THE
CONNECTIONS WITH FRANCIS BACON
Why
is Shakespeare so strongly linked with certain manuscripts of Francis
Bacon?
The handwriting expert, Charles Hamilton, was a
specialist in old documents and their authentication. He
uncovered a number of forgeries - most famously those of the
so-called Hitler Diaries, whose content had (in innocent error) been
authenticated by a prominent historian. During the course of these
pursuits over many years, he examined thousands of Elizabethan and
Jacobean manuscripts. He came to the conclusion that the same
hand had penned each of the following passages:
1)
The whole of Shakespeare's Last Will and Testament, dated 25 March
1616 (which was also signed "by me", a customary
declaration of the time, according to Hamilton, that foregoing script
was autography).
2) The 3 pages (plus 3 lines on a fourth)
contributed by "Writer D" to the British Museum's 16th
century manuscript of a play, The
Booke of Sir Thomas Moore.
3)
Drafts of three applications for Grant of Arms for John Shakespeare
(two dated 1596 and one dated 1599 - preserved at the College of
Arms).
4) Some of the wording on the cover sheet of the
undated Northumberland
Manuscript,
plus one and a half pages within the voluminous contents of that
manuscript, which consisted of copies of certain works by Francis
Bacon.
5) The Welcome Enclosure Agreement between William
Shakespeare and William Replingham (an attorney acting for Arthur
Mainwaring, steward of the Lord Chancellor, who was lord of the royal
manor of Stratford). This agreement, dated 28th October 1614,
protected Shakespeare and his cousin, Thomas Greene, both landowners
and tithe holders, in relation to the proposal to enclose the common
fields at Welcome.
6) The manuscript of an anonymous,
untitled play held in the British Library, commonly known as The
Second Maiden's Tragedy.
The
wealth of handwriting evidence offered by Hamilton in support of his
expert opinion has been given little, if any, weight by most
Shakespearean commentators, probably because the experience required
to authenticate it is so scarce. Also, his focus on
Shakespeare's last will and the circumstances of the poet's death
allowed critical attention to be directed into side-issues - an
unfortunate distraction, considering the significance of the central
thesis above.
The work of Elliott and Valenza has shown that
Item 6 above, The
Second Maiden's Tragedy,
is highly unlikely to have been authored by Shakespeare (based on a
statical assessment of authorship traits manifested in that work and
in the First Folio). Consequently, if Hamilton is right as to the
penmanship, there would need to be explained why Shakespeare should
have copied out the play of another author. One or two other elements
of the above construction have also been challenged, either on
partially conflicting evidence of another nature or on a small number
of isolated handwriting features, perceived as anomalies (though
Hamilton demonstrated very clearly that individual characters and
isolated script, such as signatures, often show remarkable variation
in the hand of the same author). However, there has been no
rigorous examination of all his evidence and of his principal
discovery (as I have summarised it above) by an appropriately
qualified handwriting expert. Given its value, even if only
parts of the discovery were independently validated, this absence is
a pity. But absence also means that Hamilton's specialist
evidence and expert opinions (mainly presented and supported in his
book In
Search of Shakespeare)
cannot reasonably be dismissed as worthless.
The
Northumberland Manuscript cover sheet (see item 4 of the above
summary) appears to have been used as an informal protective cover
for accompanying works of Francis Bacon (these being copied in more
than one hand - none of which are Bacon's). The sheet is
covered in doodles and scrawls in more than one hand. It
records a mixture of names and/or associated works of authors,
including Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare (each written many
times), plus Thomas Nashe and Nevill (sic). Baconians cite it
as evidence for their theory that Bacon wrote Shakespeare. It
is similarly invoked by champions for the authorship of Sir Henry
Neville and William Stanley, Earl of Derby.
Francis Bacon is
known to have employed scribes during the 1590s. His
compositions in their circulated form were written in a hand (or
hands) clearly different to that of his personal correspondence.
And, within a lengthy letter to his brother, Anthony, dated 25th
January 1595 (modern dating), he wrote, asking for more work for his
scribes: "I
have here an idle pen or two specially one that was cozened, thinking
to have got some money this term. I pray you send me somewhat
else for them to write out beside your Irish collection which is
almost done."
The
handwriting attributed by Hamilton to Shakespeare differs from that
of Bacon. On the basis of its presence in the Northumberland
Manuscript, Hamilton theorised that at some point Shakespeare was
employed by Bacon as a scribe, contributor and copyreader. It
was this association, he suggested, which led to the doodled
profusion of cover sheet references to or by Shakespeare. In
these doodles the spelling of Shakespeare's name accords with the
version now most familiar to us - the one he adopted for his first
published work, Venus
& Adonis.
Indeed some of the doodled repetitions of the name look like
practices of this rendition; all of which suggests that they were
scribbled during 1593 or, perhaps, 1594. Another suggestion of
this period is the presence within the doodlings of a variant of a
line from Lucrece
(entered
in the Stationer's Register in May 1594 and published during that
year).
Hamilton's interpretation also fits smoothly with the
history discovered in the Biography in Shakespeare's Sonnets.
Shakespeare
had an intimate, up-and-down relationship with Henry Wriothesley,
third Earl of Southampton, to whom he dedicated
Venus &
Adonis and
Lucrece.
Whether from solicitude or contrition from his failures to support,
the then cash-strapped Earl would probably have been moved to seek
for his poet-admirer an alternative source of income at a time of
severe hardship in the theatres.
As it happened, the Earl was
well connected to place Shakespeare with Francis Bacon. One
route might have been via his guardian, Lord Burghley, who was also
Bacon's uncle by marriage. However, as is brought out in Shakespeare: a Hidden Life Sung in a Hidden Song, the young lord's relationship
with Burghley was by then strained. A more likely route would
have been via Southampton's great friend and role model, the Earl of
Essex, who was then Bacon's champion, employer and financial
supporter.
Bacon's pen "that was cozened" might even
be a reference to an embittered Shakespeare, who had not been
rewarded properly for his dedications of Venus
and Lucrece.
This construction is perhaps weakened by the re-opening of the London
playhouses some months prior to the date of the letter. But it
does accord with the situation discernible in the Sonnets and with
the suggestions in Bacon's wording that there was something unusual
about the employment of this scribe and that this background was
known to his brother. Bacon's message can be interpreted as:
"In particular, I continue to have surplus copying capacity
because Shakespeare hasn't received the money he was promised and
therefore I am still saddled with him".
There remains in
existence a note-book of Bacon, which he called his Promus
of Formularies and Elegancies.
It contains writing in at least one hand other than Bacon's -
suggesting that it was accessible by persons other than the
philosopher. From internal evidence, it was commenced no later
than 1594 and perhaps earlier. It records many proverbs, adages
and other verbal expressions, often derived from other authors.
A significant number of these expressions - or close parallels - are
to be found in Shakespeare's later works (but often not in Bacon's).
Baconians regard such coincidence as further powerful evidence in
support of their theory, since, they argue, Shakespeare could not
have seen the Promus.
However,
with Shakespeare in Bacon's employment, as suggested by Hamilton, he
would have been in an ideal position to have had access to the
Promus,
particularly if, at times, his pen was "idle". He may
even have been responsible for some of its contents, by way of
directed research or otherwise. In any such event, he would
likely retain memorable words or phrases for subsequent use - and
perhaps even record them in his own version of the Promus.
Shakespeare had a propensity to mine the works of others, as shown by
the close parallels in many of his plays with earlier pieces.
And his territory was not confined to long dead authors.
Marlovians discern as many parallels in his works with those of his
close rival, Christopher Marlowe, as do Baconians with those of their
favourite.
The separate strands of evidence, described above,
combine to support the premise that William Shakespeare worked for
Francis Bacon during a period (or for periods) within 1593-5, and
that he thereby gained access to certain of Bacon's works.
Though the evidence is circumstantial, it is contradicted by nothing
in the histories of either man. At worst it nullifies any
argument that only Bacon's authorship of Shakespeare can explain the
connections with the Northampton
Manuscript,
Promus
or any other works of the philosopher. More likely and
excitingly, it invites further discovery of the real Shakespeare: the
man with unique connections, who is revealed in Shakespeare: a Hidden Life Sung in a Hidden Song.