This paper is not intended to prove that William Shakespeare never existed; only that the Stratford actors name and identity was used as a screen for a different man. It sounds preposterous when you first here it, after all, who wouldn't want to take credit for such brilliant work and gifted writing, right?
I will only explore some of the many claims and theories regarding the Shakespeare identity controversy, and point towards a few facts which seem to indicate that Sir Francis Bacon was the real author behind Shakespeare's work.
More than twenty thousand books and articles have been written about the "identity problem" regarding William Shakespeare. The more I read about it, the more suspicious about Shakespeare, as the true source of origin, I become. Much of the information I have collected come from Manly Palmer Hall, an initiate freemason, who in 1928 wrote the book "The secret Teachings of All Ages" where he on only four pages of his book browse this subject.
So lets start by looking at the actor from Stratford
All the known autographs of the Stratford actor read "William Shakspere" not "William Shakespeare"
There is no record that Shakspere ever owned a library. (It is argued that even a small library wouldn't be enough for an author who demonstrate the kind of literary knowledge that span the ages like Shakespeare's work do.)
There is no mention of any books in his will.
His parents were illiterate.
Shakspere's daughter Judith was an illiterate. (It is argued that Shakspere wouldn't permit his own daughter to reach the age of twenty-seven and marry without being able to read one line of the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous)
From where did William Shakspere secure his knowledge of modern French, Italian, Spanish, and Danish? Not to mention classical Latin and Greek? (Ben Jonson, who knew Shakspere intimately, stated that the Stratford actor understood "small Latin and less Greek")
No record exists of William Shakspere as having ever played a leading role in the famous dramas he is supposed to have written or in others produced by the company of which he was a member.
None of his heirs were involved in the printing of the First Folio after his death, nor did they benefit financially from it.
Shakspere's manuscripts and unpublished plays would have been his most valued possessions, yet his will mentions no literary productions whatsoever. (It does however mention his second-best bed and his "broad silver gilt bowl")
Manly Palmer Hall writes: "There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered"
Manly Hall states that it is quite evident that William Shakespeare couldn't unaided, have produced the writings. For one he didn't possess the necessary literary knowledge. He states that the town of Stratford didn't have a school capable of passing on the "higher forms of learning" that are reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, in his early life he had a total disregard for study and he never travelled outside of England.
To understand why Sir Francis Bacon is mentioned as the source of Shakespeare's work, one must understand the order of the Rosy Cross or the Rosicrucian's. According to the material I have read, most evidence seems to point to hints within the work itself. Hints only an initiate of the Rosicrucian's would have knowledge about, such as cryptographic symbolism, numerology, hidden watermarks and recurring miss-paginations thru the Shakespearian folios. Evidently there are also supposed to be hints in other seventeen...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document