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:
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 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.