5 R. Simpson, New Shakspere Soc. Trans., London, 1875, p. 175: “Paper drum is the slang word for dramatic poetry.”

6 Outlines, Vol. I., p. 205, 1887

This portrait of Shakespeare I cut from a picture about three feet square, containing several other portraits in the same style of work. The picture was recently bought at the Custom House, by a picture dealer, of whom I purchased it, under a strong impression that it was painted about the time of Shakespeare, either by an artist who had seen him, or who copied a genuine portrait of the poet now lost, as this likeness differs from all the portraits hitherto published or known.
Thomas Gilliland.
London, April 3, 1827

• The Hardie Portrait. A very singular portrait, purporting to represent Shakespeare, was formerly in the possession of Dr. Hardie, of Manchester, England. At one time it was regarded by some persons as a genuine picture, but Wivell subsequently discovered that it was a forgery by Zincke. He had altered it from the portrait of a French dancing master, which he purchased for a few shillings.
• The Liddell Portrait. It is painted on an oak panel, and is three-quarter size. It was purchased by Thomas Liddell, Esq., of Portland Place, London, from a Mr. Lewis, of Charles Street, Soho, for thirty-nine pounds. It strongly resembles the Stratford bust, but Wivell noticed, when he went to see it (prior to 1827) that the hair, beard, mouth, and ruff seemed to have been altered from their original appearance.
• The Dunford Portrait. In Great Newport Street, London, there formerly lived a print-seller named Dunford, who became the owner of this portrait about 1814. He purchased it from Edward Holder, a repairer of old paintings, for four guineas. Wivell ascertained that it was a forgery, and that it had been altered from a picture which Holder purchased for a few shillings.
• The Winstanley Portrait. February 10, 1819 Thomas Winstanley, an auctioneer, of Liverpool, wrote a letter to The Literary Gazette, which was published February 20, 1819. In this he described a portrait of Shakespeare in his possession, which he stated he had purchased from a dealer, who had obtained it from a pawnbroker. Winstanley also said that a friend, whose opinion of a work of art was of much value, had pronounced it to be the work of Paul Vansomer; that it was in a fine state of preservation, and had the appearance of having been painted in Shakespeare’s time.
• The Zincke Portrait. W.F. Zincke, an artist who seems to have vied with Edward Holder in the manufacture of spurious portraits of Shakespeare, was the painter of this picture. The portrait is in an oval and shows the full face. The shape of the head, the arrangement of the hair and beard, all bear considerable resemblance to the Stratford bust, which Zincke appears to have taken as his model. On one side of the oval in which the picture is painted is a sketch of the poet with his dog and gun, and on the other side he is shown as a boy holding a horse; the latter being a representation of the story of his having followed that occupation while a youth.
• The Talma Portrait. Zincke, who had already appeared as the fabricator of other spurious portraits of the poet, altered this one from another picture. It is on the wooden part of a pair of bellows, and Zincke concocted a wonderful story about a friend of his finding it in an old tavern. It was sold by one Foster to a Mr. Allen for a small sum. Foster told Wivell, in 1827, that he knew it was not an original portrait, and he had sold about thirty of “these mock original Shakespeares,” and that he “never got more than six or eight guineas for the best, and I can assure you that I found it difficult to persuade many of the purchasers that they were not originals.”
• The monument of Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey. This work is from a design by W. Kent, and was executed by P. Scheemakers. It was erected in 1741. The funds required were raised by two performances given in the theatres, and the committee having the matter in charge consisted of the Earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope and Mr. Martin. The poet is represented as leaning his right elbow on some books, which rest on a column. The head of the figure is somewhat like the Chandos portrait; the dress a doublet, knee breeches and cloak, which latter hangs from one shoulder. With his left hand he points to a scroll with an inscription on it from The Tempest. As a work of art it does not rank very high. Several engravings have been made of this monument, the first by J. Maurer in 1742, the next by Miller in mezzotint. The latter is of folio size and very rare.
• Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo. When Boydell employed the best English artists of his day to paint the pictures which he afterward had engraved, he also caused to be made for the front of the Shakespeare Gallery, Pall Mall, London, a large monument in alto relievo, which was designed and executed by J. Banks, R.A. Shakespeare is represented seated on a rock. He leans his left hand on the shoulder of an allegorical figure of a woman representing the Genius of Painting, who has a palette and brushes in one hand, while with the other she points to the poet as the best subject for her talent. The other allegorical figure is also a woman, who represents the Dramatic Genius, who is figured with a lyre, while she offers a wreath to the poet. The allegorical figures are well done, especially the Genius of Painting, whose figure is very graceful and charming, but the poet has not fared so well. The face has often been mistaken for George Washington, to whom the resemblance is striking. The Alto Relievo was removed from London in the 1800’s and was presented by Mr. C. Holte Bracebridge to Shakespeare’s Garden at New Place, Stratford-upon-Avon, where it now is. The stone from which the monument was cut is very soft, and owing to this unfortunate circumstance, it has suffered somewhat from exposure to the weather.
• The Roubiliac Statue. In 1758 Lewis Francis Roubiliac sculptured this statue of Shakespeare for David Garrick. The latter, by his will, provided that it should go to the British Museum after the death of his wife, and it is now there. It represents the poet leaning on a stand covered with drapery, in the act of composition. The face is taken from the Chandos portrait, and the costume is a doublet and knee breeches. Over all is thrown a loose cloak, which hangs from his shoulders.
• The Ward Statue. This statue, which is the work of Mr. J.Q.A. Ward, was erected in Central Park, New York, May 23, 1872. In modelling the head Mr. Ward has closely followed the Stratford bust, but he has given the face a much more intellectual expression than appears in that effigy. The cheeks are thinner and the face more refined, and yet one can see at a glance that the Stratford bust has been the model. The poet is represented standing, as if lost in thought. He holds a book in his right hand and has his finger between the leaves to keep the place where he has been reading. The left hand rests on the hip, and the head is inclined slightly forward. The costume consists of doublet and hose, with puffed-out breeches, and a cloak hanging from the left shoulder, and is very graceful and well conceived.
• Perhaps no greater fraud was ever perpetrated than one found in an American book published in 1896 and entitled “Shakespeare the Boy.” A portrait of Shakespeare in youth is presented in the frontispiece, thus: “This is not a portrait of Shakspere, but apparently of John Milton.” The deception is particularly heinous, because, as the author confesses, the book was written for the benefit of young people. No portrait of Shaksper, taken at the time of life as here represented, is in existence, or ever was in existence. It is therefore utterly false.

Shakespeare’s seal ring Is said to have been found in 1810 in a field near Stratford Churchyard by a labourer’s wife, who, before selling it, immersed it in a bath of aquafortis [acid] “to remove the stains of age.” It is of gold, and bears the initials, “W.S.” It was shown to Malone, who suggested that it might have belonged to Mr. William Smith, an ancient resident of Stratford, and he was told that a device of Smith had been seen which was a skull and crossbones.” 12

Shakespeare’s signatures Shaksper’s six authentic signatures are subscribed to the following documents:

• His deposition in a lawsuit brought by Stephen Bellott against his father-in-law Christopher Montjoy, a Huguenot tire-maker, of Silver-street, near Wood-street in the city of London, with whom Shaksper lodged about the year 1604; dated May 11, 1612. (Discovered by Dr. C. W. Wallace in the Public Record Office).
• Conveyance of a house in Blackfriars, London, purchased by Shaksper March 10, 1613. (Now in the Guildhall Library).
• Mortgage-deed of the same property; March 11, 1613. (Now in the British Museum).
• 5. 6. Shaksper’s Will & Testament, written on three sheets of paper, with his signature at the foot of each one; executed March 25, 1616. (Now in Somerset House).

The six signatures, one of them prefaced by the words “By me”, present a meagre total of fourteen words. The actual signatures are to be read thus:

• Willm Shakp
• William Shaksper
• Wm Shakspe
• William Shakspere
• Willm Shakspere
• By me William Shakspeare

Not one of the above signatures gives the spelling “Shakespeare” as on the First Folio or on the Sonnets. So, the actor of Stratford spelt his name as one of the above six; the author of Shakespearean literature spelt his hame as “Shakespeare” which concludes there were two different characters that are wrongly taken as one person.

Shakespeare’s Sonnets The author of the Sonnets, admittedly, was the author of the Poems and the Plays, and the whole Shakespearian question would seem to resolve itself into the question, who was the author of the Sonnets. 13 “There was a time” says Sir Henry Wotton, sometime secretary to the Earl of Essex, “when Sir Fulke Greville, had almost superinduced into favour the Earl of Southampton, which yet being timely discovered, my lord of Essex chose to evaporate his thoughts in a Sonnet [being his common way] to be sung before the Queen [as it was] by one Hales, in whose voice she took some pleasure; whereof the couplet, methinks, had as much of the Hermit as of the Poet.” 14 In 1609 Shakespeare’s Sonnets appeared, with the intimation that Shakespeare was not really the name of the author, but was the noted weed in which he kept invention; and in the same year Troilus and Cressida was published with the announcement [in the preface] that the Shakespearian Plays were the property of certain grand possessors. 15 [Also see Appendices Poems: Written By Wil. Shakespeare. 1640]. The Sonnets have proved to be a treasure trove to literary faddists, and one who is lavish of time and patience to follow them in their wanderings can but realize how limited is human endeavour in speculative fields. Books galore have been written to discover the identity of “W.H.” to whom the Sonnets were dedicated, as though this were matter of grave importance. One writer discerns behind the mysterious letters, which he reverses, Henry Wriothesley; others, William Harvey, William Hart, William Herbert, William Hathaway, and William Hughes. Mary Fitton, one of the actor’s supposed mistresses, has also played an unsavoury role in the discussion. (Baxter). 16
If any still feel a hankering attraction towards Baconian authorship, they will do well to realise how closely, in much of their outward setting, the lines of Bacon’s life concur with those of Edward, Earl of Oxford, for Bacon’s mother (Anne Cooke) was sister to Sir William Cecil’s wife (Lady Burleigh); from fourteen onwards, the Earl of Oxford was a member of the Cecil household; on his marriage with Anne Cecil (1571), he became first cousin by marriage to the young Francis Bacon. All their lives they moved in Cecil surroundings: both, by Lord Burleigh’s influence, were entered as Law students at Gray’s Inn; both from time to time held chambers there.
Alike in pecuniary embarrassments (which were numerous) and in pursuit of public preferments, both turned habitually to Lord Burleigh, or later to his son and successor, Lord Robert (Marquis of Salisbury). Both travelled on the Continent, and had contact with the Court of France; Oxford from 1575 to 1576, Bacon from 1576 to 1579. Both made their homes in London, came under like literary influences, mingled in the same society and circles of the Court; even in their relations with the Queen there was marked similarity. At the Essex Southampton trial, Bacon was foremost among Counsel for prosecution, and the Earl of Oxford on the panel of Judges who gave sentence. (Rendall). 17

Shaksper’s fame The Reverend John Ward of Stratford, writing fourty-seven years after the actor’s death, made the following entry in his diary: “Remember to peruse Shakspere’s plays, that I may not be ignorant of them;” says Professor Else, “as though he were mentally tying a knot in his handkerchief.” The well-known house on Henley street, claimed to have been the house in which Shaksper, the reputed poet, had his birth, was first pointed out as such on the occasion of David Garrick’s famous Shakesperean jubilee, held there in 1769, two hundred and five years after the actor was born. This necessity, thus imposed upon the inhabitants, of selecting a birthplace for one who had long been forgotten among them threw the town into commotion. Three different houses at once became competitors for the honour, and they all remained so in dispute until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when one of them, the Brooks house on the banks of the river, was conveniently torn down. This reduced the perplexing number of birthplaces to two. Another stood near the cemetery and had in its favour a tradition that Shaksper wrote the ghost scene in Hamlet in full view of its grave-stones from his window at dead of night; but as this story is told also of Westminster Abbey, where the reputed author was said to have passed a night alone for the same purpose, the Henley street house easily acquired in course of time the undisputed supremacy which it holds to-day. When in the early 1900’s, an American speculator (Mr. P.T. Barnum) undertook to buy the structure for transportation across the Atlantic, a Stratford newspaper announced that their local antiquaries would then be “likely to prove that the house never was Shakespeare’s at all, and that the Yankees had bought a pig in a poke.”
“Stratford-on-Avon under the management of its oligarchy, instead of being, as it ought to be, the center of Shakesperean research, has become the seat of Shaksperean charlatanry. It was not till the jubilee of 1769 that the tendency to the fabrication of Shakesperean anecdotes and relics at Stratford became manifest. All kinds of deception have since been practiced there.” (Halliwell-Phillipps). 18 The museum of relics to which a part of the premises was devoted appears to have originally been opened to the public as a private enterprise by a Mrs. Hornby, soon after the Garrick Jubilee in 1769. We first hear of it in 1777, at which time the sole relic on exhibition was an arm-chair which the “great dramatist” was said to have used. This chair was sold to a Russian Princess, in 1790, for twenty guineas and carried away; but in 1815 Washington Irving found it in its accustomed place. This same chair is restricted in our day for the amount of £5.000. Among the articles which Mrs. Hornby finally collected together and exhibited as Shaksper’s personal belongings were carved oak chests, portions of a carved bedstead, an iron deed-box, a sword, a lantern, pieces of the famous mulberry tree, a card and dice box, a table cloth of black velvet embroidered with gold (said to have been a gift of Queen Elizabeth), one of Mrs. Shaksper’s shoes, a drinking glass made expressly for the actor during his last illness, and the table on which he wrote his works, all of which without a single exception were denounced by R.B. Wheeler, historian of Stratford and author of the first local guide-book, as scandalous impositions.
Arthur C. Benson, author of the Upton Letters: “I have made a pilgrimage to Stratford [1904], and now that I have been there and returned, feel that I have been standing on the threshold of a mystery. Who, when all is said and done, was this extraordinary man? If Shaksper was Shakespeare, he seems, (to speak frankly) to have had a humanity distinct and apart from his genius. Here we have the son of a busy, quarrelsome, enterprising tradesman, who eventually indeed came to grief in trade, of yeoman stock, and bearing a common name. His mother could not write her own signature; [nor, as it is well known, could the father write his.] Of his youth we hear little that is not disreputable. He married under unpleasant circumstances, after an entanglement which took place at a very early age. Then he drifts up to London, and joins a theatrical company; then a rascally kind of trade; deserting his wife and family. His life in London is full of secrets. At fourty-seven, it all ceases. He writes no more. Who can co-ordinate or reconcile these things? Who can conceive the likeness of the man who steps in this light-hearted, simple way on to the very highest platform of literature, so lofty and unattainable a place he takes without striving, without arrogance, a throne among the thrones where Homer, Virgil and Dante sit? And yet his mind is set, not on these things, but on acres, and messages, tithes and investments.”

Ship of Fools By Sebastian Brandt, 1494. The Ship of Fools was translated into Latin by one Professor Locher (1497), and imitated in the same language and under the same title, by another, Badius Ascensius (1507); it appeared in Dutch and Low German, and was twice translated into English, and three times into French; imitations competed with the original in French and German, as well as Latin, and greatest and most unprecedented distinction of all, it was preached, but, we should opine, only certain parts of it, from the pulpit by the best preachers of the time as a new gospel. The Germans proudly award it the epithet, “epoch-making,” and its long continued popularity affords good, if not quite sufficient, ground for the extravagant eulogies they lavish upon it. Trithemius calls it “Divina Satira,” and doubts whether anything could have been written more suited to the spirit of the age; Locher compares Brandt with Dante, and Hutten styles him the new law-giver of German poetry. It is noted that Sir Edward Coke spoke of Francis Bacon’s Great Instauration as “it deserves not to be read in schools, but to be freighted in the Ship of Fools.” [See Appendices Ship of Fools for further reference on this work].

Silent Academy An amusing instance occurs in the Abbe Blanchet’s Apologues Orientaux in his description of The Silent Academy, or the Emblems: “There was at Hamadan, a city of Persia, a celebrated Academy, of which the first statute was conceived in these terms; the Academicians shall think much, write little, and speak the very least that is possible. It was named the Silent Academy; and there was not in Persia any truly learned man who had not the ambition of being admitted to it. Dr. Zeb, an imaginary person, author of an excellent little work, The Gag, learned, in the retirement of the province where he was born, there was one place vacant in the Silent Academy. He sets out immediately; he arrives at Hamadan, and presenting himself at the door of the hall where the Academicians are assembled, he prays the servant to give this billet to the president: Dr. Zeb asks humbly the vacant place. The servant immediately executed the commission, but the Doctor and his billet arrived too late, the place was already filled. The Silent Academy was deeply grieved at this disappointment; it had admitted, a little against its wish, a wit from the Court, whose lively light eloquence formed the admiration of all rules. The Silent Academy saw itself reduced to refuse Doctor Zeb, the scourge of praters, with a head so well formed and so well furnished. The president, charged to announce to the Doctor the disagreeable news, could scarcely bring himself to it, and knew not how to do it. After having thought a little, he filled a large cup with water, but so well filled it, that one drop more would have made the liquid overflow; then he made sign that the candidate should be introduced. He appeared with that simple and modest air which almost always announces true merit. The president arose and, without offering a single word, showed with an appearance of deep sorrow, the emblematic cup; this cup so exactly filled. The Doctor understood that there was no more make it understood.”

Sir, the noble title Of the noble title of Sir is the distinctive title given to the possessors of the degrees of Masonic Knighthood, and is borrowed from the heraldic usage. The word knight is sometimes interposed between the title and the personal name, as, for example, Sir Knight John Smith. English Knights are in the habit of using the word frater, or brother, a usage which to some extent is being adopted in the United States. English Knights Templars have been led to the abandonment of the title Sir because legal enactments made the use of titles not granted by the crown unlawful. But there is no such law in the States. The addition of Sir to the names of all Knights is accounted, says Ashmole, “parcel of their style.” The use of it is as old, certainly, as the time of Edward I., and it is supposed to be a contraction of the old French Sire, meaning Seigneur, or Lord.

Sizes of books The origin of the various book sizes must always remain more or less shrouded in obscurity. But it may be added that the first quarto is supposed to date from 1465; the octavo format appeared in 1470; the 12mo in 1472, and Jensen published the first 32mo in Venice in 1473. It is claimed that Aldus was the first to use the octavo format for his Virgil in 1500.

Solicitor General Bacon was appointed Solicitor General, July 25, 1607.

Square and the Compasses From the Collected Edition of Francis Bacon’s Prose Works by Dr. Peter Shaw (1694–1763) in 1733, where the first collection to appear after the Emergence of the Freemasons in 1723, unmistakably links Francis Bacon with the Craft. There is the Square and Compasses, the Globe, the T.T. and Cross Symbol found in the 1723 Book of Constitutions, the Palette denoting that he is a Painter or Poet who paints with words (like “F.B. Pictor et Architectus” in the Rosicrucian Fama) the New Organ, symbolising the New Philosophy told in the Instauration Part VI., and a Mask to denote he was a Concealed Writer. The Eagle of the Higher Degrees broods over the Engraving. The Royal Arch Masonic Jewel indicates the connection of the Royal Arch Degree with Fra Rosi Crosse for it carries the Seal 287. It is unlikely that this particular Jewel was numbered as a reference to the Chapter Stone of Friendship, Stockport, formed in 1793. It never has been customary to engrave a Chapter number on the Arch Jewel nor is it done today. The hanging Basket was the Elizabethan Emblem signifying “a collection of things.” For the sun in the Centre was the Symbol for “God’s First Creature which was Light,” the “Lux” of the Rosicrucians and the “All-Seeing Eye” which Gilded the earth whereupon it gazeth of the Freemason.

Sonnet 20
A Woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted
Hast thou, the Master-Mistress of my Passion:
A Woman’s gentle heart but not acquainted
With shifting change as is false woman’s fashion;
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling 19
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A Man in Hue, all ‘Hues’ in his controlling, 20
Which steals men’s eyes and women’s souls amazeth. 21
And for a Woman wert thou first created; 22
Till Nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prick’d thee out for Women’s pleasure,
Mine be thy Love 23 and thy Love’s use their Treasure. 24

The modern Arch Jewel closely follows but it carries no number or date. On the circle and scroll is written in Latin two significant sentences: “If thou cans’t comprehend these things thou knowest enough,” and “Nothing is wanting but the Key.” The only English words on one side are placed upside-down along the base of the triangle above the English Letters which are set in the circle between “stops”. It was a favourite Rosicrucian Device to place words upside-down to call attention to them. [Also see Northumberland Manuscript regarding upside-down writing.] “The object of upside-down printing was to reveal, to those deemed worthy of receiving it, some secret concerning the Founder,” says Sir E. Durning Lawrence. The “Stop,” “Stop” on either side of the “AL. AD” are intended to make the reader pause and consider that they actually spell “A LAD.” The “Lad” of the Royal Arch Companions was the same “youth” whom the Rosicrucians say was their Founder. He was the “extraordinary young man” whom De Quincey said, had “hoaxed” the world by burying the genesis of the Craft in a Comedy, “L.L.L.” The numerical totals of the words on both sides of the Jewel associate Francis Bacon with the Craft in a most remarkable manner. Individually and collectively they spell out his cypher signatures. 25 On the face of the Jewel the letters give the correct numbers for Fr. Bacon, Kt., Shakespeare, Francis, F. Bacon, etc. The acrostics on the first letters of words give Bacon-Shakespeare, Fr. Bacon, F. St. Alban, Bacon. The obverse side gives, similarly, consistent results including “Francis Tudor.” This has been confirmed by a recognised authority on numerical Cyphers, B.G. Theobald, B.A., author of Francis Bacon Concealed and Revealed. The name of the Elizabethan Solomon is thus invisibly written on every Royal Arch Jewel by the numbers of Pythagoras, the Pyramid Emblem being associated with the Higher Degrees; with learning “Bacon’s own image of Knowledge as a Pyramid,” (Nichol); 26 and with Alciati’s Emblems with which “Francis Bacon had a very close connection.” (Goldsworthy).

Star Chamber Bacon was not the only eminent jurist who approved of it; Sir Edward Coke, in the fourth book of his Institutes, speaks of it in a favourable term as ever Bacon did: “It is the most honourable Court; our Parliament except, that is in the Christian world, both in respect of the Judges of the Court, and of their honourable proceeding according to their just jurisdiction, and the ancient and just orders of the Court.” (Bacon). 27
Named for a Chamber in Westminster Palace, this Court dealt with, among other things, violations of the Royal Prerogative and issues for which there was no applicable law. It dates from before the Tudor period, but Henry VII., strengthened its powers. It had public hearings but no jury. It was typically speedier than the Common Courts, so people would petition to hear their cases heard there. Forces, frauds, crimes various of stellionate, and the inchoations or middle acts towards crimes capital or heinous, not actually committed or perpetrated. (Bacon). 28

St. Albans The famous City of Verulam, of which St. Alban’s is the modern representative, and the memorials of whose ancient greatness exist to this day, was situate on the side of what are now called the Verulam Hills, at the foot of which runs the little river Ver. The history of Verulam, or Verulamium, the village on the Ver, is for the most part obscured by the mist of antiquity. That it was once a place of very considerable importance is not only recorded in history, but is verified by the vestiges of its departed glory. Even if history were altogether silent on the subject, we should have in the ruins extant sufficient evidence of its having been “no mean city.” But when we call history to our aid we find that Verulam was a great city at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar, and in all probability the place where one of the chief of the British princes, Cassivellaunus, resided and held his Court. It is believed, on weighty grounds, to be the city which Caesar described in his Commentaries as being defended by woods and marshes. Part of the woods still remains, and the pool of water called “Fishpool,” which covered the meadows bounding its walls on the north-east side, gave its name to one of the streets of St. Alban’s, which to this day is known by that designation. Caesar attacked the city, and neither the strength of its natural fortifications nor the valour of its defenders could save it from falling into his hands. The inhabitants of Verulam afterwards became reconciled to their conquerors, and as a reward for their friendly conduct, and for the military services they rendered to the Roman arms, Verulam was endowed with the honours and privileges of a Municipium, or Free City. It held this high rank (which very few cities possessed) as York and Verulam were the only municipia in Great Britain; that is, the only cities whose inhabitants possessed the rights of Roman citizens. The names of the other chief Roman colonies existing at this early period were Richborough, London, Colchester, Bath, Caerleon, Gloucester, Lincoln, and Chester, as early as the time of the Emperor Nero. But the devotion of its inhabitants to the Roman power afterwards drew down on them the vengeance of the indignant British Queen, Boadicea, who (A.D. 61), after the destruction of Camelodunum and Londinum, attacked the Roman colony of Verulam, and massacred its inhabitants. Tacitus records that seventy thousand persons fell at Verulam, London, and other less important places, by the hands of the Britons, under the command of the Soldier-Queen of the Iceni. The wealth of the city, as well as its large population, formed an inducement to the Britons to attack it; and Tacitus insinuates that they passed other places without assault for the sake of the plunder to be acquired here. The Britons were in their turn defeated by the Roman general, Suetonius Paulinus, who slaughtered the inhabitants of Verulam. The city was afterwards rebuilt, and the Britons remained in quiet submission to the authority of the Roman Government. Verulam regained its former greatness. But little more, however, is really known of its history.
The vestiges of the departed greatness of the city are sufficient to give us some idea of its proportions and extent. Camden says, “The situation of this place is well known to have been close by the town of St. Albans; nor hath it yet lost its ancient name, for it is still commonly called Verulam; although nothing of that remains beside ruins of walls, chequered pavements, and Roman coins, which they now and then dig up.” The late Dr. Black, F.S.A., a very learned but somewhat eccentric antiquary, was of opinion that the whole of Verulam, or Verulam proper, was not confined to the south side of the river. He expended a considerable amount of ingenuity in support of the theory that what is regarded as the site of the ancient city is really the site of a large fortified camp or military town, and that it was not the Verulam of Tacitus, of Antoninus, and of Ptolemy. The municipal city, he contended, was mainly on the other side of the water; in fact, that the present town of St. Alban’s is identical with the ancient Mnnicipnim mentioned by Tacitus, as having been destroyed by Boadicea. It is certain, however, that the town on the south side of the river was entirely surrounded by a fortified wall. Dr. Black’s theory has been received with little if any favour by other antiquaries. Fragments of the Roman wall which once surrounded the city still serve to mark the great extent of its area; and it has been said that the sites of various streets may even now be traced out by the growth and colour of the vegetation upon the surface. The course of the principal street ran from south-east to north-west. The masses of Roman wall which remain show clearly the strength and excellence of Roman masonry. The wall surrounding the city was about twelve feet in thickness; it was composed of layers of flints embedded in a strong cement of lime, small gravel, and coarse sand, and interspersed with rows of large Roman tiles, measuring about sixteen inches by thirteen; they are bound together so adhesively that it is very difficult to take one away from the wall without breaking it. One of the entrances to the city appears to have been near the massive fragment of the wall called “Gorham’s block.” The banks and ditches on the south and west sides are in the best state of preservation. Extensive discoveries of Roman remains have been made from time to time, and many of these remains have been deposited in our principal museums. The great antiquary, Camden, whom we have before quoted, writes: “Were I to relate what common report affirms of the many Roman coins, statues of gold and silver, vessels, marble pillars, cornices, and wonderful monuments of ancient art dug up here, I should scarcely be believed.” In an ancient history of St. Albans, quoted by Camden, it is recorded that the citizens of Verulam, as a “disgrace to St. Alban’s memory, and as a terror to other Christians, had the story of his murder inscribed upon marble, and inserted in the city walls.” But the Christian faith survived the flames of Pagan persecution, and in these early days of Christianity, as in later times, it was true that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”
Both Bede and Gildas state that a few years after the persecution had subsided a church was founded in honour of St. Alban on the spot on which he suffered martyrdom, where the present Abbey of St. Albans now stands a grand old memorial of the triumph of Christianity over its foes. The Romano-British Church, which was erected in the time of Constantine, was standing in Bede’s time and in that of Oifa, the founder of the Abbey. Tradition records that soon after the martyrdom of St. Alban a large number of the citizens of Verulam went into Wales, in search of Amphibalus, in order to be instructed in Christianity. An army was sent after them, which slew them all, and brought back Amphibalus, whom they put to death at the village of Redbourn, within sight of the city of Verulam. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the town of St. Albans underwent a number of improvements. One of the chief of these was the formation of a new road through the south-east part of the town, called the New London Road, in place of the old road, which begins in Sopwell Lane, Holywell Hill. By the Reform Act of 1832 the boundaries of the borough were rectified and extended, and by the Municipal Corporations Reform Act the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries were made co-extensive. The trade and importance of St. Albans suffered severely by the revolution in travelling which followed the growth of the railway system. Until the year 1858 St. Albans had no railway communication nearer than Hatfield, on the Great Northern Railway, and Watford and Boxmoor, on the London and North Western Railway. In the year 1858 a branch line of railway from St. Albans to Watford, and in the year 1865 a branch line from St. Albans to Hatfield, were opened. The Midland main line passed through St. Albans, the extension from Bedford to London having been completed in 1868, so that the town now possesses exceptional advantages as a centre of railway communication. Apart from the antiquity of St. Michael’s Church, the illustrious name with which it must ever be associated makes it an object of the greatest interest. “For my burial, I desire it may be in St. Michael’s Church, St. Albans; there was my mother buried, and it is the parish church of my mansion house of Gorhambury, and it is the only Christian Church within the walls of ancient Verulam.” Such were the reasons why “Large-browed Verulam, The first of those who know,” desired that St. Michael’s Church should be his last resting place; and there, in obedience to his wishes, were laid the remains of “The great deliverer, he who from the gloom of cloistered monks and jargon-teaching schools, led forth the true Philosophy, there long held in the magic chain of words and forms.”
A recess on the northern side of the chancel is occupied with an alabaster statute of the great Master of Inductive Philosophy. Bacon is represented in his chancellor’s robes, reclining in an elbow-chair. The monument was erected by Sir Thomas Meautys, his “faithful friend and secretary.” The inscription below the monument was written by Sir Henry Wotton, and the following, translation of it is copied from the Biographia Britannica:

Francis Bacon, Baron of Verulam,
Viscount St. Albans,
or by more conspicuous titles of Science the Light;
of Eloquence the Law, sat thus:
Who after all natural Wisdom,
and Secrets of Civil Life he had unfolded,
Nature’s law fulfilled
Let Compounds be dissolved!
In the year of our Lord 1626; of his age, 66.

Of such a man that the memory might remain, Thomas Meautys, living his attendant, dead his admirer, placed this monument. Gorhambury, the seat of the Earl of Verulam, about a mile to the west of St. Michael’s, derives its name from a nephew of Robert de Gorham, on whom he bestowed it. It was recovered to the Abbey by Abbot de la Mare, and was sold by the king at the dissolution of the monastery. The park and grounds of Gorhambury consist of about six hundred acres. One of the best-known patrons of the original Grammar School was Sir Nicholas Bacon, father of Francis Bacon. His countryseat was at Gorhambury, and he took great interest in the school, used his considerable influence with Elizabeth I., to obtain a grant for it, and drew up a set of rules for its governance. [Also see Bacon’s pedigree.]