Bacon is Shake-Speare | Page 9

the second and third "Shakspeare" and note that every
letter is formed in a different manner. Compare the two "S's", next
compare the two "h's", the "h" of the second begins at the bottom, the
"h" of the third begins at the top, the same applies to the next letter the
"a", so also with respect to the "k's "; how widely different these are.
Plate 14 shews at the bottom two other names also. These are taken, the
one on the left from a deed of purchase of a dwelling house in
Blackfriars dated March 10th 1612-13 (now in the City Library of the
Corporation of London); the other on the right is from a mortgage of
the same property executed on the following day, viz: March 11th
1612-13, which is now in the British Museum.
Neither of these documents states that it was "signed" but only says that
it was "sealed," and it was at that date in no way necessary that any
signatures should be written over the seals, but the clerks might and
evidently did, place upon these deeds an abbreviated name of William
Shakspeare over the seal on each document. In the case of the other two
parties to the documents, the signatures are most beautifully written
and are almost absolutely identical in the two deeds.
Look at these two supposititious signatures. To myself it is difficult to
imagine that anyone with eyes to see could suppose them to be
signatures by the same hand.
[Illustration: The Signatures (so called) of "Shakespeare," which are the
best possible reproductions of the originals, and shew that all are
written in "lawscript" by skilled penman.]
Note on the so-called "Signatures."
When part of the purchase money is what is commonly called "left on
mortgage," the mortgage deed is always dated one day after, but is

always signed one moment before, the purchase deed, because the
owner will not part with his property before he receives his security.
The Shakespeare purchase deed and the mortgage deed were therefore
both signed at the same time, in the same place, with the same pen, and
the same ink.
This is evidently true with respect to the signatures of Wm. Johnson
and Jno. Jackson, the other parries to both of the deeds.
But as I wrote to the City authorities and the British Museum
authorities, it would be impossible to discover a scoundrel who would
venture to perjure himself and falsely swear that it was even remotely
possible that the two supposed signature of Wm. 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.
According to the law of England, anyone may (by request) attach any
person's name to any document, and if that person touch it, any third
person may witness it as a signature.
Some years ago by the courtesy of the Corporation of London, the
Librarian and the Chairman of the Library Committee carried the
Purchase Deed to the British Museum to place it side by side with the
Mortgage Deed there.
After they had with myself and the Museum Authorities most carefully
examined the two deeds, the Librarian of the City Corporation said to
me, there is no reason to suppose that the Corporation deed has upon it
the signature of Wm. Shakespeare, and the British Museum Authorities
likewise told me that they did not think that the Museum Mortgage
Deed had upon it a signature of William Shakespeare.
The more you examine the whole five the more you will be certain, as
the writer is, after the most careful study of the Will and of the Deeds,

that not one of the five writings is a "signature," or pretends to be a
"signature," and that therefore there is a probability, practically
amounting to a certainty, that the Stratford Actor could not so much as
manage to scrawl his own name.
No! We possess not a scrap of writing, not even an attempt at a
signature, [see also Chapter XIV., p. 161] that can be reasonably
supposed to be written by the Stratford gentleman.
He is styled "gentle Shakespeare": this does not refer to anything
relating to his character or to his manners but it means that possessing a
coat of arms he was legally entitled to call himself a "gentleman."
Chapter IV.
Contemporary Allusions to Shackspere.
Shakspeare the Actor purchased New Place at Stratford-on-Avon in
1597 for £60 and he became a "gentleman" and an esquire when he
secured a grant of arms in 1599.
How did the stage "honour" the player who had bought a coat of arms