[MUSIC] On the 24th of March, 1603, Queen Elizabeth I died. Four days later, Francis Bacon, the lawyer and philosopher, wrote to John Davies, the lawyer and poet, as the latter rode north to meet the new king, King James, who was riding south to take up the throne of England. Both of these men would later be knighted by the King. But at this time, they were intending only to get into his good favor. Bacon's letter to Davies asks him to speak well of him to the King and court, to use his name well, and to defend it, "if there be any biting or nibbling at it in that place." He signs off with the sentence, "So desiring you to be good to concealed poets." Those who believe that Bacon is the author of Shakespeare's works have seized upon this reference as evidence for their man: by his own confession, Bacon was a "concealed poet." It's true that he appears to be referring to a specific 'concealed poet' or 'concealed poets' (the referent may be singular or plural). It's true that the rest of the letter is entirely about ensuring that John Davies is good to him in the King's company. And there is, therefore, a strong possibility that he is referring to himself. But he may be alluding to another 'concealed poet' or 'concealed poets' of whom he has knowledge. The very first authorship theory to be openly espoused by Delia Bacon in 1857 was that Francis Bacon headed up a group of writers who collectively produced the works of Shakespeare as an entertaining humanist education for the still largely-illiterate population, who were unlikely to read books, but would go to plays. We note from a letter to his brother, Anthony, dated 15th of January, 1594, that Francis Bacon retained young men at Twickenham Park for copying out works of various kinds. He refers to their "idle pens," and wonders if his brother can send him something for them to transcribe. We know from the testimony of Shakspere's fellow shareholders, Heminges and Condell, that the manuscripts they received from him were unusually free of crossings-out, which they took as an indication of his genius. But any good writer knows that genius-level writing involves a great deal of crossing out. It is therefore most likely that what Heminges and Condell received were what we call 'fair copies'; transcriptions, or the kind of thing Francis Bacon's idle pens would have produced. This is not, of course, proof that Bacon was in any way involved with producing the Shakespeare canon. But Bacon's "concealed poets" remains unexplained. Whether or not it has any connection to the Shakespeare canon, we do not know. But it is another piece of evidence arguing for the existence of hidden authors in this period. There is one more text we should look at, this one directly connected to Shakespeare. It was written by a different poet named John Davies, who called himself John Davies of Hereford in order to distinguish himself from the John Davies we've just heard about. John Davies of Hereford was a poet and writing master, which is to say he was extremely skilled with a quill. Noble families employed him to teach their children the art of good writing. In this way he came into contact, and for periods of time lived with, some of the most powerful families in England, in particular the families of the Earls of Northumberland, Derby, and Pembroke. All of these families, for different reasons, have relevance to Shakespeare and the authorship question. In 1610 or 11, at the end of a period of service with the Northumberlands, John Davies of Hereford published The Scourge of Folly, which contained a large number of epigrams. Number 159 is addressed "To Our English Terence Mr. Will: Shake-speare." He's the poem. "Some say good Will (which I, in sport, do sing) Had'st thou not played some Kingly parts in sport, Thou hadst been a companion for a King; And, been a King among the meaner sort. Some others rail; but rail as they think fit, Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit: And honesty thou sowest, which they do reap. So, to increase their Stock which they do keep."" It's a rather obscure poem, not easy to understand. Orthodox scholars use this epigram to bolster the idea that Shakespeare was known as an actor with the King's Men ("Had'st thou not played some Kingly parts in sport") as well as a playwright, because the title calls him "our English Terence", Terence being one of the greatest Roman playwrights. But Terence is a very interesting choice. There's no stylistic link between the plays of Shakespeare and the plays of Terence. But what we do know is that Terence's authorship of the works attributed to him had been in doubt since his lifetime. Terence was widely associated with being a front for another writer or writers. So by calling him "our English Terence" John Davies of Hereford may be hinting that the works appearing under Shakespeare's name are not his. The reference to acting is also a bit of a puzzle. In modern English, the lines read, "[Some say] had you not played some kingly parts in sport, you would have been companion for a king." But William Shakspere of Stratford was, in a sense, "companion for a king" already, being one of the King's Men. As a member of the company, he was sometimes required to be part of the king's retinue. On August 1604, according to James Shapiro, the King's Men had to attend the Spanish embassy for 18 consecutive days to make up numbers. And did Shakspere play any kingly parts on the stage? His kings are major characters, and there's no evidence he played any major characters. There are other interpretations of playing some kingly parts in sport varying candidate to candidate which are just as valid as the orthodox interpretation of this line. And what of that first line? The epigram begins, "SOME say good Will (which I, in sport, do sing)." That aside in parentheses can easily be read as an acknowledgement that the author's name isn't actually 'Will', and that Davies is only referring to him as Will to be sporting, to 'play along'. And much as they might rally the second line about "Kingly parts" to their side, orthodox scholars have no explanation for the six lines that follow. So this, like Bacon's "concealed poets", remains mysterious for now. It is one of many anomalies in the evidence connected to Shakespeare - anomalies which create the doubt which spawned the authorship question. [MUSIC]
