When the Golden Section establishes Juliet’s identical line as a clearly intended link between quartos, it stands to reason to expect from the other two sets of identical lines to make in mathematical respect equally interesting links. Which they actually do. However, these links defy logic. Which is not done in maths :
In Q2 the Juliet’s entrance is marked by the father’s identical line, her exit by her mother’s. There are 21 lines in between, of which a closely related 12 for Juliet.
It would take a Baconian the time of reading these numbers to spot the hidden signature. And a Stratfordian just a second to refute his observation, because of its inconsistent composition, as yet another chance hit. Which is a pity, because the nine remaining lines are fairly divided between the father (8) and the mother (1). And Francis Bacon would never have signed a fragment of Romeo & Juliet with 33 (B + A + C + O + N) in a combination that spells out Wm (21 + 12) S (9 = 1 + 8 = 18). What about that for inconsistency?
A very similar signature can be found in the combination of this fragment from Q2 with its counterpart in Q1 : Juliet’s identical line is in both cases the fourth in the sequence. In Q2 it divides the remaining lines as 3 / 17, in Q1 as 3 / 19. The average signing as 3 + 18 (S) = 21 (W). Inconsistent again, but the nine lines of the parents in Q2 combine with thirteen for them in Q1 to ‘X’ : the signature of the illiterate. Juliet’s lines, meanwhile, combine 9 (‘I’) in Q1 with 12 (‘aM’) in Q2 to a total of ‘W’.
In Q2 Juliet’s 12 lines have this ‘W’ for a reversal. In Q1 her 9 lines on a total of 23 leave 14 (age) to her parents and her nurse. Parents and Nurse combine the two quartos to 23 again (14 + 9), while the parents (without nurse) add in Q1 up to the Golden Section of Juliet’s overall score. This is inconsistent rubbish, unless this approach of the Golden Section also works the other way round without loss of meaning : Juliet’s 9 lines in Q1 combine with the 13 + 9 for her parents to ’31’. Juliet’s age (almost 14) reversed? If turning the other way round is a way to suggest substracting rather than adding up, thirteen it is : the Golden Section of Juliet’s overall score of 21.
Juliet’s 12 lines in Q2 substract from 22 (parents) to a meaningless ’10’. But adding up produces 34. The number that has Juliet’s overall score for its Golden Section. By which means the parent-lines definitely seem to link Q1 and Q2 by maths. But no mathematician in his right mind would sign for the reliability of this evidence. As links, the signatures look equally dodgy, which does not recommend their authorisation as genuine. A disappointing end to a promising looking trail, but in retrospect a blessing in disguise. Because, as it happens, the authorship debate is rooted in the (in itself correct) observation that the Stratford Grammar School does not account for the Bard’s impressive erudition. And Shakespeare Studies can do well without a display of mathematical prowess that no grammar school education can explain. It is, after all, Bacon who mastered the subject. It therefore is exactly the inconsistency in the mathematical logic that looks convincing.