PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
  Sunday, 02 August 2009
  81 Replies
  18.8K Visits
  Subscribe
On this series of posts I want to review some of the evidence that's been put forth as being sufficient to claim that William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the Shake-Speare plays and poetry, some even claiming it as proof. I expect to show that not one piece of this evidence can be considered as strong evidence and certainly that none of it can overcome the barrier of the alternate theory of authorship. Then at some point I'll start posting material regarding the idea of Bacon's hiding his authorship. I probably won't discuss each and every piece of evidence but at least the main tenets.

To start, here is how one alternate author (not a Baconian) described the identity issue: "The reason the identity of Shakespeare is shrouded in mystery may very well be that it was planned that way. We should label this plan a deliberate, premeditated strategem rather than a deliberate hoax, for while the author is in part playing a joke on his audience, the secret of authorship was planned for any number of good and sufficient motives. For such a deliberate, deep-laid deception to have been successful for a period of close to four hundred years would argue that only a few individuals were entrusted with the secret".
Shake-Speare: The Mystery by George Elliott Sweet, 1956.

Returning to Nigel Cockburn's 1998 book The Bacon-Shakespeare Question, he has this to say about evidence criteria:

"There are also about a score of references in Shakspere's lifetime to Shakespeare or William Shakespeare, and without the "Mr.", in praise of his work. These individually throw no light on whether the makers of the references believed Shake-Speare to be (William) Shakspere or merely a pen name for someone else. It is likely that many or most of them believed him (Shake-Speare the author) to be Shakspere (of Stratford). But if a literary work is published under the name of a real person, or under a name close enough to be taken for that of a real person, one assumes him to be its author unless one has reason to know otherwise. Though Stratfordians are lothe to concede this, a reference to Shakespeare is worthless individually as evidence of Shakspere's authorship unless it satisfies three conditions.

First, it must identify Shakspere with Shake-Speare in one way or another. Secondly, its maker must have been likely to know if Shakspere was not Shake-Speare. Thirdly, he must have been likely to reveal that fact in the reference under consideration.

This third condition must be added because someone likely to know the truth might still identify Shakspere with Shake-Speare because he wished to protect the secret. In my view not one of the references satisfies all three conditions. And the same applies to the few further references to Shakespeare by name in the years following Shakspere's death.
14 years ago
·
#2879
First up as a one who has been promoted as providing evidence of William Shakspere's authorship is Robert Greene.

Robert Greene (1558-92) is one contemporary of Shake-Speare often brought forward as providing evidence of William Shakspere's authorship. Greene was a poet, playwright and pamphleteer. In 1592 shortly before his death, he published a pamphlet Groatsworth of Wit, and annexed to it a letter to three unnamed author acquaintances who can be identified as Marlowe and (probably) Thomas Nashe and George Peele. The letter attacks actors for battening on dramatists and includes the following passage:

"Base-minded men all three of you, if by my misery you be not warned: for unto none of you (like me) sought those burrs to cleave: those puppets (I mean) that spake from our mouths, those antics garnished in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they have all been beholding, shall (were ye in that case as I am now) be both at once of them forsaken? Yes, trust them not: for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and, being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country".

The upstart crow was obviously Shakespeare; Shake-scene is a play on his name, and the words italicised are a parody of 3 Henry VI, 1.4.137: "O, Tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide". And Greene's crow was both actor and playwright. So Greene identified Shakspere with Shake-Speare. But plainly Greene was not a confidant of Shakspere of Stratford, but an enemy; and would therefore be unlikely to know Shakspere's secret, if there was one.
14 years ago
·
#2880
Here’s another claim:

Around 1601, students in Cambridge put on a play called The Second Part of the Return from Parnassus, the third in a series of plays that satirized the London literary scene. In this play, two characters named "Kempe" and "Burbage" appear, representing the actors Will Kempe and Richard Burbage of the Chamberlain's Men. At one point Kempe says,

“Few of the university [men] pen plays well, they smell too much of that writer Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis, and talk too much of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit.

This passage establishes that the playwright Shakespeare was a fellow actor of Kempe and Burbage, contrasts him with the University-educated playwrights, and establishes him as a rival of Ben Jonson.

Another author even said that “In 1602 the famous comedian Will Kempe wrote 'Here's our Shakespeare puts them all down, aye, and Ben Jonson too”.


Response: The famous comedian Will Kempe DID NOT say or write that. As mentioned by the first Stratfordian the quote comes from The Return from Parnassus Part 2, Act 4.3.1753-1760. The play was the third in a series played at St. John's College, Cambridge, between 1598-1602. They are likely to have been written by two or more authors who were probably college members, and they were acted by college students. Will Kempe, the 'famous comedian' was one of the characters being portrayed and the full quote was making fun at his ignorance.

The character Will Kempe was made to look ignorant, first, because 'Metamorphosis' wasn’t a writer, but the title of a work by the classical writer Ovid. Secondly, he is made to look ignorant because he's supposedly admiring his fellow Shakespeare for NOT writing like the university playwrights who "smell too much of Ovid" when, in fact, Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, which the authors admire, is based on a story from Ovid's Metamorphosis (and headed by a couplet from Ovid's Amores), and The Rape of Lucrece was based on Ovid's Fasti. So, since the Parnassus authors are likely college students that admired classical authors as well as Shakespeare who also obviously liked classical authors, and since the character Will Kempe is being shown to be ignorant of 'his fellow' Shakespeare's reliance on classical authors, he is also probably being poked fun at for not realizing that 'his fellow' (the actor Will Shakspere) did NOT actually write the works under the name of Shake-Speare. Other parts of the play show the authors poking fun at actors for "mouthing words that better wits have framed" and because "They purchase lands, and now Esquires are named" (clear references to the actor Shakespeare). In other words, Kemp's "fellow Shakespeare" embodies the joke that Shake-Speare (as opposed to the actor Shakspere) was not Kemp's fellow at all. Instead, he was one that actually did share the “faults” of the university playwrights (“smelling of Ovid”) because he was one of them.

This is a very abridged response. A fuller response is found in Cockburn’s book and elsewhere. This is also discussed in Bate’s recent book Soul of the Age.
14 years ago
·
#2881
Next is John Davies of Hereford who, in 1610, published a volume entitled The Scourge of Folly, consisting mostly of poems to famous people and Davies's friends. One of these poems was addressed to Shakespeare:

To our English Terence, Mr. Will. Shake-speare.
Some say (good Will) which I, in sport, do sing,
Had'st thou not plaid some Kingly parts in sport,
Thou hadst bin a companion for a King;
And, beene a King among the meaner sort.
Some others raile; but, raile as they thinke fit,
Thou hast no railing, but a raigning Wit:
And honesty thou sow'st, which they do reape;
So, to increase their Stocke which they do keepe.

Response: At first, this poem (or epigram) appears to show that Davies believed Will Shakspere, the actor, as to be also the playwright William Shake-Speare, since Terence was a Roman playwright. And the last line that says “to increase their Stocke” seems to suggest the creation of a ‘stock’ of plays that others benefited from. However, Terence was believed, both in Roman times (by Cicero) and in Elizabethan times (by Robert Ascham and John Florio) as a “Mask” for a patrician playwright (either Scipio or Laelius). And Davies would most likely be aware of this widespread belief about Terence. So why liken Will Shake-speare to Terence if not to suggest that he too was a mask for a similar hidden playwright? Others that likened Shake-Speare to an ancient author usually cited Plautus, who was generally regarded as the best Roman comedy playwright. Frances Meres does this as does Thomas Fuller. Since John Davies was a friend of Bacon’s, if he was in on Bacon’s secret, then he would go along with Bacon’s wish to keep that secret, though he may at times hint otherwise.

On the other hand again, Davies, in an earlier work, Microcosmos (1603) he wrote a poem about ‘Players’, some of whom did painting and poesy:

Players, I love ye and your Quality,
As ye are men that pass time, not abus’d:
And some I love for * painting , poesy
……….

Then, to the left of this poem on the page are the initials W.S. and R.B. presumably standing for Will Shakspere and Richard Burbage (who was an amateur painter).

This poem seems more clearly to identify Will Shakspere as the poet “William Shake-Speare”, but on the other hand it was written 7 years prior to the one comparing Will Shake-speare to Terence. So, if Bacon was Shake-Speare, Davies may have learned of this after 1603 and kept up the secret, with possibly a hint otherwise. And again, if Bacon was Shake-Speare, and if Davies never did learn of this secret then the 1610 reference to “Our English Terence” may just have been a genuine compliment.

Interestingly, Davies, in that same The Scourge of Folly volume, wrote a sonnet to Francis Bacon:

To the royall, ingenious, and all-learned
Knight, Sr. Francis Bacon

Thy Bounty, and the Beauty of thy Witt
Comprised in lists of Law and learned Arts,
Each making thee for great imployment fitt,
Which now thou hast, (though short of thy deserts,)
Compells my Pen to let fall shining Inke
And to bedew the Baies that deck thy Front;
And to thy Health in Helicon to drinke
As, to her Bellamour, the Muse is wont:
For, thou dost her embozom; and, dost use
Her company for sport twixt grave affaires:
And for that all thy Notes are sweetest Aires;
My Muse thus notes thy worth in ev’ry Line,
With ynke which thus she sugars; so, to shine.

So, here, though complimenting Bacon for his wit found in lists of Law and the learned arts, he also mentions “the Baies (bays) that deck thy front” (meaning the poet’s laurel wreath). The waters of Helicon that one would drink referred to the font of literary (especially poetic) inspiration. Davies also implies that Bacon’s Muse accompanies him for his ‘sport’ between grave affairs. Could this ‘sport’ be his hidden poetry and playwrighting? In Bacon’s Promus (notebook) he had an entry that said “Ye law at Twick’nam for merrie tales”. N.B. Cockburn has analyzed this time of Bacon’s life and concludes that this time was between law terms that Bacon spent at his Twickenham residence for writing plays (merry tales).

In any case, there was, in the same book by Davies, one poem addressed to Will Shake-speare and another one to Bacon. But they don’t help us determine whether or not Davies believed Will Shakspere to be the author of the Shake-Speare works, or if he believed him not to be the author and was but helping to keep Bacon’s secret, assuming there was one.
14 years ago
·
#2882
Heminges and Condell were fellow actors of Shakspere and their names are printed beneath two commendatory poems in the First Folio of the Shake-Speare plays. Heminges is thought to have given up acting in about 1613 and Condell stopping in about 1623.

Despite the subscription of their names to the First Folio epistles, it is most unlikely, as many Stratfordians agree (this according to N.B.Cockburn’s research) that Heminges and Condell, who were probably of little education, drafted either of the poems, especially the first one. The language is too polished for the actors and shows signs of classical learning. For example, the Epistle Dedicatory has close parallels with the Epistle Dedicatory to Pliny’s Natural History. Some conjecture is that either Edward Blount or Ben Jonson had drafted these Folio epistles, who had also written the main commendatory poem as well as the lines beneath the portrait of Shake-Speare. Edmund Malone cited parallels between the epistles and Jonson’s work. One is the rather odd expression of classical origin in the epistle to the Readers, “absolute in their numbers” meaning “perfect”, which Jonson used at least three times elsewhere. For instance, Pliny wrote “a book absolute in all its numbers”. Jonson even used this phrase when writing of Bacon who he cited as one “who hath filled up all the numbers”, meaning everything he wrote was absolutely perfect.

Further evidence of Jonson’s hand in the Epistles supposedly written by Heminges and Condell is found in the first paragraph of the epistle to the Great Variety of Readers. In Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair he has an Induction with articles of agreement between the spectator and the author. This says that “Every person here have his or their free-will of censure, the author having now departed with his right…and it shall be lawful for any man to judge his six-pen’orth, his twelve-pen’orth, so to his eighteen-pence, two shillings, half-a-crown, to the value of his place, provided his place get not above his wit…if he drop but sixpence at the door, and will censure a crown’s worth, it is thought there is no conscience or justice in that”. So, both this Jonson passage and the one in the First Folio seem to make the same point that the extent to which a spectator or reader is entitled to criticize depends on how much he has paid.

We can conclude then that Heminges and Condell are less likely to have drafted the poems ascribed to them than would Jonson. And that their names were merely subscribed to them to convince potential buyers that the texts of the plays were authentic. A similar ploy was used in the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647 where the dedicatory epistle is subscribed with the names of no fewer than 10 actors. It is hard to suppose that all 10 (if any) had a part in drafting the epistle.

Both poems treat Shake-Speare as the dead fellow of Heminges and Condell. But even if those two colleagues of his had actually drafted them, and knew the secret, they would still have had to pretend that Shake-Speare was their fellow actor Will Shakspere. The general public (in so far as they had heard of Shake-Speare) no doubt believed that, and Heminges and Condell would have had to play along with it in the interests of both Shakspere and of Bacon. Then not a word of either epistle need have been any different from what it was. To have disclosed the truth would have been a betrayal of their dead fellow, whose name would have become a laughing stock, and of Bacon who was still alive and as anxious as ever to preserve his anonymity.

As to the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery that the First Folio is dedicated to, they were friends of Bacon and may or may not have been in on the secret. And even if they knew it, they would have realized that the Folio’s promoters either did not know or had to pretend not to.
14 years ago
·
#2883
Next up in this review of the evidence to support the argument that William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the Shake-Speare plays and poetry will be a look at Ben Jonson. But there will be a few preliminaries before getting to him. One is a reminder that I’m intentionally spelling this name as “Shakspere” instead of Shakespeare because this is a discussion of the authorship question and traditionally this is the spelling that I’ve seen most used to distinguish the man from Stratford from the poet-playwright Shake-Speare, even acknowledging that they may be the same person.

Also, the idea of writing under a pseudonym in the time of Shake-Speare, or in any other time, is not controversial. Authors in Shake-Speare’s time have explicitly said this was done and others have implied such. The author given for any piece of work is generally assumed to be as given, unless good reason is offered to suggest otherwise. Those believing that William of Stratford was the author believe they have sufficient evidence and reason to support their view and don’t need to examine evidence or arguments otherwise, or believe that it has already been examined and found insufficient. Those believing in an alternate author earnestly believe they have evidence to support their view and that it hasn’t been fairly examined.

With the theory that William of Stratford did not actually write the plays and poetry attributed to him there’s been the argument about whether or not this pretense could have been successfully carried out at all. For example, wouldn’t the secret eventually ‘get out’ and then published by his enemies, his fellow actors or by those in the well-connected literary world? So here are a few answers for this question.

We know from the documentary evidence that William Shakspere of Stratford was an experienced actor. He had acted in at least two of Ben Jonson’s plays, and had apparently played the ghost in Hamlet, Caesar in Shake-Speare’s Julius Caesar, and maybe other “kingly parts”. So we know he could comfortably pretend to be other than he was if he wanted to. We also know that he was a successful and, many would say, shrewd businessman. And he was both the instigator and defendant in several lawsuits. So it appears that he was far more likely to be bold and assertive than to be shy, and not afraid of controversy or risk taking. Also, he was known to have a civil demeanor and to have friends among the gentry. If then he were to pretend to be a playwright, as cover to another individual, he should be fully capable of doing so. And to know if someone was actually capable of being a great writer can be nearly impossible without seeing them write this great literature and then reading it oneself. Just as we cannot point out a great musician among a crowd of citizens walking down the street.

Under the alternative authorship theory, if William had also been familiar with the plays, which he may himself have brought from the true author, then he would even have the advantage of being able to make minor changes to the script and add comments during rehearsals. Over time, if his fellow actors and fellow theater managers suspected he wasn’t the true author they just may not have wanted to risk killing the golden goose of their acting income of these popular plays. And none of them may have kept journals where they would even record such suspicions, if this even mattered to them at all. And as to knowledgeable persons in the literature world some of them did seem to doubt William as the author and did write about it, as I’ll cover later.

When it comes to Bacon, if anyone could pull off such a deception of this it is likely him. He was used to writing under different names and a pen name of “Shake-Speare” fits him perfectly, as posted here in the other subject forum. And he was an authority on deception, as partly shown by his essay Of Simulation And Dissimulation.

Interestingly, though many claim that such a secret couldn't be maintained, consider that Bacon was oblivious to the secret plot of his close friend the Earl of Essex who had nearly carried out a plan to depose Queen Elizabeth. Also, the Gunpowder plot had also escaped the knowledge of most until just before it was to be completed.

In comparison, a semi-secret literary life of little consequence does not seem so daunting.
14 years ago
·
#2884
Since there’s so much material related to Ben Jonson and Shake-Speare and William of Stratford and also of Bacon, and since he’s such a key witness, it will take a series of posts to review the evidence, which I’m primarily taking from N.B. Cockburn, as usual. But I’ll also add other observations from others.

Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 1

Jonson wrote the principal commendatory poem in the First Folio and to assess its significance we shall have to examine his relationship with both Shakspere and with Bacon. Jonson was 7 years younger than Shakspere and 10 years younger than Bacon. He was the son of a clergyman but was raised by his step-father, a bricklayer, and briefly followed the same trade, after some years as a scholarship student at Westminster School. He was then for a short time a soldier in the Netherlands. On his return he probably supported himself by acting and reworking old plays for the Earl of Pembrok’s company. In 1597 he and his colleagues were thrown into jail for two months for performing the ‘seditious and slanderous’ Isle of Dogs, a play originated by Thomas Nashe, but which Jonson helped to complete. Then, as now, writings that were disapproved of by a reigning power could be censored. Fortunately, in the West at least, we’re no longer thrown into a prison for this. Jonson saw the performance of his first original play, Every man in his Humour in 1598.

His acquaintance with Shakspere perhaps began when that play was staged by the Lord Chamberlain’s Men with Shakspere himself in one of the roles. Nicholas Rowe in his Life of Mr. William Shakespeare related a story, which may not be true, that it was Shakspere himself who persuaded his company to put the play on. Shakspere also acted in Jonson’s Sejanus. Later Jonson knew Shakspere well enough to tell us in the first Folio that he had “small Latin and less Greek”. And in his Timber or Discoveries (1640) Jonson writes: “I loved the man and do honour his memory this side idolatry, as much as any”. However, in the Elizabethan vocabulary, “love” often meant no more than “friendship”. Jonson, who was not homosexual, sometimes ended letters to male friends with valedictions such as "“Your true love"”(see The Works of Ben Jonson edited by Percy Simpson (1925), Vol. 1, p. 190ff). This is the sum of our hard evidence as to the relationship between the two men. But there are various stories about them, mostly hatched in the second half of the 17th century, and none reliable. In one story, for example, the two men jointly compose a humerous epitaph on Jonson. In another, Shakspere, alleged to be godfather to one of Jonson’s children, makes a feeble joke about giving the child Latten spoons for Jonson to translate them. A third story attributes Shakspere’s death to a fever contracted during a bibulous evening with Drayton and Jonson.

Jonson is regarded by Stratfordians as their star witness. So it is necessary to examine carefully all his references to Shake-Speare and Bacon.
14 years ago
·
#2885
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

1. Sogliardo

In Jonson’s Every man out of his Humour (1599) Act .3.1.2010-47, Sogliardo, described as an “essential clown” and whose name is Italian for “filth”, has just acquired a Coat of Arms, and the following conversation ensues between Sogliardo and Puntarvolo:

Sog: I’ faith, I thank god I can write myself Gentleman now, here’s my patent, it cost me thirty pound by this breath.
Punt: A very fair coat, well charged and full of armoury.
Sog: Nay, it has as much variety of colours in it, as you have seen a coat have; how like you the crest, Sir?
Punt: I understand it now well, what is’t?
Sog: Marry Sir, it is your Boar without a head, rampante.
Punt: A boar without a head; that’s very rare!
Carlo: I, and rampant too; troth, I commend the Herald’s wit, he has decyphered him well: a Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything indeed, ramping to gentilitie. You can blazon the rest, signior, can you not?

Punt: Let the word be, Not without mustard. Your crest is very rare, Sir.


Cockburn Comment: This is plainly a dig at Shakspere whose father (no doubt with Shakespere’s encouragement) had acquired a Coat of Arms in 1596 with the motto Non sanz droict [Not without right]. “Marry Sir, it is your Boar without a head, rampante” tells that the gentleman Puntarvolo’s own crest featured a boar (unless “your Boar” means only “a boar, an animal you are familiar with”). Jonson gives Sogliardo’s crest a headless boar to symbolise boorish stupidity. “Not without mustard” is a parody of Non sanz droict and enjoins Shakspere not to eat boar without mustard. Bacon’s crest too featured a boar, and the Baconians interpret the above lines as meaning that Bacon was the “head” in the partnership between Shakspere and Bacon. But there is likewise a boar in the crests of Sir Philip Sidney and the Earl of Oxford. Jonson probably gave Sogliardo’s crest a boar because it was thus a familiar patrician emblem, and lent itself to Jonson’s joke. So the lines throw no light on whether Jonson believed Shakspere to be Shake-Speare.
-----------------------------------------------------------
My comments: On the other hand, if this is ‘plainly a dig at Shakspere”, and if Jonson chose to use a headless boar to “symbolise boorish stupidity” in the character, then it’s not far-fetched to think also that Jonson, at that time in 1599, was additionally implying that he thought Shakspere was not-well educated and not an intellectual. This is emphasized by the words of the character Carlo that followed. Remember that Jonson had likely seen William act in his play Every Man in his Humour from just a year earlier.

Then again, one who disagrees with the above comment by Cockburn says that current research shows that William Shakspere never used ‘Not without right’ as a motto. And furthermore, that Jonson’s play was performed at the Globe by The Chamberlain’s Men where William Shakspere was a shareholder and would never have allowed such insults of himself played on the stage.

On the other hand, again, the phrase ‘Not without right’ is shown in large letters on his coat of arms patent. Here’s the link to an image of it along with some further commentary by an Oxfordian:

http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespea ... t-mustard/

Also, regarding the statement that Will Shakspere would not have allowed such a play to insult him, that’s pure speculation, especially since it suggests someone can know the motivation of someone he has never met and that had lived hundreds of years before, and of whom we have no personal letters of to even know how this person may have thought. Perhaps William, if he was the great Shake-Speare, wouldn’t have been bothered that a rival playwright was satirizing him. Maybe he would have just laughed it off. Also, assuming the play’s words above do refer to William, as they seem to fit him extremely well, it would not be likely that more than a few of the regular audience would realize who they were aimed at.
14 years ago
·
#2886
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

2. Poor Poet Ape

This next item is no more than a possible reference to Shake-Speare. In 1616 Jonson published a collection of Epigrams (as part of the Folio of his Works), though they were written some years earlier. No. 56 reads:

Poor poet ape, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e’en the frippery of wit
From brokage is become so bold a thief,
As we, the robbed, leave rage and pity it,
At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean,
Buy the reversion of old plays; now grown
To a little wealth and credit in the scene
He takes up all, makes each man’s wit his own,
And told of this he slights it. Tut, such crimes
The sluggish gaping auditor devours,
He marks not whose t’was first and after times
May judge it to be his as well as ours,
Fool! As if half eyes will not know a fleece
From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece.

Cockburn Comment: “Poet ape” means “Someone who aped poets”; in other words a bad would-be poet. Thus Sir Philip Sidney said in his The Defence of Poesy (1595): “The cause why it is not esteemed in England is the fault of poet-apes, not of poets”. Jonson in his plays twice used the term of actors who aspired to write poetry, but a poet ape could be anyone. So it is wrong to assume, as some have, that the poet ape of Jonson’s epigram was necessarily an actor. He has often been thought to be Shake-Speare. I doubt this because Shake-Speare did not buy the reversion of old plays, except possibly for King John and Hamlet, and did not plagiarize to the extent the epigram alleges. Some have proposed Dekker or Marston. How about Thomas Heywood? Louis B. Wright in his Middle Class Culture in Elizabethan England, p. 629, wrote: “Though Jonson gave an immense stimulus to the drama of London life, he was no such idol of the multitude as was Thomas Heywood”. Perhaps Jonson resented Heywood’s popularity Another possibility I think, is that the poet ape may have been, not a specific poet, merely a type of poet. However, if he was Shake-Speare, the relevant point for our purposes is that Jonson evidently believed him to be Shakspere since “And told of this he slights it” could not apply to Bacon, nor would Jonson have written of Bacon in such a hostile tone.

My comment: I considered not including in this review this possible Jonson reference to Shake-Speare, since there is so little that can be gleaned from it. I’ve read some of both the “anti-Stratfordian” interpretation as well as a rebuttal of that interpretation. And along with Cockburn’s analysis it’s clear that there’s no justification for claiming it is about Shake-Speare and William of Stratford, though it would seem (from the anti-Stratfordian point of view) to jibe with what Robert Greene had written of the “shake-scene”. Such an interpretation is self-serving and won’t stand up to scrutiny. But I think it does provide a glimpse into the character of the theater world in Elizabethan England and of the rivalries and controversies and allegations then. It also is another example of the indirect references to events and to others that writers used to vent, warn, or to cajole others.
14 years ago
·
#2887
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

3. The Drummond Conversations

In the winter of 1618/1619 Jonson walked all the way to Scotland where he had conversations with William Drummond, a poet. Jonson told him that Shake-Speare “wanted art…in a play [The Winter’s Tale] he had brought in a number of men saying they had suffered shipwreck in Bohemia, where there is no sea near by some 100 miles”. By 1618 Jonson idolised Bacon and would not have been so derisive about him.

Though Cockburn had little to say on Jonson’s conversations with Drummond, I find some of the most interesting comments to have come from Sir George Greenwood in his Ben Johnson and Shakespeare (1921). These are quoted in full:

But some four years before the appearance of the Folio of 1623, viz.: in January, 1619, Jonson was staying with Drummond of Hawthornden, and Drummond made notes of his conversation, and, under the title, or heading, "His Acquaintance and Behaviour with poets living with him," we have recorded remarks made by Ben concerning Daniel, Drayton, Beaumont, Sir John Roe, Marston, Markham, Day, Middleton, Chapman, Fletcher, and others. What do we find concerning Shakspere? "That Shakspere wanted arte. . . . Shakspeer in a play, brought in a number of men saying they had suffered shipwrack in Bohemia, where there is no sea neer by some 100 miles." Here, then, we have Jonson unbosoming himself in private conversation with his host and friend, and this, apparently, is all he has to say about the great bard who, only four years afterwards, he was to laud to the skies as the "Soul of the age, the applause, delight, the wonder of our stage." We would have expected to find whole pages of eulogy, in Drummond's notes, of the poet who "was not of an age but for all time," instead of which we have only these two carping little bits of criticism: "That Shakspeer wanted (i.e., lacked) arte"—a curious remark to have proceeded from the mouth of him who wrote, in the Folio lines, that a poet must be "made as well as born"; that Nature must be supplemented by art; and that in Shakespeare's case such art was not lacking, but, on the contrary, was conspicuous "in his well-turned and true-filed lines." And then that niggling bit of criticism concerning the coast of Bohemia in The Winter's Tale, taken straight from the learned Greene's novel of Dorastus and Fawnia, which may be compared with the depreciatory allusion to Julius Caesar in the Discoveries. As Professor Herford remarks, "It is significant that both in the Conversations 'and the Discoveries,' where high praise is given to others, Jonson only notes in the case of Shakespeare his deficiency in qualities on which he himself set a very high value." (Article on Jonson in Dic. Nat. Biog.)

Now, though this shows that Jonson, at that time at least, believed that William Shakspere was the playwright Shake-Speare, it also demonstrates that we can’t take Jonson’s panegyric of Shake-Speare in the First Folio at face value as genuinely believing that he was “the star of poets”. His job was to get the folio ready for publication and to give it a good send off to the marketplace. Of course, this isn’t any new realization, but many people I come across offer it as proof, not only of Jonson’s belief of William’s authorship, but also of his true feelings toward him. A good description of this is by Andrew Lang in his Shakespeare, Bacon, and the Great Unknown, who in his rebuttal to Greenwood’s views above, said:

“In 1619, Ben spoke gruffly and briefly of Shakespeare, as to Drummond he also spoke disparagingly of Beaumont, whom he had panegyrized in an epigram in his own folio of 1616, and was again to praise in the commendatory verses in the Folio. He spoke still more harshly of Drayton, whom in 1616 he had compared to Homer, Virgil, Theocritus, and Tyraeus! He told an unkind anecdote of Marston, whith whom he had first quarreled and then made friends, collaborating with him in a play; and very generously and to his great peril, sharing his imprisonment. To Drummond, Jonson merely said that he :beat Marston and took away his pistol.” Of Sir John Beaumont, brother of the dramatist, Ben had written a most hyperbolical eulogy in verse; luckily for Sir John, to Drummond Ben did not speak of him. Such was Ben, in panegyric verse hyperbolical; in conversation “a despiser of others, and praiser of himself….Yet I have proved that Ben was the least consistent of critics, all depended on the occasion, and on his humour at the moment. This is a commonplace of literary history”.

Mr. Lang was one Stratfordian that believed that Jonson’s “Poet ape” actually did refer to William Shakspere and that he wouldn’t hesitate to direct his anger and envy at other playwrights, or would be poet-playwrights, as he did in Every man out of his Humour.
14 years ago
·
#2888
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

4. The First Folio Commendatory Poem

Much has been read into form this Poem titled “To the memory of my beloved, the Author Mr. William Shakespeare”, by different advocates to the authorship question. For instance, both the Oxfordians and those favoring Mary Pembroke see the “Sweet Swan of Avon” as a sly reference to their candidate. For my purposes I just want to focus on a couple of other issues.

First, Jonson puts emphasis on Shakespeare the poet, using phrases as “For though the Poets matter”, “For a good Poet’s made, as well as borne”, and “Starre of Poets”, but nowhere in the folio or in any other reference by Jonson is there a mention of Shake-Speare’s non-dramatic poetry. This is odd in view of the immense popularity of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. Besides the extremely sparse biographical references, oblique ones at that, to Will Shakspere of Stratford, the lack of any reference to this Star Poet’s major poems, in a work meant to immortalize the author “for all time” is one of many inconsistencies that have bothered critical authorship commentators. Did Jonson not think that William Shakspere wrote them?

The second issue arises from Jonson’s observation of Shakespeare’s “small Latin, and less Greek”. This and the other reference to the Avon river, are most likely references to William of Stratford and would therefore suggest that Jonson considers him the true author. But, along with the lack of any more biographical data and the ambiguity in some words and phrases, as well as Jonson’s friendship with Bacon, leave open the possibility that Jonson was deliberately concealing his knowledge of or belief in a different person as the true author.

The “small Latin” is especially troubling. If Jonson was a friend of Will Shakspere, and if we agree that the reference is of him, then, Jonson being proficient in Latin, we should be safe in agreeing that Will Shakspere did indeed have “small Latin”. The troubling part is that the evidence shows Shake-Speare, the author, to have much more than “small Latin”.

English translations of classical sources used by Shake-Speare were not always available. Here’s one list of Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish sources Shake-Speare likely used that did not then have English translations (except Venus and Adonis but the Latin version of this was used to some extent):

The Comedy Of Errors: a Latin source; The Two Gentlemen of Verona: a Spanish source (or a French translation of it); Richard II: two sources in manuscript in 15th century French; The Merchant of Venice: an Italian source; Much Ado About Nothing; an Italian source (or a French translation of it); As You Like It: a Spanish source; Twelfth Night: two Latin sources – University plays in manuscript; Hamlet: a Latin source and a French source; Troilus And Cressida: a Greek source (or Latin or French translations of it); Measure For Measure: an Italian source (or a French translation of it); Othello: an Italian source (or a French translation of it); Macbeth: a Latin source; Timon of Athens: a Greek source (or three Italian or one French translation of it); Cymbeline: an Italian source (or a French translation of it)”: Venus and Adonis: a Latin source (and an English translation of it); The Rape of Lucrece: a Latin source.

Even with an English translation available it is clear Shake-Speare consulted the original Latin. In 2 Henry VI, 5.1.157 the hunchback Richard is addressed with: “Hence, heap of wrath, foul indigested lump”. The Latin in Shake-Speare’s source, Ovid’s Metamorphosis is “Rudis indigestaque moles”. Whereas Golding’s translation is “rude and pestered heap”.

For these reasons scholars conclude that Shake-Speare read Latin with ease. Kenneth Muir in his Shakespeare’s Sources: Comedies and Tragedies (1957) wrote: “Shakespeare, then used translations when they were available; but he did not use them slavishly, and there is plenty of evidence that he read Latin works of which there was no translation – 2 plays by Plautus, Buchanan, Leslie, some of Livy and (if we are to believe Mr. E. Honigman) two manuscript chronicles about King John. He knew some Virgil in the original, …”. The Arden editor of The Comedy of Errors wrote: “[Shake-Speare] had an acquaintance with a wide range of Latin literature”.

In addition, he had a tendency to Latinize his English. Lewis Theobald in his Preface to his The Works of Shakespeare (1773) wrote of “the surprising effusion of Latin words made into English, far more than in any other author I have seen”. E.K. Chambers in his William Shakespeare (1930), writing of Troilus And Cressida, said “The language is highly Latinised, …” Very occasionally he even puns in Latin, as in Cymbeline 5.5.447-9.

As the plot sources listed above show, Shake-Speare had a considerable knowledge of French and Italian literature. Sir Sidney Lee in his The Life of William Shakespeare (1931) wrote “There is no reasonable doubt that the dramatist possessed sufficient acquaintance with Italian to enable him to discern the drift of an Italian poem”. Allardyce Nicoll in his Shakespeare (1952) said “He was easily familiar with Latin, French and Italian…he read widely in these as in English”. Andrew Cairncross, a former Arden editor wrote that “His knowledge and use of Italian is established”. Kenneth Muir, again in his Shakespeare’s Sources, Comedies and Tragedies (1957) said “He certainly read French, perhaps even medieval French”. A few scholars are not in full agreement with the above. Schoenbaum in his William Shakespeare, A Compact Documentary Life (1987) refers to Shake-Speare’s “smattering” of Italian. A couple others think that if one “has some knowledge of Latin” then it’s easy to read novels in French, Italian or Spanish. But why would an author with “small Latin” struggle through Latin, French and Italian source material when plenty of English stories are available for plot ideas? Also, Ben Jonson, who had bragged to William Drummond that “he [Jonson] was better versed in and knew more in Greek and Latin, than all the poets in England” had also then admitted that when it came to French or Italian he could read neither.

This has been just a brief view of this topic, hitting some of the highlights. But it’s a major problem for arguing William Shakspere’s authorship. And this is all the more so considering that this language learning is evident so early in the Shake-Speare works. So Ben Jonson may or may not have believed that Will Shakspere wrote the plays. But his observation of Shakspere’s “small Latin” makes it difficult not to question this authorship.
14 years ago
·
#2889
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

5. The Eton College Discussion

Jonson also spoke of Shakspere (William) when he was at Eton College. This is mentioned in Nicholas Rowe’s Some Account of the Life of William Shakespeare (prefixed to his edition of Shakespeare’s Works, (1709). Rowe concluded from the story that “It is without controversy that he had no knowledge of the writing of the ancient poets”. The conversation itself, probably occurring before 1633 went thus:

“In a conversation between Sir john Suckling, Sir William D’Avenant, Endymion Porter, Mr. Hales of Eton and Ben Jonson, Sir John Suckling, who was a professed admirer of Shakespeare, had undertaken his defence against Ben Jonson with some warmth. Mr. Hales, who had sat still for some time, hearing Ben Jonson reproaching him [Shakspere] with the want of learning and ignorance of the Ancients, told him at last “That if Mr. Shakespeare had not read the Ancients, he likewise had not stolen anything from them (a fault the other made no conscience of) and that if he would produce any one topic finely treated by any of them, he would undertake to show something upon the same subject at least as well written by Shakespeare”.

From the above we find Jonson is in the same view as in the First Folio commendatory poem where he wrote of Shakespeare’s “small Latin”. In this case Jonson is arguing for Shakspere’s “want of learning” and “ignorance of the Ancients”. If Jonson believed Shakspere to also be the playwright Shake-Speare, then Jonson is also referencing his views of the learning content of the plays in addition to his knowledge of the learning of the man. And this view of the learning content found in the plays seems to have been a common view, even of the literati of the time. Another example comes from Thomas Fuller in his History of the Worthies of England: Warwickshire (1662), who wrote:

“Plautus, who was an exact comedian, yet never any scholar, as our Shakespeare (if alive) would confess himself….Indeed his [Shakspere’s] learning was very little…”

So again we’re struck with the divergence of Jonson’s perceptions, or assertions, and with reality as we know it today. Continuing research throughout the 20th century has revealed more and more about Shake-Speare’s sources, not only for his plots, but for countless individual lines and allusions. From these it is obvious that Shake-Speare read very widely, which most scholars accept. Following are some examples.

Lord Dacrre in his article What’s in a Name (Nov. 1962), wrote of Shake-Speare: “We realise that he was highly educated, even erudite. It is true that he does not parade his learning. He wears no carapace of classical or biblical or philosophical scholarship, like Dante or Milton. Be he is clearly familiar, in an easy, assured manner, with the wide learning of his time; and had the general intellectual formation of a cultivated man of the Renaissance. He was at home in the Aristotelian cosmology of his time, he had learned the new Platonic philosophy. He was familiar with foreign countries, foreign affairs, foreign languages”.

A.L.Rowse in Shakespeare the Man (1973), p. 53, wrote:

The player-poet was a very much a reading man – one might almost say bookish, except for the pejorative overtone; for him life was more important than books”.

Peter Levi in The Life and Times of William Shakespeare (1988), p. 34, wrote:

The one certain thing we know about Shakespeare’s youthful occupations is that he read a great deal…he was an omniverous reader…at some point he read a lot more Latin [than he had read at school], learned French well, and I think some Italian later, attempted a study of the Law and in general devoured whatever came to his hand…[at p. 87] Shakespeare draws on wider reading and more intense experience of poetry than most scholars can command”.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), the poet and philosopher, wrote in Biographia Literaria, xv.4 (1817)) (Vol. 2, p. 18, of the edition by J. Shawcross, 1907):

Shakespeare, no mere child of nature; no automaton of genius, no passive vehicle of inspiration, possessed by the spirit, not possessing it; first studied patiently, meditated deeply, understood minutely, till knowledge, become habitual and intuitive, wedded itself to his habitual feelings, and at length gave birth to that stupendous power by which he stands alone, with no equal or second in his own class”.

This is not surprising considering Shake-Speare’s immense vocabulary. In N. G. Clark’s Elements of the English Language (1866) he said that “The vocabulary of Shakespeare becomes more than double that of any other writer in the English languageEnglish speech, as well as literature, owes more to him than to any other man”.

Sometimes Shake-Speare seems more learned than the editors who to this day have failed to perceive the sources (and hence sometimes the meaning) of some of his lines.

When we now return to Ben Jonson and his comments at Eton College what are we to think? Well, if he believed that William of Stratford was Shake-Speare the playwright, then he must not have known him well or must not have been very astute himself. Otherwise he must surely had recognized that William was very well read and highly learned, if he was indeed the author. We can excuse Ben from not seeing the deep learning in the plays since many other learned readers had also overlooked it. But Ben should have been aware whether or not a person he knew well was “want of learning” or not, if he knew him well and was learned and astute himself.

But if Jonson had not actually known Shakspere well then we have two other possibilities. If William was the learned Shake-Speare, then we cannot use Jonson as a reliable witness to his authorship since we have concluded that Jonson didn’t know William well enough to be sure of that observation. And if Shakspere was only pretending to be the author Shake-Speare, then Jonson could be fooled by this just as he was unable to perceive the deep learning in the Shake-Speare plays.

Finally, if Ben Jonson knew that Shakspere wasn’t the true playwright and was only pretending to believe that he was in order to protect his friend Bacon as the author, then that may be why Jonson would try to convince others that Shake-Speare ‘wanted learning’ and was ‘ignorant of the Ancients’ for surely he knew that Bacon did not fit that profile.
14 years ago
·
#2890
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

6. The Unblotted Papers

In his Discoveries (c.1630), Ben Jonson wrote: “I remember the Players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out line. My answer hath been, would he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance, who choose the circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most faulted”. Earlier, in the Shakespeare First Folio (1623), its Epistle to the Reader, subscribed with the names of Shakspere’s fellow actors, Heminges and Condell, but probably drafted by Jonson, had said the same thing: “Who, as he was a happy imitator of Nature, was a most gentle expresser of it. His mind and hand went together. And what he thought he uttered with that easiness, that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers”.

Was this true? And if so, how? Today an author delivers his work in a neat typescript. But in Shake-Speare’s day the author normally submitted a draft which was full of erasions, corrections and interlinings, so that the term “foul papers” by which such drafts came to be known, was a descriptive one. To have a fair copy made by a professional scrivener would have imposed a heavy burden on the purses of most playwrights, and would perhaps create a risk of piracy. For the author to make a fair copy himself in longhand was wearisome and somewhat superfluous since, if the play was accepted, the playhouse would itself have a fair copy made for the use of the prompter. Foul papers from Shakspere would have been even more acceptable than from an outside playwright since he was on hand to explain any obfuscations. Jonson and the players evidently assumed that he did not make a fair copy, or have one made, before submitting his draft. Otherwise their compliment to him would have been pointless. How then did his drafts come to be almost unblotted?

To suppose that any author - even Shake-Speare - can sit down at a desk and rattle off immortal poetry is (as the Stratfordian H.N. Gibson rightly commented in his The Shakespeare Claimants (1962)) “entirely incredible”. Parts of a script, such as prose passages or crowd scenes, might be written with relative ease. But the more intensely poetical passages in Shake-Speare could only have been produced slowly and painfully by thinking up ideas and phrases and fitting them together, with much recasting. Of course, the state of an author’s papers will depend to some extent on his method of working. The more he rehearses in his head before putting pen to paper, the cleaner his papers will be. This was the explanation given for the allegedly clean papers of one other Elizabethan playwright, John Fletcher, who was paid the same compliment as Shakspere. In the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647, at the end of the address of the Stationer to the Readers, the publisher Hugh Mosely wrote: “Whatever I have seen of Mr. Fletcher’s own hand, it is free from interlining; and his friends affirm he never writ any one thing twice. It seems he had that rare felicity to prepare and perfect all first in his own brain, to shape and attire his notions, to add or. lop off, before he committed one word to writing, and never touched pen till all was to stand as firm and immutable as if graven in brass or marble”. None of Fletcher’s foul papers have survived for our inspection. But according to W.W. Greg in his The Editorial Problems of Shakespeare (1954), 3rd edition, pp. 29-30, a comparison of an extant copy of the foul papers of Fletcher’s Bonduca (made by the book-keeper of the King’s Men) with the Folio text, “suggests that an appreciable amount of revision took place, and there is no proof that this was not done by Fletcher himself”. Mosely’s comment on Fletcher must have been largely a fib to boost sales. The reality is that, however much an author mulls over his work before committing it to paper, a good deal of alteration will still be needed. And Shake-Speare, we know, was a compulsive reviser. He would revise plays even after they had been performed. This habit of revision makes it almost inevitable that he would have revised also during the initial process of composition. It is also a strong habit that Bacon shared (see below).

Some Stratfordians take the “unblotted papers” at face value. Others think the compliment must have been exaggerated. Exaggeration could certainly explain the comments in the First Folio since its promoters had the same sales motive as Mosely (who probably had the Shake-Speare Folio in mind). But it less easily explains the comment of the players. Jonson presumably heard it from their own lips in private conversation in circumstances in which they had no sales motive. They might have exaggerated a bit to make a better story, but the fact remains that the clean state of the Shake-Speare papers struck them as remarkable, or they would not have mentioned it. It seems that either they naively believed the papers to be Shake-Speare’s original draft (a belief which Jonson swallowed), or else they knew them to be copies of another man’s work, and dropped the comment about their state as a sly hint or by way of personal relish of the secret. Whatever the players believed, the most probable explanation of the state of Shake-Speare’s papers is surely that fair copies had been made. And this is precisely what one would expect if Bacon was the author. He would presumably have had fair copies made of his autograph drafts by the young scribes in his employment. He certainly would not have released drafts in his own hand. The scribes would probably make a few transcription errors and have to correct them, and the author himself might make a few alterations when reading through the fair copies, so that they would not be completely unblotted (“scarce received from him a blot”). If Shakspere thought his colleagues did not know his secret, he might, before handing the plays over to them, have made further fair copies in his own hand, if he felt that precaution necessary, as it would be if his colleagues knew his hand. He too would probably make a few transcription errors and correct them. The “unblotted papers” raise at least a legitimate suspicion about Shakspere’s authorship.

Bacon’s habit of revision. For example, his essays would be altered after publication for later editions. And Canon Rawley tells us in his Resuscitatio: “I myself have seen at least twelve copies of the Instauration [by which he meant Novum Organum, a work of about 350 pages] revised year by year, one after the other, and every year altered and amended in the frame thereof, till at last it came to that model in which it was committed to the press….He would suffer no moment of time to slip from him without some present improvement.” Bacon himself wrote to Tobie Mathew in 1610: “My great work goeth forward and after my manner I alter even when I add, so that nothing is finished till all is finished.”
14 years ago
·
#2891
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

7. Jonson’s Discoveries cont.

The last post which discussed the players mentioning how Shake-Speare “never blotted out line” only included a short part of Jonson’s notes in his Discoveries. The full note follows:

“I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out line. My answer hath been, would he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine own candour, for I loved the man and do honour his memory (on this side idolatry) as much as any. He was (indeed) honest and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions and gentle expressions; wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped; Suffuminandus erat, as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter; as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him: “Caesar thou dost me wrong”. He replied “Caesar did n ever wrong but with just cause” and such like; which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned”.

As with much evidence of Shake-Speare’s authorship, Jonson’s words here have been interpreted in different ways, showing their ambiguity. I think I’ve tried to adhere mostly to an orthodox interpretation but, of course, not from a context of belief in William’s authorship. So in this case, more than in the others, it does look like Jonson believed William to be the author Shake-Speare. If he didn’t really believe this then he did an excellent job of pretending he did. Still, his own observations again place doubt on his own belief, and this is aside from all the other evidence provided previously for Bacon’s proposed authorship.

Besides the difficulty of Shakspere having written each play without ever blotting out a line, it is equally difficult to understand how Jonson would fault him for this, knowing, as he should, that the plays had been extensively rewritten, there being many quartos and then changes in the Folio versions of the plays. This suggests once more that Jonson, though being a friend to Shakspere to some extent and at some point, didn’t know him intimately or read the published versions of the plays much, if at all. Maybe Jonson just saw the plays performed and never read them.

Jonson obviously knew William well enough to have observed his behavior in groups, as he remembered them later in his life. Though they aren’t much in the way of evidence of his authorship of the plays. Even without being the true author, if over the years William had been reading and playing in some of these plays then we should expect him to have absorbed some of the “excellent fancy, brave notions and gentle expressions” they contain, and to be able to either mimic them or ad lib from them, if his “wit was in his own power”. So, Jonson’s next observation is problematic. If William was the author then it’s surprising that “Many times he fell into those things, [that] could not escape laughter”. And the types of ‘things’ that William feel into were verbal expressions, even ones he supposedly created earlier for a play, that he misquoted or worded in a ridiculous manner, apparently not realizing the insensibleness of what he was uttering. It was even so bad at times that “it was necessary he should be stopped”. So Jonson lamented that William lacked a ruling power over his wit, and this was a memorable characteristic of him. This does not sound like someone who, “whatsoever he penned” it came out perfectly the first try.
14 years ago
·
#2892
Ben Jonson (1572-1637) Part 2

Jonson’s References to Shake-Speare

Jonson cont.

Ben Jonson’s references to William Shakspere of Stratford, as the author Shake-Speare, especially in the First Folio, have been taken as the clincher for settling the authorship question. The thinking seems to be that Jonson, being considered the second best poet of his Age, must have known the true identity of Shake-Speare, the best poet. No one gives anything like as much weight, for example, to the other three commendatory poems in the First Folio by minor poets who likewise identify Shake-Speare with Shakspere. But this reasoning is faulty, resting as it does on unfounded assumptions and ignoring or slighting vast amounts of other evidence on the issue. The likelihood of a poet knowing the Bacon/Shake-Speare secret, if there was one, does not depend on the poet’s own eminence. It depends on chance, on whether the secret happened to reach his ears; which may in turn depend (though not necessarily) on the intimacy of his association with Shakespere or Bacon or their close circles.

We do not know how well Jonson knew Shakspere. They were attached to rival companies, though 6 of Jonson’s plays were acted by Shakspere’s company at one time or another. Jonson was so cantankerous and egocentric that it is hard to see him as anyone’s close friend. The Stratfordian I.A. Shapiro in an article on the Mermaid Club in Modern Language Review, Vol xlv, 1950, p. 16 added: “Jonson’s conversations with Drummond suggest that he was very much better acquainted with Beaumont, Chapman, Daniel, Donne and Drayton than with Shakespeare, and what we know of their temperaments and tastes would lead us to expect this”. In any event, Shakspere would not himself have disclosed his secret to Jonson. One can imagine what contempt Jonson would have felt for Shakespere, and possibly expressed, if he had learnt that he was only a front for a patrician author.

As to Bacon, he no doubt condescended to treat Jonson as a friend. But the friendship may have begun after most of the Shake-Speare plays had been written. There was a huge social gulf between the two men. Jonson was not the sort of person to whom Bacon would have imparted his secrets.

Note: not all Baconians agree with Cockburn’s above views. Many of them see Jonson as being in on Bacon’s secret authorship and working for him in getting the First Folio published. Some reasons for this will follow.
14 years ago
·
#2893
Leonard Digges

I also want to mention Leonard Digges, who had contributed the First Folio poem “To the Memory of the deceased Author Master W. Shakespeare”. It’s in his poem that the Stratford ‘Moniment’ is referenced. In the first omnibus edition of Shakespeare’s Poems (1640) there is another poem by Digges which has these lines:

Upon Master William Shakespeare, the Deceased Author and his Poems
…………..
Next Nature only helped him, for look thorow [through]
This whole Book, thou shall find he doth not borrow
One phrase from Greeks nor Latins imitate,
Nor once from vulgar languages translate,
Nor Plagiari-like from others glean;
Nor begs he from each witty friend a scene
To piece his Act with; all that he doth write
Is pure his own, plot, language, exquisite.

So today we know that this is totally laughable, especially that of having made up his own plots. And like others, Digges gives the impression that he did not think of the author Shake-Speare as very learned. As with Jonson’s lack of insight into the depth of learning in the Shake-Speare plays, together with his pangyric salesmanship and likely writing or drafting of the Hemmings and Condell contributions, we now have Digges too as not a reliable witness to the provenence of the Shake-Speare works.

And speaking of the Stratford Monument, itself filled with many controversies, the ones that stand out with me are the following:

First, the monument begins with:
IVDICO PYLIVM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEN

which has been translated
“A Pylus in judgment, a Socrates in genius, a Maro in art."
Or as
Nestor for wisdom, Socrates for genius, Virgil for poetry”

Nestor (also known as Pylus), as described in the Iliad, was viewed as a good counselor because of the qualities he possesses as described in his introduction in Book 1 – as a man of “sweet words,” a “clear-voiced orator,” and whose voice “flows sweeter than honey”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_(mythology)

This can be said of Shake-Speare, but can it be said of William of Stratford? It does though compare to Ben Jonson’s description of Bacon’s speaking skills:

“ One, though he be excellent, and the chief, is not to be imitated alone. For never no Imitator, ever grew up to his Author; likeness is always on this side Truth : Yet there happened, in my time, one noble Speaker, who was full of gravity in his speaking. His language, (where he could spare, or pass by a jest) was nobly censorious. No man ever spoke more neatly, more pressly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech, but consisted of the own graces : His hearers could not cough, or look aside from him, without loss. He commanded where he spoke ; and had his Judges angry, and pleased at his devotion. No man had their affections more in his power. The fear of every man that heard him, was, lest he should make an end”.

And as I’ve posted elsewhere, Jonson also said of Bacon, after his death:
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 insolent Greece, or haughty Rome. In short, within his view, and about his times, were all the wits borne, that could honour a language, or helpe study. Now things daily fall : wits grow downe-ward, and Eloquence growes backward : So that hee may be nam'd, and stand as the marke, and [acme] of our language”.

Also, regarding Nestor: “Homer clearly intends his readers to perceive Nestor as an "elder statesman"-type figure worthy of respect”. This also certainly fits Bacon who was a counselor to two kings.

Finally, Bacon was compared to Nestor in one of the Elegies for him:
“For if venerable Virtue and the wreaths of Wisdom make an Ancient, you [Bacon] were older than Nestor”. Gawen Nash

As to Socrates, there is no doubt that this fits Bacon more than it ever could to William of Stratford.

And as to Virgil (Maro was Virgil’s surname), Bacon was also compared to him in another elegy: “Oh Bacon, of all of us hast thou written; But, who shall write thy great story, who, pray, of thy life or thy death? Give place, Oh Greece! Yield thee Maro, first tho thou be in Rome’s story. Eloquence thine in supremacy; powerful of pen, great in all things,” Anonymous

Secondly, there’s the seeming riddle in the monument:
“Stay Passenger why goest thou by so fast
Read if thou canst whom envious death hath plast
Within this monument Shakspeare”

Why isn’t it a more straightforward praise of William of Stratford? Why does it ask, or command, readers to pause (‘tarry’ as Portia would say), and then suggest that the viewer not read the inscription quickly and thoughtlessly? Followed by “Read if thou canst …” Obviously this all suggests there’s “more here to the story than meets the eye”.

Finally, there’s the curious gravestone for William. As Francis Carr has said: “Here we have the only gravestone in the world of a famous person whose name has been deliberately omitted, the gravestone of the only world-famous author whose authorship has been seriously disputed”. (Supposedly it was written by William himself, but I doubt it will be used as evidence to show that he also wrote the Shake-Speare Sonnets).

Maybe now that more persons have seen some of the evidence for Bacon’s authorship they can reconsider these items in a new light and see the curiosities in them that others have.
14 years ago
·
#2894
The Hall and Marston Satires, Part 1

One of the arguments used by Stratfordians is that there were no “intelligent and knowledgeable bibliophile” contemporaries of Shake-Speare that ever questioned the authorship of William of Stratford, or ever suggested that someone other than him wrote the poems and plays. And that it wasn’t until the middle of the 18th century at the earliest that someone thought the works may have been written by someone else.

This is another myth that was falsified beginning over a 100 years ago with Walter Begley’s book Is It Shakespeare? (1903). He suggested that there’s evidence from 1597-8 that Joseph Hall and John Marston identified the author of Shake-Speare’s Venus and Adonis to be Francis Bacon. Several other Baconians have more thoroughly studied and written about this evidence. These include:

Basil E. Lawrence, Notes on the Authorship of the Shakespeare Plays and Poems (1925).
Nigel Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question (Private publication: 1998).
Peter Dawkins, The Shakespeare Enigma (2004).
Barry R. Clarke, The Shakespeare Puzzle (2008).

Cockburn and Clarke have done the most in-depth analysis and any challengers to this argument will have to work through their chapters on this topic. But for the purposes of this forum I think that Dawkins’ shorter summary is more suitable, though I will add summary parts of Dawkins and Clarke too in order to give readers extra help in absorbing the ideas and evidence.


Dawkins’ first part of his summary:

Contemporary Witness

Did any contemporary of Shakespeare strongly hint at or name the real author Shakespeare?

The answer is yes.

John Marston and Joseph Hall, in an exchange of satires that continued for two years, gave the game away. All copies of their books were subsequently ordered to be burnt. In his first book of Satires (1597) Hall criticises a poet he calls ‘Labeo’ (the name of a famous Roman lawyer), who has written erotic poetry anonymously. In Pygmalion’s Image (1598) Marston refers to Labeo as the writer of Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis. In his second book of Satires (1598) Hall infers that Labeo has used another person’s name to hide his authorship and thus be immune to satire. In Certain Satires Bk 1 (1598) Marston identifies Labeo with the motto, Mediocra firma, and in context with the Shakespeare poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.

The motto (Mediocra firma) was Francis Bacon’s heraldic motto, used only by himself and his brother, Anthony Bacon.

To identify someone by means of heraldry is an ancient and fairly exact method of identification. The additional labelling of the author Shakespeare as ‘Labeo’ completes the identification as being Francis Bacon, since of the two brothers it was Francis who was a qualified lawyer who lost favour with the Queen just as Antistus Labeo lost favour with the Roman Emperor.

Since it was on the poem Venus and Adonis that the signature of ‘William Shakespeare’ was first placed as the author, the Hall and Marston satires imply categorically that this signature was the literary pseudonym of Francis Bacon with respect to this and the following poem, Lucrece, and hence all subsequent Shakespeare works if indeed they were all written by one man.

© Peter Dawkins, 2006
14 years ago
·
#2895
The Hall and Marston Satires, Part 2

Dawkins’ second part of his summary:

Labeo

In an exchange of satirical writings published during 1597-8, commenting on the Shakespeare poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece published a few years earlier (1593-4), the poets Joseph Hall and John Marston indicated that William Shakespeare was a mask for the real author of the poems and pointedly revealed the true author.

Hall attacked the love poetry of the Shakespeare poems; Marston defended it. In doing so they identified the author of the poems as being Francis Bacon. They begin their exchange of satires by referring to a certain poet as ‘Labeo’. In Hall’s second book of Certain Satires he reproves Labeo for the licentious tone of his writing and implies that Labeo was writing in conjunction with someone else:-

For shame write better Labeo, or write none,
Or better write, or Labeo write alone.[1]

In Satire 1 of his fourth book of Satires, Hall links Labeo with Shakespeare, satirising Labeo for his use of ‘But’ and ‘Oh’ with which he began his stanzas (‘While bit But OHs each stanze can begin’) and his use of hyphenated words as epithets (‘In Epithets to join two words as one, /Forsooth for Adjectives cannot stand alone’). These lines refer respectively to Shakespeare's poem Lucrece, where it is noticeable how many stanzas commence with ‘But’ or ‘Oh’, and to both Lucrece and Venus and Adonis in which hyphenated words are employed as epithets. Hall goes on further to imply that Labeo is writing under another person’s name (i.e. Shakespeare's name):-

Labeo is whip't and laughs me in the face.
Why? for I smite and hide the galled place,
Gird but the Cynicks Helmet on his head,
Cares he for Talus or his flayle of lead?
Long as the craftie Cuttle lieth sure
In the black cloud of his thick vomiture;
Who list complaine of wronged faith or fame
When hee may shift it on to anothers name? [2]

The following year John Marston joined the game in his Metamorphosis of Pygmalion’s Image, confirming that Labeo was the author Shakespeare:-

So Labeo did complaine his loue was stone,
Obdurate, flinty, so relentless none;
Yet Lynceus knows, that in the end of this
He wrought as strange a metamorphosis.
Ends not my poem thus surprising ill?
Come, come, Augustus, crowne my laureat quill.[3]

The first two lines of this passage allude to lines 200 and 201 of Venus and Adonis (‘Art thou obdurate, flintie, hard as steele? /Nay more then flint, for stone at raine relenteth’), whilst in the remaining lines Marston compares the metamorphosis of Pygmalion as described in his own work to that of Adonis as described in Venus and Adonis.

So we have both Hall and Marston referring to the concealed author, whom the actor Shakespeare masked, as Labeo.

Marston himself was no stranger to the use of pseudonyms and masks. He had hidden himself under the pseudonym of W. Kinsayder for both his poems, The Metamorphosis of Pygmalion’s Image and The Scourge of Villainy. But why choose Labeo as a pseudonym for the author of the Shakespeare poems? It is a pointed allusion, in fact, for Antistius Labeo was a celebrated lawyer in the time of the Roman Emperor Augustus, who lost favour with the Emperor for opposing the Emperor’s views.

In 1593 such a crisis had occurred for Francis Bacon, who had dared to stand up in Parliament against an attempt by the Queen and Burghley to take away Parliament’s vitally important prerogative of raising taxes. Francis remained in disgrace with the Queen until November 1594, and lost the chance to be appointed either Solicitor-General or Attorney-General. Moreover, Francis was busy writing in conjunction with his brother Anthony, who had returned home from France in February 1592. Essex wrote to the Queen that the two brothers were busy writing stage plays and about to characterise him on stage.

After further exchanges, Marston finally identifies Labeo decisively. In his Certain Satires, Book 1, is another covert allusion to an author who 'presumst as if thou wert unseene'. In Satire 4, Marston defends various authors whom Hall had attacked and, without actually naming Labeo, refers to Labeo and identifies him in the following line:

What, not mediocria firma from thy spite? [4]
[ i.e., has not even mediocria firma escaped thy spite?]

Since this latin phrase, 'mediocria firma', is the motto of the Bacon family, as used by Anthony and Francis Bacon, and as Francis Bacon was a secret poet and lawyer who fell out of favour with the Queen, there can be no reasonable doubt that Marston was referring to Francis Bacon, whom he believed to be the author of the Shakespeare works. Clearly, Hall also was in on the secret.

John Marston, who was a member of Middle Temple, was in a particularly good position to know the truth, since he was a close friend of Thomas Greene of Warwickshire, also a member of Middle Temple, who claimed to be the cousin of William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon (and possibly was by marriage). Greene had stood surety for John Marston's entry to the Middle Temple Inn of Court in 1594, and Marston had stood surety for Greene’s entry in 1595. Greene named his children, Anne and William, after the Shakespeares, and in 1609 rented the rooms in New Place, Stratford-upon-Avon, from the actor. His brother, John Greene, who had been a student at Clement’s Inn, also settled in Stratford.

Peter Dawkins, 2006

Refs:
1. Joseph Hall, Satires Virgidemiarum (1597), Bk 2, p.25.
2. Joseph Hall, Satires Virgidemiarum (1597), Bk 4, Satire I.
3. John Marston, The Metamorphosis of Pygmalion’s Image (1598), p. 25.
4. John Marston, Certain Satires (1598), Book 1, line 77.
14 years ago
·
#2896
The Hall and Marston Satires, Part 3

Next is a brief summary of Nigel Cockburn from his chapter on this evidence.

-------------
The Baconian Basil E. Lawrence in his Notes on the Authorship of the Shakespeare Plays and Poems (1925), pp. 93-4, recorded that he submitted his arguments on the hall and Marston satires to an unnamed Stratfordian scholar who replied: “Mediocria firma must stand for Bacon, but does it stand for Labeo? It seems probable, but it seems difficult to prove it”. Then he added: “It is only an assumption that Labeo is Bacon”. But it is not “an assumption” unsupported by evidence, else the Stratfordian himself could not have described it as “probable”. It is a high probability based on valid inference to be drawn from the 6 points I have listed. (Note: his 6 points are best read in the context of his whole analysis).

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE OF HALL AND MARSTON

HALL
1. Hall says that Labeo, a superior poet, was writing poetry (which may include plays) under the name of a man of low degree.
2. This, especially when coupled with a reference to erotic poetry and apparent references to 1 Henry IV, makes it very probable that by Labeo and the thirsty swain Hall meant Shake-Speare(the author) and Shakspere (the actor of Stratford). We know of no other pair of Elizabethans who could fit these roles.
3. Hall gives no clue as to the identity of Labeo/Shake-Speare except that the name Labeo tends to imply that he was a lawyer.

MARSTON
1. In his Postcript to Pigmalion’s Image he clearly identifies Labeo as the author of Venus and Adonis.
2. In his Certain Satires, Satire 4 (Reactio), he reveals that Bacon had written “mirror” poetry.
3. Very probably he believed that poetry to be Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.

Were Hall and Marston mistaken?

If Hall and Marston were right, the Baconian theory is proved, as to the narrative poems at least. So what are the chances of their having been mistaken? [note: here Cockburn gives 6 reasons why they probably were not mistaken]. Here is a summary of them:

1. It is likely that, at any rate to some extent, they had separate sources of information.
2. A challenge to a printed authorship ascription is much more significant than an acceptance of it. Where an authorship ascription is disputed, the challenge is likely to be based on some evidence.
3. A man may speculate freely in private as to the true authorship of a work; he is less likely to commit himself in print unless he feels reasonably sure. The assertions of both Hall and Marston are categorical.
4. If Hall and Marston were merely guessing at the identity of the true author, Bacon would have been a most improbable choice.
5. Marston, as a barrister and a major poet himself, is likely to have been in quite a good position to know if his fellow barrister, Bacon, was the true author. As to Hall, it was said that “he was well acquainted with members of the elder branch of the Bacon family”.
6. The view which Hall held about Labeo’s identity was not a passing fancy but was maintained over a period. And there is no evidence that either Hall or Marston ever changed their minds about Labeo’s identity.

One of the very few Stratfordian scholars that have at least half-heartedly considered this evidence, H.N. Gibson in The Shakespeare Claimants (1962), after saying that Hall and Marston had “hazarded a guess” about who “Labeo” was, concluded that “It may prove that Hall and Marston were the first exponents (back in 1597) of the Baconian theory, but it does not, and cannot, prove that the Baconian theory is true”. Cockburn’s response is that “But it can and does prove that the theory is true, at least as to the narrative poems, if Hall and Marston were right. And for the reasons I have given “hazarded a guess” is unlikely to be a fair description of their identification”. Keep in mind that probably none of the evidence posted here has been viewed by Baconians as ever having received “a fair description” from Shakespeare scholars.
14 years ago
·
#2897
The Hall and Marston Satires, Part 4

And now here is Barry R. Clarke’s summary. Some of the references can only be fully understood from having read the full piece, which is included in his book’s appendix, pages 226-232.

-------------------

E5 A summary
We now have possession of the following facts. In the Virgidemiarum, we can identify a reasonable association between Labeo the Cynick —Hall’s main target — and Shake-speare’s Venus and Adonis. With far less certainty, we can claim a connection between Labeo and Love’s Labour’s Lost. Joseph Hall claims that Labeo the Cynic is a “fool” to have given up “his handsome drinking bole” to a “swaine” who nourishes himself from it. However, in doing so, Labeo has become immune from criticism because he “shifts it to another’s name”, presumably the same low-ranking “swaine”.

Labeo first makes his entrance in Hall’s Virgidemiarum, Book 2,Satire 1:

For shame write better Labeo, or write none
Or better write, or Labeo write alone.
Nay, call the Cynick but a wittie fool,
Thence to objure(a) his handsome drinking bole:
Because the thirstie swaine(b) with hollow hand
Conveyed the streame to wet his dry weasand(c)…
Key : (a) renounce, (b) country person — see below , (c) throat

In Marston’s The Authour in prayse of his precedent Poem there is a strong connection between Labeo and Venus and Adonis. Marston also introduces Lynceus, a boar hunter who, since a boar features on Francis Bacon’s coat of arms, might represent Hall the Bacon hunter. The piece suggests that Lynceus (Hall) knows of a metamorphosis other than the one in Venus and Adonis, perhaps one that has transformed Labeo into another person. Labeo does not appear in Reactio, however, in the course of Marston’s defence of ‘mirror’ poetry, we find good allusions to Venus and Adonis around Bacon’s family motto.

So it is a reasonable interpretation that between them, Hall and Marston intended Labeo the Cynic to be Francis Bacon, who had renounced his possessions (particularly, Venus and Adonis) to a man of humble origins (“thirsty swaine”) who was both profiting from the work (“wet his dry weasand”) and acting as a mask (“shift it to another’s name”). This could only have been Shakspere.

“Who list complaine of wronged faith or fame
When hee may shift it on to anothers name?

In 1599, in light of the Hall–Marston controversy, the Archbishop of Winchester and the Bishop of London banned satires and epigrams, confiscating all copies of the Virgidemiae and publically burning the works of Marston.

Clarke’s online book can be found here:

http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf (note: you may need to copy and paste this into a browser. It will automatically download the full book).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Finally, another writer, Ross Jackson, summarized it like this:

“An interesting tale identifying Bacon as the concealed author of the two poems, Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, and the play, Henry IV, is found in the writings of two well-known satirists, Joseph Hall and John Marston in 1597-98. The information is not provided in so many words, but must be dug out by sophisticated literary analysis, which has been done by various scholars. The conclusion is not disputed by Stratfordians who have studied the writings, but their reaction is: so what if two people claimed that Bacon was the concealed author of the three works. That is not proof.”

Jackson continues: “The evidence is, of course, circumstantial, but I happen to think it is very relevant because it is consistent with other evidence. Two people in the heart of the London literary scene both told the world in no uncertain terms that Bacon was the real author of these works. And this was at a time when these were the only works published in William Shakespeare’s name. It is especially interesting because Marston was not only a lawyer from Cambridge, and therefore very likely knew Bacon personally, but he was also a close friend of Thomas Greene, who in turn was a cousin of Will Shaksper, came from the same area, rented rooms from him at one time, and even named his children after Will and his wife Anne. So Marston was one of the few people with close links to both Shaksper and Bacon. This suggests why he knew and adds a good deal of credibility to the story. It is also relevant that Bacon’s good friend and former tutor, John Whitgift, at this time Archbishop of Canterbury, ordered Hall’s and Marston’s satires to be burned, probably to protect Francis Bacon from unwanted publicity”.
14 years ago
·
#2898
The book by Caroline Spurgeon, Shakespeare's Imagery, and what it tells us, (1935), is sometimes used to “prove” that Bacon could never have been Shakespeare. You can see an example of this assertion in Wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Spurgeon

What the people who say this never do, of course, is to bother to ask for and present any Baconian response to her research and conclusions. So here is an article addressing this topic. For posting it here I’ll call it “Dr. Spurgeon’s flawed research on Shakespeare and Bacon Images”. Part 1 begins below. If Dr. Spurgeon’s research methodology was flawed, and it was, then the statistical analysis based on her method’s data is worthless.

The following is from a Baconian publication.

PROFESSOR SPURGEON AND HER IMAGES, by F.E.C.H. and W.S. M., from Baconiana, September 1969

"Shakespeare's Imagery and what it tells us," by Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, D.Lit., London; Doc. Univ. Paris; Hon. LiK.D. (Michigan, U.S.A.); Emeritus Professor of English in the University of London, is an impressive work. Its publishers (Cambridge University Press) describe it as:

"not just another set of essays upon Shakespeare, but a study of the poet from an entirely new angle, based on entirely new evidence which is drawn from the whole of Shakespeare's images now for the first time collected, sorted and examined."

It is not our purpose to criticize this book as a study of the whole of Shakespeare’s images, a term which the authoress employs to include every kind of simile and metaphor, connoting any and every imaginative picture, or her method of counting these images, placing them in categories of analogy and deducing therefrom the characteristics of the poet's personality, temperament and thought. We think there are very strong objections indeed both to the validity of the method itself and the conclusions reached as a result of its application, but we shall, for the present, limit what we have to say of this book to consideration of a part of its second chapter, in which Shakespeare's imagery is compared with that of Bacon and join issue with the writer's conclusions (from her premises which we think entirely false that "between these two sets of writings we have not one mind only but two highly individual and entirely different minds.”

Dr. Spurgeon, for the purposes of her comparison, has analysed only Bacon's Essays, the Advancement of Learning (we are not told whether the Latin or English version was used), Henry Vll and the first part of the New Atlantis. In the comparative anatomy of two brains, she might just as well have ignored a lobe of one of them, or, having carefully dissected Shakespeare’s body, removed from Bacon’s only the skin, crying “The poor man was without bones!”.

It is difficult indeed to understand how, when writing of nature images and telling us those of Bacon and Shakespeare are of a very different character, Dr. Spurgeon could have dispensed with the light an analysis of those images in Bacon's Natural History would have afforded her; she dispenses, however, not only with this light, but with a great many others, and, as we shall see, it is not surprising that thus partially blinding herself she misleads her readers.
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Get the Shakespeare Pro app