Author: admin

by Christina G. Waldman

As revised, September 25, 2020

In her July 24, 1992 report, “Elizabethan Era Writing Comparison for Identification of Common Authorship,” British forensic handwriting analyst Maureen Ward-Gandy concluded that “likelyhood of ‘COMMON AUTHORSHIP’ between the known by Francis Bacon & the ‘Disputed’ script is of HIGH PROBABILITY” (p. 20). In making this conclusion, she had compared the handwriting in a great many Elizabethan handwriting examples–including that of Bacon in a 1595 letter–to that in a manuscript consisting of a play fragment discovered in 1988. This fragment was a draft or “analog” to the “Gadshill” scene in Shakespeare’s play, The First Part of Henry IV. The fragment was found inside the binding of a 1586 Greek-Latin edition of Homer’s Odyssey ([Geneva]: E. Ougnoni [i.e. Eustathius or Vignonius; Eustace Vignon] [1586] (date in Greek). https://www.schoyencollection.com/literature-collection/modern-literature-collection/shakespeare-henry-fourth-4-ms-1627. Appendix 4 of my 2018 book, Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand (“FBHH”), publishes Ms. Ward-Gandy’s report in full.

As I discuss in my book (p. 239), the “Tapster” play, as the unnamed fragment has been called (reference to follow), has an entry in the “Lost Plays Database,” a site maintained by Roslyn Knutson, David McInnis, and Matthew Steggle. In July, 2018–the month my book was published–the Lost Plays Database moved to the Folger Library. (Meaghan J. Brown, “What is Lost is Found Again: the Lost Plays Database,” The Collation, Folger Shakespeare Library, July 3, 2018, https://collation.folger.edu/2018/07/lost-plays-database/ [Note: in my book, I had cited the “Tapster” play’s Lost Plays Database page as being “last updated May 20, 2016” (p. 239, fn 1). Its current “last update” is August 1, 2018]).

The Folger site reports that it provides a fresh transcription “derived from Freeman’s in conjunction with fresh readings“ (that is, the transcription in Arthur Freeman, “The ‘Tapster Manuscript’: An Analogue of Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth Part One,” English Manuscript Studies, 1100-1700, vol. 6 (1997): 93-105, 97-98); https://lostplays.folger.edu/Play_of_Thieves_and_a_Gullible_Tapster).

The images of the manuscript are, I think, a little better at The Schoyen Collection website than are the ones at the Folger sites (also at https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/exhibition/document/tapster-manuscript-analogue-henry-iv-part-1). One might consider taking a screenshot.

I would not call Conrad Gessner (1516-1565) the editor of the 1586 Odyssey, as Freeman did (Freeman, p. 105, fn 4) or suggest that this naturalist and philologist could have edited an editio quarta of the book in 1592.

*****

Translation:

On the title page, under a three-word title in Greek, this is what I see (in Latin):

I compared the title to the title in an 1889 catalog of the National Library of Mexico. There, in the listing for “Homerus,” the title is given as: Odyssea, id est, de rebus ab Ulysse gestis; eiusdem Batrachomyomachia et hymni. Tertia editio. Heraclides Pontici de fabulis homericus perelegans libellus, cum C. Gesneri versione et annotationibus. 1 vol. (Biblioteca Nacional De Mexico (Mexico, 1889), IV.2, p. 102).

My translation of the Latin would be: “The Odyssey, the [story of the] great deeds of Ulysses, and, in the same vein, the Batrachomyomachia and Hymns. To which is appended the Latin translation amended in a pure, clear and fresh way by a doctor and [next line] an elegant little book of the Homeric stories of Heraclides of Ponticus with C. Gesner’s translation and annotations.”

*****

English poet John Milton had Gessner’s translation of these allegories in his private library, in a 1544 edition. (Kenneth Borris, Allegory and Epic in English Renaissance Literature: Heroic Form in Sidney, Spencer, and Milton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 20). Note: Heraclides of Ponticus is not to be confused with Heraclitus of Ephesus, a pre-Socratic philosopher (“Heraclides” search results, https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=Heraclides; “Heraclitus,” copyright Daniel W. Graham, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published 2007, substantive revision Sept. 3, 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/).

One might find it illuminating to compare the known handwriting of Francis Bacon and this play fragment side-by-side, as Sotheby’s did in its advertisement, “Binder’s Waste Discovery of a Manuscript Similar to Shakespeare,” July 21, 1992. (Image at http://www.sirbacon.org/links/baconwrite.htm).

In a discussion of Jonathon Freeman’s Youtube video, “Special Stratfordians,” April 27, 2020, I submitted a comment which was not published. Here it is (edited):

“It should be noted that Freeman says he compared the play fragment only to handwriting exemplars of known contemporary dramatists. That would exclude Francis Bacon from the sample. Freeman was a bookseller, not an academic or handwriting expert. Dating can only be certain within a broad range. I don’t buy Freeman’s dating certainty, based on an inserted line, since a line can be added to any work, including a draft that may have been discarded (which was often what ended up in binder’s waste used to pad book bindings). The Lost Plays Database site is now a Folger site. Will the Folger now be more open to challenges to Stratfordian authorship, in light of modern scholarship demonstrating collaboration among playwrights and linguistic analysis such as Barry Clarke’s recent book, Francis Bacon’s Contribution to Shakespeare: A New Attribution Method? (New York: Routledge, 2019)? Pastiche: “work openly imitating the work of other artists, often with satirical intent.” thefreedictionary.com. I don’t remember the fragment being called an “imitation” when I cited the “Tapster” play’s Lost Plays Database page in my book (p. 239, fn 1). Bacon had secretaries. To find a play written in his own hand is remarkable, let alone drama so closely tied to The First Part of Henry IV. This is the kind of manuscript scholars long to find, as evidence of who wrote Shakespeare. To now say it must be in imitation of the “real Shakespeare” who left no manuscripts strikes me as suspicious. Why does the Folger site not mention Maureen Ward-Gandy’s 1992 forensic handwriting analysis concluding there was high probability Bacon was the author of the script (FBHH, appendix IV, p. 269). What is wrong with just admitting that evidence exists that Bacon had a hand in the Shakespeare plays?

The play fragment bears no play name, but Martin Wiggins of the Shakespeare Institute at Stratford has dubbed it: “The Play of Thieves and a Gullible Tapster” and assigned a date “for cataloguing purposes” of 1605. “Wiggins 1470” (Martin Wiggins, British Drama 1533-1642: A Catalogue. Oxford:OUP, 2012. “Lost Plays Database, Works Cited” (last updated June 1, 2017; page last modified July 8, 2020, but Wiggins entry unchanged), https://lostplays.folger.edu/Works_Cited).

In his 1997 article, “The Tapster Manuscript …,” bookseller Arthur Freeman wrote:

To conclude a sounding of evidence itself inconclusive, I would place the Tapster manuscript among contemporary Shakespearian analogues more likely to follow than precede Shakespeare’s text. The most economical guess may be [Oxford? c.1600-20? Amateur script or actor’s side?] … and the possibility of direct or indirect transmission from a pre-Shakespearian version of 1 Henry IV should not be dismissed (p. 103)

Why more likely to follow? I don’t believe he gives a reason. Another omission is curious: he tells us he examined the handwriting of “a large number of literary hands of the period, including (I think) every named professional dramatist whose penmanship survives, and nearly all playhouse scripts–many in multiple hands–without finding a credible match.” (Freeman, p. 99). However, he does not tell us whether or not he examined the handwriting of Francis Bacon (not a professional dramatist). He knew about the controversy from July, 1992, for he devotes a page of his article to telling us how he knew (Freeman, p. 104).

The first quarto (“Q1” of 6) of this play is dated 1598 which was the first year of its performance. There is also “Quarto 0” (“Q0″–[1598]),” which is “known only from a single fragment in the Folger Shakespeare Library, comprising quire C” (“Treasures in Full, Shakespeare in Quarto,” British Library, (accessed 5-11-20, 9-25-20), https://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/henry4p1bibs.html#first).

Q1 bears a date of 1598. Mowat and Werstine note that Q0 and Q1 share the same printer. Q2 is dated 1599. In I Henry IV, the Gads Hill (or Gadshill) robbery scene occurs in Act II, Scene 1. Q0 does not include that scene. The 8-page fragment called Q0 (which consists of Act I, Scene 3, line 206 to Act II, Scene 2, line 117) can be read at: Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine, “An Introduction to This Text,” (last accessed 9-25-20), https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/henry-iv-part-1/an-introduction-to-this-text; https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/henry-iv-part-1/act-1-scene-3/#line-1.3.206.

The play fragment consists of 57 spoken lines (60 total) over front and back of one sheet. The Schoyen Collection assigned to this fragment a date range of 1586-1600 (MS 1627). https://www.schoyencollection.com/literature-collection/modern-literature-collection/shakespeare-henry-fourth-4-ms-1627 (accessed 5-17-20, 9-25-20). The Folger Library suggests an extended range of 1586-1620. The Folger Exhibition, Shakespeare Documented: “The Tapster Manuscript, an analogue of Henry IV, Part 1,” “last updated Feb. 1, 2020” (accessed 5-27-20), https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/exhibition/document/tapster-manuscript-analogue-henry-iv-part-1 (On September 25, 2020, the page is no longer found, but this link works: https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/tapster-manuscript-analogue-henry-iv-part-1); see also https://lostplays.folger.edu/Play_of_Thieves_and_a_Gullible_Tapster).

Arthur Freeman says it is not that uncommon for a book and its binding to not match date-wise (p. 105). The fact that the play fragment was unpolished (Freeman: “far too crude for Dekker”–page 102) suggests to me a reason why it might have pre- rather than post-dated the first publication of I Henry IV. Since the dating is uncertain, I take issue with The Folger Lost Plays Database website’s labelling the analog scene an imitation of a Shakespeare play (under ‘Possible Narratives and Dramatic Sources or Analogues,’ “Play of Thieves and a Gullible Tapster”).

This play fragment was sold as Lot 101 (price realized, GBP 118,750), in auction at Christie’s (December 11, 2019). https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/books-manuscripts/shakespeare-william-manuscript-part-for-a-contemporary-6246552-details.aspx?from=salesummery&intobjectid=6246552 (accessed 5-17-20, 9-25-20).

Update 9-9-2023. The Lost Plays Database page for this manuscript was updated Dec. 23, 2022 to reflect the current location of the manuscript. I do not know if there were any other changes made to the page at that time.