Henry VIII – the case for Francis Bacon (as Primary Author) - 1

 Here will follow a series of posts examining the case for Francis Bacon’s authorship involvement with Shakespeare’s The Life of King Henry the Eighth. It won’t be a complete case since there’s much more that could be covered. But it’s at least a basic case from the evidence.

Stage oddity

This is taken from an online article from some years back:
Professor Ioppolo, who saw Henry VIII when it was staged by the RSC in the 1990s, compares the play to a painting.

"You have all these processions - highly-visualised staged scenes which were very much the vogue in 1613."

She points out that most of Shakespeare's history plays were written at the beginning of his career.

"The vogue for them was the 1590s. We don't know why in 1613 they are suddenly writing a history play. The other plays being done in the period are all tragedies or city comedies."

"It's really an elusive little play because we don't know what it represents. It's wonderful, it's an oddity."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8679613.stm

-----------------------------------------------   --------------------------------------

The following is from the sirbacon.org/evidence webpage:

Letter from Bacon to King James, November, 1622:

"...for my pen, if contemplative, going on with The Historie of Henry the Eighth."

In January, 1623, Bacon applied to the proper authorities for the loan of such documents as might be in the public archives relating to the reign of Henry VIII.

On February 21st, 1623, Bacon wrote to Buckingham, who had gone to Spain with Prince Charles, asking to be remembered to the Prince:

"Who, I hope ere long, will make me leave King Henry VIII and set me on work in relation to His Majesty's heroical adventures."

On June 26th, 1623, Bacon wrote to his friend Sir Tobie Matthew:

"Since you say the Prince hath not forgot his commandment touching my history of Henry VIII."

However, no history of Henry VIII by Bacon was ever published. Only a brief, 30-line summary of Henry's reign was printed after Bacon's death under his own name.

Since Bacon was known to always be writing for eventual publication, then what reasonable explanation can account for him not publishing a history on Henry VIII after all the research he had been doing on this topic? Baconian Theory accounts for it through the writing of the Shakespeare play. Though it was performed as early as 1613, it was not published until the First Folio, 1623. And Bacon, like Shakespeare, was constantly revising his works, so that events in his life just prior to the publishing of the First Folio could have been added into the revised play. Also, if he had an early version of the play already being staged, then his ‘continuing research’ may have been his way of endlessly forestalling the need to produce such a genuine history. It certainly seems like he had no real intention to write such a normal scholarly history or else he wouldn’t have hoped that the Prince would, as he said, “make me leave King Henry VIII”. So it seems to have been pretense all along, which is very odd by itself since he had been one with the strongest interest in history, England’s and all others.

News from the Authorship Front - Ashland Shakespeare Authorship

The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship’s 2015 conference just finished in Ashland, Oregon. Ashland, by the way, is the site of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and of the first Elizabethan theater in the U.S.
www.osfashland.org/en/about/our-history.aspx

They (the Oregon Shakespeare Festival) announced while we were there that they are starting a project to modernize all 38 plays into contemporary English. See more here:

www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-shakespe...e_editors_picks=true

Before the conference itself began there was a community lecture at a local church titled “British Scholars Address the Shakespeare Authorship Challenge”. The attendance there of over a 100 members of the community is a testament to the growing awareness and interest in the authorship question by both the patrons of Shakespeare theater as well as theater professionals themselves.

Three of these scholars: Ros Barber, Kevin Gilvary, and Alexander Waugh also gave an excellent radio interview on the authorship question which I highly recommend for anyone with an interest in what’s happening outside as well as inside of academic Shakespeare studies. The radio interview can be heard here:

ijpr.org/post/true-shakespeare-believers...pon-ashland#stream/0

I’ll only mention a few of the conference talks and activities which were quite varied, including a few trips to the theater to see Much Ado, Anthony and Cleopatra, and Pericles, which was especially delightful, so much so that it will be shown at the Folger Shakespeare theater sometime later. There was also, for each play, an opportunity to discuss the plays with visiting actor panels.

Some of the talks:
--Julia Cleave presented some of the latest evidence strengthening the case that the playwright had a detailed knowledge of some specific art pieces in Italy, notably that of the Bassano Fresco.
--Alexander Waugh and Roger Stritmatter announced A New Shakespeare Allusion Book. Naturally, non-Stratfordians have found too many overlooked Shakespeare allusions or ones that have been interpreted narrowly so that they conform to Stratfordian Theory. If you are at all interested in the history of the Shakespeare phenomena you owe it to yourself to get a copy of their book.
--Similarly, Prof. Michael Delahoyde, brought out a new Oxfordian edition of Anthony and Cleopatra showing how many references, nuances, language usages, etc. can be explained or interpreted from the Oxfordian or non-Stratfordian perspective.
--There were also quite good talks challenging current orthodox perspectives on the authorship of quartos for Romeo and Juliet. For instance, that there’s good evidence that Q1 was a first draft rather than a poor memorial reconstruction. One would think that mainstream scholars would be interested in examining and debating this evidence and argument.
--Then there was Kevin Gilvary who examined Who Wrote Shakespeare’s First Biography? His conclusion, as I recall, ‘it hasn’t happened yet’.
--Researcher Katherine Chiljan found more early instances of ‘Shakespeare’ as an early pen name.
--A few talks were on the play Pericles arguing quite well that the basis for it being collaboratively written is weak, and showing how it fits the template for an early, Hermetic, Historicized, Miracle Play.
--A final mention goes to the talk by Lawyer Tom Regnier who discussed some points of the legal argument in the authorship question. Specifically, the usage and validity of ‘hard’ evidence vs that of circumstantial evidence and ‘coincidences’. Citing legal authorities on courtroom evidence he showed it’s clear that ‘coincidences’ and circumstantial evidence can be just as valid for judgments as what are thought of as hard evidence. This becomes especially important when we see that the ‘hard evidence’ for Stratfordian Theory is actually far too ambiguous to be considered decisive, besides lacking in other converging lines of supporting circumstantial pieces of evidence. In essence, all we have for any of the candidates is circumstantial evidence, and so my view is that we would benefit by ways to weigh the many pieces of circumstantial evidence to provide greater clarity to the historical question.

Earlier this year there was another scholarly debate, related to the bible, and an article covered it that I found informative. Here’s the quote I like and the link to the article:

"Integrating physical material evidence and intangible literary evidence is difficult: The two sides are looking at the same object, but are focusing on different issues, and answering different questions. The methods they employ address particular concerns, but not necessarily those raised by the opposition. No data point—either from a lab or from a linguist, be it an ink test or a grammatical error—will decide the issue on its own; it must be considered in light of the entire body of evidence. If the arguments brought to bear on the issue so far do not produce consensus among scientists and scholars, then there will probably be no final word."

www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2...cts-straight/404254/

Similarly, here are some interesting partial quotes from CNN’s chief medical correspondent (Dr. Sanjay Gupta) on his lateness in considering the scientific case for marijuana in medical treatments (more interesting now that some researches think the Stratford Shakespere lit it up on occasion:

“I apologize because I didn’t look hard enough, until now. I didn’t look far enough. I didn’t review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate…”
“instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency … because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to … “

Offensive Article Removed from Royal Shakespeare Company Website

News from the front:

There was an important announcement this week from the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC). Its Chairman, Behavioral Scientist John Shahan, naturally felt personally compelled to persist in a lengthy battle with the RSC about their continued posting on their website of egregiously false claims about authorship doubters, even to the extent of labeling them psychologically ill. It’s interesting though, that as far as I can tell, all those with actual expertise in psychology, psychiatry and mental health, and that have examined the authorship question, seem to be in the doubter camp!  If there are any others that happen not to be so, then I’m sure they would enjoy discussing the question with these doubters over tea sometime. In any case, for those interested in the ongoing developments, here is the announcement at the SAC website:

https://doubtaboutwill.org/letters_to_sbt_and_rsc

Note that the effort even required the engagement of RSC President The Prince of Wales and even after that, further prodding from renowned Shakespearean actor Mark Rylance.

The SAC also announced new notables to the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt:

Eliot Slater, M.D., was one of the leading psychiatric researchers of the 20th century. He published some 150 scientific papers and co-wrote several books, including Clinical Psychiatry, long the leading textbook. From 1961 to 1972, he was Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, which he made into a leading European journal. He was also an avid Shakespeare scholar, best known in that field for his detailed statistical analysis of The Reign of King Edward III, which provided strong support for Shakespeare’s authorship. His analysis earned him a Ph.D. in English at King’s College, London, at age 77. It was later published by CUP as “The Problem of The Reign of King Edward III,” under the supervision of his daughter, Ann.

Here is Dr. Slater’s excellent 1969 essay on the Authorship question:

A Psychiatric View of Shakespeare's Sonnets 

http://eliotslater.org/index.php/shakespeare/essays/92-a-psychiatric-view-of-shakespeare-s-sonnets

Also, his daughter:
Ann Pasternak Slater, Ph.D., is a literary scholar and translator and was formerly a Fellow and Tutor at St. Anne's College, Oxford. She has written and lectured on her uncle Boris Pasternak's translations into Russian of Shakespeare's plays, and she is the author of "Shakespeare the Director." While a notable doubter in her own right, she is also the daughter of psychiatrist Eliot Slater and granddaughter of economist Gilbert Slater -- two other notable authorship doubters and both outstanding in their respective fields. In that sense one might say that we are, in effect, adding three Slaters to the notables list at this time.

And then also her grandfather:
Gilbert Slater, Ph.D. (1864-1938), was a British economist and social reformer of the early 20th century. He took one of the first Ph.D.s at the London School of Economics. He served as Principal of Ruskin College from 1909 to 1915, and then as Professor of Economics at the University of Madras. He is also known for theorizing that the works of Shakespeare were written by several different authors.