Who Really Wrote the Works of Shakespeare?
The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy: Why It Matters
For centuries, scholars and literary historians have debated the true authorship of the works attributed to William Shakespeare. While the mainstream narrative holds that Shakespeare, the actor from Stratford-upon-Avon, penned these masterpieces, substantial evidence suggests otherwise. This analysis examines why William Shakespeare could not have written the works attributed to him and explores the involvement of Sir Francis Bacon, the Rosicrucians, and the Jesuits in their creation.
The Problems with Shakespeare’s Authorship
Despite being credited with some of the most profound literature in history, William Shakespeare's personal history presents major inconsistencies that cast doubt on his authorship:
Lack of Education – There is no record of Shakespeare receiving formal education beyond a basic grammar school level, yet his works display a mastery of Latin, Greek, French, Italian, law, medicine, and classical philosophy.
No Evidence of a Personal Library – Shakespeare’s works demonstrate extensive literary knowledge, yet there is no record of him owning or having access to a library. A writer of his caliber would have needed an immense collection of books, yet his will makes no mention of any.
Limited Travel – Many Shakespearean plays contain accurate and detailed descriptions of European locations, especially Italy. Shakespeare never left England, making it improbable that he could have described these locations so vividly.
No Manuscripts or Personal Writings – There are no original manuscripts, letters, or drafts of Shakespeare’s works in his handwriting. Unlike his contemporaries—such as Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe—who left behind extensive documentation of their work, Shakespeare left nothing.
Illiterate Family – Shakespeare’s own daughter, Susanna Hall, was illiterate, as confirmed by legal documents. It is highly unusual for the daughter of one of history’s greatest writers to be unable to read or write.
Shakespeare’s Signature – The few surviving Shakespeare signatures are inconsistent and barely legible, suggesting he was not a proficient writer. None of his signatures match the literary expertise found in the Shakespearean texts.
No Literary Recognition at Death – When Shakespeare died in 1616, there was no public recognition or tribute from the literary world. Given his supposed stature, this is highly unusual, as prominent writers of the time typically received extensive eulogies and memorials.
No Financial Compensation for His Works – There is no evidence that Shakespeare profited from his plays. Writers of his time often sought financial compensation, yet Shakespeare never claimed ownership or received significant payments for his works.
These inconsistencies strongly suggest that William Shakespeare was a front for a hidden literary society, with Francis Bacon being the most likely candidate.
The Case for Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians
Francis Bacon: The Architect Behind the Movement
Francis Bacon was one of the most prominent intellectuals of his time, with vast interests in philosophy, science, and esotericism. As Lord Chancellor of England and a figure deeply involved in the intellectual life of the country, Bacon was well-positioned to influence the dissemination of esoteric knowledge.
Bacon and the Rosicrucians:
Bacon is often regarded as a central figure in the Rosicrucian movement, although he was careful to keep his role in the shadows. Bacon’s views on alchemy, scientific method, and spiritual transformation mirrored many of the principles expressed in the Rosicrucian manifestos.
Bacon’s "New Atlantis", a utopian work, speaks to the creation of a new world order based on the pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of humanity. This aligns directly with the aims of the Rosicrucian order, which sought to establish a new era of enlightenment through secret knowledge.
Bacon’s involvement with John Dee, Edward Kelley, and other occultists ties him directly to the Hermetic and Rosicrucian traditions. Although Bacon was more known for his work on empirical science, he was also deeply involved in mystical and occult thought, seeking a synthesis between spiritual and scientific knowledge.
The Rosicrucian Circle:
Bacon’s circle of intellectuals, which included Sir Tobie Matthew, was pivotal in developing and spreading the Rosicrucian and Freemasonic philosophies. Bacon’s network used various texts, including those by John Dee and Paracelsus, to lay the groundwork for a secret society that would promote alchemical, spiritual, and intellectual enlightenment. Matthew acted as a conduit for disseminating these ideas in England, both through his Jesuit connections and his intellectual prowess.
The Rosicrucian Influence on Shakespeare’s Works
The Rosicrucian movement was essentially a secret society with philosophical and spiritual goals centered around the transmission of ancient, hidden knowledge, often coded in the form of alchemical and mystical symbolism. By the early 17th century, the movement was formalized in manifestos like the Fama Fraternitatis (1614), Confessio Fraternitatis (1615), and The Chemical Wedding (1616), which laid the groundwork for a European mystical revolution. The symbolism present in these documents was not only reflective of alchemical transformation but also steeped in Christian mysticism, ancient Egyptian hermeticism, and Jewish Kabbalah. Shakespeare, if he were a figurehead for Bacon’s ideas, could have been part of this effort to propagate these hidden teachings through literature, encapsulating complex symbols and alchemical concepts that were recognizable only to a select group.
Alchemical Symbolism in Shakespeare’s Plays:
The plays are filled with allegorical references to the alchemical process—the transformation of base metals into gold, symbolizing spiritual enlightenment, self-realization, and the purification of the soul. This is not only evident in the characters' personal journeys but also in their external struggles and triumphs. Here's an in-depth analysis of some key alchemical themes in Shakespeare’s plays, with corresponding Rosicrucian symbols:
The Tempest:
Prospero is an alchemical figure representing the "Magus"—a master of transformation and illumination. His magical powers can be seen as symbolic of the ability to transmute spiritual impurities into enlightenment. His isolation on the island represents the alchemical solitude needed for one to undergo inner purification.
The Tempest itself can be seen as the “great work” (opus magnum) of alchemy, wherein the storm represents the chaotic stage of alchemical change (calcination). This is followed by the peace (distillation) brought by Prospero’s mastery over the elements. The final reunion and reconciliation are symbolic of the completion of the alchemical process.
The characters like Ariel (representing the ethereal, spiritual plane) and Caliban (representing the base, untamed nature) are part of the transformative process in which Prospero seeks to harmonize the spiritual and the material.
Macbeth:
Macbeth's ambition and his moral decay can be interpreted through alchemical symbolism as the base material that needs to be purified. The witches, with their cryptic prophecies, could represent the alchemical guides or spiritual forces that catalyze Macbeth’s journey.
His descent into darkness, symbolized by the murder of King Duncan, parallels the calcination process—the burning away of impurities. His eventual downfall represents the failure to achieve the spiritual gold that the alchemist seeks, emphasizing the spiritual lesson in his failure to transform properly.
King Lear:
Lear's journey is marked by his inner transmutation, from a king (representing authority and materialism) to a broken, enlightened figure. His blindness symbolizes the lack of self-knowledge, a crucial step in the alchemical process.
His madness is an illustration of the chaos that precedes true enlightenment. In the end, the tragic death of Lear represents the burning away of the old self, allowing for new spiritual understanding.
The Merchant of Venice:
The pound of flesh is an alchemical symbol for sacrifice and the trial of purification. Shylock’s demand represents the base material that must be sacrificed in order for true spiritual gold to emerge. The resolution of the trial can be seen as the spiritual completion of the alchemical work—where balance is restored and justice (spiritual gold) is achieved.
The Jesuits’ Role: Sir Tobie Matthew and Hidden Authorship
Sir Tobie Matthew: His Role and Society Involvements
Sir Tobie Matthew (c. 1577–1655) was a key figure in the early 17th century, not just as an English priest but also as someone deeply embedded in esoteric and intellectual circles. Matthew was one of the few individuals who had access to both the Catholic establishment and the intellectual elite of England, which gave him a unique position within the intersection of esoteric and political movements of the time.
Rosicrucian Connections:
Matthew was closely associated with the Rosicrucian movement, particularly through his interactions with John Dee, a famous English mathematician, astronomer, and occultist. Dee, a well-known figure in alchemical and magical circles, was closely linked to the Rosicrucian and Hermetic traditions. Dee’s works on alchemy, Kabbalah, and angelic communication played a significant role in shaping the intellectual background of the Rosicrucians.
Matthew’s connection to John Dee was crucial because Dee’s ideas were central to the formulation of the Rosicrucian manifestos. Although Dee was not directly mentioned in the manifestos, his influence on the movement cannot be overstated. Matthew’s own spiritual and intellectual leanings mirrored the goals of the Rosicrucian movement—to propagate mystical wisdom and alchemical secrets while maintaining secrecy under the guise of a religious and scientific revolution.
The Jesuit Connection:
Matthew was also a Catholic priest and was involved with the Jesuit order. His role as a Jesuit was significant because the Jesuits were known for their intellectual rigor and their involvement in both political and spiritual matters. At the time, the Jesuits had a strong presence in England and were seen as a counterpoint to the Protestant Reformation.
Matthew’s Jesuit connections are important because Jesuit scholars often interacted with or even facilitated the spread of Rosicrucian ideas under the radar, given the similarities in mystical thought. Matthew’s Catholic background allowed him to move between the Catholic and Protestant intellectual spheres, providing a bridge for the dissemination of esoteric ideas, including those related to alchemy, astrology, and the Rosicrucian teachings.
Other Societies:
Matthew was also connected to Freemasonry, although the exact nature of his involvement in Masonic lodges is debated. Freemasonry in the early 17th century was closely tied to both alchemy and the Rosicrucian movement, particularly through its initiation rituals, which encoded esoteric teachings about human perfection and spiritual enlightenment.
Matthew was well-versed in the mystical and occult literature of the time, particularly the works of Paracelsus (a key figure in alchemical and medical thought) and Francesco Giorgi (whose works on the Kabbalah and Pythagorean numbers greatly influenced the Rosicrucians). His knowledge of such esoteric traditions would have made him an ideal candidate for Bacon’s inner circle.
The Skepticism of Literary Greats
Many prominent writers and intellectuals have questioned Shakespeare’s authorship. Among them:
Mark Twain – Wrote Is Shakespeare Dead?, arguing that the lack of personal documents made it implausible that Shakespeare was the true author.
Charles Dickens – Stated outright that he believed Shakespeare’s works were written by someone else.
Henry James – Expressed doubt that a man of Shakespeare’s background could have written such works.
Walt Whitman – Publicly stated he believed Francis Bacon was the true author.
Daphne du Maurier – Researched the topic extensively and was convinced Shakespeare was a front.
These literary figures, having spent their lives analyzing literature, recognized the significant anomalies in the Shakespeare authorship narrative.
Conclusion: Shakespeare Was a Mask for a Hidden Literary Elite
The overwhelming inconsistencies in Shakespeare’s biography, the literary brilliance of his works, and the deep connections between Francis Bacon, the Rosicrucians, and the Jesuits strongly suggest that William Shakespeare was not the true author of his plays. Instead, the evidence points to Bacon and his secretive network as the true architects of the Shakespearean canon.
The absence of manuscripts, his family's illiteracy, his lack of formal education, and the refusal to claim financial benefit from his works further undermine the traditional narrative. When combined with the testimony of renowned literary figures who have questioned his authorship, the case against Shakespeare becomes undeniable. The works attributed to him were not merely plays and poems but a carefully constructed intellectual operation, encoded with wisdom and controlled by an elite circle of minds.
