Engraving from ‘Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae libri IX’ (all images courtesy Bloomsbury Auctions)
William Shakespeare was a commoner who wrote witty plays attended by Queen Elizabeth. Sir Francis Bacon was a noble who served as her Attorney General. Right?
Well, if you’re a “Baconian,” someone who reveres Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare’s rhymes, then not exactly. Their basic hypothesis is that Bacon pulled a Cyrano de Bergerac, letting Shakespeare take credit for his plays so that he could pursue a political career.
Soon, alleged evidence for that claim — which, for the record, most scholars completely reject — will go under the hammer at a Bloomsbury Auction sale in London on March 19. Believers have pointed to clues of Bacon’s authorship in Gustav Selenus’s Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae libri IX (1624), a first edition copy that is now up for grabs.
The volume contains two eyebrow-raising engravings that the Baconian writer Sir Edwin Dunning-Lawrence has said offer hints of Bacon’s involvement. On the title page, an illustration shows the statesman sitting at a desk and writing on a folio-sized manuscript; the book came out the year after Shakespeare’s First Folio was published. More convincing is another image inside the book that depicts Bacon handing a folio to a man carrying a spear — a seeming reference to his unique business relationship with the bard.
Baconians believe Bacon’s contemporaries were in on the ruse and alluded to it through imagery in their own works. Selenus’s Cryptome falls into that category, along with images in works by Joseph Hall, John Marston, George Wither, John Florio, and even Bacon himself.
Doubts about the true author of Shakespeare’s plays first surfaced in the mid-1800s and have since fueled an endless production of rabbit trails in journal article form. As with any conspiracy theory, it’s easy to get sucked in. Some have claimed works like Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet are riddled with language that Bacon used in his personal writings. Others have pointed to secret codes and ciphers in the text that Bacon supposedly inserted to reveal his authorship.
These theories have had their fair share of converts, with everyone from Mark Twain to a Chicago judge, who actually ruled in 1916 that Bacon was the genius behind the plays, buying in. And now, if you want, you can too. Literally.
Engraving from ‘Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae libri IX’
Engraving from ‘Cryptomenytices et Cryptographiae libri IX’
A story good for the auction, but not evidence of anything relevant to Shakespeare or the “authorship question.”
Many gullible people still believe the appealing myth that the semi-literate businessman from Stratford wrote these brilliant works of genius. They don’t understand that even a genius needed to be able to read hundreds of works in many languages to write the works of Shake-Speare. Many of them are too submissive to authority to think independently about the many holes in the traditional authorship legend. What a shame. It has stymied our understanding of the vital connections between a great author’s life experiences and his or her literary works.
Faculty Expert on Shake-Speare for Media Contacts,
Georgetown University
I love your armchair (psycho)analysis of “many” people whom you have never met, much less interviewed: gullible, lacking in understanding, submissive to authority, incapable of independent thinking–amazing. How do you know any of this? Or is anyone who disagrees with your views necessarily as your characterize him or her. If turn about is fair play, what may be said with more justification is that you are professionally irresponsible to advertise your medical credentials and then to abuse the practice of medicine. Your license should be lifted and your tenure revoked.
Touchy, aren’t you?
Not at all. I am addressing your words, and I am not surprised that you cannot accept responsibility for them and revert to personal remarks about me. Physician, heal thyself.
Well said, Mr. Hays. Would that all such mountebanks and charlatans that go around waving their “credentials,” be held so accountable.
Thank you. My comment reflects the irrelevancy of a medical degree to a question about Shakespeare’s authorship; at most, this M.D. is a credential used as a cudgel in an ad hominem attack on those who do not believe as the doctor believes. I could have, but did not, mention my credentials, which are relevant to this subject, and my publications, some of which are relevant to this subject. I trust that having both does not make me a mountebank or charlatan!
No! Having both does not so indicate!
Certainly not. Qualifications are irrelevant in the insecurity of public debate where you are as qualified as you sound and as stupid as you seem. Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. illustrates one end of this spectrum perfectly. As it is not the flattering end, I would certainly take care to mask my professional qualifications after posting rubbish like that.
Frankly anyone who can read can perfectly well form their opinions as to who may or may not have written Shakespeare.
Anyone with a reasonable education can read history as well as the next since much of it is subjective the older it gets.
That the author’s life and emotions and experiences are however relevant to the plays cannot be doubted.
Since we know nothing of William Shakespeare and a fair amount about other potential writers it is strange that Shakepeare has become the chosen one by most.
Perhaps it is because that so little about him is known that he becomes the most unblemished as the English would prefer to see him in posterity? Whereas writers such as Jonson and Marlowe were both trialed for murder while Bacon was condemned as a homosexual and a crook.
The people around at the time were in a close circle of literary possibilities and undoubtedly knew each other,
but it is far more likely that a highly educated and much travelled man with excellent contacts in Court and with a good understanding of the new sciences was the writer of such diverse plays.
There is not one scrap of evidence that would identify William Shakespeare from Stratford under the above headings. In my recent book to be found on http://www.theroyalsecret.info I disclose the writer as working with a team of writers and publishers and masks of over 100 people who I name as participants in the Shakespeare works, guided by a principal who was perhaps the greatest British genius of all time, and he was not Wm.Shakespeare
“Frankly,” any darn fool can form an opinion. The question is whether some opinions are better founded than others. I am sure that, in a way varying from author to author, not only experiences and emotions, but also thoughts, are relevant to his or her works. Whether knowledge about the author tells us something about his or her works, or whether his or her works tell us more about the author is the question. What does our knowledge of Homer tell us about “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey”? What do they tell us about him? What difference does it make?
BTW, I looked at your site. It was a very disappointing sight.
I see that Jaybee has plugged his “book” several times in this thread. A Baconian. Guess he doesn’t realize that Baconites threw in the towel almost 100 years ago. But guess you can’t blame him for trying.
Hi there Ben. Its too easy to criticize without construction. Who was Shakespeare then and what’s your evidence?
The discussion was about who wrote Shakespeare. Hence my opinion Bacon did, since I see the circumstantial and psychological evidence combined overwhelming, as I explain in my book. This you discredit without reading it, presumably on the basis of some pre-formed opinion, which as you say any damn fool can have.
You pose the question of what is important, the author or the story? I would suggest no story is ever written in abstract. Author’s stories have an agenda and the more is known of the background of both the better to evidence them
Just as the Shakespeare stories were written for public consumption, taking tales from the past to put forward a viewpoint, so have I done in my novel story. If and when you read it you might then venture your opinion.
There is an old saw, which could easily be one from Shakespeare. “Never judge a book by its cover.”
There is always time to learn something new.
Jaybee: As you say yourself, “circumstantial and psychological evidence.” In other words, you have no evidence.
I will not re-post here a long list of the extensive evidence for Shakes. It’s avail on many websites.
But I will offer this one piece, that no “Doubter” has yet rebutted.
As you certainly know, Shakespeare was granted the honorific of “Gentleman” by the College of Arms in 1596. There was a dust up between two cantankerous members of the college over a number (23 IIRC) of awards, Shakespeare’s being one of them. Because of the squabble we, fortunately, have good documentation for Stratford’s award.
Shortly after that date, plays bearing Shakespeare’s name, tributes/mention in verse, and documents linking him to the LCM and KM and their theaters (aka actual evidence) began to show the honorific Mr. Not all docs, but a good number.
To the best of my knowledge, there’s only one Shakespeare, the gent from Stratford, entitled to be called Mr. And as you know, that was no small deal back then.
So unless there was some other Mr. Shakespeare, then we’ve very specifically linked the Shakespeare on the plays, and mentioned in verse, as well as theater documents, to the man from Stratford.
Your argument against Stratford is essentially from incredulity, yet (and ironically it would seem), you have no actual evidence for Bacon, yet are willing to believe.
r/
Ben
My book is about Bacon in all his aspects, including that of the heir to the English throne and known writer of many great works to which he put his name.
With regard to him being Shakespeare I put a good deal of reliance on the work of Elizabeth Gallup in deciphering the codes in the First Folio original works which codes I have seen myself and believe to be true of Bacon’s life story in which he personally claims authorship of the plays.
That Bacon was a powerhouse of book and pamphlet publishing and was surrounded by Jonson and Marlowe and Field and a hundred others who were his masks or praised him as Jonson did is common knowledge, and so to me more compelling than the mysteriously absent Bard of Avon who had no such facilities for a vast output.
I also found it interesting that Wm Shakespeare made no claim to writing the Sonnets which covered scenarios very unlikely for an un-provenly educated man from the sticks of Stratford far removed from erotic romances of the aristocracy.
I have written my book as a novel thriller principally to interest the public in a man o was sdly denigrated and destroyed by jealous rivals. That it might bring to the attention of new readers an old argument of who may or may not have been Shakespeare is not any reason to dismiss it, as the dispute over his authorship has rolled on for ever for the good reason that it is disputable.
I do not doubt your assurances or viewpoint but differing views are what history is made of, and so I hope my story will intrigue newcomers to the subject as much as it did me.
There was a entire conspiracy to protect Bacon from people knowing his authorship of the Shakespeare plays, particularly from Elizabeth 1st, whose son Bacon was. The Good Pens and powerful nobles and Masons who surrounded Bacon bribed and manipulated and disguised evidence that might reveal his identity as author, as they did equally to promote the actor Shakespeare as the author with rewards he was happy to accept.
I must chuckle at your faith in Ms. Gallup. That aside, have you figured out yet how to explain away Mr,. Shakespeare, Gent?
You can imagine whatever you wish for Bacon, but you must first dispose of the facts for Stratford before there’s any chance of advancing Bacon.
What I did not know is that Baconians, at least you anyway, base your belief on a grand conspiracy, like the Oxfordians and the Marlovians, and essentially for the same reason: to explain away the lack of evidence for your candidate–because the conspiracy was so effective that all evidence was suppressed.
Just like we can’t see the Martians walking among us because the govt has done such a good job of protecting them. Have you seen Men in Black?
But then, you wrote a novel, so imagine whatever you want. Go for it!
Cheers!
jaybee, you imply that I am intolerant of anti-Stratfordian ideas, so I reply. You cannot know that I am not. I have not said anything about my qualification in this field because I do not find any argument advanced or supported by credentials. But I am a published Shakespearean scholar with a Ph.D. in English. I have published one leading article relevant to, and not supportive, of Shakespeare’s authorship of the “Sir Thomas More” ms. I have also read a number of articles or books on the “authorship question,” and even reviewed one. Life at any age is too short to read all of them and, at my age (75), way too short. Worse, they are drearily the same in their underlying mistaken assumptions and misguided methods. Worst, no one has shown that his or her preferred candidate changes an understanding of the plays or even parts of them. If I am wrong, reply with a few words showing that Bacon’s authorship changes an interpretation of, say, “Twelfth Night” or “King Lear.” (Telling me that only Bacon could have known this or that does not do your trick.)
Well obviously what the author experienced or even dreamed of is relevant to the words he wrote and expressed in the way he wanted people to understand them, despite that there are various levels of the plays which some may understand and some may not, particularly where allegories were used to disguise meanings and situations of the time.
The author may well deliberately have disguised the meanings so they would only be recognizable to some at the time and not to others. Such was the case with Richard II which inferred to some that Essex was to depose Elizabeth 1st and resulted, wrongly, in his execution since the motive was to incriminate Cecil.
That Bacon for instance was involved with Tycho Brahe and the Hobbes and Digges and the new astronomers gave him the knowledge to explain Cymbeline and Hamlet and Macbeth in celestial terms linking them to new scientific discoveries which in turn gives a clue as to the author (i.e. not being the Stratford actor for example).
Numbers play an important part in these allegories and also give hidden clues to the double writing of the original plays.
In short many people both then and now interpret the plays in different ways. Having a clue as to who the author was and in what possibly emotive circumstances the play was written can give a greater insight into understanding them in my view, if not then at least an interesting one. Many of the plays as you will know were written and rewritten over long periods also reflecting changing times and interpretations of moving events.
The Tempest, which has been interpreted in many ways, shows the diversity of opinion in understanding it and to knowing the reason for the writer to write it gives it more interest, and of course opens up more interpretation.
By the way I am also 75 and have only just returned to reading Shakespeare after a gap of nearly 60 years.
Non-responsive. Mere general associations, not detailed arguments. And so much misinformation. Hobbes, born in 1588, had not begun writing by the time of Shakespeare’s later plays. Indeed, his first work appeared in 1628, a dozen years after Shakespeare died and two years after Bacon died. So Hobbes could have influenced neither writer. Moreover, Shakespeare, unlike Donne, shows little knowledge or or interest in the new astronomical theories. How about a nice round of golf?
Shakespeare as far as anything is known about him had no interest in astronomy whereas Bacon certainly did. It was only in Bacon’s revised later plays that astronomy was referred to As for golf I live in Portugal’s Algarve where we have some 50 courses or so, but I play tennis. But thanks anyhow!
Crazier and crazier. Even granting that Shakespeare had no interest in astronomy, I cannot figure how anyone would know one way or the other if, like you, he or she did not write the plays. Even if Bacon did have an interest in astronomy, how could he have used that knowledge in plays written when he was a teenager and in school? Or were the plays written after Shakespeare was dead, and all the references to them in the previous decades were mere retrojections (like the after-the-fact notices of Obama’s birth in Hawaii)? Now, enough. If you want to parade your foolishness and ignorance, have a good time. But your Bacon is cooked.
Your desire to insult me clearly clouds your judgement.
I am afraid you are ill informed. The plays referring to astronomy were written when both Bacon and Shaksepeare, who were much the same age, were in their 30’s and 40’s.
As you say no-one can say with absolute proof who wrote the plays. Neither you or me or anyone else, which makes it a matter of interesting open discussion.
My book The Royal Secret simply puts the view that the evidence strongly points to Bacon since he was a good friend of the astronomers of his time, all of whom were trained by John Dee one of Bacon’s principal tutors, whereas Shakespeare from Stratford was not connected to Dee or the other astronomers.
This gives more weight to the argument that Bacon and not Shakespeare wrote the plays in which reference to astronomy appears. You offer no argument in return but insults and so provide no useful discussion.
You cannot get anything right. I did not insult you; I impugned your ideas. Only sloppy thinking confuses the person and their ideas.
I was following your reference, not to Bacon, but to Hobbes, who was born too late for his writings to have influenced the plays to which you refer.
Now I am done with the multiple inanities of your position.
I see from other comments you make on all subjects you are bent on destroying other peoples’ reasoning with nothing constructive of your own. What a waste of time you are.
A successful business man and now literary con man makes a fool of himself pontificating in a field in which he has no qualifications and, then, when criticized about an argument which leads nowhere in Shakespere studies and his resort to insults, whines and whimpers that the critics are not constructive. In the case of the anti-Stratfordian position, the only constructive thing to do is destroy its arguments. There is a positive value in correcting error and discrediting nonsense; science does it all the time, and the humanities should–and would if they took themselves seriously. But I appreciate the back-handed way of admitting that you cannot rebut my criticisms; you should learn that good scholars do not invest their egos in their positions, so that, unlike you, their egos are not wounded and deflated if their positions are criticized.
You presume you are a good scholar. What evidence do you have for this any more than the lack of it you produce for William Shakespeare being the author of the Shakespeare plays, half of which were written without any author acclaim until Mr Shaksper was induced to accept a large bribe to act as the pseudonym for the true author?
You say all evidence re Shakespeare is circumstantial.
So it is but it is a great deal more circumstantial in the case of Bacon’s authorship than that of a part time actor from Stratford.
For example that Bacon was known as a great writer of many works whereas Mr Shaksper (if he was the author of the plays) wrote nothing else in his life, including the Sonnets to which his name was never given at the time.
Nor as far as we know could he do more than scribble his almost inelligible signature.
As your arguments are now reduced to calling me a con-man I suggest any thinking person would realize you have nowhere to go with the self righteous indignation you surround your responses with.
Some researcher you are! Do you really think that I would make such a claim which I could not substantiate. Look up “Michael L Hays Shakespeare” on a web browser and see what you find: a book at a refereed, respectable press; published articles, presented papers, and public lectures.
Some scholar you are! Where is the evidence–contemporary documentation required, not latter-day impuitations–that Shakespeare accepted a bribe?
As for con man, I note that another commentator reported that you shil your books on threads like this one, though at least your book supporting Bacon can have no content worth the price.
Now I am done with your lunacy on this topic. Have a Happy Easter.
I have not written any other books so you are wrong once again. Perhaps it is you who should do your own research a bit better. Obviously my sources have been ignored by you since you cannot bear the thought of any changes to you fixed views. Your responses mark you out as a rude opinionated Luddite prat.
More insults. And whose views are fixed? You cannot admit that my claims were well founded. You might have noted that one article is routinely cited by scholars on both sides of the “authorship questions”–some indication that my mind is open on questions and closes on evidence and argument. I wish you every success in peddling your pseudo-scholarly porn.
Looks as if you have read some of the book. You should read it all to find out more about life and immortality, the main theme of the book and also that of Francis Bacon’s life. Strangely people do have sex – even Shakespeare- and their emotions are very important to how they see life and what they write. If you have ever written a novel or a play you will know this.
But your credential, Michael L. Hays, is in English, not history, let alone forensic history, thus you are ill qualified to render a valid opinion on the topic, using your own logic. Be careful throwing bricks, the glass might come back and bite you.
Yes, Michael L Hayes, how DARE someone offer an opinion that differs from yours. Yes, to the tower with him! By the way, its really naive to think that some theatre manager named William Shakespeare, with a very limited education, had the breadth of knowledge available to him to write the plays attributed to him.
I am sorry that anyone who DARES to disagree with you comes in for insult. I offered an invitation to anti-Stratfordians–you had not yet joined the fun or, I am sure that I would have extended a personal invitation just to you–to show that knowing an author other than Shakespeare made a difference to any understanding of the plays attributed to him. I wrote above, “Worst, no one has shown that his or her preferred candidate changes an
understanding of the plays or even parts of them. If I am wrong, reply
with a few words showing that Bacon’s authorship changes an
interpretation of, say, “Twelfth Night” or “King Lear.” (Telling me
that only Bacon could have known this or that does not do your trick.)” (The person to whom I was responding is a Baconian. Pick a different candidate of your choice.) So, instead of getting all huffy and puffy, why not put up or shut up.
By the way, your compartmentalization of English and history is, at least in my case, absurd. Try reading the first and second chapters of my book, for instance. As for your claim that it is “naive” to think as you suggest already begs the question, namely, that Shakespeare was only a “theatre manager,” a claim for which there is not a single shred of evidence–no, not one.
King Lear – do you mean King “Earl”?
Two Gentleman from VERona?
RomE.O. and Juliet?
The Winter’s Tale in French is “Le Comte de Hiver” which is a french pun for “The Earl de Ver”
The boar that Shakespeare mentions 17 times kills Adonis.
And as you favor cryptography, see if you can spot the name of the author in Sonnet 76:
http://www.dlropershakespearians.com/Autograph%20Sonnet.pdf
Francis? Anon Anon!
It would be more correct to say that the evidence is too speculative at this point to be of much value in the Shakespeare authorship question. But I think it was used in an interesting way in the fiction book ‘The Queen’s Cipher’. For the authorship question it’s better to see something like ‘Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?’
The authorship question is finally resolved in the new book The Royal Secret to be found on http://www.theroyalsecret.info
William Shakespeare, an educated Gentlemen of London and Stratford, a successful actor, playwright and part owner of the Globe Theater, the Immortal Bard of Avon, the acknowledged author of numerous plays and poetry attributed to HIM in HIS OWN TIME by other actors, authors, publishers, and members of the nobility, the “Sweet Swan of Avon,” according to Ben Jonson, has had his authorship under attack lo these, what? One hundred fifty years? Yet, not one single shred of evidence has been offered to support such nonsense. None. .Instead we have things like the man holding the hat. Or the bird. Look! Look at the bird! Yes, that proves Shakespeare was a fraud.
Nonsense. You’re the one without a “single shred of evidence” that Shake-Speare (as Ben Jonson once spelled the name) wasn’t a pen name. You are woefully ignorant of all the evidence since de Vere’s lifetime that he was considered one of the best poets and playwrights; and that “Shake-Speare” was known by some to be a pseudonym.
It must be nice to live in a world where the sky is. . . what color is the sky there? Can’t be blue. That’s the color of the sky in THIS world, the world where William Shakespeare, the Immortal Bard of Avon is has been the acknowledge author of his plays for several centuries, and where there is not a shred of evidence to even suggest otherwise.
Now in YOUR world things may be different. So please share! What in your world, perhaps, Venus, constitutes evidence of any kind. Please, do share!
“Please share.” Really? I can’t say it all here, but I’ve published on this, and if you or anyone else is interested, you can read most of my publications on Shake-Speare at
http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/waugamar/?action=viewpublications&PageTemplateID=360
Thank you, I will read with great interest and I’d better find some real objective evidence.
Well, after immersing myself in Waugamania, I must admit there are some interesting things to know about Shakespeare, however, what I was really looking for, what I was hoping to find does not exist, so far, and I’ve gone through about a quarter or one-third of what is there, and that is EVIDENCE.
It’s becoming clear that there is a definite difference between what you consider “evidence,” and what I consider it. For example, you raise the issue of Shakespeare’s “bi-sexuality, ” as “implying,” de Vere’s authorship. I don’t know if I can list how many ways I find this illogically and intellectually offensive.
Shakespeare’s bi-sexuality? Fine. What is the evidence for that? Just as you would scream, “where is the evidence for his schooling,” I want evidence, real evidence, of his bisexuality. Also, who cares? How many men practiced bi-sexuality in Elizabethan England among the arts, or in the nobility? We have the statistics? Perhaps it was quite high? I don’t know. Neither do you.
Then, the biggest just of all, which is somehow supposed to make the entire western front pause: this implies de Vere’s authorship.
I’m sorry, but you see that is to me like saying Shakespeare’s name begins with and “S” and, _________ fill in the blank, I mean, say ANYTHING, and that’s supposed to be evidence. How ridiculous. You sir, are a charlatan, a mountebank. In the words of Groucho Marx, I’d horsewhip you if I had a horse.
Please deliver us some REAL evidence or stop. Just stop it. Stop it.
Ironically, some people such as Joseph Ciolino (a.k.a. “UncleJoe223”) get rather intemperate when anyone suggests “Shake-Speare” was a pen name, while using one themselves. Why did Ben Jonson spell the name that way, do you think? Thank you for reading at least one of my 60 publications on this topic. Since there have been some 4,000 books disputing the traditional authorship theory, I see no reason to repeat what has already been written by others.
In contrast with Mr. Ciolino’s insulting reaction, the book review editor of the Renaissance Quarterly asked me to become a reviewer for her journal after reading my publications on Shakespeare’s biblical allusions, knowing what I found was thanks to passages marked in de Vere’s Bible and Whole Book of Psalms.
Sorry but although it is clear to anyone with the facts that William Shakespeare was not the writer of the Shakespeare plays neither was it Edward de Vere for reasons that are explained fully in the new book to be found on http://www.theroyalsecret.info
Excuse me but not one shred of evidence has ever been produced to say that William Shakespeare was the writer of the plays given his name, in most cases long after they were written by the real author Francis Bacon. In fact the bit part actor from Stratford could barely write his own name. All the evidence that one could need for proof of this is now contained in the new book The Royal Secret to be found on http://www.theroyalsecret.info
Since the book seems to be about cryptography, isn’t it more likely that the illustration of Bacon handing a note to a man with a spear depicts him giving a coded message to a soldier? If the sequence starts at the bottom and is followed clockwise, I’d suggest that the author of a note is sitting at a desk writing in code; the man gives the coded message to a soldier serving as a messenger; the messenger escapes from a seemingly besieged city or fortress by boat; and the messenger, now on horseback, rides to raise the alarm at an allied city, blowing his horn. Stratford denialists are convinced that every book and illustration from the period were secret clues to the identity of the writer of Shakespeare’s works. Thinking independently is different from assuming that every reference to Shakespeare as an author is actual a secret reference to Bacon, or Oxford, or Marlowe.
Agreed, but nevertheless it is well known and established that Bacon was a brilliant cryptographer in the secret service of Elizabeth 1st. Elizabeth Wells Gallup, also a principal cryptographer for the US secret service, who spent 30 years of her life decoding Bacon’s own life story found encrypted in the pages of his plays. No other possible writer of Shakespeare had any knowledge of cryptography as far as is known. Why should Bacon hide his authorship?
Because he was forbidden to do so by his true mother Elizabeth 1st.
Detailed information on the above can be found on http://www.theroyalsecret.info a new book covering all aspects of all possible writers.
Well, there is a guy with a hat handing paper to a guy with a spear. So there’s that to contend with.
LOL.
It is Sir Edward Durning Lawrence (not Dunning – Amazon has transcribed
the name incorrectly). There is an excellent book by William
Friedman:The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined
http://www.alibris.co.uk/search/books/isbn/9780521050401 which
demolishes the “cryptographic” arguments most effectively.
II have not read Friedman’s book but I would recommend the book by Margaret Barsi-Greene last published in 1973 entitled “I.Prince Tudor, Wrote Shakespeare” based on the 30 years of deciphering of the codes in the Shakepeare plays by the brilliant cryptographer Elizabeth Wells Gallup.
My recent book to be found on http://www.theroyalsecret.info details both of the above and examines the claims of other authors apart from Francis Bacon whom both ladies above agree is Francis Bacon, the son of Elizabeth 1st.
William and Elizabeth Friedman worked Elizabeth Gallup before 1920 and devote some five chapters of their book to discussing her findings.
Speaking of abusing one’s credentials, here’s link to one of more egregious examples where the good doctor (M.D. in Psychiatry, Freudian), diagnoses Stratfordians and their sundry psychopathologies.
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2012_Waugaman_Psy.pdf
Also delightful as example of utter lack of self-awareness. Might just as well have been diagnosing himself and the rest of his tribe.
Would actually be rather funny, were it not so nasty, and if he wasn’t so proud of it.
The work of a pitiful thriver.
It is true that those who believe in William Shakespeare can be died-in-the-wool in their views without any real evidence other than to shoot down the evidence of other claimants to the authorship of the plays. The Shakespeare authorship was known at the time of writing but kept secret for reasons that become obvious on reading my book to be found on http://www.theroyalsecret.info .
It was 150 years later that the famous actor, writer and promoter David Garrick hijacked the Shakespeare name along with Stratford to make his fortune which from then on the people of Stratford have made a good living. One cannot blame them but equally their reason for obfuscation is obvious.