Durning-Lawrence Edwin
The Shakespeare Myth
THE SHAKESPEARE SIGNATURES (SO-CALLED)
NO scrap of writing is in existence which can by any possibility be supposed to have been written by William Shakespeare, excepting only the six (so-called) signatures. And, since every one of these supposed signatures is undoubtedly written by a law clerk, the inference that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, was totally unable to write, seems to be incontrovertible.
The first so-called signature in the order of date is the one last discovered, viz.: that at the Record Office, London. This is attached to "Answers to Interrogatories," dated May 1th, 1612, in a petty lawsuit, in which it appeared that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, had occasionally lodged in Silver Street at the house of a hairdresser named Mountjoy.
Among the "Answers to Interrogatories" those which were signed very carefully by Daniell Nicholas, and the "Answers to Interrogatories" from William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, which are dated May 11th, 1612, are both written in the handwriting of the same law clerk, who attached to the latter the name "Wilm Shaxpr" over a neat blot, which was probably the mark made by the illiterate "Gentleman" of Stratford, who was totally unable to write even a single letter of his own name.
To those acquainted with the law script of the period it is abundantly evident that the "Wilm Shaxpr" is in the same handwriting as the body of the Answers.
The next (so-called) signatures in order of date are upon the purchase deed now in the London Guildhall Library, and upon the mortgage deed of the same property, which is in the British Museum. The purchase deed is dated March 10th, 1613, and the mortgage deed is dated March 11th, 1613, but at that period, as at the present time, when part of the purchase money is left on mortgage, the mortgage deed was always dated one day after the purchase deed, and always signed one moment before it, because the owner cannot part with his property before he receives both the cash and the mortgage deed. About twenty-five years ago, I succeeded in persuading the City authorities to carry the purchase deed to the British Museum, where by appointment we met the officials there, who took the mortgage deed out of the show-case and placed it side by side with the purchase deed from Guildhall. After a long and careful examination of the two deeds, some dozen or twenty officials standing around, everyone agreed that neither of the names of William Shakespeare upon the deeds could be supposed to be signatures. Recently one of the higher officials of the British Museum wrote to me about the matter, and in reply I wrote to him and also to the new Librarian of Guildhall that it would be impossible to discover a scoundrel who would venture to swear that it was even remotely possible that these two supposed signatures of William Shakespeare could have been written at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and the same ink, by the same hand. They are widely different, one having been written by the law clerk of the seller, the other by the law clerk of the purchaser. One of the so-called signatures is evidently written by an old man, the other is written by a young man. The deeds are not stated to be signed but only to be sealed.
Next we come to the three supposed signatures upon the will, dated March 25th, 1616. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, on several occasions I examined with powerful glasses Shakespeare's will at Somerset House, where for my convenience it was placed in a strong light, and I arrived at the only possible conclusion, viz., that the supposed signatures were all written by the law clerk who wrote the body of the will, and who wrote also the names of the witnesses, all of which, excepting his own which is written in a neat modern looking hand, are in the same handwriting as the will itself.
The fact that Shakespeare's name is written by the law clerk has been conclusively proved by Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel in the Leipzig Magazine, "Der Menschenkenner," of January, 1909, in which photo reproductions of certain letters in the body of the will and in the so-called signatures are placed side by side, and the evidence is conclusive that they are written by the same hand. Moreover, the will was originally drawn to be sealed, because the solicitor must have known that the illiterate householder of Stratford was unable to write his name. Subsequently, however, the word "seale" appears to have been struck out and the word "hand" written over it. People unacquainted with the rules of law are generally not aware that anyone can, by request, "sign" any person's name to any legal document, and that if such person touch it and acknowledge it, anyone can sign as witness to his signature. Moreover the will is not stated to be signed, but only stated to be "published."
In putting the name of William Shakespeare three times to the will the law clerk seems to have taken considerable care to show that they were not real signatures. They are all written in law script, and the three "W's" of "William" are made in the three totally different forms in which "W's" were written in the law script of that period. Excepting the "W" the whole of the first so-called signature is almost illegible, but the other two are quite clear, and show that the clerk has purposefully formed each and every letter in the two names "Shakespeare" in a different manner one from the other. It is, therefore, impossible for anyone to suppose that the three names upon the will are "signatures."
I should perhaps add that all the six so-called signatures were written by law clerks who were excellent penmen, and that the notion that the so-called signatures are badly written has only arisen from the fact that the general public, and even many educated persons, are totally ignorant of the appearance of the law script of the period. The first of the so-called signatures, viz., that at the Record Office, London, is written with extreme ease and rapidity.
Thus are for ever disproved each and every one of the writings hitherto claimed as "signatures" of William Shakespeare, and as there is not in existence any other writing which can be supposed to be from his pen, it seems an indisputable fact that he was totally unable to write. There is also very strong evidence that he was likewise unable to read.
BACON SIGNED THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS
A CAREFUL examination of the First Folio of "Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies," 1623, which are generally known as "The Plays of Shakespeare," will prove that Bacon signed the plays in very many ways.
I will place a few examples before my readers, and when they have carefully studied these they may perhaps (if they can get access to a photographic facsimile copy of the First Folio of Shakespeare's Plays, 1623), be able to discover additional traces of the great author's hand.
For reasons which it is not now necessary to discuss, Bacon selected as one of the keys to the mystery of his authorship of various works the number 53.
The Great Folio of the Plays of 1623 is divided into Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies. Each of these, although they are all bound in one volume, is separately paged. It follows therefore, that there must be three pages numbered 53 in the Folio Volume of Shakespeare's Plays. I must also inform my readers that every page is divided into two columns, and it is absolutely certain that the author himself so arranged these that he knew in what column and in what line in such column every word would appear in the printed page.
Let us examine, in the first instance,
The First Page 53
in the plays. The second column of this page 53 commences with the first scene of the fourth act of the "Merry Wives of Windsor" In this act a Welsh schoolmaster, "Evans," "Dame Quickly," and a boy named "William" appear. The object of the introduction of the Welshman seems to have been that he might mispronounce "c" as "g," and so call "hic" "hig," and "hoc" "hog." William also is made wrongly to say that the accusative case is "hinc" instead of "hunc," and Evans, the Welsh schoolmaster, who should have corrected this error made by the boy, repeats the blunder with the change of "c" into "g," so as to give without confusion the right signature key-words which appear in the second column of the first page 53, as follow: —
Eva. I pray you have your remembrance (childe) Accusative, king, hang, hog.6
Qu. Hang-hog, is latten for Bacon, I warrant you.
Observe that "Bacon" is spelled with a capital "B," and also note that in this way we are told quite clearly that Hang-hog means Bacon. In very numerous instances a hog with a halter (a rope with a slip-knot) round its neck appears as part of some engraving in some book to which Bacon's name has not yet been publicly attached. I shall again refer to "Hang-hog" as we proceed.
Next, let us carefully examine
The Second Page 53
in the Folio of the Plays, which in the first column contains the commencement of the first scene of the second act of the first part of "King Henry the Fourth." Two carriers are conversing, and we read: —
1 Car. What Ostler, come away, and be hangd; come away.
2 Car. I have a Gammon of Bacon, and two razes of Ginger, to be delivered as farre as Charing-crosse.
Observe that gammon is spelled with a capital "G," and Bacon also is spelled with a capital "B." Thus we have found Bacon in the second page 53. But I must not forget to inform my readers that this second page 53 is really and evidently of set purpose falsely numbered 53, because page 46 is immediately followed by 49, there being no page numbered 47 or 48 in the Histories, the second part of the Plays.
Having found what appears to be a revelation in each of the first two pages numbered 53 in the First Folio, we must remember that a Baconian revelation, in order to be complete, satisfactory, and certain, requires to be repeated "three" times. The uninitiated inquirer will not be able to perceive upon the third page 53, on which is found the beginning of "The Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet," any trace of Bacon, or hog or pig, or anything suggesting such things. The initiated will know that the Great "Master-Mason" will supply two visible pillars, but that the third pillar will be the invisible pillar, the Shibboleth; therefore, the informed will not expect to find the third key upon the visible page 53, but upon
The Invisible Page 53.
Most of my readers will not fail to perceive that the invisible page 53 must be the page that is 53, when we count not from the beginning, but from the end of the book of Tragedies, that is, from the end of the volume.
The last page in the Folio is 399. This is falsely numbered 993, not by accident or by a misprint, but (as the great cryptographic book, by Gustavus Selenus [The man in the Moon], published in 1624, will tell those who are able to read it) because 993 forms the word "Baconus," a signature of Bacon. Let me repeat that the last page of the Great Folio of the plays is page 399, and deducting 53 from 399 we obtain the number 346, which is
The Page 53 from the end.
On this page, 346, in the first column, we find part of "The Tragedie of Anthony and Cleopatra," and we there read,
Enobar. Or if you borrow one another's Love for the instant, you may when you heare no more words of Pompey returne it againe: you shall have time to wrangle in, when you have nothing else to do.
Anth. Thou art a Souldier, onely speake no more.
Enob. That trueth should be silent, I had almost forgot.
Now here we perceive that "Pompey,"
"in," and "got," by the manner in which the type is arranged in the column, come directly under each other, and their initial letters being P. I. G., we quite easily read "pig," which is what we were looking for.
But on this "invisible" page 53, in which the key-word is found, other very important revelations may also be discovered, because it is the "Shibboleth" page. If we count the headline title and all the lines that come to the left-hand edge of the column on this page 346, we find that "Pompey" which begins the word, "pig" is upon
