

But the Great Author was well acquainted with such instances, and in this same page 136, in lines 6, 7, 8, he gives an example, shewing that the letter "B," although silent in debt, becomes, when debt is spelled, one of the four full words—d e b t, each of which has to be counted to make up the number "151."[6]

This, which is an example of the great value and importance of what, in many of the plays, appears to be merely "silly talk" affords a strong additional evidence of the correctness of the "revealed" and "revealing" sentence which we shew was intended by the author to be constructed out of the long word. Bacon therefore was amply justified in making use of F as a long syllable to form the second half of a spondee.

BACONIS Three long syllables, the final syllable being long by position. Pedantic grammarians might argue that natus being a participle ought not to govern a genitive case, but should be followed by a preposition with the ablative case, and that we ought to say "e Bacone nati" or "de Bacone nati." Other pedants have declared that natus is properly, i.e., classically, said of the mother only, although in low Latin, such as the Vulgate, we find 1 John v. 2, "Natos Dei," "born of God." But the Author of the plays, who instead of having "small Latin and less Greek" knew "All Latin and very much Greek," was well aware that Vergil, Aeneid i. 654 (or 658 when the four additional lines are inserted at the beginning) gives us "Maxima natarum Priami," "greatest of the daughters of Priam," and in Aeneid ii. 527 "Unus natorum Priami," "one of the sons of Priam." There exists therefore the highest classical authority for the use of "Nati" in the sense of "Sons" or "offspring" governing a genitive case. "F. Baconis nati," "Francis Bacon's offspring," is therefore absolutely and classically correct.

NATI Two long syllables. A noun substantive meaning as shewn above "sons" or "offspring."

TUITI Two short syllables and one long syllable, which last is elided and disappears before the "o" of orbi. Tuiti which is the same word as tuti is a passive past participle meaning saved or preserved. It is derived from tueor, which is generally used as a deponent or reflexive verb, but tueor is used by Varro and the legal writers as a passive verb.

ORBI Two long syllables. The word orbi may be either the plural nominative of orbus meaning "deprived" "orphaned," or it may be the dative singular of Orbis meaning "for the world." Both translations make good sense because the plays are "preserved for the world" and are "preserved orphaned." The present writer prefers the translation "for the world," indeed he thinks that to most classical scholars "tuiti orbi," "preserved discarded," looks almost like a contradiction in terms.

Note on Honorficabilitudinitatibus

BACONIS.—On page 131 is shewn a photogravure of the title page of Bacon's "De Augmentis," 1645, which is in fact a pictorial representation of an anagram "Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi." On this title page we find "Baconis" used as the genitive of Bacon's name in Latin. Baconis is also found in XIII th century manuscript copies of Roger Bacon's works, where the title reads "Opus minus Fratris Rogeri Baconis," and in 1603 there was published in 12 at Frankfurt "Rogeri Baconis ... De Arte Chymiae."

TUITI.—Pedanticgrammarians such as Priscian whom the author mocks at in the line "Bome boom for boon precian, a little scratcht, 'twil serve," falsely tel us that there is a passive verb "tueor" with a past participle "tutus." As a matter of fact it is the same verb "tueor" that is used both as a passive and as a deponent, and "tutus" or "tuitus" may be used indifferently at the pleasure of the writer. Sallust uses "tutus," not "tuitus," as the past participle of the deponent verb.

Opposite to the next page is shewn a type transcript of the cover or outside page of a collection of manuscripts in the possession of the Duke of Northumberland, which were discovered in 1867 at Northumberland House. Three years later, viz., in 1870, James Spedding published a thin little volume entituled "A Conference of Pleasure," in which he gave a full size Facsimile of the original of the outside page which is here shewn in reduced type facsimile. He also gave a few particulars of the MSS. themselves.

In 1904 Mr. Frank J. Burgoyne brought out a Collotype Facsimile of every page that now remains of the collection of MSS. in an edition limited to 250 copies I a fine Royal Quarto at the price of L4 4s. 0d. O f the MSS. mentioned on the cover nine now remain, and of these, six are certainly by Francis Bacon; the first being written by him for a masque or "fanciful devise" which Mr. Spedding thinks was presented at the Court of Elizabeth in 1592.

The list of contents was written upon this outside page about 1597, and among those original contents which are now missing were Richard II. and Richard III. Mr. Spedding was satisfied that these were the so-called Skakespearean plays. There are also the tiles of various other works to which it is not now necessary to allude, but the reader's attention should be especially directed to the (so-called) scribblings. Mr. Spedding says: "I find nothing either in these later scribblings or in what remains of the book itself to indicate a date later than the reign of Elizabeth." The "scribblings" are therefore written by a contemporary hand. For the purpose of reference I have placed the letters a, b, c, d, e, outside of the facsimile.

(a) "honorificabilitudine." This curious long word when taken in conjunction with the words "your William Shakespeare." which are also found upon this page, appears to have some reference to the same curious long word which is found in the ablative plural in "Loves Labour's lost," which appeared I 1597, and was the play to which Shakespeare's name was for the first time attached, and, as I shew, in Chapter X., p. 84, it was placed there in order to give with absolute certainty a key to the real authorship.

(b) "By Mr ffrauncis William Shakespeare Baco"—with ffrauncis written upside down over it and your/yourself written upside down at the commencement of the line. Baco would require Baconis as its genitive.

(c) "revealing day through every crany peepes." We think that this is an accurate statement of the revelations here afforded.



(d) your "William Shakespeare." Almost directly above this your appears also William Shakespeare.



(e) The three curious scrolles at the top right-hand corner are very similar to the scrolls which are found upon the title page of a law book entitled, "Les Tenures de Monsieur Littleton," printed in 1591, in the possession of the writer, which is throughout noted in what the authorities at the British Museum say is undoubtedly the handwriting of Francis Bacon.

As I have pointed out upon page 114 and upon various other pages in my book "upside down" printing is a device continually employed by the authors of certain books in order to afford revelations concerning Bacon and Shakespeare. As a whole this curious scribbled page affords remarkable evidence that William Shakespeare is "yourself" Francis Bacon.

Now and now only can a reasonable explanation be given for the first time of the purpose of the reference to Priscian, in lines 14 and 15, Plate 21, Page 87. And it is a singular circumstance that so far as the writer is aware not one of the critics has perceived that the mockery of Priscian forms a neat English iambic hexameter, indeed, in almost all modern editions of the Shakespeare plays, both the form and the meaning of the line have been utterly destroyed. In the original the line reads "Bome boon for boon prescian, a little scracht, 'twil serve."

Perhaps the reader will be enabled better to understand the sneer and the mockery by reading the following couplet—

A fig for old Priscian, a little scratcht, 'twil serve A poet surely need not all his rules observe.

And we still more perfectly understand the purpose of the hexameter form of the reference to Priscian if we scan the line side by side with the "revealed" interpretation of the long word honorificabilitudinitatibus.

Bome boon for boon prescian a lit tle scratcht 'twil serve HI LU DI F BACO NIS NA TI TUI TI ORBI

These plays F Bacon's offspring are preserved for the world.

This explanation of the real meaning to be derived from the long word honorificabilitudinitatibus seems to be so convincing as scarcely to require further proof. But the Author of the plays intended when the time had fully come for him to claim his own that there should not be any possibility of cavil or doubt. He therefore so arranged the plays and the acts of the plays in the folio of 1623 that the long word should appear upon the 136th page, be the 151st word thereon, should fall on the 27th line and that the interpretation should indicate the numbers 136 and 151, thus forming a mechanical proof so positive that it can neither be misconstrued nor explained away, a mechanical proof that provides an evidence which absolutely compels belief.

The writer desires especially to bring home to the reader the manifest fact that the revealed and revealing sentence must have been constructed before the play of "Loues Labor's lost" first appeared in 1598, and that when the plays were printed in their present form in the 1623 folio the scenes and the acts of the preceding plays and the printing of the columns in all those plays as well as in the play of "Loues Labour's lost" required to be arranged with extraordinary skill in order that the revealing page in the 1623 folio should commence with the first word of the revealing page in the original quarto of 1598, and that that page should form the 136th page of the folio, so that the long word "Honorificabilitudinitatibus" should appear on page 136, be the 151st word, and fall upon the 27th line.

Bacon tells us that there are 24 letters in the alphabet (i and j being deemed to be forms of the same letter, as are also u and v). Bacon was himself accustomed frequently to use the letters of the alphabet as numerals (the Greeks similarly used letters for numerals). Thus A is 1, B is 2 ... Y is 23, Z is 24. Let us take as an example Bacon's own name—B=2, a=1, c=3, O=14, n=i3; all these added together make the number 33, a number about which it is possible to say a good deal.[7] We now put the numerical value to each of the letters that form the long word, and we shall find that their total amounts to the number 287, thus:

H O N O R I F I C A B I L I T U 8 14 13 14 17 9 6 9 3 1 2 9 11 9 19 20

D I N I T A T I B U S 4 9 13 9 19 1 19 9 2 20 18 = 287

From a word containing so large a number of letters as twenty-seven it is evident that we can construct very numerous words and phrases; but I think it "surpasses the wit of man" to construct any "sentence" other than the "revealed sentence," which by its construction shall reveal not only the number of the page on which it appears—which is 136—but shall also reveal the fact that the long word shall be the 151st word printed in ordinary type counting from the first word.

On one side of the facsimile reproduction of part of page 136 of the 1623 folio, numbers are placed shewing that the long word is on the 27th line, which was a skilfully purposed arrangement, because there are 27 letters in the word. There is also another set of numbers at the other side of the facsimile page which shews that, counting from the first word, the long word is the 151st word. How is it possible that the revealing sentence, "Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi," can tell us that the page is 136 and the position of the long word is the 151st word? The answer is simple. The numerical value of the initial letters and of the terminal letters of the revealed sentence, when added together, give us 136, the number of the page, while the numerical value of all the other letters amount to the number 151, which is the number of words necessary to find the position of the long word "Honorificabilitudinitatibus," which is the 151st word on page 136, counting those printed in ordinary type, the italic words being of course omitted.

The solution is as follows HI LUDI F BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI

the initial letters of which are

H L F B N T O

their numerical values being

8 11 6 2 13 19 14 = total 73

and the terminal letters are

I I S I I I

their numerical values being

9 9 18 9 9 9 = total 63 _

Adding this 63 to 73 we get 136

while the intermediate letters are

U D A C O N I A T U I T R B

their numerical values being

20 4 1 3 14 13 9 1 19 20 9 19 17 2 = 151 _

Total 287

The reader thus sees that it is a fact that in the "revealed" sentence the sum of the numerical values of the initial letters, when added to the sum of the numerical values of the terminal letters, do, with mathematical certainty produce 136, the number of the page in the first folio, which is 136, and that the sum of the numerical values of the intermediate letters amounts to 151, which gives the position of the long word on that page, which is the 151st word in ordinary type. These two sums of 136 and 151, when added together, give 287, which is the sum of the numerical value of all the letters of the long word "Honorificabilitudinitatibus," which, as we saw on page 99, amounted to the same total, 287.

As a further evidence of the marvellous manner in which the Author had arranged the whole plan, the long word of 27 letters is placed on the 27th line. Can anyone be found who will pretend to produce from the 27 letters which form the word "Honorificabilitudinitatibus" another sentence which shall also tell the number of the page, 136, and that the position of the long word on the page is the 151st word?

I repeat that to do this "surpasses the wit of man," and that therefore the true solution of the meaning of the long word "Honorificabilitudinitatibus," about which so much nonsense has been written, is without possibility of doubt or question to be found by arranging the letters to form the Latin hexameter.

HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI

These plays F. Bacon's offspring are preserved for the world.

It is not possible to afford a clearer mechanical proof that

THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS ARE BACON'S OFFSPRING.

It is not possible to make a clearer and more definite statement that

BACON IS THE AUTHOR OF THE PLAYS.

It is not possible that any doubt can any longer be entertained respecting the manifest fact that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.



CHAPTER XI.

On the revealing page 136 in "Loves Labour's lost."

In the previous chapter it was pointed out that using letters for numbers, Bacon's name is represented by 33.

B A C O N . 2 1 3 14 13 = 33

and that the long word possesses the numerical value of 287.

H O N O R I F I C A B I L I T U 8 14 13 14 17 9 6 9 3 1 2 9 11 9 19 20 D I N I T A T I B U S 4 9 13 9 19 1 19 9 2 20 18 = 287

In the Shakespeare folio, Page 136, shewn in Plate 20 and Plate 21, on Pages 86-7, ON LINE 33, we read "What is Ab speld backward with the horn on his head?"

The answer which is given is evidently an incorrect answer, it is "Ba, puericia with a horne added," and the Boy mocks him with "Ba most seely sheepe, with a horne: you heare his learning."

The reply should of course have been in Latin. The Latin for a horn is cornu. The real answer therefore is "Ba corn-u fool."

This is the exact answer you might expect to find on the line 33, since the number 33 indicates Bacon's name. And now, and now only, can be explained the very frequent use of the ornament representing a Horned Sheep, inside and outside "Baconian" books, under whatever name they may be known. An example will be found at the head of the present chapter on page 103. The uninitiated are still "informed" or rather "misinformed" that this ornament alludes to the celebrated Golden Fleece of the Argonauts and they little suspect that they have been purposely fooled, and that the real reference is to Bacon.

It should be noted here that in the Quarto of "Loues Labor's lost," see Plate 22, Page 105, if the heading "Loues Labor's lost" be counted as a line, we read on the 33rd line: "Ba most seely sheepe with a horne: you heare his learning." This would direct you to a reference to Bacon, although not so perfectly as the final arrangement in the folio of 1623.

Proceeding with the other lines in the page, we read:—

"Quis quis, thou consonant?"

This means "Who, who"? [which Bacon] because in order to make the revelation complete we must be told that it is "Francis" Bacon, so as to leave no ambiguity or possibility of mistake. How then is it possible that we can be told that it is Francis Bacon? We read in answer to the question:



"Quis quis, thou consonant? The last of five vowels if you repeat them, the fifth if I. I will repeat them a, e, I. The Sheepe, the other two concludes it o, u."

Now here we are told that a, e, I, o, u is the answer to Quis quis, and we must note that the I is a capital letter. Therefore a is followed by e, but I being a capital letter does not follow e but starts afresh, and we must read I followed by o, and o followed by u.



Is it possible that these vowels will give us the Christian name of Bacon? Can it be that we are told on what page to look? The answer to both these questions is the affirmative "Yes."

The great Folio of Shakespeare was published in 1623, and in the following year, 1624, there was brought out a great Cryptographic book by the "Man in the Moon." We shall speak about this work presently; suffice for the moment to say that this book was issued as the key to the Shakespeare Folio of 1623. If we turn to page 254 in the Cryptographic book we shall find Chapter XIV. "De Transpositione Obliqua, per dispositionem Alphabeti."

.]

This chapter describes how, by means of square tables, one letter followed by another letter will give the cypher letter. On the present page appears the square, which is shown in Plate 24, which enables us to answer the question "Quis quis."

By means of this square we perceive that "a" followed by "e" gives us the letter F, that "I" followed by "o" gives us the letter R, and that "o" followed by "u" gives us the letter A. The answer therefore to Quis quis (which Bacon do you mean) is Fra [Bacon]. See Plate 23, Page 107.



But what should induce us to look at this particular chapter on page 254 of the Cryptographic book for the solution? The answer is clearly given in the wonderful page 136 of the 1623 Folio of Shakespeare.

As has been pointed out the numerical value of the long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus is 287, and the numerical value of Bacon is 33. We have found Bacon from Ba with a horn, and we require the remainder of his name, accordingly deduct 33 from 287, and we get the answer 254 which is the number of the required page in the Cryptographic book of 1624. But the wise Author knew that someone would say "How does this apply to the 1598 Quarto published twenty-six years before the great Cryptographic book appeared?" On Plate 24, Page 108, taken from page 255 of the Cryptographic book of 1624, it is shewn that the following lines are attached to the square

"Quarta Tabula, ex Vigenerio, pag. 202.b, etc." =Square table taken from Vigenerio, page 202.b.

This reference is to the work entitled, "Traicte des chiffres ou secretes manieres d'escrire": par Blaise de Vigenere, which was published in Paris in 1586. Spedding states (Vol. I. of "Bacon's Letters and Life," p. 6-8) that Francis Bacon went in 1576 to France, with Sir Amias Paulet, the English Ambassador. Bacon remained in France until 1578-9, and when in 1623 he published his "De Augmentis Scientiarum"—(the Advancement of Learning) he tells us that while in Paris he invented his own method of secret writing. See Spedding's "Works of Bacon," Vol. 4, p. 445.

The system which Bacon then invented is now known as the Biliteral Cypher, and it is in fact practically the same as that which is universally employed in Telegraphy under the name of the Morse Code.

A copy of Vigenere's book will be found in the present writer's Baconian library, for he knew by the ornaments and by the other marks that Bacon must have had a hand in its production.

Anyone, therefore, reading the Quarto edition of "Loues Labor's lost," 1598, and putting two and two together will find on p. 202.b of Vigenere's book, the Table, of which a facsimile is here given, Plate 25, Page 109. This square is even more clear than the square table in the great Cryptographic book.

Thus, upon the same page 136 in the Folio, or on F. 4 in the Quarto, in addition to Honorificabilitudinitatibus containing the revealing sentence "Hi ludi F Baconis nati tuiti orbi"—"These plays F Bacon's offspring are entrusted to the world," we see that we are able to discover on line 33 the name of Bacon, and by means of the lines which follow that it is Fra. Bacon who is referred to.

Before parting with this subject we will give one or two examples to indicate how often the number 33 is employed to indicate Bacon.

We have just shewn that on page 136 of the Folio we obtain Bacon's name on line 33. On page 41 we refer to Ben Jonson's "Every man out of his Humour." In an extremely rare early Quarto [circa 1600] of that play some unknown hand has numbered the pages referring to Sogliardo (Shakespeare) and Puntarvolo (Bacon) 32 and 32 repeated. Incorrect pagination is a common method used in "revealing" books to call attention to some statements, and anyone can perceive that the second 32 is really 33 and as usual reveals something about Bacon.

On page 61 we point out that on page 33 of the little book called "The Great Assizes holden in Parnassus" Apollo speaks. As the King speaks in a Law Court only through the mouth of his High Chancellor so Apollo speaks in the supposititious law action through the mouth of his Chancellor of Parnassus, who is Lord Verulam, i.e. Bacon. Thus again Bacon is found on Page 33. The writer could give very numerous examples, but these three which occur incidentally will give some idea how frequently the number 33 is used to indicate Bacon.[8]

The whole page 136 of the Folio is cryptographic, but we will not now proceed to consider any other matters contained upon it, but pass on to discuss the great Cryptographic book which was issued under Bacon's instructions in the year following the publication of the great Folio of Shakespeare. Before, however, speaking of the book, we must refer to the enormous pains always taken to provide traps for the uninitiated.

If you go to Lunaeburg, where the Cryptographic book was published, you will be referred to the Library at Wolfenbuttel and to a series of letters to be found there which contain instructions to the engraver which seem to prove that this book has no possible reference to Shakespeare. We say, seem to prove, for the writer possesses accurate photographs of all these letters and they really prove exactly the reverse, for they are, to those capable of understanding them, cunningly devised false clues, quite clear and plain. That these letters are snares for the uninitiated, the writer, who possesses a "Baconian" library, could easily prove to any competent scholar.



Before referring to the wonderful title page of the Cryptographic book which reveals the Bacon-Shakespeare story, it is necessary to direct the reader's attention to Camden's "Remains," published 1616. We may conclude that Bacon had a hand in the production of this book, since Spedding's "Bacon's Works," Vol. 6, p. 351, and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 211, informs us that Bacon assisted Camden with his "Annales."

In Camden's "Remains," 1616, the Chapter on Surnames, p. 106, commences with an ornamental headline like the head of Chapter 10, p. 84, but printed "upside down." A facsimile of the heading in Camden's book is shewn in Plate 26, page 113.

This trick of the upside down printing of ornaments and even of engravings is continually resorted to when some revelation concerning Bacon's works is given. Therefore in Camden's "Remains" of 1616 in the Chapter on Surnames, because the head ornament is printed upside down, we may be perfectly certain that we shall find some revelation concerning Bacon and Shakespeare.

Accordingly on p. 121 we find as the name of a village "Bacon Creping." There never was a village called "Bacon Creping." And on page 128 we read "such names as Shakespeare, Shotbolt, Wagstaffe." In referring to the great Cryptographic book, we shall realise the importance of this conjunction of names.

On Plate 27, Page 115, we give a reduced facsimile of the title page, which as the reader will see, states in Latin that the work is by Gustavus Selenus, and contains systems of Cryptographic writing, also methods of the shorthand of Trithemius. The Imprint at the end, under a very handsome example of the double A ornament which in various forms is used generally in books of Baconian learning, states that it was published and printed at Lunaeburg in 1624. Gustavus Selenus we are told in the dedicatory poems prefixed to the work is "Homo lunae" [the man in the Moon].



Look first at the whole title page; on the top is a tempest with flaming beacons, on the left (of the reader) is a gentleman giving something to a spearman, and there are also other figures; on the right is a man on horseback, and at the bottom in a square is a much dressed up man taking the "Cap of Maintenance" from a man writing a book.

Examine first the left-hand picture shewn enlarged, Plate 28, Page 118. You see a man, evidently Bacon, giving his writing to a Spearman who is dressed in actor's boots (see Stothard's painting of Falstaff in the "Merry Wives of Windsor" wearing similar actor's boots, Plate 32, Page 127). Note that the Spearman has a sprig of bay in the hat which he holds in his hand. This man is a Shake-Spear, nay he really is a correct portrait of the Stratford householder, which you will readily perceive if you turn to Dugdale's engraving of the Shakespeare bust, Plate 5, Page 14. In the middle distance the man still holding a spear, still being a Shake-Speare, walks with a staff, he is therefore a Wagstaffe. On his back are books—the books of the plays. In the sky is seen an arrow, no, it is not sufficiently long for an arrow, it is a Shotbolt (Shakespeare, Wagstaffe, Shotbolt, of Camden's "Remains"). This Shotbolt is near to a bird which seems about to give to it the scroll it carries in its beak. But is it a real bird? No, it has no real claws, its feet are Jove's lightnings, verily, "it is the Eagle of great verse."

Next, look on Plate 29, Page 119, which is the picture on the right of the title page. Here you see that the same Shake-spear whom we saw in the left-hand picture is now riding on a courser. That he is the same man is shewn by the sprig of bay in his hat, but he is no longer a Shake-spear, he is a Shake-spur. Note how much the artist has emphasised the drawing of the spur. It is made the one prominent thing in the whole picture. We refer our reader to "The Returne from Pernassus" (see pp. 47-48) where he will read,

"England affordes those glorious vagabonds That carried earst their fardels on their backes Coursers to ride on through the gazing streetes."

Now glance at the top picture on the title page (see Plate 27, Page 115,) which is enlarged in Plate 30, Page 122. Note that the picture is enclosed in the magic circle of the imagination, surrounded by the masks of Tragedy, Comedy, and Farce (in the same way as Stothard's picture of the "Merry Wives of Windsor," Plate 32, Page 127).



The engraving represents a tempest with beacon lights; No; it represents "The Tempest" of Shakespeare and tells you that the play is filled with Bacon lights. (In the sixteenth century Beacon was pronounced Bacon. "Bacon great Beacon of the State.")

We have already pointed out that "The Tempest," as Emile Montegut shewed in the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1865, is a mass of Bacon's revelations concerning himself.

At the bottom (see Plate 27, Page 115, and Plate 31, Page 123), within the "four square corners of fact," surrounded with disguised masks of Tragedy, Comedy, and Farce, is shewn the same man who gave the scroll to the Spearman, see Plate 29, Page 118 (note the pattern of his sleeves). He is now engaged in writing his book, while an Actor, very much overdressed and wearing a mask something like the accepted mask of Shakespeare, is lifting from the real writer's head a cap known in Heraldry as the "Cap of Maintenance." Again we refer to our quotation on page 48.

"Those glorious vagabonds.... Sooping it in their glaring Satten sutes."

Is not this masquerading fellow an actor "Sooping it in his glaring Satten sute"? The figure which we say represents Bacon, see Plate 28, wears his clothes as a gentleman. Nobody could for a moment imagine that the masked creature in Plate 31 was properly wearing his own clothes. No, he is "sooping it in his glaring Satten sute."

The whole title page clearly shows that it is drawn to give a revelation about Shakespeare, who might just as well have borne the name of Shotbolt or of Wagstaffe or of Shakespur, see "The Tempest," Act v., Scene I.

"The strong bass'd promontorie Have I made shake, and by the spurs pluckt up."

There are also revealing title pages in other books, shewing a spear and an actor wearing a single spur only (see Plate 35, Page 153).

It will be of interest to shew another specially revealing title page, which for upwards of a hundred years remained unaltered as the title page to Vol. I. of Bacon's collected works, printed abroad in Latin. A different engraving, representing the same scene was also published in France. These engravings, however, were never reproduced or used in England, because the time for revelation had not yet come. Bacon is shewn seated (see Plate 33, Page 131). Compare his portrait with the engraving of the gentleman giving his scroll to the Spearman in the Gustavus Silenus frontispiece, Plate 27, Page 115, and Plate 28, Page 118. Bacon is pointing with his right hand in full light to his open book, while his left hand in deepest shadow is putting forward a figure holding in both its hands a closed and clasped book, which by the cross lines on its side (the accepted symbol of a mirror) shows that it represents the mirror up to Nature, i.e., Shakespeare's plays. Specially note that Bacon puts forward with his LEFT hand the figure holding the book which is the mirror up to Nature. In the former part of this treatise the writer has proved that the figure that forms the frontispiece of the great folio of Shakespeare's plays, which is known as the Droeshout portrait of Wm. Shakespeare, is really composed of two LEFT arms and a mask. The reader will now be able to fully realise the revelation contained in Droeshout's masked figure with its two left arms when he examines it with the title page shown, Plate 33, Page 131.



Bacon is putting forward what we described as a "figure"; it is a "man" with false breasts to represent a woman (women were not permitted to act in Bacon's time), and the man is clothed in a goat skin. Tragedos was the Greek word for a goat skin, and Tragedies were so called because the actors were dressed in goat skins. This figure therefore represents the Tragic Muse. Here in the book called De Augmentis Scientiarum, which formed one part of the Great Instauration, is placed an engraving to show that another part of the Great Instauration known as Shakespeare's Plays was issued LEFT-HANDEDLY, that is, was issued under the name of a mean actor, the actor Shakespeare. This title page is very revealing, and should be taken in conjunction with the title page of the Cryptographic book which under the name of Gustavus Silenus, "Homo lunae," the "Man in the Moon," was published in 1624 in order to form a key to certain cyphers in the 1623 Folio of Shakespeare's Plays.

These two title pages were prepared with consummate skill in order to reveal to the world, when the time was ripe, that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.



CHAPTER XII.

The "Householder of Stratford."

We have in Chapter II. printed Mr. George Hookham's list of the very few incidents recorded concerning Shakespeare's life, but, as we have already shewn, a great deal of the "authentic history" of the Stratford clown has in fact been revealed to us. Ben Jonson calls the Stratford man who had purchased a coat of arms "Sogliardo" (scum of the earth), says he was brother to Sordido, the miser (Shakspeare was a miser), describes him as an essential clown (that means that he was a rustic totally unable to read and write), shews that he speaks "i' th' straungest language," and calls Heralds "Harrots," and finally sums him up definitely as a "Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie." In order that there should be no mistake as to the man who is referred to, "Sogliardo's" motto is stated to be "Not without Mustard," Shakespeare's motto being "Not without right" (Non sanz droict). Ben Jonson's account of the real Stratford man is confirmed by Shakespeare's play of "As You Like it," where Touchstone, the courtier playing clown, says, "It is meat and drinke to me to see a clowne" (meaning an essential clown, an uneducated rustic); yet he salutes him as "gentle," shewing that the mean fellow possesses a coat of arms.

The Clown is born in the Forest of Ardennes (Shakespeare's mother's name was Arden). He is rich, but only so-so rich, that is rich for a clowne (New Place cost only L60). He says he is wise, and Touchstone mocks him with Bacon's words, "The Foole doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a Fool." He says he has "a prettie wit" (pretty wit is the regular orthodox phrase as applied to Shakespeare). But when asked whether he is learned, he distinctly replies "No," which means that he says that he cannot read one line of print. A man who could read one line of print was at that period in the eye of the law "learned," and could not be hanged when convicted for the first time except for murder. If any persons be found to dispute the fact that the reply "No" to the question "Art thou learned?" meant in Queen Elizabeth's day "I cannot read one line of print" such persons must be totally unacquainted with Law literature.[9]

The play "As You Like it" confirms Ben Jonson's characterisation of Shakespeare being "an essential clowne." Next let us turn to Ratsei's Ghost (see p. 49), which, as Mr. Sidney Lee, in his "Life of William Shakespeare," p. 159, 1898 ed., confesses, refers to Shakespeare. Ratsei advises the young actor to copy Shakespeare, "and to feed upon all men, to let none feede upon thee" (meaning Shakespeare was a cruel usurer). As we shew, page 53, Grant White says: "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."

Ratsei continues, "Let thy hand be a stranger to thy pocket" [like the miser, Shakespeare], "thy hart slow to perform thy tongues promise" [like the lying rascal Shakespeare], "and when thou feelest thy purse well lined, buy thee a place of lordship in the country" [as Shakespeare had bought New Place, Stratford] "that, growing weary of playing, thy mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation" [as Shakespeare obtained a coat of arms], "then thou needest care for no man, nor not for them that before made thee prowd with speaking their words upon the stage." This manifestly refers to two things, one that Shakespeare when he bought New Place, quitted London and ceased to act; the other that he continually tried to exact more and more "blackmail" from those to whom he had sold his name.

Now we begin at last to understand what we are told by Rowe, in his "Life of Shakespeare," published in 1709, that is, 93 years after Shakespeare's death in 1616, when all traces of the actual man had been of set purpose obliterated, because the time for revealing the real authorship of the plays had not yet come. Rowe, page x., tells us: "There is one Instance so singular in the Magnificence of this Patron of Shakespeare's, that if I had not been assur'd that the Story was handed down by Sir William D'Avenant, who was probably very well acquainted with his Affairs, I should not have ventured to have inserted, that my Lord Southampton, at one time, gave him a thousand Pounds, to enable him to go through with a Purchase which he heard he had a mind to."

This story has been hopelessly misunderstood, because people did not know that a large sum had to be paid to Shakespeare to obtain his consent to allow his name to be put to the plays, and that New Place had to be purchased for him, 1597 (the title deeds were not given to him for five or six years later), and that he had also to be sent away from London before "W Shakespeare's" name was attached to any play, the first play bearing that name being, as we have already pointed out, page 89, "Loues Labor's lost," with its very numerous revelations of authorship. Then, almost immediately, the world is informed that eleven other plays had been written by the same author, the list including the play of "Richard II."

The story of the production of the play of "Richard II." is very curious and extremely instructive. It was originally acted with the Parliament scene, where Richard II. is made to surrender, commencing in the Folio of 1623 with the words—

"Fetch hither Richard, that in common view he may surrender,"

continuing with a description of his deposition extending over 167 lines to the words—

"That rise thus nimbly by a true king's fall."

This account of the deposition of a king reached Queen Elizabeth's ears; she was furiously angry and she exclaimed: "Seest thou not that I am Richard II."

A copy of the play without any author's name was printed in 1597, omitting the story of the deposition of Richard II.; this was followed by a second and probably a third reprint in 1597, with no important alterations, but still without any author's name. Then, after the actor had been sent away to Stratford, Shakespeare's name was put upon a fourth reprint, dated 1598.

The story of Richard II.'s deposition was not printed in the play till 1608, five years after the death of Queen Elizabeth.[10]

This history of the trouble arising out of the production of the play of "Richard II." explains why a name had to be found to be attached to the plays. Who would take the risk? An actor was never "hanged," he was often whipped, occasionally one lost his ears, but an actor of repute would probably have refused even a large bribe. There was, however, a grasping money-lending man, of little or no repute, that bore a name called Shaxpur, which might be twisted into Bacon's pen-name Shake-Speare, and that man was secured, but as long as he lived he was continually asking for more and more money. The grant of a coat of arms was probably part of the original bargain. At one time it seems to have been thought easier to grant arms to his father. This, however, was found impossible. But when in 1597 Bacon's friend Essex was Earl Marshal and chief of the Heralds' College, and Bacon's servant Camden (whom Bacon had assisted to prepare the "Annales"—see Spedding's "Bacon's Works," Vol. 6, p. 351, and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 211), was installed as Clarenceux, King-of-Arms, the grant of arms to Shakespeare was recognised, 1599. Shakespeare must have been provisionally secured soon after 1593, when the "Venus and Adonis" was signed with his name, because in the next year, 1594, "The Taming of a Shrew" was printed, in which the opening scene shews a drunken "Warwickshire" rustic [Shakspeare was a drunken Warwickshire rustic], who is dressed up as "My lord," for whom the play had been prepared. (In the writer's possession there is a very curious and absolutely unique masonic painting revealing "on the square" that the drunken tinker is Shakspeare and the Hostess, Bacon.)

The early date at which Shakspeare had been secured explains how in 1596 an application for a grant of arms seems to have been made (we say seems) for the date may possibly be a fraud like the rest of the lying document.

We have referred to Shakspeare as a drunken Warwickshire rustic who lived in the mean and dirty town of Stratford-on-Avon. There is a tradition that Shakespeare as a very young man was one of the Stratfordians selected to drink against "the Bidford topers," and with his defeated friends lay all night senseless under a crab tree, that was long known as Shakespeare's crab tree.

Shakespeare's description of the Stratford man as the drunken tinker in "The Taming of a Shrew" shews that the actor maintained his "drunken" character. This habit seems to have remained with him till the close of his life, for Halliwell-Phillipps says: "It is recorded that the party was a jovial one, and according to a somewhat late but apparently reliable tradition when the great dramatist [Shakespeare of Stratford] was returning to New Place in the evening, he had taken more wine than was conducive to pedestrian accuracy. Shortly or immediately afterwards he was seized by the lamentable fever which terminated fatally on Friday, April 23rd."

The story of his having to leave Stratford because he got into very bad company and became one of a gang of deer-stealers, has also very early support.

We have already proved that Shakspeare could neither read nor write. We must also bear in mind that the Stratford man never had any reputation as an actor.

Rowe, p. vi., thus writes: "His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in those Times, amongst those of the other Players, before some old Plays,[11] but without any particular Account of what sort of Parts he us'd to play; and tho' I have inquir'd I could never meet with any further Account of him this way than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet." The humblest scene-shifter could play this character, as we shall shew later. What about being manager of a Theatre? Shakspeare never was manager of a Theatre. What about being master of a Shakespeare company of actors? There never existed a Shakespeare company of actors. What about ownership of a Theatre? Dr. Wallace, says in the Times of Oct. 2nd 1909, that at the time of his death Shakespeare owned one fourteenth of the Globe Theatre, and one-seventh of the Blackfriars Theatre. The profit of each of these was probably exceedingly small. The pleadings, put forth the present value at L300 each, but as a broad rule, pleadings always used to set forth at least ten times the actual facts. In the first case which the writer remembers witnessing in Court, the pleadings were 100 oxen, 100 cows, 100 calves, 100 sheep, and 100 pigs, the real matter in dispute being one cow and perhaps one calf. If we assume, therefore, that the total capital value of the holding of W. Shakespeare in both theatres taken together amounted to L60 in all, we shall probably, even then, considerably over-estimate their real worth. Now having disposed of the notion that Shakespeare was ever an important actor, was ever a manager of a Theatre, was ever the master of a company of actors, or was ever the owner of any Theatre, let us consider what Rowe means by the statement that the top of his performance was the Ghost in "Hamlet."

This grotesque and absurd fable has for two hundred years been accepted as an almost indisputable historical fact. Men of great intelligence in other matters seem when the life of Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon is concerned, quite prepared to refuse to exercise either judgment or common sense, and to swallow without question any amount of preposterous nonsense, even such as is contained in the above statement. The part of the Ghost in the play of "Hamlet" is one of the smallest and most insignificant possible, and can be easily played by the most ignorant and most inexperienced of actors. All that is required is a suit of armour with somebody inside it, to walk with his face concealed, silently and slowly a few times across the stage. Then on his final appearance he should say a few sentences (84 lines in the Folio, 1623), but these can be and occasionally are spoken by some invisible speaker in the same manner as the word "Swear" which is always growled out by someone concealed beneath the stage. No one knows, and no one cares, for no one sees who plays the part, which requires absolutely no histrionic ability. Sir Henry Irving, usually, I believe, put two men in armour upon the stage, in order to make the movements of the Ghost more mysterious. What then can be the meaning of the statement that the highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, attained was to play the part of the Ghost in "Hamlet"? The rumour is so positive and so persistent that it cannot be disregarded or supposed to be merely a foolish jest or a senselessly false statement put forward for the purpose of deceiving the public. We are compelled, therefore, to conclude that there must be behind this fable some real meaning and some definite purpose, and we ask ourselves; What is the purpose of this puzzle? What can be its real meaning and intention? As usual, the Bacon key at once solves the riddle. The moment we realise that BACON is HAMLET, we perceive that the purpose of the rumour is to reveal to us the fact that the highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, attained was to play the part of Ghost to Bacon, that is to act as his "PSEUDONYM," or in other words, the object of the story is to reveal to us the fact that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.



Chapter XIII.

Conclusion, with further evidences from title pages.

Bacon had published eleven plays anonymously, when it became imperatively necessary for him to find some man who could be purchased to run the risk, which was by no means inconsiderable, of being supposed to be the author of these plays which included "Richard II."; the historical play which so excited the ire of Queen Elizabeth. Bacon, as we have already pointed out, succeeded in discovering a man who had little, if any, repute as an actor, but who bore a name which was called Shaxpur or Shackspere, which could be twisted into something that might be supposed to be the original of Bacon's pen name of Shake-Speare.

When in 1597 through the medium of powerful friends, by means of the bribe of a large sum of money, the gift of New Place, and the promise of a coat of arms, this man had been secured, he was at once sent away from London to the then remote village of Stratford-on-Avon, where scarcely a score of people could read, and none were likely to connect the name of their countryman, who they knew could neither read nor write and whom they called Shak or Shackspur, with "William Shakespeare" the author of plays the very names of which were absolutely unknown to any of them.

Bacon, when Shackspur had been finally secured in 1597, brought out in the following year 1598 "Loues Labor's lost" with the imprint "newly corrected and augmented by W. Shakespere," and immediately he also brought out under the name of Francis Meres "Wits Treasury," containing the statement that eleven other plays, including "Richard II.," were also by this same Shakespeare who had written the poems of "Venus and Adonis" and "Lucrece."

Francis Meres says: "As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honytongued Shakespeare, witnes his 'Venus and Adonis,' his 'Lucrece,' his sugred Sonnets among his private friends."

The Sonnets were not printed, so far as is known, before 1609, and they as has been shown in Chapter 8 repeat the story of Bacon's authorship of the plays.

Bacon in 1598, as we have stated in previous pages, fully intended that at some future period posterity should do him justice.

Among his last recorded words are those in which he commends his name and fame to posterity, "after many years had past." Accordingly we find, as we should expect to find, that when he put Shakespeare's name to "Loues Labor's lost" (the first play to bear that name) Bacon took especial pains to secure that at some future date he should be recognised as the real author. Does he not clearly reveal this to us by the wonderful words with which the play of "Loues Labor's lost" opens?

"Let Fame, that all hunt after in their lyues, Liue registred vpon our brazen Tombes, And then grace vs, in the disgrace of death: When spight of cormorant deuouring Time, Thendeuour of this present breath may buy: That honour which shall bate his sythes keene edge, And make us heires of all eternitie."

Bacon intended that "Spight of cormorant devouring Time" ... honour.... should make [him] heir of all eternitie.

Compare the whole of this grand opening passage of "Loues Labor's lost" with the lines ascribed to Milton in the 1632 edition of Shakespeare's plays when Bacon was [supposed to be] dead. No epitaph appeared in the 1623 edition, but in the 1632 edition appeared the following:

"An Epitaph on the admirable Dramaticke Poet, W. Shakespeare. What neede my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones, The labour of an Age in piled stones Or that his hallow'd Reliques should be hid Under a starrey-pointed Pyramid? Deare sonne of Memory, great Heire of Fame, What needst thou such dull witnesse of thy Name? Thou in our wonder and astonishment Hast built thy selfe a lasting Monument: For whil'st, to th' shame of slow-endevouring Art Thy easie numbers flow, and that each part, Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued Booke, Those Delphicke Lines with deepe impression tooke Then thou our fancy of her selfe bereaving, Dost make us Marble with too much conceiving, And so Sepulcher'd, in such pompe dost lie That Kings for such a Tombe would wish to die."

We have pointed out in Chapter 10 and in Chapter 11 how clearly in "Loues Labour's lost," on page 136 of the folio of 1623, Bacon reveals the fact that he is the Author of the Plays, and we have shewn how the title pages of certain books support this revelation, beginning with the title page of the first folio of 1623 with its striking revelation given to us in the supposititious portrait which really consists of "a mask supported on two left arms."

We may, however, perhaps here mention that instructions are specially given to all who can understand, in the little book which is said to be a continuation of Bacon's "Nova Atlantis," and to be by R. H., Esquire, [whom no one has hitherto succeeded in identifying].



On Plate 34, Page 149, we give a facsimile of its Title Page which describes the book and states that it was printed in 1660.

In this book a number of very extraordinary inventions are mentioned such as submarine boats to blow up ships and harbours, and telegraphy by means of magnetic needles, but the portion to which we now wish to allude is that which refers to a "solid kind of Heraldry." This will be found on pp. 23-4, and reads as follows:

"We have a solid kind of Heraldry, not made specious with ostentative pydecoats and titular Atcheivements, which in Europe puzzel the tongue as well as memory to blazon, and any Fool may buy and wear for his money. Here in each province is a Register to record the memorable Acts, extraordinary qualities and worthy endowments of mind of the most eminent Patricians. Where for the Escutcheon of Pretence each noble person bears the Hieroglyphic of that vertue he is famous for. E.G. If eminent for Courage, the Lion; If for Innocence, the White Lamb; If for Chastity, a Turtle; If for Charity, the Sun in his full glory; If for Temperance, a slender Virgin, girt, having a bridle in her mouth; If for Justice, she holds a Sword in the right, and a Scales in the left hand; If for Prudence, she holds a Lamp; If for meek Simplicity, a Dove in her right hand; If for a discerning Judgment, an Eagle; If for Humility, she is in Sable, the head inclining and the knees bowing; If for Innocence, she holds a Lilie; If for Glory or Victory, a Garland of Baies; If for Wisdom, she holds a Salt; If he excels in Physic, an Urinal; If in Music, a Lute; If in Poetry, a Scrowle; If in Geometry, an Astrolabe; If in Arithmetic, a Table of Cyphers; If in Grammar, an Alphabetical Table; If in Mathematics, a Book; If in Dialectica she holds a Serpent in either hand; and so of the rest; the Pretence being ever paralel to his particular Excellency. And this is sent him cut in brass, and in colours, as he best phansies for the Field; only the Hieroglyphic is alwayes proper."

These references to a solid kind of Heraldry refer to the title pages and frontispieces of books which may be characterised broadly as Baconian books, and examples of every one of them can be found in books extending from the Elizabethan period almost up to the present date.

We place Plate 35, Page 153, before the reader, which is a photo enlargement of the title page of Bacon's "History of Henry VII.," printed in Holland, 1642, the first Latin edition (in 12mo).

Here is seen the Virgin holding the Salt, shewing the Wisdom of the Author. In her right hand, which holds the Salt, she holds also two other objects which seem difficult to describe. They represent "a bridle without a bit," in order to tell us the purpose of the Plate is to unmuzzle Bacon, and to reveal to us his authorship of the plays known as Shakespeare's.

But in order to prove that the objects represent a bridle without a bit, we must refer to two emblem books of very different dates and authorship.

First we refer our readers to Plate 36, Page 156, which is a photo enlargement of the figure of Nemesis in the first (February 1531) edition of Alciati's Emblems. The picture shews us a hideous figure holding in her left hand a bridle with a tremendous bit to destroy false reputations, improba verba.

We next put before our readers the photo reproduction of the figure of Nemesis, which will be found on page 484, of Baudoin's Emblems, 1638. Baudoin had previously brought out in French a translation of Bacon's "Essays," which was published at Paris in 1621. In the preface to his book of Emblems he tells us that he was induced to undertake the task by BACON (printed in capital letters), and by Alciat (printed in ordinary type). In this book of Emblems, Baudoin, on page 484, placed his figure of Nemesis opposite to Bacon's name. If the reader carefully examines Plate 37 he will perceive that it is no longer a grinning hideous figure, but is a figure of FAME, and carries a bridle in which there is found to be no sign of any kind of bit, because the purpose of the Emblem is to shew that Nemesis will unmuzzle and glorify Bacon.

In order to make the meaning of Baudoin's Emblem still more emphatically explicit a special Rosicrucian Edition of the same date, 1638, was printed, in which Baudoin's Nemesis is printed "upside down"; we do not mean bound upside down, but printed upside down, for there is the printing of the previous page at the back of the engraving. We have already alluded on page 113 to the frequent practice of the upside down printing of ornaments and engravings when a revelation concerning Bacon's connection with Shakespeare is afforded to us.



The writer possesses an ordinary copy of Baudoin's Emblems, 1638, and also a copy of the edition with the Nemesis printed upside down which appears opposite Bacon's name. The copy so specially printed is bound with Rosicrucian emblems outside.

The reader, by comparing Baudoin's Nemesis, Plate 37, and the Title Page of Henry VII., Plate 35, will at once perceive that the objects in the right hand of the Virgin holding the salt box are correctly described as representing a "bridle without a bit," and he will know that a revelation concerning Bacon and Shakespeare is going to be given to him. Now we will tell him the whole story. On the right of the picture, Plate 35 (the reader's left) we see a knight in full armour, and also a philosopher who is, as the roses on his shoes tell us, a Rosicrucian philosopher. On the left on a lower level is the same philosopher, evidently Bacon, but without the roses on his shoes. He is holding the shaft of a spear with which he seems to stop the wheel. By his side stands what appears to be a Knight or Esquire, but the man's sword is girt on the wrong side, he wears a lace collar and lace trimming to his breeches, and he wears actor's boots (see Plate 28, Page 118, and Plate 132, Page 127).

We are therefore forced to conclude that he is an Actor. And, lo, he wears but ONE SPUR. He is therefore a Shake-spur Actor (on Plate 27, Page 115, is shewn a Shake-spur on horseback). This same Actor is also shaking the spear which is held by the philosopher. He is therefore also a Shake-spear Actor. And now we can read the symbols on the wheel which is over his head: the "mirror up to nature," "the rod for the back of fools," the "basin to hold your guilty blood" ("Titus Andronicus," v. 2), and "the fool's bawble." On the other side of the spear: the spade the symbol of the workman, the cap the symbol of the gentleman, the crown the symbol of the peer, the royal crown, and lastly the Imperial crown. Bacon says Henry VII. wore an Imperial crown. Quite easily now we can read the whole story.

The "History of Henry VII.," though in this picture displayed on a stage curtain, is set forth by Bacon in prose while the rest of the Histories of England are given to the world by Bacon by means of his pseudonym the Shake-spear Actor at the Globe to which that figure is pointing.

Plain as the plate appears to the instructed eye it seems hitherto to have failed to reveal to the uninstructed its clear meaning that

BACON IS SHAKE-SPEARE.



CHAPTER XIV.

Postscriptum.

Most fortunately before going to press we were able to see at the Record Office, Chancery Lane, London, the revealing documents recently discovered by Dr. Wallace and described by him in an article published in the March number of Harper's Monthly Magazine, under the title of "New Shakespeare Discoveries." The documents found by Dr. Wallace are extremely valuable and important. They tell us a few real facts about the Householder of Stratford-upon-Avon, and they effectually once and for all dispose of the idea that the Stratford man was the Poet and Dramatist,—the greatest genius of all the ages.

In the first place they prove beyond the possibility of cavil or question that "Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," was totally unable to write even so much as any portion of his own name. It is true that the Answers to the Interrogatories which are given by "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," are marked at the bottom "Wilm Shaxpr," but this is written by the lawyer or law clerk, in fact "dashed in" by the ready pen of an extremely rapid writer. A full size photographic facsimile of this "so-called" signature, with a portion of the document above it, is given in Plate 38, Page 164, and on the opposite page, in Plate 39, is shewn also in full size facsimile the real signature of Daniell Nicholas with a portion of the document, which he signed, above it.

In order that the reader may be able more easily to read the law writing we give on page 167, in modern type, the portion of the document photographed above the name Wilm Shaxp'r, and on the same page a modern type transcript of the document above the signature of Daniell Nicholas.

Any expert in handwriting will at once perceive that "Wilm Shaxp'r" is written by the same hand that wrote the lower portion of Shakespeare's Answers to Interrogatories, and by the same hand that wrote the other set of Answers to Interrogatories which are signed very neatly by "Daniell Nicholas."

The words "Daughter Marye" occur in the portion photographed of both documents, and are evidently written by the same law writer, and can be seen in Plate 38, Page 164, just above the "Wilm Shaxp'r," and in Plate 39, Page 165, upon the fifth line from the top. The name of "Shakespeare" also occurs several times in the "Answers to Interrogatories." One instance occurs in Plate 39, Page 165, eight lines above the name of Daniell Nicholas, and if the reader compares it with the "Wilm Shaxp'r" on Plate 38, Page 164, it will be at once seen that both writings are by the same hand.



portion What c'tayne he . . . . . . . plt twoe hundered pounds decease. But sayth that his house. And they had amo about their marriadge w'ch nized. And more he can ponnt saythe he can saye of the same Interro for cessaries of houshould stuffe his daughter Marye WILM SHAXPR

TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXVIII.

* * * * *

Interr this depnnt sayth that the deft did beare ted him well when he by him the said Shakespeare his daughter Marye that purpose sent him swade the plt to the solempnised uppon pmise of nnt. And more he can this deponnt sayth is deponnt to goe wth DANIELL NICHOLAS.

TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXIX.

Answers to Interrogatories are required to be signed by the deponents. In the case of "Johane Johnsone," who could not write her name, the depositions are signed with a very neat cross which was her mark. In the case of "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who was also unable to write his name, they are signed with a dot which might quite easily be mistaken for an accidental blot. Our readers will see this mark, which is not a blot but a purposely made mark, just under "Wilm Shaxp'r."

Dr. Wallace reads the "so-called" signature as Willm Shaks, but the Christian name is written quite clearly Wilm. And we should have supposed that any one possessing even the smallest acquaintance with the law writing of the period must have known that the scroll which looks like a flourish at the end of the surname is not and cannot be an "s," but is most certainly without any possibility of question a "p," and that the dash through the "p" is the usual and accepted abbreviation for words ending in "per," or "peare," etc.[12]

Then how ought we, nay how arewe, compelled to read the so-called signature? The capital S is quite clear, so also is the "h," then the next mass of strokes all go to make up simply the letter "a." Then we come to the blotted letter,



this is not and cannot be "kes" or "ks" because in the law writing of the period every letter "s" (excepting "s" at the end of a word) was written as a very long letter. This may readily be seen in the word Shakespeare which occurs in Plate 39 on the eighth line above the signature of Daniell Nicholas. What then is this blotted letter if it is not kes or ks? The answer is quite plain, it is an "X," and a careful examination under a very strong magnifying glass will satisfy the student that it is without possibility of question correctly described as an "X."[13] Yes, the lawclerk marked the Stratford Gentleman's "Answers to Interrogatories" with the name "Wilm Shaxp'r." Does there exist a Stratfordian who will contend that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, if he had been able to write any portion of his name would have marked his depositions Wilm Shaxp'r? Does there exist any man who will venture to contend that the great Dramatist, the author of the Immortal plays, would or could have so signed his name? We trow not; indeed, such an abbreviation would be impossible in a legal document in a Court of Law where depositions are required to be signed in full.

With reference to the other so-called Shakespeare's signatures we must refer the reader to our Chapter III. which was penned before these "New Shakespeare Discoveries" were announced. And it is perhaps desirable to say that the dot in the "W" which appears in two of those "so-called" signatures of Shakespeare, and also in the one just discovered, is part of the regular method of writing a "W" in the law writing of the period. In the Purchase Deed of the property in Blackfriars, of March 10th 1612-13, mentioned on page 38, there are in the first six lines of the Deed seven "W's," in each of which appears a dot. And in the Mortgage Deed of March 11th 1612-13, there are seven "W's" in the first five lines, in each of which appears a similar dot. The above-mentioned two Deeds are in the handwriting of different law clerks.

It may not be out of place here again to call our readers' attention to the fact that law documents are required to be signed "in full," and that if the very rapid and ready writer who wrote "Wilm Shaxp'r" were indeed the Gentleman of Stratford it would have been quite easy for such a good penman to have written his name in full; this the law writer has not done because he did not desire to forge a signature to the document, but desired only to indicate by an abbreviation that the dot or spot below was the mark of William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Thus the question, whether William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, could or could not write his name is for ever settled in the negative, and there is no doubt, there can be no doubt, upon this matter.

Dr. Wallace declares "I have had no theory to defend and no hypothesis to propose." But as a matter of fact his whole article falsely assumes that "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who is referred to in the documents, is no other than the great Dramatist who wrote the Immortal plays. And the writer can only express his unbounded wonder and astonishment that even so ardent a Stratfordian as Dr. Wallace, after studying the various documents which he discovered, should have ventured to say:

"Shakespeare was the third witness examined. Although, forsooth, the matter of his statements is of no high literary quality and the manner is lacking in imagination and style, as the Rev. Joseph Green in 1747 complained of the will, we feel none the less as we hear him talk that we have for the first time met Shakespeare in the flesh and that the acquaintance is good."

As a matter of fact none of the words of any of the deponents are their own words, but they are the words of the lawyers who drew the Answers to the Interrogatories. The present writer, when a pupil in the chambers of a distinguished lawyer who afterwards became a Lord Justice, saw any number of Interrogatories and Answers to Interrogatories, and even assisted in their preparation. The last thing that any one of the pupils thought of, was in what manner the client would desire to express his own views. They drew the most plausible Answers they could imagine, taking care that their words were sufficiently near to the actual facts for the client to be able to swear to them.

The so-called signature "Wilm Shaxp'r," is written by the lawyer or law clerk who wrote the lower part of Shakespeare's depositions, and this same clerk also wrote the depositions above the name of another witness who really signs his own name, viz., "Daniell Nicholas." The only mark William Shakespeare put to the document was the blot above which the abbreviated name "Wilm Shaxp'r" was written by the lawyer or law clerk.

The documents shew that Shakespeare of Stratford occasionally "lay" in the house in Silver Street, and Ben Jonson's words in "The Staple of News" (Third Intermeane; Act iii.), to which Dr. Wallace refers viz., that "Siluer-Streete" was "a good seat for a Vsurer" are very informing, because as we have before pointed out the Stratford man was a cruel usurer.

Dr. Wallace's contention that Mountjoy, the wig-maker, of the corner house in Silver Street where Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, occasionally slept, was the original of the name of the Herald in Henry V.[14] really surpasses, in want of knowledge of History, anything that the writer has ever previously encountered, and he is afraid that it really is a measure of the value of Dr. Wallace's other inferences connecting the illiterate Stratford Rustic with the great Dramatist who "took all knowledge for his province."

Dr. Wallace's "New Shakespeare Discoveries" are really extremely valuable and informing, and very greatly assist the statements which the writer has made in the previous chapters, viz., that the Stratford Householder was a mean Rustic who was totally unable to read or to write, and was not even an actor of repute, but was a mere hanger-on at the Theatre. Indeed, the more these important documents are examined the clearer it will be perceived that, as Dr. Wallace points out, they shew us that the real William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman, was not the "Aristocrat," whom Tolstoi declares the author of the plays to have been, but was in fact a man who resided [occasionally when he happened to revisit London] "in a hardworking family," a man who was familiar with hairdressers and their apprentices, a man who mixed as an equal among tradesmen in a humble position of life, who referred to him as "One Shakespeare." These documents prove that "One Shakespeare" was not and could not have been the "poet and dramatist." In a word these documents strongly confirm the fact that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.



CHAPTER XV.

Appendix.

The facsimile shewn in Plate 41, Page 176, is from "The Attourney's Academy," 1630. The reader will perceive that the ornamental heading is printed upside down. In the ordinary copies it is not so printed, but only in special copies such as that possessed by the writer; the object of the upside-down printing being, as we have already pointed out in previous pages, to reveal, to those deemed worthy of receiving it, some secret concerning Bacon.

In the present work, while we have used our utmost endeavour to place in the vacant frame, the true portrait of him who was the wonder and mystery of his own age and indeed of all ages, we have never failed to remember the instructions given to us in "King Lear":—

"Have more than thou showest, Speak less than thou knowest."

Our object has been to supply exact and positive information and to confirm it by proofs so accurate and so certain as to compel belief and render any effective criticism an impossibility.

It may however not be without advantage to those who are becoming convinced against their will, if we place before them a few of the utterances of men of the greatest distinction who, without being furnished with the information which we have been able to afford to our readers, were possessed of sufficient intelligence and common sense to perceive the truth respecting the real authorship of the Plays.

LORD PALMERSTON, b. 1784, d. 1865.

Viscount Palmerston, the great British statesman, used to say that he rejoiced to have lived to see three things—the re-integration of Italy, the unveiling of the mystery of China and Japan, and the explosion of the Shakespearian illusions.—From the Diary of the Right Hon. Mount-Stewart E. Grant.

LORD HOUGHTON, b. 1809, d. 1885.

Lord Houghton (better known as a statesman under the name of Richard Monckton Milnes) reported the words of Lord Palmerston, and he also told Dr. Appleton Morgan that he himself no longer considered Shakespeare, the actor, as the author of the Plays.

SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE, b. 1772, d. 1834.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the eminent British critic and poet, although he assumed that Shakespeare was the author of the Plays, rejected the facts of his life and character, and says: "Ask your own hearts, ask your own common sense, to conceive the possibility of the author of the Plays being the anomalous, the wild, the irregular genius of our daily criticism. What! are we to have miracles in sport? Does God choose idiots by whom to convey divine truths to man?"

JOHN BRIGHT, b. 1811, d. 1889.

John Bright, the eminent British statesman, declared: "Any man that believes that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Hamlet or Lear is a fool." In its issue of March 27th 1889, the Rochdale Observer reported John Bright as scornfully angry with deluded people who believe that Shakespeare wrote Othello.

RALPH WALDO EMERSON, b. 1803, d. 1882.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, the great American philosopher and poet, says: "As long as the question is of talent and mental power, the world of men has not his equal to show.... The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind that he was a jovial actor and manager. I cannot marry this fact to his verse."—Emerson's Works. London, 1883. Vol. 4, p. 420.

JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER, b. 1807, d. 1892.

John Greenleaf Whittier, the American poet, declared: "Whether Bacon wrote the wonderful plays or not, I am quite sure the man Shakspere neither did nor could."

DR. W. H. FURNESS, b. 1802, d. 1891.

Dr. W. H. Furness, the eminent American scholar, who was the father of the Editor of the Variorum Edition of Shakespeare's Works, wrote to Nathaniel Holmes in a letter dated Oct. 29th 1866: "I am one of the many who have never been able to bring the life of William Shakespeare and the plays of Shakespeare within planetary space of each other. Are there any two things in the world more incongruous? Had the plays come down to us anonymously, had the labor of discovering the author been imposed upon after generations, I think we could have found no one of that day but F. Bacon to whom to assign the crown. In this case it would have been resting now on his head by almost common consent."

MARK TWAIN, b. 1835, d. 1910.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, who wrote under the pseudonym of Mark Twain, was,—it is universally admitted,—one of the wisest of men. Last year (1909) he published a little book with the title, "Is Shakespeare dead?" In this he treats with scathing scorn those who can persuade themselves that the immortal plays were written by the Stratford clown. He writes, pp. 142-3: "You can trace the life histories of the whole of them [the world's celebrities] save one far and away the most colossal prodigy of the entire accumulation—Shakespeare. About him you can find out nothing. Nothing of even the slightest importance. Nothing worth the trouble of stowing away in your memory. Nothing that even remotely indicates that he was ever anything more than a distinctly common-place person—a manager,[15] an actor of inferior grade, a small trader in a small village that did not regard him as a person of any consequence, and had forgotten him before he was fairly cold in his grave. We can go to the records and find out the life-history of every renowned race-horse of modern times—but not Shakespeare's! There are many reasons why, and they have been furnished in cartloads (of guess and conjecture) by those troglodytes; but there is one that is worth all the rest of the reasons put together, and is abundantly sufficient all by itself—he hadn't any history to record. There is no way of getting around that deadly fact. And no sane way has yet been discovered of getting round its formidable significance. Its quite plain significance —to any but those thugs (I do not use the term unkindly) is, that Shakespeare had no prominence while he lived, and none until he had been dead two or three generations. The Plays enjoyed high fame from the beginning."

PRINCE BISMARCK, b. 1815, d. 1898.

We are told in Sydney Whitman's "Personal Reminiscences of Prince Bismarck," pp. 135-6, that in 1892, Prince Bismarck said, "He could not understand how it were possible that a man, however gifted with the intuitions of genius, could have written what was attributed to Shakespeare unless he had been in touch with the great affairs of state, behind the scenes of political life, and also intimate with all the social courtesies and refinements of thought which in Shakspeare's time were only to be met with in the highest circles."

"It also seemed to Prince Bismarck incredible that the man who had written the greatest dramas in the world's literature could of his own free will, whilst still in the prime of life, have retired to such a place as Stratford-on-Avon and lived there for years, cut off from intellectual society, and out of touch with the world."

The foregoing list of men of the very greatest ability and intelligence who were able clearly to perceive the absurdity of continuing to accept the commonly received belief that the Mighty Author of the immortal Plays was none other than the mean rustic of Stratford, might be extended indefinitely, but the names that we have mentioned are amply sufficient to prove to the reader that he will be in excellent company when he himself realises the truth that

BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.



A NEUER WRITER, TO AN EUER READER. NEWES.

Eternall reader, you haue heere a new play, neuer stal'd with the Stage, neuer clapper-clawd with the palmes of the vulger, and yet passing full of the palme comicall; for it is a birth of your braine, that neuer under-tooke any thing commicall, vainely: And were but the vaine names of commedies changde for the titles of Commodities, or of Playes for Pleas; you should see all those grand censors, that now stile them such vanities, flock to them for the maine grace of their grauities: especially this authors Commedies, that are so fram'd to the life, that they serve for the most common Commentaries, of all the actions of our Hues shewing such a dexteritie, and power of witte, that the most displeased with Playes are pleasd with his Commedies.....

And beleeue this, that when hee is gone, and his Commedies out of sale, you will scramble for them, and set up a new English Inquisition. Take this for a warning, and at the perrill of your pleasures losse, and Judgements, refuse not, nor like this the lesse, for not being sullied, with the smoaky breath of the multitude.[16]



ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Footnote to page 45. There was a forest of Arden in Warwickshire.

Footnote to page 51. This Richard Quyney's son Thomas married 10th February 1616, Judith, William Shakespeare's younger daughter, who, like her father, the supposed poet, was totally illiterate, and signed the Register with a mark.

Footnote to page 62. In 1615, although nothing of poetical importance bearing Bacon's name had been published, we find in Stowe's "Annales," p. 811, that Bacon's name appears seventh in the list there given of Elizabethan poets.

ERRATA.

P. 5. For "knew little Latin" read "had small Latin." P. 29. For "line 511" read "line 512." P. 81. For "Montegut" read "Montegut." For "Greek for crowned" read "Greek for crown." P. 93 & 94. For "Quintillian" read "Quintilian." P. 133. For "Greek name" read "Greek word."



PROMUS

OF

FOURMES AND ELEGANCYES

BY

FRANCIS BACON.

PREFACE TO PROMUS

To these Essays I have attached a carefully collated reprint of Francis Bacon's "Promus of Formularies and Elegancies," a work which is to be found in Manuscript at the British Museum in the Harleian Collection (No. 7,017.)

The folios at present known are numbered from 83 to 132, and are supposed to have been written about A.D. 1594-6, because folio 85 is dated December 5th 1594, and folio 114, January 27 1595.

The pagination of the MS. is modern, and was inserted for reference purposes when the Promus was bound up in one volume together with certain other miscellaneous manuscripts which are numbered from 1 to 82, and from 133 onwards.

A facsimile of a portion of a leaf of the Promus MS., folio 85, is given on pages 190-91, in order to illustrate Bacon's handwriting, and also to shew his method of marking the entries. It will be perceived that some entries have lines //// drawn across the writing, while upon others marks similar to the capital letters T, F, and A are placed at the end of the lines. But as the Promus is here printed page for page as in the manuscript, I am not raising the question of the signification of these marks, excepting only to say they indicate that Bacon made considerable use of these memoranda.

"Promus" means larder or storehouse, and these "Fourmes, Formularies and Elegancyes" appear to have been intended as a storehouse of words and phrases to be employed in the production of subsequent literary works.

Mrs. Pott was the first to print the "Promus," which, with translations and references, she published in 1883. In her great work, which really may be described as monumental, Mrs. Pott points out, by means of some thousands of quotations, how great a use appears to have been made of the "Promus" notes, both in the acknowledged works of Bacon and in the plays which are known as Shakespeare's.

Mrs. Pott's reading of the manuscript was extremely good, considering the great difficulty experienced in deciphering the writing. But I thought it advisable when preparing a reprint to secure the services of the late Mr. F. B. Bickley, of the British Museum, to carefully revise the whole of Bacon's "Promus." This task he completed and I received twenty-four proofs, which I caused to be bound with a title page in 1898. There were no other copies, the whole of the type having unfortunately been broken up. The proof has again been carefully collated with the original manuscript and corrected by Mr. F. A. Herbert, of the British Museum, and I have now reprinted it here, as I am satisfied that the more Bacon's Promus—the Storehouse—is examined, the more it will be recognised how large a portion of the material collected therein has been made use of in the Immortal Plays, and I therefore now issue the Promus with the present essay as an additional proof of the identity of Bacon and Shakespeare.