Bacon and Shakspere by William Henry Burr

(2 User reviews)   2962
By Charlotte Girard Posted on Nov 15, 2025
In Category - Philosophy
Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908 Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908
English
Okay, I just read the weirdest, most fascinating book. It's called 'Bacon and Shakspere,' and it's not a cookbook. The author, William Henry Burr, makes one huge, bold claim: William Shakespeare didn't write the plays. He argues it was all a front for Sir Francis Bacon, the philosopher and scientist. The book is basically a 19th-century conspiracy theory, packed with codes, hidden messages, and historical detective work. It's totally bonkers and completely gripping. If you've ever wondered about the 'who really wrote Shakespeare' debate, this is a wild ride straight from the source. It will make you look at the Bard in a whole new, suspicious light.
Share

Read "Bacon and Shakspere by William Henry Burr" Online

This book is available in the public domain. Start reading the digital edition below.

START READING FULL BOOK
Instant Access    Mobile Friendly

Book Preview

A short preview of the book’s content is shown below to give you an idea of its style and themes.

The second and third autographs have William written above Shakspere. Who but an illiterate person would sign his name thus? In the last two signatures (being told perhaps that his name ought to be written on one line) he puts William before Shakspere; but the fourth William reads Willin. See now how differently each letter is formed in the name Shakspere, beginning with the initial: Did anybody ever write the first letter of his name so differently? After four attempts to form a capital S he succeeds tolerably well the fifth time. The second S, though of singular shape, appears to have been a customary one as early as 1598. (See examples of that year below.) Shakspere’s first attempt to form the crooked letter is a failure, but the second passably good. So again in 1616, when he has a different form to copy, his first attempt is futile, the second is passable, and the third quite successful. But in attempting the next letter he makes it worse every time: With the letter a he is more successful, making it legible three times out of five: [5] But the attempt to form a k is a signal failure: With the long s he succeeds best the first time, and worst the second and third: The letter p is legible the first time, but grows worse and worse to the last: It seems as if in the first attempt to sign his name in 1613 he thought it was complete when he made it end with sp e; but being reminded that it lacked a letter or two he undertook to add one by putting an a over the e thus: The next time, which was probably the same day,(1) he seems to have written his name Shaksper, though the terminal letters are uncertain: The third time he gets it more like Shakspoze: The deed to Shakspere and two other trustees is dated March 10 and signed Henry Walker. The mortgage from Shakspere and the other trustees is dated March 11. But for some unaccountable reason a duplicate verbatim copy of the deed from Henry Walker is signed by William Shakspere. This duplicate is in the Library of the city of London; the mortgage is in the British Museum. The duplicate deed we suspect was signed after the mortgage. Hence the improvement in the autograph; it was probably Shakspere’s second attempt to write. Compare it with the third. [6] The fourth time he seems to have tried to disguise the termination with awkward flourishes, making the letters totally illegible: Finally, he omits the flourishes and comes nearer legibility, but still it is impossible to tell whether he meant to write _ear, ere, or eare_: And now let the reader mark, that notwithstanding the orthodox spelling of the name from 1593 to 1616, and indeed up to the present time, was and is Shakespeare, there is no e in the first syllable and no a in the last, although some have imagined the letter a to exist in the last part of the final autograph. We have said that these signatures are all that. Shakspere is known to have written; we ought to add that he prefixed to the last one the following scrawl: For a long time we puzzled over this. Could it be an attempt to write “25th of March,” the day of the execution of the will? At last we read the following in Hallowell-Phillipps’s Shakspere: “It may be observed that the words By me, which, the autograph excepted, are the only ones in the poet’s handwriting known to...

This is a limited preview. Download the book to read the full content.

Let's get straight to it: this book is an argument, not a novel. William Henry Burr, writing in the 1800s, lays out his case that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, William Shakspere (spelled that way on purpose), was not the genius behind 'Hamlet' or 'Macbeth.' Instead, Burr points the finger at Sir Francis Bacon, a towering intellectual figure of the Elizabethan era.

The Story

There's no traditional plot here. Think of it as a lawyer's brief for the most famous literary cold case in history. Burr marches through his evidence: he questions Shakespeare's education and life experience, highlights Bacon's known literary talents and philosophical depth, and dives into the controversial idea of ciphers and secret codes buried within the plays' texts that supposedly spell out Bacon's authorship. The whole book is Burr trying to convince you that history has been fooled for centuries.

Why You Should Read It

You won't find many modern scholars who agree with Burr, and that's part of the fun. Reading this is like stepping into a time machine and watching a passionate amateur detective build his case. His fervor is contagious. Even if you finish the book still believing in Shakespeare, you'll have a much richer understanding of why the debate exists. It forces you to think about what we really know about history, authorship, and fame.

Final Verdict

This is a niche pick, but a thrilling one for the right reader. It's perfect for history buffs who love a good mystery, literary detectives who enjoy a 'what if' scenario, and anyone who finds conspiracy theories from a bygone era strangely compelling. Don't read it for the final answer—read it for the wild, passionate, and wonderfully odd journey.



🟢 Community Domain

Legal analysis indicates this work is in the public domain. It is available for public use and education.

Paul Davis
11 months ago

Having read this twice, the arguments are well-supported by credible references. Exactly what I needed.

Lucas Nguyen
2 months ago

Amazing book.

4.5
4.5 out of 5 (2 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.
You must log in to post a comment.
Log in


Related eBooks