diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-0.txt | 6155 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/77752-h.htm | 7630 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/images/banner.jpg | bin | 0 -> 62826 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 238074 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/images/hrsep.jpg | bin | 0 -> 2981 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/images/icon-l.jpg | bin | 0 -> 3410 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/images/icon-r.jpg | bin | 0 -> 3229 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/images/icon2-l.jpg | bin | 0 -> 1433 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77752-h/images/icon2-r.jpg | bin | 0 -> 3059 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
12 files changed, 13801 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/77752-0.txt b/77752-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..356fb8f --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6155 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77752 *** + + + + + TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE + + Italic text is denoted by _underscores_. + + Three or four asterisks in a quotation indicates omitted text. + + Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book. + + + + + BIBLIOGRAPHY + + --OF THE-- + + BACON-SHAKESPEARE + + CONTROVERSY, + + --WITH-- + + NOTES AND EXTRACTS. + + BY W. H. WYMAN. + + “Shikspur! Shikspur! Who wrote it?” + Miss KITTY, in _High Life Below Stairs_. + + + CINCINNATI: + PETER G. THOMSON, + 1884. + + + + + COPYRIGHTED, + 1884, + BY W. H. WYMAN. + + + + +PREFACE. + + +In July, 1882, the compiler of this work issued a small +privately-printed _Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature_, +including all the titles then ascertained--63 in number. Since that +time, additional titles and interesting material have so accumulated +that he has thought proper to present this volume--the work, or +amusement of leisure evenings--believing that the discussion has +reached a point that entitles it to as complete a Bibliography as can +be made. While personally entertaining no doubts as to Shakespeare’s +authorship, he believes that the discussion has its compensating +features in inciting a study of the Shakespearian dramas, and of +the works as well of the dramatists and philosophers--in fact, the +literary history--of the Elizabethan age. It is, perhaps, due to the +various theorists that the ground-work of their opinions be known, +and it is due no less to the memory of William Shakespeare that these +adverse theories, and the arguments in answer, shall be so presented +as to enable any one, who wishes to investigate the question, to form +an intelligent opinion for himself. + +As to the Bibliography, so far as titles are concerned, no pains have +been spared to make it complete. It is believed to contain a list of +all the books, pamphlets, and magazine articles on the question, +as well as a large proportion of the reviews, the more important +newspaper articles, etc. Of the latter, a few may be included that +are unimportant--as it has been difficult to decide just where to +draw the line--but the intention has been to include nothing, except +some collateral matters of special interest, that is not of some use +in the formation of an opinion. + +While the endeavor has been to embody in some part of it, in a +general way, all the main points of the discussion, this work does +not pretend to be a complete reflex of all the arguments or the +evidence adduced. It is simply a list of the titles, to which are +added such brief memoranda as will give the main facts in regard to +this literature, and something as to its authors. By the notes and +extracts, an effort has been made to relieve the tediousness of a dry +Bibliography. Where extracts are given, such have usually been chosen +as were thought to embody some interesting feature, or a hint of the +argument--these to be distributed so evenly as to leave no doubts of +a bibliographical impartiality. In short, the aim has been to point +out to those who desire this information just where it may be found. +In common with one of the writers, who has adopted an expression of +Lord Bacon’s: “We have only taken upon us to ring a bell, to call +other wits together, which is the meanest office.” + +And as to the extracts, an apology is doubtless due to the writers. +It may well be appalling to the author of a book or an article, +bristling with telling arguments and eloquent passages, to find +here a quotation wrenched from its appropriate context, embodying +only a single idea, and that, perhaps, the one he values least--or, +possibly, none at all. The compiler admits all this in advance, +with the single remark that he has made no attempt--it being simply +impossible within the limits of this work--to do any sort of justice +to the various productions, many of them learned, ingenious, and +cultured. + +The compilation and arrangement has not been without its +difficulties. With such a varied mass of material--many of the +articles being without any proper titles, it has been impossible +to follow an exact Bibliographical formula. Though crude in +this respect, it is hoped that it has been so arranged as to be +intelligible. The titles have been placed chronologically as best +calculated to show the history and progress of the discussion, thus +rendering it necessary to divide a few, such as _Notes and Queries_, +which would more properly come together. As it has been found +impracticable to give a full explanation of many of the titles, the +general tenor of each has been thus indicated: + + FOR SHAKESPEARE, _Pro-Sh._ + AGAINST SHAKESPEARE, _Anti-Sh._ + UNCLASSIFIED, _Unc._ + +the last including all articles which for any reason can not be +classed as For or Against. + +A recapitulation of some of the main features of the Bibliography may +be interesting: + +Of the 255 titles, there are, For Shakespeare, 117; Against +Shakespeare, 73; Unclassified, 65. In addition to the above, there +are about 100 sub-titles, of more or less importance, represented by +_a_, _b_, _c_, etc. + +As to nationality, the origin of the articles (titles) may be classed +as follows: American, 161; English, 69; Australian, 10; Scotch, 4; +Canadian, 3; German, 2; French, 2; Italy, Holland, Ireland, and +India, 1 each. + +Taken chronologically, there appeared in 1848, 1; 1852, 1; 1853, 1; +1856, 9; 1857, 11; 1860, 2; 1862, 1; 1863, 2; 1865, 1; 1866, 12; +1867, 8; 1869, 2; 1870, 2; 1874, 28; 1875, 11; 1876, 2; 1877, 7; +1878, 9; 1879, 10; 1880, 9; 1881, 27; 1882, 30; 1883, 61; 1884, to +date, 8. This can not, of course, be relied upon as giving more than +an approximate idea of the relative progress of the controversy, as +the titling of articles--especially those of minor importance--has +been much more practicable in the later years. + +There has been ample opportunity for an examination of these works. +Of the 255 titles, copies of 249 are in the library of the compiler. +The titles lacking are 48, 92, 109, 117; also, the articles under 151 +and 161 in part. + +In explanation of the different ways of spelling Shakespeare, +Shakespearian, etc., in these pages, it is proper to say that the +intention has been to follow, in all titles and extracts, the methods +adopted by the various writers. + +The compiler tenders his acknowledgments to many friends and +correspondents for information and assistance, in all cases +courteously furnished. An additional favor will be conferred by +further information as to any errors or omitted titles. + +It will be seen by a reference to the notes, that not less than +five new works are foreshadowed, some of which will be published. +Evidently the discussion is not ended. The subject is one that +appeals too strongly to the iconoclastic spirit of the age for +that. It is likely to afford as endless a theme as the authorship +of Junius, or the personality of Homer. If the authorship of the +Shakespearian dramas is not _now_ settled, in that sense it never +will be settled, for it is not, in its very nature, susceptible of +such proof as will satisfy everybody. And though the world may always +hold to its faith in William Shakespeare, none the less will there +always be doubters. + + W. H. W. + + WALNUT HILLS, + CINCINNATI, April 10th, 1884. + + + + + BACON-SHAKESPEARE + CONTROVERSY. + + + + +[Illustration: (Decorative banner header)] + +BIBLIOGRAPHY + + +1 THE ANCIENT LETHE. In _The Romance of Yachting; Voyage the First_. +By JOSEPH C. HART, author of “Miriam Coffin,” etc. New York: Harper & +Brothers, 1848; 12mo. pp. 332. (See pages 207-243). + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The first known publication questioning the right of Shakespeare to +the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas. + +COL. HART’S article seems to have been overlooked, and not brought +to the notice of those who were interested in the question, until +it was used by the compiler of this work as the first title in _The +Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature_, of which this is +an extension. Up to that time, the article in _Chambers’s Edinburgh +Journal_ (see next title), seems to have been accepted by all the +authorities as the first mention. _The Romance of Yachting_ is a +gossipy account of a voyage to Spain, in a merchant ship, in which +are interwoven discussions of various topics in a free and easy +style. This chapter is supposed to be written on the banks of the +Guadalete--the ancient Lethe. Hence the title. + + “Alas, Shakespeare! Lethe is upon thee! But if it drown thee, it + will give up and work the resurrection of _better men and more + worthy_. Thou hast had thy century; they are about having theirs.” + + * * * * * + + “He was not the mate of the literary characters of his day, and + none knew it better than himself. It is a fraud upon the world + to thrust his surreptitious fame upon us. He had none that was + worthy of being transmitted. The enquiry will be, _who were the + able literary men who wrote the dramas imputed to him_? The + plays themselves, or rather a small portion of them, will live + as long as English literature is regarded as worth pursuit. The + _authorship_ of the plays is no otherwise material to us, than as + a matter of curiosity, and to enable us to render exact justice; + but they should not be assigned to Shakespeare alone, if at all.” + +The author contrasts Shakespeare with the other Elizabethan writers. +He argues that the facts known in the life of Shakespeare, so far as +they are known, are incompatible with the authorship, and takes up +the plays in review, claiming that he had very little part in them. +He suggests no other author. + +(Col. Hart was a lawyer, journalist, and yachtsman--residing in, and +well-known in New York, especially from 1832 to 1850--the friend +and associate of Willis, Poe, Park Benjamin, Col. Porter, of _The +Spirit_, etc. He was a Colonel in the National Guard. During his +later years he was U. S. Consul lo Santa Cruz de Teneriffe, and died +there in 1855, in his 57th year. A private letter concerning him +says: “He was quite proud of writing that chapter as to Shakespeare, +and declared that in time his views must become accepted.”) + + +2 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? An article in _Chambers’s Edinburgh +Journal_, August 7, 1852. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The author of this is unknown. The article was for a long time +accepted as “the first mention.” It is moderate in tone, contrasting +the commonplace life of Shakespeare with his works, and suggests that +he may have “kept a poet.” + + “May not William Shakespeare--the cautious, calculating man, + careless of fame, and intent only on money-making--have found, + in some furtherest garret, overlooking the silent highway of + the Thames, some pale, wasted student, with a brow as ample and + lofty as his own, who had written the _Wars of the Roses_, and + who, with eyes of genius gleaming through despair, was about, + like Chatterton, to spend his last copper coin upon some cheap + and speedy mode of death? What was to hinder William Shakespeare + from reading, appreciating, and purchasing these dramas, and + thereafter keeping his poet as Mrs. Packwood did?” + + * * * * * + + “Well, reader, how like you our hypothesis? We confess we do + not like it ourselves; but we humbly think it is, at least, as + plausible as most of what is contained in the many bulky volumes + written to connect the man, William Shakespeare, with the poet of + _Hamlet_. We repeat, there is nothing recorded in his every-day + life that connects the two, except the simple fact of his selling + the poems and realizing the proceeds, and their being afterwards + published with his name attached; and the statements of Ben + Jonson, which, however, are quite compatible with his being in + the secret.” + +The writer opens his article with an allusion to Miss Kitty’s +“SHIKSPUR! WHO WROTE IT?” in _High Life Below Stairs_. To explain +this allusion: This farce, with the query so frequently alluded to in +this controversy, was written by the Rev. James Townley, and first +acted in Drury Lane in 1759. The _dramatis personæ_ in the following +dialogue are servants, who hold high carnival in the absence of the +owners of the mansion, all, except Kitty, assuming the titles of +their respective masters and mistresses: + + “LADY BAB-- * * * I never read but one book. + + KITTY--What is it your ladyship is so fond of? + + LADY BAB--Shikspur. Did you never read Shikspur? + + SIR HARRY--I never heard of it. + + KITTY--Shikspur! Shikspur! Who wrote it? No, I never read + Shikspur. + + LADY BAB--Then you have an immense pleasure to come. + + DUKE--Shikspur! Who wrote it? + + SIR HARRY--Who wrote it? Why, Ben Jonson. + + DUKE--Oh, I remember, it was Kolly Kibber. + + KITTY--Well, then, I’ll read it over one afternoon or other.” + + +3 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIRST SERIES. + +_a_--From Theta, Vol. VIII, p. 438, November 5, 1853. + +_b_--Answer by C, Vol. X, p. 106, August 15, 1854. + + _Unc._ + +Unimportant, except as the commencement of the series of articles +running through Notes and Queries, which will be found hereafter +arranged in chronological order. + + +4 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND HIS PLAYS. An Inquiry Concerning Them. By +DELIA BACON. In _Putnam’s Monthly_, January, 1856, pages 1-19. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Miss BACON was the first writer who connected Lord Bacon with the +authorship of the Shakespearian dramas, and in this article she +first suggests it--not directly, but rather by inference. It was +written during her stay in England (at St. Albans), and was the real +commencement of the “Bacon-Shakespeare” controversy. As this was +before her mind became so completely clouded by her intense thought +on the subject, it is much clearer in its style than her subsequent +book. In it she draws the contrast between the known facts in the +life of Shakespeare, and the magnificence of the dramas that bear his +name. + + “Shall this crowning literary product of that great epoch, + wherein these new ages have their beginning, vividly arranged + in its choicest refinements, flashing everywhere on the surface + with its costliest wit, crowded everywhere with its subtlest + scholasticisms, betraying, on every page, its broadest, freshest + range of experience, its most varied culture, its profoundest + insight, its boldest grasp of comprehension--shall this crowning + result of so many preceding ages of growth and culture, with its + essential, and now probable connection with the new scientific + movement of the time from which it issues, be able to conceal + from us, much longer, its history?--shall we be able to accept + in explanation of it, much longer, the story of the Stratford + poacher?” + +(DELIA BACON was born in Tallmadge, Ohio, February 2, 1811. She +was the daughter of Rev. David Bacon, one of the early Western +missionaries, and sister of the late Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon. She +was educated at Miss Catherine E. Beecher’s school, in Hartford, +and is described as a woman of rare intellect and attainments. Her +profession was that of a teacher and lecturer--the first woman, +Mrs. Farrar says, whom she had ever known to speak in public. At +this time, she resided in Boston. Having conceived the idea of the +Baconian authorship, she became a monomaniac on the subject. Visiting +England, in 1853, in search of proofs for her theory, she spent five +years there, first at St. Albans, where she supposed Bacon to have +written the plays; then at London, where she wrote _The Philosophy +of Shakespeare Unfolded_; and subsequently at Stratford-on-Avon. +Here, after the publication and non-success of her book, she lost +her reason wholly and entirely. She was returned to her friends in +Hartford, in April, 1858, and died there September 2, 1859.) + + +5 REVIEW OF DELIA BACON’S ARTICLE in _Putnam’s Monthly_. In the +_Athenæum_, London, July 26, 1856, p. 108. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “The process by which Shakespeare is reduced to nothing is + certainly startling. Take away all the evidences of the poet’s + supreme intellect--refuse him the witness of his works--and it + is, of course, very easy to say the poor player was unequal to + his mighty task. But the same process could reduce Bacon from a + great law-giver in the empire of thought, to a corrupt lawyer and + base flatterer in the Court of King James. Take the facts which + stand apart from his intellectual action--erect the idea of man + upon them--and it will be as easy to raise a theory that not + Bacon but Shakespeare wrote the _Essays_ and _Novum Organum_.” + + +6 WAS LORD BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A letter to Lord +ELLESMERE. By WILLIAM HENRY SMITH. Pamphlet. Printed for private +circulation. London: September, 1856. (This was reproduced in +_Littell’s Living Age_, November, 1856. 4 pages in _Littell_). + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This was addressed to the Earl of Ellesmere, as the late President +of the Shakespeare Society. It takes strong grounds in favor of the +Baconian authorship. + +A question of precedence as to the Baconian advocacy arose between +Mr. Smith and Miss Bacon’s friends. HAWTHORNE in his preface to Miss +Bacon’s book animadverted upon Mr. Smith for “taking to himself this +lady’s theory,” resulting in the correspondence published in Smith’s +book. In his letter Mr. Smith claimed that he had never seen Miss +Bacon’s _Putnam’s Monthly_ article until after his pamphlet was +published, and also that he had held these opinions for twenty years +previously. But as Miss Bacon’s article was published eight months +previous to his pamphlet, and reviewed in the _Athenæum_ in the +meantime, his want of knowledge was certainly very singular, and the +precedence must be awarded to her. + +(Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, who still resides in London, was the first +English Baconian. He not only wrote, but lectured on the subject. +During the past fifteen years, we find nothing from his pen, but +from recent advices we infer that his interest in the question is +unabated, and that he may yet be heard from.) + + +7 WAS LORD BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? + +_a_--In the _Literary Gazette_, London, Sept. 6, 1856. + +_b_--In the same, Oct. 18, 1856. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Both articles are notices of Smith’s Ellesmere pamphlet--the latter a +comprehensive review. Towards its close, the writer recapitulates the +contemporary evidence, and adds: + + “Now, before Mr. Smith proceeds to take possession of the plays + in the name of Lord Bacon, he should show his right to dispossess + the occupying tenant. This can be done only by overturning the + mass of evidence, upon the faith of which the whole world has + hitherto believed Shakespeare, if we may so express it, to be the + author of his own works. When Mr. Smith shall have done this, and + proved that Greene, Chettle, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and the rest, + and the traditions, to boot, as thick as leaves in Vallambrosa, + are one and all unworthy of credit, he shall then be in a + position to assert Lord Bacon’s claim--but not one moment sooner.” + + +8 REVIEW OF SMITH’S LETTER TO LORD ELLESMERE. In the _Athenæum_, +London, Sept. 13, 1856, p. 1133. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “Of course--as our readers have seen--we reject altogether + the theory of an extra authorship of Shakespeare’s plays; and + on any idle day of the year, should we ever find one, we will + undertake to prove, just as plausibly as Mr. Smith here proves + the authorship of _Lear_ and _Hamlet_ to belong to Bacon, that + Shakespeare composed the _Instauration_ and wrote the Essays.” + + +9 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SECOND SERIES. + +_a_--From A. Hopper, II, 267, Oct. 4, 1856. + +_b_--Review of Ellesmere letter, II, 320, Oct. 18, 1856. + +_c_--From Vox, II, 369, Nov. 8, 1856. + +_d_--From W. H. S. [Smith] II, 503, Dec. 27, 1856. + +_e_--From R. Slocomb, II, 504, Dec. 27, 1856. + + _Unc._ + + +10 SHAKESPEARE AND LORD BACON. In the _Illustrated London News_, +October 25, 1856. 1 column. + + _Unc._ + +An account of a lecture by Wm. Henry Smith, at the Beethoven Rooms, +Harley street, London. + + +11 ON THE ART OF CAVILLING. “All is humbug.” In _Blackwood’s +Magazine_, Edinburgh, November, 1856. 15 pages. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +An answer to Smith’s Ellesmere letter. + + “It proves an unlimited power of credulity among the class + [the cavillers] to which its writer belongs, and throws some + light upon that extraordinary mental process by which men of + a crotchety turn of mind can set up pure unreason in the face + of plain truth; but it proves nothing whatever about Francis + Bacon, nor throws the smallest glimmer of illumination on those + mysterious productions called Shakespeare’s Plays.” + + +12 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. “A little chink may let in much light.” +Anonymous. [By DR. C. M. INGLEBY.] In _Illustrated London News_, Dec. +6, 1856, p. 577. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +In this DR. INGLEBY summarizes the arguments of Smith in the +Ellesmere letter, and comprehensively answers them. + + +13 I WON’T HAVE BACON. A communication by JOHN BULL. In _Illustrated +London News_, January 10, 1857. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “I won’t have Bacon. I will have my own cherished “Will.” I + have borne a great deal, and never changed my faith. I have + seen him chipped, mauled, befribbled, and overdone. I have seen + upholsterers and classic managers cloud his genius in fustian + and explanations. I have heard shouts against his anachronisms, + and anathemas against his want of the unities and his knowledge + of Greek; but never thought an Englishman and a Smith would try + to prove that he was a swindler--a thief--a jackdaw, and died in + the odor of sanctity, the pilferer of Bacon. * * * * I know the + pestilent vapor will pass away, and the steady glories of Will. + Shakespeare break forth again; but in the meantime we shiver + under a passing cloud.” + + +14 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. Letter from WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, on the +Psalms translated by Bacon. In the _Athenæum_, London, January 24, +1857, p. 122. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +MR. SMITH claims that these translations show the poetic faculty in +Bacon. “His mind was so essentially poetical, that it was as great a +constraint to him to write prose, as to spare, or pass by a jest.” + + +15 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE NOT AN IMPOSTOR. By an English Critic. [GEO. +H. TOWNSEND.] London and New York: G. Routledge & Co., 1857, 12mo. +pp. 122. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The especial purpose of this book is to answer Smith’s Ellesmere +letter, which the author criticises severely, but it takes in the +question in its fullest scope. His preface aptly describes it: + + “The author has endeavored to collect within the compass of a + small volume the historical documents and the testimonies of the + poet’s contemporaries, by which the claim of William Shakespeare + to the authorship of the six-and-thirty plays, published in the + folio edition of 1623, is clearly established. His title is + confirmed by such a mass of evidence, that many readers, who have + not investigated the matter, will wonder how it could have been + called in question.” + +The author gives a summary of Smith’s argument (copied from _Notes +and Queries_), and answers it as follows: + + “He contends: 1. That the character of Shakespeare, as sketched + by Pope, is the exact biography of Bacon. 2. That Bacon possessed + dramatic talent to a high degree, and could, according to his + biographers, assume the most different characters, and speak + the language proper to each, with a facility that was perfectly + natural. 3. That he wrote and assisted at bal-masques, and was + an intimate friend of Lord Southampton, the alleged patron of + Shakespeare. 4. That the first folio of 1623 was not published + till Bacon had been driven to private life, and had leisure to + revise his literary works; and that as he was obliged to raise + money by almost any means, it is at least probable that he did + so by writing plays. 5. That Shakespeare was a man of business + rather than poetry, and acknowledged his poems and sonnets, but + never laid claim to the plays.” + + “This is, after all [says Mr. Townsend], as good a summary + as can be given of the wretched arguments upon which Mr. + William Henry Smith bases his new, preposterous and altogether + untenable theory. They may be dismissed in a few sentences. 1. + Shakespeare’s character could not possibly be the biography of + another man. 2. Bacon’s ability for dramatic composition can + not be accepted as proof that he wrote plays, to the authorship + of which he never laid claim, and which were attributed to, and + acknowledged by, one of his contemporaries. 3. Lord Southampton, + the friend of Shakespeare and Bacon, is, as we shall see more + fully in another chapter, a witness against Mr. William Henry + Smith and his theory. 4. Bacon’s leisure and want of funds + will never justify even the suspicion that he wrote the plays + of Shakespeare. 5. The assertion that Shakespeare was a man of + business rather than poetry is directly at variance with the + truth, as any person who has perused the _Venus and Adonis_, + _Lucrece_, and the _Sonnets_, will at once admit. It is equally + false to assert that Shakespeare did not claim the authorship of + these dramas.” + +Here is the author’s comparison of Bacon and Shakespeare: + + “No two minds could be more dissimilar than those of Bacon and + Shakespeare; they were both monarchs in the realms of literature, + but they sat upon different thrones; theirs was not a joint + sovereignty; they ruled over different empires. Shakespeare + possessed great natural genius; Bacon’s mind was a store-house + of learning. The one had power to create, the other to mould all + human knowledge to his mighty will. Bacon was a dictator amongst + philosophers and schoolmen; Shakespeare, a king among poets. The + one dived deep beneath the surface, and brought up rich pearls + of thought; the other plucked the flowers as he passed along; + received his inspiration direct from all-bounteous Nature, and + held mysterious communion with her.” + +(Mr. Townsend is better known as the author of the _Manual of Dates_ +and _Men of the Time_. He resided in London, and died there in 1869. +A series of disappointments so affected his mind as to lead him to +take his own life.) + + +16 REVIEWS OF TOWNSEND’S SHAKESPEARE NOT AN IMPOSTOR. + +_a_--In the _Athenæum_, London, February 14, 1857, p. 213. + +_b_--In the _Literary Gazette_, London, Feb. 21, 1857, p. 181. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “The book is honestly meant, but can its writer conceive that any + such book was needed? If he does, the fact is as noticeable as + Mr. William Henry Smith’s lucubrations.”--_Athenæum._ + + +17 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE UNFOLDED. By DELIA +BACON. With a Preface by NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE. London: Groombridge & +Sons, 1857. Boston: Ticknor & Fields, 1857. 8vo. pp. 582. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Miss Bacon’s book was mainly written during her residence in +London. In it she makes no attempt to deal with the historical side +of the question--that being reserved for another volume, never +published. She confines herself to the development of her theory of +a hidden under-current of philosophy in the works of both Bacon and +Shakespeare, veiled in cipher and allegory for the Elizabethan times, +but to be read and understood by a future age. This is outlined in +Mr. Hawthorne’s preface: + + “In the present volume, accordingly, the writer applies herself + to the demonstration and development of a system of philosophy, + which has presented itself to her as underlying the superficial + and ostensible text of Shakespeare’s plays. Traces of the same + philosophy, too, she conceives herself to have found in the + acknowledged works of Lord Bacon, and in the works of other + writers contemporary with him. All agree in one system; all the + traces indicate a common understanding and unity of purpose in + men among whom no brotherhood has hitherto been suspected, except + as representatives of a grand and brilliant age, when the human + intellect made a marked step in advance.” + +As to the authorship, Miss Bacon points to Lord Bacon, Sir Walter +Raleigh, and possibly others of the wits and dramatists of the age. +Her style of writing is so redundant that no brief extract can be +made, within the limits of this work, which will give anything like a +clear statement of her theories. In the following, the theme is the +Shakespearian dramas: + + “Man, as he is, booked, surveyed--surveyed from the continent + of nature, put down as he is in her book of kinds, not as he is + from his own interior, isolated conceptions only--the universal + powers and causes as they are developed in him, in his untaught + affections, in his utmost sensuous darkness--the universal + principle instanced where it is most buried, the cause in nature + found--man as he is in his heights and in his depths, ‘from his + lowest note to the top of his key’--man in his possibilities, + in his actualities, in his thought, in his speech, in his book + language, and in his every day words, in his loftiest lyric + tongue, in his lowest pit of play-house degradation, searched + out, explained, interpreted. * * * * It is man’s life, and the + culture of it, erected into an art or science, that these books + contain. In the lowness of the lowest, and in the aspiration + of the noblest, the powers whose entire history must make the + basis of a successful morality and policy are found. It is all + abstracted or drawn into contemplation, ‘that the precepts of + cure and culture may be more rightly concluded.’ ‘For that which + in speculative philosophy corresponds to the cause, in practical + philosophy becomes the rule.’” + + “It is not necessary to illustrate this criticism in this case, + because in this case the design looks through the execution + elsewhere. The criticism of the Novum Organum, the criticism + of the Advancement of Learning, and the criticism of Raleigh’s + History of the World, than which there is none finer, when once + you penetrate its crust of profound erudition, is here on the + surface. And the scholasticism is not more obtrusive here, the + learned sock is not more ostentatiously paraded, than in some + critical places in these performances; while the humor that + underlies the erudition issues from a depth of learning not less + profound.” + +For a sketch of the theory of the book, see the extract (Title 20) +from the _National Review_. + + +18 REVIEW OF DELIA BACON’S PHILOSOPHY OF SHAKESPEARE UNFOLDED. In the +_Athenæum_, London, April 11, 1857, p. 461. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +19 REVIEW OF THE BOOKS OF DELIA BACON AND W. H. SMITH. In the +_Literary Gazette_, London, May 9, 1857. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +20 THE ALLEGED NON-EXISTENCE OF SHAKESPEARE. In the _National +Review_, London, July, 1857. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A very long and caustic review of Delia Bacon’s book. We give the +commencement of it, from its value to the reader as an interpretation +of the book itself. + + “American philosophy delights in hiding its light under a + bushel. Emerson is not easy reading; the Poughkeepsie seer (not + that we wish to class them together) is sometimes difficult + of construction; but Delia Bacon is harder still. We have met + with nothing in the range of literature so like the attempt to + find a needle in a bundle of hay, as the task of extracting a + definite meaning from the vast body of obscure verbiage and + inconsequential reasoning in which she has folded up her ideas. + As far as we can make out, however, the following is her theme + and the thread of her argument: + + In the days of Elizabeth and James, a conquest more complete + and more degrading than that of the first Norman King had + overwhelmed England. At the same time, the first fruits of the + revival of learning were ripening in England. There was a body + of men here, at the head of whom were Raleigh and Lord Bacon, + of boundless penetration, wisdom, and philanthropy. The cause + of freedom and human advancement was that to which their whole + souls and lives were devoted. Some of them ventured an overt + act against the government, which was speedily crushed. It was + necessary to conceal the new light which it was their mission + to shed forth upon the world. Yet so to hide it, that while it + should not betray itself to the jealous scrutiny of a tyrannical + autocracy, it yet should be discoverable to the gifted eye, + and buried only to be disinterred, in its due time, by the + sagacity of future generations. We know that in his youth Lord + Bacon busied himself with ciphers; he speaks of word ciphers as + well as letter ciphers; be sure, then, that in ciphers he has + hidden the learning he dared not lay bare to the face of day. + Those who search his works with a discriminating eye, will find + abundant hints scattered through them that they have an esoteric + meaning subtly hidden beneath their obvious expressions. He was + the master-mind of a ‘secret association’ of men who made it + their business to perfect and transmit to posterity a ‘new and + all-comprehending science of life and practice.’ It is in the + later and more finished works of this school--the Advancement of + Learning, Hamlet, Lear, the Tempest, and the Novum Organum--that + the key to the secret doctrines of which it is the object of Miss + Bacon’s work to furnish the interpretation is best found; but it + lies also wrapt up, like the tree in the bud, in the earliest and + most faulty plays of the collection.” + + +21 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. An Inquiry Touching Players, Play-Houses, +and Play-Writers, in the days of Elizabeth. By WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, +ESQ. To which is appended an abstract of a MS. respecting Tobie +Matthew. London: John Russell Smith, 1857. 12mo. pp. 162. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This is an enlargement and extension of the letter to Lord Ellesmere. + + “To consider the probability of these plays having been written + by William Shakespeare, and to attack the evidence by which the + assertion that they were is supported, is our present object.” + + “Proof that they were written by some other person, we do not + yet hope to be able to adduce, but merely such evidence of the + probability of this being the case, as may induce some active + inquiry in the direction indicated.” + +A short summary of Mr. Smith’s arguments will be found under the +answer of Mr. Townsend to the Ellesmere letter (Title 15). Mr. Smith +says in his epitome: + + * * * “Very little indeed is known of the history of Shakespeare, + and that in no way connects him with these plays--that the writer + of them must have possessed a vast variety of talents, such as + have been reported to have been found in Francis Bacon, and + in him alone; that the wit and poetry are of a kind that were + peculiarly his--that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, + connected himself with a class which had only recently sprung + into existence, and which were held in the utmost contempt--that + he was neither eminent as an actor, nor as a writer, during his + life time, nor celebrated as such in the period immediately + succeeding his death--that there are some remarkable coincidences + of expression in these plays and in the writings of Bacon, + and that the latter was ever careful to note any thing like a + quotation * * * [and, as reasons why Bacon did not claim the + plays] that literary labor was not at that time voluntarily + pursued for pecuniary recompense, and the few that followed such + an occupation were regarded with the utmost contempt--that a play + was hardly considered a literary work, and ranked infinitely + below a sonnet, and that learned men would as little have prided + themselves upon writing one, as upon writing a _bon mot_.” * * * + * * + + +22 NOTICE in the _Athenæum_, London, August 15, 1857, of the +correspondence between Hawthorne and William Henry Smith, p. 1036. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. Smith transmits a copy of the correspondence above mentioned, but +the _Athenæum_ declines to be convinced that he knew nothing of Delia +Bacon’s theory previous to the publication of his Ellesmere letter. + + +23 SHAKESPEARE IN MODERN THOUGHT. In the _North American Review_, +October, 1857. [By REV. C. C. SHACKFORD.] 24 pages. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A portion of the article is devoted to a review of Miss Bacon’s book. + + “There is, on the other hand, in Miss Bacon’s work, a spirit + of subtile analysis, a deep moral insight, and a penetrating + research, which, separated from the monomania of her particular + theory, enlists our admiration, and is adapted to throw much + light upon Shakespeare’s genius, and makes us feel that there + are in him vast depths of thought, and presentations of great + human and social laws of development, of which, as yet, we + have scarcely dreamed. On every page, nay, over almost every + paragraph, we are forced to exclaim: ‘O matter and impertinency, + mixed reason in madness!’ The significant contents of the + political and philosophical _status_ of that age are minutely + exhibited. The particular theory of the book, and the special + pleading through inferences, hints, and analogies in thought and + expression, to prove that the philosophy and the plays of the age + proceeded literally from the same brain and the same hand, we + may put aside as impertinent, and a merely fine-spun, fanciful + speculation, and there will be left a valuable contribution + to the real criticism of Shakespeare, as embodying the whole + spirit of the Baconian philosophy, and as the ripe flower and + consummated product of the tendencies and outstreaming influences + of that wonderful period of development for the English genius.” + + +24 HARRINGTON: A STORY OF TRUE LOVE. [By WILLIAM D. O’CONNOR.] +Boston: Thayer & Eldridge, 1860, 12mo. pp. 558. (See Chapter XII, +pages 215-221). + + _Anti-Sh._ + +To explain this unique title: Hawthorne, in his _Recollections of a +Gifted Woman_ (Title 27), says of Miss Bacon’s book: + + “I believe it has been the fate of this remarkable book never + to have had more than a single reader. But, since my return to + America, a young man of genius and enthusiasm has assured me + that he has positively read the book from beginning to end, and + is completely a convert to its doctrines. It belongs to him, + therefore, and not to me--whom, in almost the last letter that + I received from her, she declared unworthy to meddle with her + work--it belongs surely to this one individual, who has done her + so much justice as to know what she wrote, to place Miss Bacon in + her due position before the public and posterity.” + +The “young man” referred to (in 1863) is the author of this novel. +The story itself is of the times of the Fugitive Slave Law. Mr. +O’Connor introduces his own Baconian theories through the dialogue of +his title-hero, Harrington. He also renders an acknowledgment to Miss +Bacon as their source, in a note at the end of the book: + + “The reader of the twelfth chapter of this book, may already + have observed that Harrington, if he had lived, would have been + a believer in the theory regarding the origin and purpose of + the Shakespearian drama, as developed in the admirable work by + Miss Delia Bacon, entitled, ‘The Philosophy of Shakespeare’s + Plays Unfolded,’ in which belief I should certainly agree with + Harrington. I wish it were in my power to do even the smallest + justice to that mighty and eloquent volume, whose masterly + comprehension and insight, though they could not save it from + being trampled upon by the brutal bison of the English press, + yet lift it to the dignity, whatever may be its faults, of being + the best work ever composed upon the Baconian or Shakespearian + writings. It has been scouted by the critics as the product of + a distempered ideality. Perhaps it is. But there is a prudent + wisdom, says Goethe, and there is a wisdom that does not remind + us of prudence; and, in like manner, I may say that there is + a sane sense, and there is a sense that does not remind us of + sanity. At all events, I am assured that the candid and ingenuous + reader Miss Bacon wishes for, will find it more to his profit to + be insane with her on the subject of Shakespeare, than sane with + Dr. Johnson.” + +(Mr. O’CONNOR resides in Washington, and is an officer connected with +the Treasury Department. It is understood that he has finally obeyed +the injunction Hawthorne put upon him, “to place Miss Bacon in her +due position before the public and posterity,” and has prepared an +article on the subject, which will soon be published.) + + +25 EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS, in the Life of Edmond Malone, Editor of +Shakespeare. By SIR JAMES PRIOR. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1860. + + _Unc._ + +Writing of a date about 1780-90, Sir James Prior says of the +Shakespearian discussions: + + “Editors and commentators appear at every turn in all societies. + In the club-house we meet three or four of a morning; in the + park see them meditating by the Serpentine, or under a tree in + Kensington Gardens; no dinner table is without one or two; in + the theatre you view them by the dozens. Volume after volume + is poured out in note, comment, conjecture, new reading, + statement, or mis-statement, contradiction, or variation of all + kinds. Reviews, magazines, and newspapers report these with as + little mercy on the reader, as to give occasional emendations + of their own. Some descant upon his sentiments, some upon his + extravagancies, some upon his wonderful creations, or flights + of imagination, some upon his language, or phraseology. Several + suppose that he wrote more plays than he acknowledged; others, + that he fathered more than he had written, while the last + opinions are still more original and extraordinary--that his name + is akin to a myth, and _that he wrote no plays at all_! Every + new aspirant in this struggle for distinction aims to push his + predecessor from his stool.” + + +26 NOTES AND QUERIES. London: THIRD SERIES. From T. J. Buckton, II, +502, Dec. 27, 1862. + + _Unc._ + + +27 RECOLLECTIONS OF A GIFTED WOMAN. By NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE. In the +_Atlantic Monthly_, January, 1863. (See pages 43-58.) Reprinted also +with Hawthorne’s Works in _Our Old Home_. + + _Unc._ + +This is interesting as a record of Miss Bacon’s experiences in +England while writing her book, and especially so as to her efforts +to have the tomb of Shakespeare opened, believing that she would +find within it manuscript proofs of her theory. Hawthorne himself, +though he wrote the preface to her book, was not a believer. “Being +conscious within myself of a sturdy unbelief,” he says. + + “I had heard, long ago, that she believed that the material + evidences of her dogma as to the authorship, together with the + key of the new philosophy, would be found buried in Shakespeare’s + grave. Recently, as I understood her, this notion had been + somewhat modified, and was now accurately defined and fully + developed in her mind, with a result of perfect certainty. + In Lord Bacon’s letters, on which she laid her finger as + she spoke, she had discovered the key and clue to the whole + mystery. There were definite and minute instructions how to + find a will and other documents relating to the conclave of + Elizabethan philosophers, which were concealed (when and by whom + she did not inform me) in a hollow space in the under surface + of Shakespeare’s grave-stone. Thus the terrible prohibition + to remove the stone was accounted for. The directions, she + intimated, went completely and precisely to the point, obviating + all difficulties in the way of coming at the treasures; and + even, if I remember right, were so contrived as to ward off any + troublesome consequences likely to ensue from the interference of + the parish-officers. All that Miss Bacon now remained in England + for--indeed, the object for which she had come hither, and which + had kept her here for three years past--was to obtain possession + of these material and unquestionable proofs of the authenticity + of her theory.” + + +28 THE IDENTITY OF SHAKESPEARE AS A WRITER OF PLAYS. A chapter in +_The Biography and Bibliography of Shakespeare_. By HENRY G. BOHN. +Privately-printed (40 copies) for the Philobiblon Society. London, +1863. (See pages 291-300.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This chapter gives a sketch of the various anti-Shakespearian works, +following it by the historical and contemporary evidence in favor of +Shakespeare, derived from Ben Jonson, Francis Meres, Milton, Greene, +Basse, etc., and adds: + + “The positive testimony of Ben Jonson alone, who, though + Shakespeare’s friend, was a rival, and not at all likely + to concede more than belonged to him, ought in itself be a + sufficient answer. He was constantly near the poet; knew what + he wrote, and when he wrote; and after his death was engaged + in promoting the publication of his works. In conjunction with + him, John Heminge and Henry Condell, Shakespeare’s intimate + friends and fellow-players, and who are recognized as such in + his will, attest the authorship of all the plays in the first + folio, by subscribing themselves as witnesses. This volume, + too, is dedicated to those high-minded noblemen, William, Earl + of Pembroke, and Philip, Earl of Montgomery, who would not, and + could not, have consented to let themselves be made party to + a notorious fraud. Indeed, King James himself, as well as the + Earl of Southampton (who was intimate with both Lord Bacon and + Shakespeare) and all the players, playwrights, and literati of + the day, must have been acquiescent in the contemptible and + gratuitous deception--may we not say forgery?” + + * * * * * + + “In conclusion, we will only observe that Shakespeare had jealous + and watchful rivals enough to expose him had any suspicion + existed of his not being the actual author of the fame-absorbing + plays which bore his name during his life-time.” + + +29 LORD PALMERSTON. An article in _Fraser’s Magazine_, London, +November, 1865. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Page 666 contains the paragraph usually relied upon to prove Lord +Palmerston’s belief in the Baconian theory: + + “Literature was the fashion of Lord Palmerston’s early days, when + (as Sydney Smith remarked) a false quantity in a man was pretty + nearly the same as a _faux pas_ in a woman. He was tolerably well + up in the chief Latin and English classics; but he entertained + one of the most extraordinary paradoxes touching the greatest + of them, that was ever broached by a man of his intellectual + calibre. He maintained that the plays of Shakespeare were + really written by Bacon, who passed them off under the name of + an actor, for fear of compromising his professional prospects + and philosophic gravity. Only last year when this subject was + discussed at Broadlands, Lord Palmerston suddenly left the room, + and speedily returned with a small volume of dramatic criticisms, + in which the same theory (originally started by an American lady) + was supported by supposed analogies of thought and expression. + ‘There,’ he said, ‘read that and you will come to my opinion.’ + When the positive testimony of Ben Jonson, in the verses prefixed + to the edition of 1623, was adduced, he remarked, ‘O, those + fellows always stand up for one another, or he may have been + deceived like the rest.’ The argument had struck Lord Palmerston + by its originality, and he wanted leisure for a searching + exposure of its groundlessness.” + +The volume alluded to was Smith’s _Bacon and Shakespeare_. + + +30 MISS DELIA BACON. Chapter XL, in Mrs. JOHN FARRAR’S _Recollections +of Seventy Years_. Boston: Ticknor & Fields, 1866. 16mo. (Pages +319-331.) + + _Unc._ + +An interesting account of Miss Bacon’s historical lectures, and of +her subsequent experiences in England. + + “She [Miss Bacon] had no notion of going to England to teach + history; all she wanted to go for was to obtain proof of the + truth of her theory, that Shakespeare did not write the plays + attributed to him, but that Lord Bacon did. * * * The lady whom + she was visiting put her copy of his works out of sight, and + never allowed her to converse with her on this, her favorite + subject. We considered it dangerous for Miss Bacon to dwell on + this fancy, and thought that, if indulged, it might become a + monomania, which it subsequently did.” + + * * * * * + + “She suffered many privations [in London] during the time that + she was writing her book. She lived on the poorest food, and was + often without the means of having a fire in her chamber. She told + me that she wrote a great part of her large octavo volume sitting + up in bed, in order to keep warm.” + + +31 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. THIRD SERIES. From Q, with editorial +answer, IX, 155, February 24, 1866. + + _Unc._ + + +32 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. By NATHANIEL HOLMES. New York: +Hurd & Houghton, 1866, 12mo. pp. 601. Second edition, 1868. (Third +edition, with appendix, referred to hereafter, 1876, pp. 696.) + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Judge HOLMES is the apostle of Baconianism. His book, first published +in 1866, has gone through several editions, and has been regarded as +the text-book and authority for all controversialists on that side. +Though largely reviewed and discussed, there has been but one book +written directly in answer to it--that of Mr. King. + +We can not do better than to give Judge Holmes’s theorem in his own +language (hitherto unpublished): + + “This work undertakes to demonstrate, not only that William + Shakespeare did not, but that Francis Bacon did, write the + plays and poems. It presents a critical view of the personal + history of the two men, their education, learning, attainments, + surroundings, and associates, the contemporaneousness of the + writings in question, in prose and verse, an account of the + earlier plays and editions, the spurious plays, and ‘the true + original copies.’ It gives some evidence that Bacon was known to + be the author by some of his contemporaries. It shows in what + manner William Shakespeare came to have the reputation of being + the writer. It exhibits a variety of facts and circumstances, + which are strongly suggestive of Bacon as the real author. A + comparison of the writings of contemporary authors in prose and + verse, proves that no other writer of that age, but Bacon, can + come into any competition for the authorship. It sifts out a + chronological order of the production of the plays, and of the + several writings of Bacon, ascertaining the exact dates, whenever + possible, and shows that the more significant parallelisms run in + the same order, and are of such a nature, both by their dates and + their own character, as absolutely to preclude all possibility + of borrowing, otherwise than as Bacon borrowed from himself. It + is amply demonstrated that mere common usage, or the ordinary + practice of writers, can furnish no satisfactory explanation + of these parallelisms and identities. There is a continuous + presentation of parallel or identical passages, throughout the + work, with such commentary as was deemed necessary or advisable + in order to bring out their full force and significance; and + twenty pages of minor parallelisms are given in one body, without + commentary.” + + “It gives some extensive proofs that Bacon was a poet, and + suggests some reasons for his concealment of his poetical + authorship. There is some indication of the object and purpose + the author had in view in writing these plays. It is shown that + the tenor of their teaching is in keeping with Bacon’s ideas upon + the subject treated in them. The latter half of the book presents + more especially the parallelism in scientific and philosophical + thought, with a view to show the identity of the plays and the + writings of Bacon, in respect to their philosophy and standard + of criticism; and in this there is an endeavor to show that the + character and drift of the philosophy of Bacon (as well as that + of the plays) was substantially identical with the realistic + idealism of the more modern, as of the more ancient writers on + the subject.” + + “It is recognized that the evidence drawn from historical + facts and biographical circumstances, are not in themselves + alone entirely conclusive of the matter, however suggestive or + significant as clearing the way for more decisive proofs, or as + raising a high degree of probability; and it is conceded, that, + in the absence of more direct evidence, the most decisive proof + attainable is to be found in a critical and thorough comparison + of the writings themselves, and that such a comparison will + clearly establish the identity of the author as no other than + Francis Bacon.” + +We have been recently assured by Judge Holmes, that he has seen +nothing in any new fact, criticism, or discussion of the subject, +that has in the least degree shaken his convictions. + +(Hon. NATHANIEL HOLMES is a graduate of Harvard University, in the +class of 1837. Since 1839 he has practiced law in St. Louis for the +greater part of the time, but was, from 1865 to 1868, Judge of the +Supreme Court of Missouri, and from 1868 to 1872, a Professor of Law +in the Law School of Harvard. He has now retired from professional +life, and resides at Cambridge, Mass.) + + +33 NOTICE OF JUDGE HOLMES’S WORK. In _The Nation_, New York, March +29, 1866, p. 402. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +34 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes’s _Authorship_ +in the Brooklyn (N. Y.) _Daily Eagle_, October 24, 1866. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +35 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE? Review of Holmes’s _Authorship_ +in the _Round Table_, New York, October 27, 1866. 4 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +36 HYPOTHESES OF SHAKESPEARIAN CRITICISM. In the _Home Journal_, New +York, October 27, 1866. 3 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +37 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes, in the _Jewish +Messenger_, New York, November 2, 1866. 1 column. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +38 SHAKESPEARE. WAS HE HIMSELF OR SOMEBODY ELSE? + +_a_--Article in the Springfield (Mass.) _Republican_, November 7, +1866. 2½ columns. + +_b_--In same paper, a letter from its Boston correspondent, November +3, 1866. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +39 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A communication from RICHARD J. +HINTON, of Washington, D. C. In the _Round Table_, New York, Nov. 17, +1866. 3 columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Mr. Hinton writes this to call the attention of the public to the +position taken by Mr. O’Connor in his _Harrington_ novel. + + +40 BACON VS. SHAKESPEARE. An article in review of Judge Holmes. In +the New York _Methodist_, November 17, 1866. 1½ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +41 WAS LORD BACON AN IMPOSTOR? In _Fraser’s Magazine_, London, +December, 1866. + + _Unc._ + +There are incidental allusions to the authorship on pages 718, +721, 730, and 731. It was answered by Baron LIEBIG, in _Fraser_ of +April, 1867, under the same title, without special reference to this +question. + + +42 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. [By A. G. SEDGWICK.] In _North +American Review_, January, 1867. 2½ pages. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +43 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In Literary Notices, _Harper’s +Magazine_, January, 1867, p. 263. ½ page. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +44 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. A letter from JAMES H. HACKETT. In the +_Evening Post_, New York, January 26, 1867. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +45 WAS BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE? Two articles by MARMONTEL, in +the _Christian Observer and Presbyterian Witness_, Richmond, Va. The +first dated February 7, 1867. 2 columns each. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +46 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes in the +_Athenæum_, London, February 23, 1867, page 249. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +47 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. An article in review of Holmes, in +the _Saturday Reader_, Montreal, Canada, April 6, 1867. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +48 COMMUNICATIONS in the _Daily Gazette_, Birmingham, England. + +_a_--By T. H. P., May 27, 1867. + +_b_--By William Henry Smith, July 1, 1867. + +_c_--By T. H. P., July 1, 1867. + + _Unc._ + + +49 DELIA BACON. By SIDNEY E. HOLMES. [Mrs. SARAH E. HENSHAW.] In _The +Advance_, Chicago, December 26, 1867. 1½ columns. + + _Unc._ + +A tribute to the memory of Delia Bacon, including a mention of her +theory, by a former friend and pupil. + + “Delia Bacon was a woman of a genius rare and incomparable. + Wherever she went, there walked a queen in the realm of mind. To + converse with her was to be carried captive. The most ordinary + topic became fascinating when she dealt with it, for whatever + subject she touched, she invested with her own wonderful wealth + of thought and illustration, and association, and imagery, until + all else was forgotten in her magical converse.” + + * * * * * + + “Her theory of Shakespeare has been accepted by some able minds. + Had _she_ lived to advocate it, it is not too much to say that + it would have deeply impressed the literary world. But while + she was in the midst of her researches, that fine intellect, + overwrought and too highly sublimated, fell into confusion, and + henceforth was to be, as was that of the Hamlet which she had + so often analyzed, ‘like sweet bells jangled, out of tune, and + harsh.’ Thus discredit was thrown upon her favorite theory, and + a melancholy key afforded to some of her later experiences. ‘O! + What a noble mind was here o’erthrown!’ Alas! Alas! Who would + have thought that these words, so often read and dwelt upon in + her study of the great dramatist, were but the prophecy of her + own tragical end?” + + +50 DID WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? Chapter XIII, +in _The Shakespeare Treasury of Wisdom and Knowledge_. By CHAS. W. +STEARNS, M. D. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1869 and 1878. See +pages 394-413. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Assuming that there is no possible question as to the authorship +of the poems, Dr. Stearns shows the parallelisms in thought and +expression between the poems and the plays, as conclusive evidence in +favor of Shakespeare. + + +51 DID BACON WRITE SHAKESPEARE? An anonymous article in the New York +_Clipper_, May 1, 1869. 1½ columns. + + _Unc._ + + +52 A CONFERENCE OF PLEASURE, Composed for some festive occasion +about the year 1592. By FRANCIS BACON. Edited from a Manuscript +belonging to the Duke of Northumberland. By JAMES SPEDDING. London: +(Privately-printed) 1870. 4to pp. xxxi, 54. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This was edited by Mr. Spedding from a portion of the Northumberland +MSS. referred to by Judge Holmes (see pages 657-682, edition of +1876). These MSS. were found in 1867, in a box of old papers, which +had probably lain for nearly a century unopened, in the library of +Northumberland House in London. With them was a MS. title-page, +indicating that the paper book which it covered had once contained, +in addition to the four speeches composing the Conference of +Pleasure, several other of Bacon’s orations and essays. Also, +_Richard II_, _Richard III_, _Asmund and Cornelia_, Thomas Nashe’s +_Isle of Dogs_, and papers by other authors. Of these, only a part +remained, when the document was discovered, the Shakespeare plays +being amongst the missing. The MSS. were in bad condition, from fire +and the ravages of time--the edges being badly burned, probably from +a fire which occured in Northumberland House in 1780. + +Accompanying Mr. Spedding’s book is a fac-simile of this MS. +title-page, and it is on this that the interest turns. It shows, in +addition to the original table of contents, a mass of scribblings, +written all over the sheet, containing a variety of names, phrases, +quotations, idly and carelessly written, apparently by some copyist +or clerk. Amongst these scribblings occurs the name of _Frauncis +Bacon_ several times, and that of _William Shakespeare_ eight or nine +times repeated. As to its date, Mr. Spedding says: “All I can say +is that I find nothing, either in these later scribblings, or what +remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign +of Elizabeth.” Further, that he finds no traces of the handwriting of +Bacon. + +The reference to this question is to be found in the introduction, +pages xxii-xxv. + +Mr. Spedding discovers nothing in these MSS. to disturb his belief in +the Shakespearian authorship, and regards it as a simple coincidence +that the productions of Shakespeare and Bacon should be copied in +the same book, and their names scribbled on the title-page. “At the +present time,” he says, “if the waste leaf on which a law-stationer’s +apprentice tries his pens were examined, I should expect to find on +it the name of the poet, novelist, dramatic author, or actor of the +day, mixed with snatches of the last new song,” etc. * * * “And that +is exactly the sort of thing we have here.” Judge Holmes, however, +ventures the suggestion that they may have been made in Bacon’s own +study, by his own amanuensis; that this fact would account for the +two names being scribbled on the title-leaf by one in the secret; +and that Bacon himself may have destroyed the missing Shakespeare +plays before his death, by way of suppressing the evidence of his +authorship. + +These MSS. are especially interesting from the fact that if the +scribblings are of a date contemporary with Shakespeare and Bacon, it +is believed to be the only place where their names have been found +mentioned together in anything written in that age. + + +53 NOTICE OF HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP. In the Minneapolis (Minn.) +_Tribune_, of March 23, 1870. 1 column. + + _Unc._ + +This article refers to a lecture delivered in Minneapolis in the +winter of 1872-73, by Hon. IGNATIUS DONNELLY, of Minnesota, taking +the position that the pro-Bacon argument was a strong one, but not +conclusive; in short, that the verdict must be the Scotch one, “not +proven.” It is understood that Mr. Donnelly is now engaged upon a +work, in which, after further thought and study of the question, he +takes the ground that Bacon was the author of both the plays and +poems. It is expected that it will be published soon. + + +54 THE BACONIAN ORIGIN OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS, being some facts and +arguments going to show that the dramatic works imputed to William +Shakespeare were not, and could not have been, written by him, but +were the production of Lord Bacon. By Rev. A. B. BRADFORD, of Enon, +Pa. A lecture, printed in the _Golden Age_, May 30, 1874. Also, in +the _Argus and Radical_, Beaver, Pa., December 29, 1875. 6 columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The author is a strong Baconian. He follows mainly the same line of +argument as Judge Holmes. + + +55 SHAKESPEARE AND LORD BACON. By “COLLEY CIBBER.” [JAMES REES]. A +series of six articles in the _Sunday Mercury_, Philadelphia, for +June 7, 14, 21, and 28; and July 5 and 12, 1874. 9 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The writer takes for his motto: “Mingle no matter of doubtful with +the simplicity of truth,” from Ben Jonson’s _Discoveries_. The +articles cover the whole range of the subject. + + +56 AUTHENTICITY OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. By “GALLERY CRITIC.” A series +of twelve articles in the _Sunday Republic_, Philadelphia, for June +28; July 5, 12, 19, and 26; August 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; September 6 +and 20, 1874. 20 columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Written in answer to “Colley Cibber” above, and fully as +comprehensive. The author is unknown. + + +57 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. Two short notices in the +_American Bibliopolist_, New York, for July and August, 1874. + +_a_--Letter from Hibernicus. + +_b_--Did Bacon write Shakespeare? + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +58 WHO WROTE “SHAKESPERE?” By J. V. P. [J. V. PRICHARD]? In _Fraser’s +Magazine_, London, August, 1874. (Reproduced in _Littell’s Living +Age_, October, 1874). 10 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This is a noted article in the controversy. On it were founded the +series of opinions, interviews, etc., appearing soon after in the +New York _Herald_, and frequent reference to it will be found in the +writings on the subject. The article itself is devoted mainly to a +very full and complete summary of Judge Holmes’s book, with many +extracts and references. + +The name of the writer has not generally been known. Mr. Wilkes, in +his book, speaks of the paper as an “exceedingly ingenious article, +written by a young American,” whom he met in London at the time of +the publication; but does not give his name. We have sufficient +reason, however, for crediting it to Mr. J. V. Prichard. + + +59 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES. + +_a_--From C. A. Ward, II, 161, August 29, 1874. + +_b_--From Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], II, 246, Sept. 26, 1874. + +_c_--From H. S. Skipton, II, 350, Oct. 31, 1874. + + _Unc._ + + +60 SHAKESPEARE--AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In +the New York _Herald_, September 6, 1874. + +_a_--Letter from London, embodying a copy of the “J. V. P.” article +in _Fraser’s Magazine_. + +_b_--Did Bacon write Shakespeare’s Plays? an editorial article. + + _Unc._ + +The commencement of the interesting series of +articles--communications, interviews, editorials, etc.--appearing in +the _Herald_ during September and October, which will be found in +subsequent titles. It has not been thought necessary to add to them +many notes or explanations, as the head-lines have been liberally +copied, and serve to explain their general tenor. + + +61 WAS SHAKESPEARE A DUMMY? Opinions of Live Dramatic Authorities on +the subject. The Press and Public taking up the discussion. Baconians +rather rare. In the _Herald_, Sept. 8, 1874. + +_a_--Who wrote Bacon? by Franklin. + +_b_--Shakespeare as a Stage Manager, from the Brooklyn _Eagle_. + +_c_--Let Shakespeare Alone, from the Philadelphia _Press_. + +_d_--Shakespeare and Bacon, an editorial. + + _Unc._ + +This article also gives interviews with Dion Boucicault, Howard +Paul, Bret Harte, Richard Grant White, Nym Crinkle [A. C. Wheeler], +and Lester Wallack. It is proper to say that Mr. White disavows the +interview. + + +62 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? Commentators, Quidnuncs, and Annotators. In +the _Herald_, September 9, 1874. + +_a_--Views of men who have studied the subject. + +_b_--The Elizabethan Era, by A. M. + +_c_--Letters from “Old Punch Writer” and “Garrick.” + + _Unc._ + +This issue comprises interviews with John Brougham, A. Oakey Hall, E. +C. Stedman, and Mayor Havemeyer. Mr. Hall gives the opinions, also, +of William E. Burton, James T. Brady, and “Falstaff” Hackett. + + +63 SHAKESPEARE. Explanations as to why the authenticity of the plays +are doubted. The origin of the Baconian theory. In the _Herald_, +September 10, 1874. + +_a_--Views of Horace Howard Furness. + +_b_--Bacon did not write Shakespeare, by R. Davey. + +_c_--Editorial article. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +64 A SHAKESPEAREAN MARE’S NEST. In New York _Times_, September 10, +1874. + +_a_--The Intellectual Department of the _Herald_, etc., in +Philadelphia _Evening Bulletin_, September 8, 1874. + +_b_--The Hogs Again. In Philadelphia _Press_, September 7, 1874. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +All of these are editorials, and devoted mainly to the humorous +disparagement of the _Herald_ articles. + + “The voice of the interviewer is still heard in the land. * * + * His mind is racked as to the authenticity of Shakespeare’s + works. * * * The great absurdity of the fancy or notion (for it + does not attain to the dignity of a theory), is that, starting + from the point that it is incredible to believe that Shakespeare + could have written his plays, so astonishing are their evidences + of knowledge, and of mental power, it adds these plays to + the wonderful offspring of Bacon’s mind, thus seeking to set + aside one fact assumed to be monstrously incredible by setting + up another, still more monstrous and still more incredible. + Shakespeare is impossible, but Bacon _plus_ Shakespeare is + possible!”--_Daily Times._ + + “The intellectual department of the New York _Herald_ has begun + to devote its energies to the settlement of the authorship of + Shakespeare’s plays, and in pursuance of its purpose it has + obtained the opinions of several eminent citizens of New York + upon the subject. A feeling of sadness, perhaps of gloom, will + overspread the world when the fact becomes public that the + person known as ‘Nym Crinkle’ has expressed the conviction that + Shakespeare did not write the dramas in question. * * * * In the + meantime, while these giant minds in New York are wrestling with + the great subject, the vast multitude of us sit here in the outer + darkness, unable to scale the intellectual heights reached by + Crinkle and the rest, but waiting with nervous anxiety the result + of their deliberations.”--_Evening Bulletin._ + + +65 SHADOWY SHAKESPEARE. A graphic interview with the disembodied +Bard. He admits being a Boucicault. Lord Bacon’s wraith refuses to +tell his secret. In the _Herald_, September 11, 1874. + +_a_--Opinions of Judge Pierrepont, John E. Owens, and Daniel +Dougherty. + +_b_--Shakespeare a spirit medium. By J. B. Burgess. + +_c_--Did Shakespeare write Bacon? By J. E. T. + +_d_--A Poser from Scotia. By Th. Ainslie. + + _Unc._ + +This contains an alleged interview with the spirit of Shakespeare, +through Foster, the medium, with the result as above. Bacon was also +assumed to be present, but “would not talk.” + + +66 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? In the _Herald_, September 12, 1874. + +_a_--Et tu, Brute? by T. + +_b_--Bacon never claimed them, by Ylon. + +_c_--Sir Walter Scott’s idea, by Hibernicus. + +_d_--A word for him, by Solferino. + +_e_--Puzzling Facts, from the Boston _Post_. + + _Unc._ + + +67 SHAKESPEARE VS. BACON. A JUDICIAL LUMINARY SUMS UP THE CHARGES. In +the _Herald_, September 13, 1874. + +_a_--Interview with Recorder Hackett. + +_b_--A New View of Shakespeare. + +_c_--The Value of the Shakespearian Discussion, an editorial. + + _Unc._ + + +68 THE SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY. In the _Herald_, September 14, 1874. + +_a_--Comparison of the Events of Shakespeare’s and Bacon’s Lives, by +Addison B. Burk. + +_b_--No one person ever wrote them, by R. S. G. + +_c_--Bacon’s learning a point against his authorship, by T. L. W. + + _Unc._ + + +69 AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the Oakland (Cal.) _Daily +Transcript_, September 15, 1874. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +70 SHAKESPEARE’S AUTHORSHIP. In the _Herald_, September 19, 1874. + +_a_--Views of Henry Ward Beecher on the new Criticisms of the +Baconian School. + +_b_--Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, by C. G. G. + +_c_--A Question for the Baconians, by W. V. + +_d_--Bacon’s Lifetime--Pursuit of Philosophy and Politics +Irreconcilable with the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays, by J. E. +Tuel. + +_e_--The True Authorship Discovered, by Bloxon. + +_f_--Another triumph, from the Indianapolis _Sentinel_. + +_g_--Shakespeare. Who is he? from the Lebanon (Pa.) _Courier_. + +_h_--Journalistic Enterprise, from the Milwaukee _News_. + + _Unc._ + + +71 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. THE RELATIONS OF SHAKESPEARE TO THE MODERN +STAGE. The Great Authors Contrasted and Reviewed. In the _Herald_, +September 20, 1874. + +_a_--Opinion of Prof. Hiram Corson. + +_b_--Interview with L. Clarke Davis, of the Philadelphia _Inquirer_. + +_c_--Shakespeare and the Stage, an editorial. + + _Unc._ + + +72 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. In the _Herald_, September 21, 1874. + +_a_--Did Shakespeare write the Novum Organum? by S. + +_b_--Shakespeare’s Soliloquy. + + _Unc._ + + +73 CARLYLE ON SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By AMICUS. In the _Herald_, +September 25, 1874. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The writer calls attention to Mr. Carlyle’s views, in _Heroes and +Hero Worship_--Lecture III. + + “It is unexampled, I think, the calm, creative perspicacity of + Shakespeare. _Novum Organum_, and all the intellect you will find + in Bacon, is of quite a secondary order--earthly material, poor + in comparison with this. Amongst modern men, one finds, with + strictness, almost nothing of the same rank. Goethe alone, since + the days of Shakespeare, reminds one of it.”--_Carlyle._ + + +74 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. TWO OPPOSITE KINDS OF GENIUS. In the +_Herald_, September 26, 1874. + +_a_--Shakespeare’s Blunders an Argument against the Baconians. +Opinion of Prof. O’Leary, of Manhattan College. + +_b_--The Internal Evidence of the Plays, by The Doctor. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +75 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In the _Herald_, September 27, 1874. + +_a_--The answers of leading Corkonians to the Query. + +_b_--A few objections answered--a novel theory refuted, by D. + +_c_--The Shakespeare Controversy, an editorial. + + _Unc._ + + +76 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. CONTRAST OF THE TWO MINDS, by M. D. In the +_Herald_, Sept. 28, 1874. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +77 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. In the _Herald_, October 5, 1874. + +_a_--Intellectual Distinctions, as classified by McDermott. + +_b_--The Literary Test, by S. N. Carvalho. + +_c_--Shakespeare not a borrower, by B. J. A. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +78 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? In the _Herald_, October 11, 1874. + +_a_--Opinion of Professor John S. Hart. + +_b_--The Progressive Development of Shakespeare’s Education in the +Plays, by Franklin. + +_c_--One more Baconian heard from; letter from Index. + +_d_--What the old actors thought, by David Pollock. + + _Unc._ + + +79 THE SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY. An editorial article in the _Herald_, +October 11, 1874. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +With this number, the _Herald_ supposed the discussion in its columns +closed (though, as it will be seen, there was one more article), and +gave an editorial summary of its conclusions. Extract: + + “Up to this time we have declined to interpolate our own opinion + upon the authorship; but now, in closing the discussion, after + yielding ample time and space to those who wished to take part + in it, we must say that the weight of testimony is altogether + against the claim made for Bacon. Nothing new has been advanced + in behalf of the Holmes theory, while on the contrary, the + internal evidence of the plays, and the facts of history, have + been overwhelmingly shown to be in favor of Shakespeare as the + author. * * * * We believe, in short, that nothing has been said + in this debate to weaken our faith in Shakespeare, while much + has been shown which strengthens it. William Shakespeare is, + therefore, in our opinion, the author of the plays which in his + own day, and ever since, have been attributed to him by universal + consent, and the plea made for Bacon is of ‘such stuff as dreams + are made on,’ a theory which has for its chief use to make the + fame of Shakespeare more glorious.” + + +80 SHAKESPEARE. In the _Herald_, October 19, 1874. + +_a_--A letter to the editor of the _Herald_, from the writer of the +_Fraser_ article, [J. V. PRICHARD]? dated London, October 1, 1874. + +_b_--A New Point in the Discussion, an editorial. + + _Unc._ + +The last of the _Herald_ articles. The _Fraser_ writer introduces +several matters not within the scope of his first paper, such as +the discovery of the Northumberland manuscripts, and the claim that +Bacon was the author of _Richard II_, arising out of the conversation +between Queen Elizabeth and Lord Bacon at the time of the Essex +treason. The latter is answered by the _Herald_. + + +81 SHAKESPEARE’S CENTURIE OF PRAYSE, being materials for a history of +opinion on Shakespeare and his works, culled from the writers of the +first century after his rise. By C. M. INGLEBY, LL.D. For the Editor. +London: 1874. 8vo. pp. 362. (Second edition, for the New Shakespere +Society, revised with many additions, by LUCY TOULMIN SMITH. London: +1879. Imp. 8vo. pp. 471.) + + _Unc._ + +There may be a question as to the propriety of inserting this title, +but it is so often referred to, and is so important an authority in +the investigation of the subject, that it seems to be justifiable. + + “To my mind, there is no book printed that is a stronger argument + against the Baconians than is Dr. Ingleby’s _Centurie of Prayse_. + Although to prove that Shakespeare wrote the dramas attributed to + him formed no part of the motive of its publication, yet the work + _does prove it_, and most completely.”--JOSEPH CROSBY. + + +82 THE TENDENCY TO SKEPTICISM. A short editorial notice of the theory +in _Scribner’s Monthly_, for January, 1875, p. 392. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “Skepticism is the characteristic of the period, and the more + mischief it accomplishes, the better pleased its votaries are. + Opinions that have prevailed for centuries, and have received + the sanction of the wisest and best, are especially obnoxious + to them. * * * * To admit the Baconian theory of Shakespeare, + except as an ingenious piece of pleasantry, demands a brain so + addled with theory as to be incapable of literary judgment, or a + capacity for credulity not given to mere commonplace mortals.” + + +83 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES. + +_a_--From C. A. Ward, III, 32, January 9, 1875. + +_b_--From H. S. Skipton, and Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], III, 193, March 6, +1875. + +_c_--From C. A. Ward, III, 458, June 5, 1875. + +_d_--From Jabez, IV, 55, July 17, 1875. + + _Unc._ + + +84 BACON _versus_ SHAKESPERE. A Plea for the Defendant. By THOMAS +D. KING. Montreal, and Rouse’s Point, N. Y.: Lovell Printing and +Publishing Company, 1875. 12mo. pp. 187. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. KING’S book is an answer to Judge Holmes, and is intensely +Shakespearian. He instances the testimony of Ben Jonson, Heminge, +and Condell, in the folio of 1623, and impliedly that of Pembroke, +Montgomery, and Southampton, who, if there was an untruth, must +have been accessories to it. He also relies on other contemporary +evidence, which he cites, of which we give only that of Francis +Meres, in the _Palladis Tamia_ (Wit’s Treasury), 1598. + + “As _Plautus_ and _Seneca_ are accounted the best for Comedy + and Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among the English + is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy + witness his _Gentlemen of Verona_, his _Errors_, his _Love labors + lost_, his _Love labours wonne_, his _Midsummer Nights dreame_; & + his _Merchant of Venice_: for Tragedy his _Richard ii_, _Richard + iii_, _Henry iv_, _King John_, _Titus Andronicus_, and his _Romeo + & Juliet_.” + +We quote one paragraph: + + “Read your Shakespeare, peruse and re-peruse him, at your + fireside, in meditative silence apart from the company of + _theatrical_ representation; you will be astonished what a + treasure his pages disclose of noble sentiment, of acute + observation, of instructive reflections, of sage advice, of + practical truth, and moral wisdom. Read the writings of Bacon + for their true philosophy, read and compare these two great + Elizabethan lights, and the more carefully and attentively you + do so, the more firmly I am impressed with the belief that but + a misguided and infatuated judgment can bring you to any other + conclusion relative to Shakespeare’s authorship than that formed, + and openly stated by Ben Jonson and Milton, whose testimony ought + to be conclusive against the _Baconian Theory_.” + +The author devotes considerable space to a denial of the claim +to the poetic faculty in Bacon, which he illustrates by copious +selections from Shakespeare, and from the well-known poetry of +Bacon, the paraphrases of the Psalms. He claims that the writer of +“Shakespeare” was of Warwickshire origin, giving instances of terms +in that dialect used in the plays in proof. He also gives a list of +ancient and modern authors, the philosophers, metaphysicians, etc., +in one column, and the poets and dramatists in another, by way of +comparison, and adds: + + “Let any one read, even cursorily, the works of these + philosophers, dramatists, and poets, and I feel certain that they + will come to this conclusion, that _Bacon never wrote the plays + and poems of Shakespeare_. Interchange of, or joint authorship, + is quite as likely between Locke and Dryden, Newton and Addison, + Blair and Cowper, etc., etc., as between Bacon and Shakespeare.” + +(Mr. KING is a resident of Montreal, and is an active member of its +Shakespeare Society.) + +NOTE--Another Montreal authority on this subject is Ven. Archdeacon +WILLIAM T. LEACH, LL.D., of McGill College and University, who +delivered one of the College lectures on _Bacon and Shakespeare_, +November 13, 1879. His studies of these authors have induced him to +believe in Bacon’s authorship of the works, and his lecture is a +strong presentation of that theory. It has never been published. + + +85 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. By E. O. VAILE. An article in +_Scribner’s Monthly_, April, 1875. (See pages 743 to 754.) + + _Unc._ + +This is not only a fair history of the controversy, but a very +complete and impartial summary of all the points at issue. It will be +found interesting and useful to any one desiring information as to +the arguments used in the discussion. It summarizes under numerical +heads: Negative propositions against Shakespeare, 10; circumstantial +points in favor of Bacon, 14; answers to the foregoing, favorable to +Shakespeare, 16. + +Of the many points made in this article, we lay it under contribution +for two only. The first refers to such hints as have been +gathered from contemporary literature containing, as is claimed, +circumstantial evidence in favor of the Baconian theory. In the +following extracts the author’s comments are omitted: + + “In 1592, Greene published a satiric poem, _A Groatsworth of + Witte bought with a Million of Repentance_. In it he warns + his friends who spend their wits in play-making to seek other + employment, “for there is an upstart crow beautified with our + feathers, that with his Tyger’s heart, wrapt in a player’s hyde, + supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the + best of you; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum is, in his + own conceyt, the only Shakescene in a Countrey.” + + Writing to his friend, Mr. Tobie Matthew, about that time + [1607-8], Bacon remarks: “I showed you some model, though at that + time methought you were as willing to hear Julius Cæsar, as Queen + Elizabeth commended.” + + While Bacon is striving to gain a foothold with the new + sovereign, James I., he writes to Master Davis, then going to + meet the King, committing his interests at court to Master + Davis’s faithful care and discretion, and closing the letter + thus: “So desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue.” + + To Mr. Tobie Matthew, Bacon was in the habit of sending his books + as they came out. In a neat letter, “To the Lord Viscount St. + Albans,” without date, Matthew acknowledges the “receipt of your + great and noble token of favor of the 9th of April,” and appends + the following P. S.: “The most prodigious wit that ever I knew + of my nation, and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s + name, though he be known by another.” + + On an occasion Bacon enclosed a “recreation,” as he termed his + lighter literary productions, to Tobie Matthew. Matthew, in a + reply, without date or address, uses these suggestive words: “I + will not promise to return you weight for weight, but measure for + measure.” + +The second point: We here gather from Mr. Vaile’s article a partial +summary of the evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship, taken from the +writings of his contemporaries: + + “The earliest mention of Shakespeare by a contemporary is by + Edmund Spenser, in 1591, in _The Teares of the Muses_. Complaint + by Thalia, lines 205-210. + + And he, the man whom Nature selfe had made + To mock herselfe, and Truth to imitate, + With kindly counter under mimic shade, + Our pleasant Willy, Ah! is dead of late: + With whom all ioy and iolly meriment + Is also deaded, and in dolour drent. + + In 1592 appeared _Kinde Hart’s Dreame_, a poem of considerable + interest and merit, by Henrie Chettle. From Chettle’s address + to his readers, we learn that he was the editor of Greene’s + posthumous work, _A Groatsworth of Witte_, before referred to. + The quotation which has been made from this work, together with + other allusions in it, seems to have given offense, at least to + two authors of the time. In Chettle’s _Address_, the following + passage occurs, referring to Shakespeare, as all critics agree: + + “With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and + with one of them I care not if I neuer be; the other, whome + at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, + for that as I haue moderated the heat of liuing writers, and + might haue vsed my owne discretion (especially in such a case) + the author being dead, that I did not, I am as sorry, as if + the originall fault had beene my fault, because myselfe haue + seene his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he exclent in the + qualitie he professes; besides, diuers of worship haue reported + his vprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his + facetious grace in writting that approoues his art.”--_Percy + Society Publications, vol. v._ + + John Webster, in the preface to his play, _The White + Devil_--1612--speaks thus: + + “Detraction is the sworne friend to ignorance; for mine owne + part, I haue euer truly cherisht my good opinion of other men’s + worthy labours, especially of that full and haightned style of + maister Chapman, * * * and lastly (without wrong last to be + named), the right happy and copious industry of m. Shake-speare, + m. Decker, and m. Heywood.”--_John Webster’s Works. London: 1857, + vol. ii._ + + Ben Jonson’s eulogy upon Shakespeare, first published in the + folio of 1623, is well known. In his prose, the same author makes + a long and affectionate reference to the friend of his youth. The + following is a part: * * * “For I loved the man, and do honour + his memory, on this side idolatry, as much as any. He was indeed + honest and of an open and free nature; had an excellent phantasy, + brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with + that facility, that sometimes it was necessary that he should be + stopped.”--_Discoveries. Probably written in 1636._ + + A few more quotations, without doubt correct, are added, as given + in Allibone’s _Dictionary of Authors_. _Art._ Shakespeare. + + “As the soule of _Euphorbus_ was thought to liue in _Pythagoras_; + so the sweete wittie soule of _Ouid_ liues in mellifluous + hony-tongued _Shakespeare_, witnes his _Venus_ and _Adonis_, his + _Lucrece_, his sugred Sonnets among his priuate friends. * * * * + + As _Epius Stolo_ said, the Muses would speak with _Plautus_ + tongue, if they would speak Latin; so I say the Muses would speak + with _Shakespeare’s_ fine filed phrase, if they would speak + English.”--_Francis Meres, Wit’s Treasury, 1598._ + + And Shakespeare, thou whose hony-flowing vaine + (Pleasing the world) thy praises doth obtaine + Whose _Venus_ and whose _Lucrece_ (sweete and chaste) + Thy name in fame’s immortal booke have plac’t, + Live ever you; at least, in fame live ever! + Well may the bodye die, but fame dies never. + --_Richard Barnefeild_, _Poems in Divers Humors_, 1598. + + TO OUR ENGLISH TERENCE, MR. WILLIAM SHAKE-SPERE. + + Some say, good Will, which I in sport do sing, + Hadst thou not plaid some _Kingly_ parts in sport, + Thou hadst been a companion for a King, + And beene King among the meaner sort. + --_Sir John Davies_ in his _Scourge of Folly_, 1611-14. + +Mr. Vaile concludes: + + “So far as this discussion attempts an explanation of the origin + or existence of genius, it is certainly quite futile; and quite + as unworthy is the attempt to adjust the mere honor of authorship + between two individuals simply. But the question is by no means + an unimportant one, whether genius has worked in this instance, + by the use of means necessary to ordinary mortals, or whether its + inspiration has been immediate and complete.” + +(Mr. VAILE is a resident of Oak Park, Chicago, where he is connected +with several educational publications.) + +A concise statement of the more important contemporary allusions to +Shakespeare, will be found in Mr. F. G. Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, +pages 12-21. + + +86 BACON’S PSALMS. In the Old Cabinet, _Scribner’s Monthly_, April, +1875. (See pages 758-59.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This contains extracts from Bacon’s acknowledged verses--the +seven versified psalms--by way of comparison with the poetry of +Shakespeare. The psalms paraphrased are I, XII, XC, CIV, CXXVI, +CXXXVII, and CXLIX. + + “According to the editors of Bacon’s Works (Messrs. Spedding, + Ellis, and Heath), ‘the only verses of Bacon’s making that have + come down to us, and probably, with one or two slight exceptions, + the only verses he ever attempted,’ were ‘the translation of + certain Psalms into English verse.’ He wrote also a sonnet, + meant, say the editors, ‘in some way or other to assist in + sweetening the Queen’s temper toward the Earl of Essex; and + it has either not been preserved at all, or not so as to be + identified.’ Two other poems have been ascribed to him, although + it is not absolutely certain that he wrote them. Really, then, + the seven versified Psalms constitute all of Bacon’s poetry which + may be said to be in evidence on the point of his poetic ability. + * * * * For the curiosity of the thing, we transcribe the opening + stanzas of Bacon’s translation of Psalm cxxxvii: + + When as we sat, all sad and desolate, + By Babylon upon the river’s side, + Eas’d from the tasks which in our captive state + We were enforced daily to abide, + Our harps we had brought with us to the field, + Some solace to our heavy souls to yield. + + But soon we found we fail’d of our account, + For when our minds some freedom did obtain, + Straightways the memory of Sion Mount + Did cause afresh our wounds to bleed again; + So that with present griefs, and future fears, + Our eyes burst forth into a stream of tears. + + As for our harps, since sorrow struck them dumb, + We hang’d them on the willow-trees were near; + Yet did our cruel masters to us come, + Asking of us some Hebrew songs to hear; + Taunting us rather in our misery, + Than much delighting in our melody.” + + +87 “SHAKESPEARE’S CENTURIE OF PRAYSE.” By Prof. HIRAM CORSON. In the +_Cornell Review_ (Cornell University Literary Magazine), Ithaca, New +York, for May, 1875. 10 pages. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A review of Dr. Ingleby’s book, from the standpoint of its value in +proving the Shakespearian authorship. + + “And when we look at the slim arguments that have been so + painstakingly concocted against Shakespeare’s claims, and in + favor of Lord Bacon’s, we are forced to attribute the remarkable + dispute to one of two causes, or to them both, for they are + intimately, if not inseparably, allied: + + 1. The iconoclastic tendency of the age; and, + + 2. The predominant analytic character of the thought of the age.” + + +88 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE THEORY. By E. C. T. [Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE]. +Two articles in the _Christian Register_, Boston, for May 22, and 29, +1875. 1½ columns each. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The first article treats of Delia Bacon, her monomania, and the +causes which may have led to it; the second is a critical review of +Judge Holmes. + +(The author resides at Westboro’, Mass. Several other papers by him +will be found noted hereafter.) + + +89 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. Notice in the _Saturday +Review_, London, July 24, 1875. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +90 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the _Civil Service Review_, +August 7, 1875. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +91 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By G. S. [GEORGE STRONACH, M.A.] In the +_Hornet_, London, August 11, 1875. + +_a_--Bacon and Shakespeare, by Scotus, in the same, August 18, 1875. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The paper in the _Hornet_ is a concise statement of the Baconian +argument. + +(Mr. STRONACH is connected with the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. It +is understood that he has in preparation a treatise sustaining the +Baconian theory, which will be published at some future time.) + + +92 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. A series of communications in the _Notes +and Queries_ column of the Newcastle (England) _Weekly Chronicle_, in +1875, under the dates following: August 28; September 4, 11, 18, and +25; October 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; and November 6, 13, and 20. + + _Unc._ + + +93 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. BY NATHANIEL HOLMES, WITH AN +APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL MATTERS, including a notice of the recently +discovered Northumberland MSS., with an introduction. Edition of +1876. (Appendix, pages 603 to 696.) + + _Anti-Sh._ + +As this was printed ten years later than the edition we have first +titled (1866), and contains new matter, it is inserted here to +preserve the chronological order. + +In the introduction Judge Holmes gives a general review of the +argument, and introduces a correspondence between Mr. James Spedding, +the biographer of Bacon, and himself. Also, between Mr. Spedding and +Mr. W. H. Smith. + +The appendix, aside from the notices of the Northumberland MSS., is +chiefly made up of cumulative evidence on the topics of the original +edition. We give one passage from the introduction: + + “I have not yet discovered one authentic fact which would + necessitate the inference that William Shakespeare was the + author of this poetry. The further facts of a historical kind + now presented, while strongly pointing to Francis Bacon as + the author, are not at all conclusive. Indeed, the extrinsic + circumstances all together, though powerfully suggestive and + convincing, can not be said to be absolutely conclusive of the + matter. The strongest evidence lies in the comparison of the + writings, and the demonstration (as I conceive) must rest at + last, and chiefly, upon the essential identity, individuality, + and oneness of the writer of this poetry and of Bacon’s works, + as exhibited in a thorough critical comparison of the writings + themselves. But, of course, where the evidence fails to convince, + or carries no weight at all, or even seems to prove a difference + rather than an identity, there is an end of the argument. + Nevertheless, it is my belief that any one who will take the + trouble to make that comparison, in an adequate manner, will not + fail to be convinced of that identity.” + +In Mr. Spedding’s letter, occupying six closely-printed pages, he +says: + + “If Shakespeare had no knowledge as a scholar or man of science, + neither do the works attributed to him show traces of trained + scholarship or scientific education. Given the _faculties_ (which + nature bestows as freely upon the poor as upon the rich), you + will find that all the acquired knowledge, art, and dexterity + which the Shakespearian plays imply, was easily attainable by a + man who was laboring in his vocation, and had nothing else to do.” + + * * * * * + + “Among the parallelisms which you have collected with such + industry to prove the identity of the two writers, I have not + observed one in which I should not myself have inferred from + the difference in style a difference of hand. Great writers, + especially being contemporary, have many features in common; + but if they are really great writers, they write naturally, + and nature is always individual. I doubt if there are five + lines together to be found in Bacon which could be mistaken for + Shakespeare, or five lines in Shakespeare which could be mistaken + for Bacon, by one who was familiar with the several styles and + practiced in such observation.” + +We insert here an extract from a review of Judge Holmes’s book in the +_Athenæum_, London, of February 23, 1867, probably by the Editor, Mr. +WILLIAM HEPWORTH DIXON: + + “Mr. Nathaniel Holmes is an American gentleman, residing in St. + Louis, a long way from the manuscript papers, which can alone + throw any new light upon the subject. He has mastered Miss Delia + Bacon’s book; also the new edition of Lord Bacon’s works, and + The Story of Lord Bacon’s Life, and with the help of a subtle + intellect, he has so arranged the mass of evidence tending to + separate two most important lives in English history, as to aid + in confusing the perception of many persons. For our own part, we + do not care to enter once again into the reasons which induced + us to reject, in mass and detail, all the conjectures offered + in support of Bacon’s authorship of Hamlet and Macbeth. When + we had Miss Bacon’s works before us we gave our reasons fully; + and as nothing new has been found in way of buttress to her + argument, we may safely let the discussion lapse, which we do in + thorough respect for Mr. Holmes, who, distant student though he + be of English literary history, is well aware of what is going + on in this country. He takes a perfectly noble and impartial + view of Bacon’s conduct, both in his relations to Essex and the + administration of justice. But we can not go forward with him + in his theory of Bacon being the secret author of Shakespeare’s + plays.” + + +94 L’IDEALE IN LETTERATURA. Letture fatte avanti al Regio Istituto +Lombardo, dal membro effettivo, Dott. ANTONIO BUCCELLATI, Milano, +1876. Pamphlet, pp. 144. (THE IDEAL IN LITERATURE. Lectures delivered +before the Royal Lombard Institute, by the acting member, Dr. Antonio +Buccellati.) + + _Unc._ + +A general reference to the subject on pages 74-77. It includes in a +note an extract from a paper in the _Memoriale Diplomatique_, the +date of which is not given. + + +95 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW; including an inquiry +as to his religious faith, and his knowledge of law, with the +Baconian theory considered. By GEORGE WILKES. New York: D. Appleton & +Co., 1877, 8vo. pp. 471. Second edition, 1881. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +It will be seen from the title of Mr. Wilkes’s book, that it is quite +comprehensive--and his argument that the writer of the plays was a +Catholic, and was not a trained lawyer, are either of them fatal, +in his opinion, to the Baconian theory. He devotes several chapters, +by way of illustration, to a comparison of the life, genius, and +characteristics of Shakespeare and Bacon. He differs from Lord +Campbell in his estimate of the “Legal Acquirements of Shakespeare,” +and takes up “The Testimony of the Plays” (pages 81-419), reviewing +them, as to the question of authorship, from both the religious and +legal point of view. As to the latter, he says: + + * * * “The author of the Shakespeare plays did not possess any + great knowledge of the law; or, if he did, his dramatic writings + do not show it. He exhibits, without doubt, a familiarity in law + expressions, and applies them with a precision and a happiness + of application in all cases, which apparently carries the idea + that he may have served in an attorney’s office; but not one of + them, nor do all of them together, mark anything higher than + mere general principles and forms of practice, or such surface + clack and knowledge as were within the mental reach of any clever + scrivener or conveyancer’s clerk. On the contrary, whenever + Shakespeare steps beyond the surface comprehension of the + solicitor’s phraseology, and attempts to deal with the spirit and + philosophy of law, he makes a lamentable failure. The _Merchant + of Venice_, _Comedy of Errors_, _Winter’s Tale_, and _Measure for + Measure_, contain conspicuous proofs of this deficiency.” * * * + +An extract from the recapitulation: + + “We may be told, at this stage, that such an extent of search and + demonstration as I have devoted to these Baconian points is not + necessary to dispose of a bubble which has never floated among + the public with any amount of success; and we may be flippantly + assured that the inexorable reasoning faculty of Time alone, + would, of itself, dispel the fallacy; but such contemptuous + treatment is not adequate to the treatment of a theory which has + received the support of such minds as that of Lord Palmerston, + and such scholars and critics as Judge Holmes and General B. + F. Butler in America. Bubbles thus patronized must be entirely + exploded, or they will be sure to reappear whenever the world + has a sick or idle hour, and delusions find their opportunity + to strike. Moreover, nothing is lost by our inquiries, after + all, beyond a little time; and I doubt not all true admirers of + our poet will agree that one new ray of light which may thus + be thrown upon the character and history of Shakespeare, will + justify octavos of discussion.” + +The author embodies in his book the Euphonic or Musical Test, by +Prof. Taverner, which is the subject of a separate title. Of this +essay, Mr. Wilkes says: + + “To the multitude, its proofs may appear less potent than some + others I have advanced, but with scholars and rhetorical experts, + the Euphonic test will probably be more fatal to the Baconian + theory than any other.” + +(The author is well known as the former editor of _Wilkes’s Spirit of +the Times_.) + + +96 THE MUSICAL OR EUPHONIC TEST. The respective styles of Shakespeare +and Bacon, judged by the laws of Elocutionary Analysis, and Melody of +Speech. By Prof. J. W. TAVERNER. 1877. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This essay is included in Mr. Wilkes’s book. See pages 424 to 461. + + “As the handwriting of one man among thousands can be determined + by experts, so no lengthy examples of style--the expression and + language of any two authors of note, can fail to indicate the + individual mind to which one or the other belongs. * * * But how + much more comprehensive are the combinations that constitute + the style, the language, the adornments, the illustrations, + the figurative expression, the place of the emphasis, the form + of the phrases, the source of the metaphors, the character of + the similes; but our enumeration would become too long; then, + finally, that emanation of the rhythm of the breathing, and of + the pulse, and the endowments of the ear, that marshals all those + forms and phrases in a certain order with reference to melody and + cadence.” + + * * * * * + + “The outcome of the life-long process to which we have referred, + by which the style of a writer is formed--_that_ feature of it to + which our treatment of this subject, for the present, relates--is + the most subtle; for we have to investigate that of which the + writer himself was, possibly, the most unconscious--that which, + like his gait, or some other habit, has, perhaps, received no + _positive_ attention whatever. Yet, it may be held that nothing + becomes more rigid and fixed than the mould and matrix in which + his thoughts are ultimately fashioned and expressed. The modes + of thinking would, in some instances, have to be identical, to + produce identical melodies of speech. + + “In Shakespeare’s prose we shall find that all this is + marvelously free and varied, and that his blank verse conforms + strictly to a certain set of chimes. In Bacon, besides Latin + forms, we shall not lack examples of a certain sort of + duplicates and triplicates, antithetic parallelisms, and harmonic + or alternate phrases (and, to use a strong Baconianism), _and the + like_.” + + * * * * * + + “Bacon, himself, gives testimony to the weight and value of such + evidence, for he, himself, relates that Queen Elizabeth, being + incensed with a certain book [Dr. Hayward’s], dedicated to my + Lord of Essex, expressed an opinion that there was treason in it, + and would not be persuaded that it was his writing whose name was + to it; but that it had some more mischievous author, and said, + with great indignation, that she would have him racked to produce + his author. ‘I replied,’ says Bacon, ‘Nay, Madam, he is a doctor; + never rack his person, but rack his style; let him have pen, ink, + and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue the + story where it breaketh off, and I will undertake, by collating + the styles, to judge whether he were the author or no.’” + +Prof. Taverner proceeds to illustrate his position by a comparison of +extracts from the essays and the plays. + + “It would be as easy to suppose, by these evidences, Bacon and + Shelley to have been one and the same author, as that these + several specimens of Shakespeare and of Bacon could proceed from + one and the same mind.” + + +97 THE LEOPOLD SHAKESPEARE. Edited by F. J. FURNIVALL. (See Notes, p. +CXXIV, edition 1877.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “I doubt whether any such idiotic suggestion as this authorship + of Shakespeare’s works by Bacon has ever been made before, + or will ever be made again, with regard to either Bacon or + Shakespeare. The tomfoolery of it is infinite.” + +This note is expanded in the edition of 1882. + + +98 IS SIR WALTER RALEIGH THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS AND +SONNETS? By GEORGE S. CALDWELL. Melbourne, Australia: Stillwell & +Knight, 1877. Pamphlet, pp. 32. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Mr. Caldwell answers his query in the affirmative. He is now engaged +upon a new book in development of his theory. We give below an +extract from a letter received from him referring to his new work: + + “The greater portion of the book will be taken up by extracts + from the History of the World, and from the plays. These extracts + will show so complete an identification of opinions, principles, + and peculiarities of thought and expression, as will, I am + sanguine, carry conviction to the minds of every interested + reader, that the plays must have been written by Raleigh. * * * * + After five years’ consideration, I now say that the materials in + my possession are sufficient to finally settle the controversy.” + +(Mr. CALDWELL is a resident of Melbourne, and understood to be in the +British Postal Service.) + + +99 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO SHAKESPEARE. (Chapter +IV, part I, pages 38 to 72.) In _Shakespeare: The Man and the Book_. +By C. M. INGLEBY, M.A., LL.D. London: 1877. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature, January +22, 1868. See Transactions, Vol. IX, new series. + + “The critic has the same interest in the works of Miss Delia + Bacon, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Judge Holmes, as the physician has in + morbid anatomy. He reads them, not so much for the light which + they throw on the question of authorship, as for their interest + as examples of wrongheadedness. It is not at all a matter of + moment whether Bacon, Raleigh, or another be the favorite on whom + the works are fathered, but it is instructive to discover by + what plausible process the positive evidences of Shakespeare’s + authorship (scanty as they are) are put out of court. As to + Bacon, as first favorite, I suppose any one conversant with + the life and authentic works of that powerful but unamiable + character, must agree with Mr. Spedding’s judgment, that unless + he be the author of “Shakespeare,” neither his life or his + writings give us any assurance that he could excel as a dramatic + poet. Of all men who have left their impress on the reign of the + first maiden Queen, not one can be found who was so deficient + in human sympathies as Lord Bacon. As for such a man portraying + a woman in her natural simplicity, purity, and grace; as to his + imagining and bodying forth in natural speech and action, such + exquisite creations as Miranda, Perdita, Cordelia, Desdemona, + Marina--the supposition is the height of absurdity. What, as it + seems to me, has led astray the few writers who have set up a + claim for Lord Bacon, is his admirable gift of language, scarcely + inferior to Shakespeare himself. This almost unique endowment + caused Bacon to manifest a kind of likeness to Shakespeare in + matters into which the sympathies of the man and the training of + the dramatic poet do not enter. Hence it is easy to cull from the + works of these two great masters a considerable number of curious + parallels. I have looked over the collections of Messrs. W. H. + Smith and Holmes, and I must confess I am astonished; but my + astonishment has not been provoked by the quantity or closeness + of the resemblances adduced, but by the spectacle of educated men + attempting to found such an edifice on such a foundation.” + + +100 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES. + +_a_--From Jabez [DR. INGLEBY], VII, 55, January 20, 1877. + +_b_--From R. P. Hampton Roberts, VII, 234, March 24, 1877. + + _Unc._ + + +101 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW. A review of Wilkes’s +book in the _Catholic World_, New York, for June, 1877. (Pages +422-428.) + + _Unc._ + +This review refers only slightly to the authorship, the question +mainly discussed being Mr. Wilkes’s views regarding the Catholicism +of Shakespeare. + + +102 THE POLITICAL PURPOSE OF THE RENASCENCE DRAMA. The Key to the +Argument. By CERIMON [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON], Melbourne, Sidney and +Adelaide: George Robertson, 1878. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 57. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The first of the several pamphlets and books by Dr. Thomson, which +will be found distributed through this list. A fair illustration of +his manner of treating the plays--as to the Political Purpose--may be +found in the paragraph following, relating to _Hamlet_: + + “When the King in the play asks if there is ‘no offence in’t,’ he + but repeats Queen Elizabeth’s query, put, in her palace, about + another treasonable entertainment, of which Bacon had, at that + very time, to allay her well-grounded suspicions. She feared the + disloyalty of one whom he endeavored to reconcile and become her + loyal servant. ‘She had good opinion that there was treason in + it.’ Readers of history know the allusion.” + +The allusion, of course, is to the affair of the Essex treason--Dr. +Hayward’s book, the “_First Yeare of King Henry the Fourth_”--and +the play of Richard II. For this, see Holmes, p. 96, 97, and 135; in +appendix, Spedding’s letter to Holmes, p. 617; Holmes to Spedding, p. +619. + +(Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON, at the time these works were written, was a +practicing physician at Melbourne, Australia. He was evidently a fine +scholar, and an intense Baconian. He died during the past year, at +the age of 63. We quote from a private letter from Melbourne: “The +Baconian theory of Shakespeare’s writings was an intense hobby with +him, and even the day before he died, he sent for some books on the +subject--the ruling passion strong in death. * * * He was ever ready +to put on the literary war-paint, and raised up numerous enemies +thereby.”) + + +103 SHAKESPEARE. WAS HE A MYTH? OR, WHAT DID HE WRITE? By CHARLES +COCKBILL CATTELL. London: Charles Watts, n. d. [1878]. Pamphlet, +12mo. pp. 16. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The first of a series of pamphlets, which will be found cited +hereafter, all combating the Baconian theory. We extract one +paragraph: + + “A curious point in history is that, while it devotes much space + to describe all the details about persons who would now be + forgotten but for Shakespeare, it leaves him unnoticed. So far as + I have read, Bacon, who is supposed to have known nearly every + thing of his age, does not mention Shakespeare. Sir Henry Wotton, + to whom we are so much indebted, does not name him, although he + survived Shakespeare twenty years. It is only common fairness to + state that Sir Henry also omits to mention Spenser, Ben Jonson, + Marlowe, Massinger, Beaumont and many others; so that Shakespeare + is only one among the many ‘myths’ of that generation, if + non-mention by Sir Henry proves that. Emerson’s explanation of + that is given in his own inimitable style: ‘No one suspected + he [Shakespeare] was the poet of the human race. * * * Their + genius failed them to find out the best head in the universe. Our + poet’s mask was impenetrable; you can not see the mountain near.’ + Emerson further says: ‘For executive faculty, for creation, + Shakespeare is unique. No man can imagine it better. * * * He + clothes the creatures of his legend with form and sentiment, as + if they were people who lived under his roof.’” + + +104 ARTICLE “SHAKESPEARE.” In the _Dictionary of Authors_. By S. +AUSTIN ALLIBONE. Philadelphia: 1878. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “SHAKESPEARE, THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS OF THE SONS OF MEN.--We have + earned the right, by hard labour, to assert that there is not in + the 1100 pages of Delia Bacon and Judge Holmes, the shadow of + the shade of an argument to support their wild and most absurd + hypothesis. Bacon was as little capable of writing ‘Shakespeare’s + Plays’ as any other man.” + + “Within that circle, none durst walk but he.” + + +105 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In an Appendix to _Studies on the Text of +Shakespeare_. By JOHN BULLOCH. London and Aberdeen: 1878, 8vo. (See +pages 317-322.) + + _Unc._ + +Mainly a review of the question, without an expression of opinion. + + +106 A CHAPTER OF COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY. 1561-1626. Francis Bacon and +William Shakespeare. By JOHN BULLOCH. In an Appendix to _Studies on +the Text of Shakespeare_. London and Aberdeen: 1878, 8vo. (See pages +323-328.) + + _Unc._ + +A chronological history of the main facts in the lives of Bacon and +Shakespeare, the dates of the appearance of their works, etc. It is +very valuable in an examination of the historical side of the subject. + + +107 SHAKESPEARE ET LA THEORIE BACONIENNE. Par M. BERARD VARAGNAC. In +the _Journal des Debats_, Paris, June 21, 1878. 4 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Nominally a review of Wilkes. The writer, however, goes into the +subject generally. His conclusions are obvious, even to one who is +not proficient in the French language, from his final remark: + + “_C’est pourquoi l’on nous permettra de penser que la theorie + Baconienne n’est autre chose que ce qu’ils appellent la-bas d’un + mot expressif non moins usite que la chose dans la patrie de_ + Barnum--_un_ humbug.” + + +108 SHAKESPEARE AND THE BACONIAN THEORY. By M. BERARD VARAGNAC. In +the _American Register_, Paris, July 6, 1878. 2½ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A translation of the article in the _Journal des Debats_, above. (See +Title 107.) + + +109 UN PROCES LITTERAIRE: BACON CONTRE SHAKESPEARE! By M. J. +VILLEMAIN. In _L’Instruction Publique: Revue des Lettres, Science +et Arts_, Paris. Two articles, August 31 and September 7, 1878. (A +LITERARY SUIT: BACON AGAINST SHAKESPEARE.) + + _Anti-Sh._ + + “To sum it all up, we may conclude thus: everything which there + is good in Shakespeare’s dramas comes from Bacon; everything + which there is bad in Bacon’s dramas comes from Shakespeare.” + + +110 NOTICE in _De Nederlandsche Spectator_. The Hague, Holland, +October 12, 1878. + + _Unc._ + +Unimportant--simply a short notice, occasioned by the French articles +of M. Varagnac and M. Villemain, which will be found in the preceding +titles. + + +111 LORD BACON AND THE PLAYS. Essay No. VII, in _Wit, Humor, and +Shakespeare_. By JOHN WEISS. Boston: 1879. (See pages 247-269.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. WEISS, after taking strong ground against the Baconian position, +concludes: + + “It is not entirely just to say that the contributions of men + who favor the theory are specimens of literary futility. They + are frequently valuable to the scholar by throwing unexpected + side-lights upon the plays; they also furnish suggestions to + the interpreter. They have amassed a quantity of collateral + information of Shakespeare’s epoch, which the critic will + thankfully acknowledge when he uses it. The minute and laborious + research which Judge Holmes has expended upon his volume, the + literary, historical, and social parallelisms which he discloses, + the philosophy and style of thinking of Elizabeth’s age, put the + lover of Shakespeare under obligation.” + + +112 LORD BACON: DID HE WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A reply to Judge +Holmes, Miss Delia BACON, and Mr. W. H. Smith. By CHARLES C. CATTELL. +Birmingham: G. & J. H. Shipway, 1879. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “Shakespeare has been described as honest, open, gentle, free, + honorable, and amiable, while Bacon has been described as + ambitious, covetous, base, selfish, unamiable, and unscrupulous. + Now, taking these descriptions as a fair index of their souls, + which is the more likely to have portrayed the women of + Shakespeare’s plays?” + + +113 GREAT MEN’S VIEWS ON SHAKESPEARE. By CHARLES C. CATTELL, with an +essay by Dr. Ingleby. Birmingham: 1879. 12mo. pp. 55, 68, 16, 14. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A collection of extracts from Dryden, Goethe, Lessing, the Schlegels, +De Stael, Scott, Beatty, Coleridge, Irving, and many others, relating +to Shakespeare; Dawson’s Lectures and Speeches on Shakespeare; and +two of Mr. Cattell’s pamphlets--all bound in one volume. + + +114 THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. By APPLETON MORGAN. A series of four +articles in _Appletons’ Journal_, New York. + +_a_--The Shakespearean Myth, February, 1879, p. 112-126. + +_b_--The Appeal to History, June, 1879, p. 481-497. + +_c_--Extra Shakespearean Theories, I, June, 1880, p. 481-497. + +_d_--Extra Shakespearean Theories, II, July, 1880, p. 14-35. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +These were the first articles Mr. MORGAN published on the question. +They were subsequently enlarged and reproduced in his book of the +same title. (See 147.) As Mr. Morgan’s views are fully explained in +the subsequent title, we do not refer to them here. + + +115 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. By WM. J. ROLFE. In +_Shakespeariana, Literary World_, Boston, March 1, 1879. 1½ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. ROLFE, after a concise review of the subject, sums up: that the +authorship was never questioned by Shakespeare’s contemporaries, +who had every motive for, and opportunity of detecting such a +fraud, nor for nearly three hundred years later; that the poems are +unquestionable, and that there are striking similarities between them +and the questioned plays; that Bacon’s acknowledged verses bear no +comparison to those of Shakespeare; and that the plays came to an end +at Shakespeare’s death, when Bacon had still ten years of literary +leisure, with no danger of injuring his reputation by acknowledging +or continuing them. + + +116 “SHAKESPEARE AND THE MUSICAL GLASSES.” By MYRON B. BENTON. In +_Appletons’ Journal_, April, 1879. (See pages 336-344.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +An answer to Mr. Morgan’s first article in _Appletons’ Journal_: + + “While denying with emphatic iteration that Shakespeare is the + true author, he [Mr. Morgan] would persuade us that the plays and + poems attributed to him are the composite work of an indefinite + number of minds, varying in all degrees of the scale of ability, + from the insight of a profound philosopher, and the scholarship + and culture of a chivalrous gentlemen, down to the level--down, + indeed, to the very ‘bottom-lands’ of a grade of imbecility + vague and appalling. * * * The genial Goldsmith must have had + a premonition of these latter-day enlightenments when he wrote + of ‘Shakespeare and the Musical Glasses.’ * * * Here was one of + his [Shakespeare’s] contemporaries, for instance, Lord Bacon, + whose acknowledged works are also voluminous. Is it possible + to believe that there was a common authorship to both? Each is + characterized by a strongly individualized style, as all writings + are that the world cares to read. Each has a flavor distinct + from the other. Yet, if Bacon be the author of both sets of + works, he must in one of them have assumed a style of composition + foreign to him--a thing impossible, even were there a motive + for such an undertaking. * * * Similarity, or even identity, of + ideas, or precepts, or axioms--any likeness of speculation or + philosophy--all these are nothing whatever. The human mind, at + the root, is everywhere the same. Counterparts appear constantly + in literature, even in widely-severed nations and ages. Such + parallels as are pointed out in Bacon and Shakespeare can be + discovered in almost any two writers; but of that individuality + that must permeate the work of any writer, in manner of + treatment, in style, there seem to be no traces in common.” + + +117 NOTICES of Sir PATRICK COLQUHOUN’S Essay on _The Authorship of +Shakespeare_. In the London journals, as follows: + +_a_--In the _Globe_, May 23, 1879. + +_b_--In the _Daily Telegraph_, May 24, 1879. + +_c_--In _Bell’s Weekly Messenger_, June 2, 1879. + + _Unc._ + +Sir PATRICK COLQUHOUN’S paper was read before the Royal Society of +Literature, London, May 21, 1879. It has never been printed. He holds +Shakespeare “to have been a mere theatrical manager, who bought the +plays of poor authors, and perhaps suggested certain buffooneries for +the delectation of the gods,” etc. This essay has since been recast +and considerably augmented; and it is probable that it may yet be +published in book form. + + +118 THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS, THE THEATRE, ETC. WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? +By O. F. [O. FOLLETT, of Sandusky, O.] Printed for private +circulation. Sandusky: May, 1879. Pamphlet, pp. 47. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + “If, then, Shakespeare _did not_ write Shakespeare, who did? The + question is already answered. BUT ONE MAN COULD. Only one [Bacon] + was fully equipped for the task in its full proportions. * * * + It has been _“aut Cæsar aut nullus”_--Shakespeare or nothing. + Not a line, not a scrap, not a sentiment outside the dramas and + poems has been vouchsafed to us, as a test of style, or by which + to measure capacity. Without preparation, without drill, this + man is master of all learning, law, physic, theology, nay, of + state-craft as well. If Shakespeare proper was all this, then + Shakespeare the poet was a miracle, and may be worshiped--and + Stratford may well be his shrine.” + + +119 THE SO-CALLED SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. By F. R., Barrie. [FRANCIS RYE, +of Barrie, Ontario, Canada.] In the _Canadian Monthly_ for July, +1879. (See pages 76-79.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +An answer to Mr. Morgan’s articles in _Appletons’ Journal_. + + +120 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? By HENRY G. ATKINSON, F.G.S. In +the _Spiritualist_, London, July 4, 1879. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Mr. ATKINSON is an ardent Baconian. His writings on the subject +consist principally of short articles in various periodicals, which +will be found noted hereafter. + + “It would be absurd to expect to find the same variety in + Bacon’s philosophical writings as in the plays, where we have + philosophy and poetry combined, together with wit, humor, and + every kind of character and turn of sentiment. But here is Ben + Jonson’s account of Bacon. Bacon’s prose, says Judge Holmes, is + Shakespearian poetry, and Shakespeare’s poetry is Baconian prose. + Jonson says: ‘There happened in my time _one_ noble speaker, who + was full of gravity in his speaking. His language, where he + could spare, or pass by a jest, was nobly censorious. No man ever + spoke more neatly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, + less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but + consisted of his own graces. His hearers could not cough, or look + aside from him without loss. He commanded when he spoke, and had + his judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had their + affections more in his power. The fear of every man who heard him + was lest he should make an end.’ Here, then, we have related, + from one most capable of judging, those very qualities of mind + we should expect to find in the writer of the plays, but which + Shakespeare was never known to have exhibited at any time, or in + any place; and we have not a scrap of his play-writing existing, + or ever known to have existed, nor referred to in his will. Some + of his finest plays were not known to exist until seven years + after his death, in the collected folio of 1623.” + + +121 ON RENASCENCE DRAMA, OR HISTORY MADE VISIBLE. By WILLIAM THOMSON, +F.R.C.S., F.L.S., Melbourne, Australia: Sands & McDougall, 1880. 8vo. +pp. 359. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +DR. THOMSON’S title is adopted from Bacon’s _History of Learning_: +“Dramatic poetry is as history made visible; for it represents +actions as if they were present, whereas history represents them as +past.” He continues in this work the argument as to the political +purpose of certain of the Shakespearian plays, which he classes +under the style of the Renascence Drama; and, reasoning from that +standpoint, claims the authorship for Bacon. The book commences: + + “The political purpose of the Renascence Drama has never been + defined. And yet for a patriotic object the series of plays so + named were evidently written. The motive is avowed in prologue, + epilogue and induction; and everywhere throughout the works the + aim is obvious. You are required to + + ‘Think you see + The very persons of our noble story + As they were living.’” + + +The author reviews _The Tempest_, _Twelfth Night_, _Julius Cæsar_, +_Hamlet_, _Othello_, and others of the plays, from his view as to +the political motive of Bacon in producing them, interpreting them +as allegories bearing on persons and events of the time. In his +elucidation of _Twelfth Night_, he goes so far as to indicate “the +persons represented in false names” for all the leading characters. +A recapitulation of these may be interesting to the student of +history, as well as the student of Shakespeare: _Duke Orsino_ is +Sir Philip Sidney; _Sebastian_, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex; +_Sir Toby Belch_, Sir Francis Knollys; _Sir Andrew Aguecheek_, the +Earl of Leicester; _Malvolio_, Sir Walter Raleigh; _Fabian_, Sir +Fulke Greville; _Feste, the clown_, Dick Tarleton; _Olivia_, Queen +Elizabeth; _Viola_, Penelope Devereux; and _Maria_, Lettice Knollys. + +A critic has said of Dr. Thomson’s argument: “If he has succeeded in +anything, it is in unearthing a wealth of verbiage, which is more +than proof against a powerful microscopic analysis. Whatever may +be his object, he conceals it by his language.” An extract from an +article in the _Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin (title 154), will give +evidence of the scope of the book: + + “He [Dr. Thomson] argues from the identity of the language in the + plays and Bacon’s works--from the difficulty of finding where + Shakespeare, who was all but totally uneducated, got all the + wondrous learning that the works attributed to him exhibit--from + the notorious fact of Bacon’s universal learning--and from facts + connected with the dates of the publication of the poems and + dramas, which can scarcely be reconciled with the incidents of + Shakespeare’s life, and which fit in admirably with the stages + of Bacon’s chequered career. Dr. Thomson argues also, with + considerable acumen and subtlety, from the inferences which the + allegorical and political interpretation of such plays as even + Hamlet and Macbeth require; and he argues to the same effect from + the sonnets, and from the non-dedication of the sonnets to the + Earl of Southampton in 1609, to whom in 1593 the poems of _Venus + and Adonis_ and _Lucrece_ were dedicated. This circumstance, + which is such a crux on the ordinary interpretation that + Shakespeare was the author of the sonnets, and that Southampton + was his loving patron, is easily explicable on being reminded + that in the interval between the appearance of the two sets of + poems, the Earl of Southampton, on his liberation from prison, + had become a deadly enemy of Bacon.” + + +122 “MR. HUDSON’S FOUR REASONS.” (See _Shakespeare: his Life, Art, +and Character_. By Rev. H. N. HUDSON. Vol. I, p. 269, edition of +1880.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + + * * * “It was Lord Bacon, not Shakespeare, who enjoyed so richly + the friendship and patronage of the generous Essex; and how he + requited the same is known much too well for his credit. I am not + unmindful that this may yield some comfort to those who would + persuade us that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Lord Bacon. + Upon this point I have just four things to say: + + “_First_--Bacon’s requital of the Earl’s bounty was such a piece + of ingratitude as I can hardly conceive the author of _King Lear_ + to have been guilty of. + + “_Second_--The author of Shakespeare’s plays, whoever he may have + been, certainly was not a scholar; he had indeed something vastly + better than learning, but he had not that. + + “_Third_--Shakespeare never philosophizes; Bacon never does + anything else. + + “_Fourth_--Bacon’s mind, great as it was, might have been cut out + of Shakespeare’s without being missed.” + +Noticing the above, Dr. Ingleby adds another reason: + + “_Fifth_--Bacon excelled all writers of his day in prose; but the + very best of the verses attributed to him (not all his, by the + way) are fourth-rate; while Shakespeare’s verse is everywhere + incomparably better than his prose; and he thus excelled where + Bacon most faulted.” + + +123 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A controversy between H. G. +ATKINSON, F.G.S., and Mr. CHARLES C. CATTELL. London: H. Cattell & +Co., n. d. [1880]. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16. + + _Unc._ + +This consists of three papers on each side of the question, reprinted +from the pages of the _Secular Review_, London. + + +124 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. A review of Holmes. In +the _Southern Quarterly Review_, New Orleans, January, 1880. By the +editor, DANIEL K. WHITAKER. (See pages 172-179.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +125 JUDGE HOLMES’S “PARALLELISMS” BETWEEN SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By +WM. J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana, Literary World_, Boston, April 10, +1880. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +126 SHAKESPEARE. A letter from Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY, Zanesville, O. +In the _Church Eclectic_, Utica, N. Y., November, 1880. (See pages +719-728.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The paper of Mr. CROSBY was originally written as a private letter +to Rev. Dr. James A. Bolles, who transmitted it to the _Eclectic_ +for publication. It is quite comprehensive, occupying eight pages of +the magazine, and is an answer to Mr. Morgan’s _Shakespearean Myth_ +articles, and also to the other arguments against Shakespeare’s +authorship. + + “But our Shakespeare was _not_ an uneducated man; on the + contrary, he was, for the time, a man of letters. We know that + he received a fair grammar-school education, * * * and education + at those grammar-schools was very thorough in those days. After + he went to London, we soon hear of him in the best society; + he was a natural absorbent, and no doubt had, in addition to + the advantages of high-toned conversation, access to all such + books as the time supplied. It is a great error to speak of + Shakespeare, as many do, as an ‘inspired ignoramus.’ And then, + after all, it was not mere scholastic knowledge that Shakespeare + needed for his productions. Jonson had _this_, in an eminent + degree; and his dramas are, I think, only the worse for it. + Shakespeare knew enough to read Hall, and More, and Holinshead, + and North’s Plutarch for his history; and enough of the modern + languages to read Italian and other continental novels for the + sake of the plots--the dry-bones, on which he built the flesh + and blood of _life_ in his immortal works. The real books that + Shakespeare studied were the _Book of Mankind_ and the _Book of + Nature_, and these he knew by heart. He needed not a university + to teach him these. While his style shows frequently, by the + radical and exact senses in which he employs numerous words, that + he had a competent knowledge of the Latin language, it is in his + using the idiomatic powers of the English language, in their + highest perfection, that its force and beauty consist. Jonson’s + style, as a dramatic writer, is often marred, and enfeebled, and + spoilt, by his exuberant Latin quotations, and magniloquence, and + learned affectation; and that is why I say that Shakespeare’s + ‘little Latin and less Greek’ stood him in better stead than all + the ponderous learning and classic conceits that weighted the + poetry of his rival. + + * * * * * + + “There is one argument that these theorists seem never to have + examined, viz: that deducible from Shakespeare’s _poems_ and + _sonnets_. These no one has ever disputed his authorship of. + That _cannot_ be disputed, for he published them himself, and + dedicated them to noblemen of the day, under his own name. And + yet can any intelligent person read these works, and not be + convinced that the same mind and hand produced them that produced + the dramas? There are not only similar expressions, but whole + lines, similes, metaphors, and turns of thought are constantly + recurring, the same in each. This, to my mind, is as strong an + argument as I could ask. A careful study of the poems and sonnets + is a great help to understanding many things in the plays: and + the fact that _one person wrote both_ is as undoubted and clear + to me as noonday.” * * * * + + +127 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? By R. C. C. [RICHARD COLAMA CLOSE]. In the +_Victorian Review_, Melbourne, Australia, for November, 1880. (See +pages 54-70.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +An answer to Dr. Thomson’s _Renascence Drama_. + + * * * “There has been no single instance, from the earliest + historic times up to the present day, where the combination of a + Bacon and a Shakespeare, the impersonations of the highest talent + and the greatest genius, has found its centre in one man. It is + possible, but not more possible than a miracle. Few have ever + exceeded Bacon in the force, vigour, terseness, clearness, and + splendor of his prose. None has ever exceeded Shakespeare, either + as a writer of dramas or comedies. Bacon, as a prose writer, + stands in the midst of a goodly company. The most we can say + of Bacon is, that in this _genre_ he was _primus inter pares_. + Shakespeare, as a dramatic genius, stood in lonely grandeur. He + was first, and had no equals.” + +(Mr. CLOSE is a barrister in Sydney, New South Wales.) + + +128 SHAKESPEARE’S BIOGRAPHY. Does it conform to the Author of the +Plays? By “LANCER.” [O. C. STOUDER.] In the _Wittenberger Magazine_, +Springfield, O., November, 1880. 2 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +129 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A reply to “Lancer.” By Mr. JOSEPH +CROSBY. In the _Wittenberger_, December, 1880. 2 pages. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +130 SHAKESPEARE: DID HE WRITE THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM? With notes +on “_What Shakespeare Learnt at School_.” By CHARLES C. CATTELL. +London: Henry Cattell & Co., n. d. [probably 1881]. Pamphlet, pp. 16. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “It seems desirable that, in a publication of this kind, some + reference should be made to the three articles by Prof. T. F. + Baynes, which appeared in 1879 and 1880, on _What Shakespeare + Learnt at School_. * * * That he could have been sent to one is + certain, for the school at Stratford-on-Avon was restored in + 1553 by Edward. VI, and the constitution and management were the + same as other schools established at that period, and the course + of instruction is known by the records preserved of Rotherham + school, which gives a list of books generally used in the grammar + schools of the country. * * * At that time, children were sent to + the English side of the grammar school at the age of five, and + at seven they commenced the study of Latin, the regular course + taking about ten years; so that boys usually left school, for + work or for university study, at fifteen. * * * The articles + were published in _Fraser’s Magazine_ in 1879 and 1880, and, + to my mind, sufficiently explain how the youthful Bard of Avon + might lay up the treasures of learning deemed so essential in the + production of his immortal works--his possession of which has + been so often doubted, and in some instances positively denied to + him. How such a man, living in such a time, and at such a place, + could acquire the necessary classic knowledge, no longer remains + a mystery.” + + +131 CARLYLE’S OPINION. (See _Thomas Carlyle_, by MONCURE D. CONWAY. +New York: 1881.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Speaking of Carlyle, on page 122, Mr. CONWAY says: + + “He was more patient in listening to Miss Bacon, also introduced + by Emerson, when she tried to persuade him that Shakespeare’s + plays were written by Lord Bacon. Carlyle never thought much + of the philosopher who had been unable to recognize such a + contemporary as Kepler; and his only reply to Miss Bacon was, + ‘Lord Bacon could as easily have created this planet as he could + have written Hamlet.’ I have heard that when she had gone he + added, to a letter written to his friend in Concord, the brief + postscript, ‘Your woman’s mad.’ + + T. C.” + + +132 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE BACON’S WORKS? By Rev. JAMES FREEMAN +CLARKE. In the _North American Review_ for February, 1881. (See pages +163-175.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “When we ask whether it would have been easier for the author + of the philosophy to have composed the drama, or the dramatic + poet to have written the philosophy, the answer will depend upon + which is the greater of the two. The greater includes the less, + but the less can not include the greater. * * * Great as are the + thoughts of the _Novum Organum_, they are inferior to that world + of thought which is in the drama. We can easily conceive that + Shakespeare, having produced in his prime the wonders and glories + of the plays, should in his after leisure have developed the + leading ideas of the Baconian philosophy. But it is difficult to + imagine that Bacon, while devoting his main strength to politics, + to law, to philosophy, should have, as a mere pastime for his + leisure, produced in his idle moments the greatest intellectual + work ever done on earth.” + + +133 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? By BACONIAN. [WILLIAM W. FERRIER, of +Angola, Ind.] A series of eight articles in February and March, 1881, +in the Angola (Ind.) _Herald_. Dated February 9, 16, and 23; March 2, +9, 16, 23, and 30. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The writer gives all the main points in the controversy from the +Baconian standpoint. In his introduction he says that “a noted +Shakespearean doubter--Dr. Farmer--lived in the eighteenth century, +and that still earlier than this, as men began to study the +literature and lives of the Elizabethan period, difficulties arose in +regard to harmonizing the book Shakespeare with the man Shakespeare.” + +We quote, from the third paper, as to one point only: + + “The mind that wrote Shakespeare was a mighty mind. But it + was one broadened and deepened, nurtured and cultured by the + learning and experience of ages. These plays tell of more + than mere genius. They tell of years of earnest study; of + patient investigation; of a genius that made available all the + concentrated resources of the times. Let us consider briefly + the works and minds of some prominent in the middle ages, and + find there, in this way, a consistency that is not in the life + and works of William Shakespeare. English literature, that had + originated in Caedmon, that had burst into full glory in Chaucer, + and with him had also passed away, met again in its beauty and + grandeur a glad welcome when Spenser, amid the blaze of the + magnificent court of Elizabeth, placed at her feet the _Faerie + Queene_. But Spenser’s life was a life leading to the production + of grand ideal poetry. His education, combined with natural + genius, had prepared him for it. * * * Early in the Christian + Renaissance, there originated, within prison walls, a book which + has the greatest hold, next to the Bible, upon the English + people. That book was the _Pilgrim’s Progress_. * * * Linked with + the name of the old prisoner of Bradford, this immortal book + has came down to us in its journey adown the centuries; and the + world that questions the authorship of Shakespeare, finds nothing + inharmonious or incongruous between the life of Bunyan and this + grand work. * * * Contemporary with Shakespeare was one known as + a ‘genuine literary leviathan.’ It was Ben Jonson, erudite in all + the classics, of whom it has been said, ‘he had so well entered + into and digested the Greek and Latin ideas, that they were + incorporated with his own.’ But Ben Jonson’s education made him + this. * * * The years of the Christian Renaissance brought forth + another work that the world will not let die. It is the immortal + epic of Milton--_Paradise Lost_. But England has known no more + erudite man than Milton; and whatever of profound knowledge there + is found in his works, may be readily accounted for by cause and + effect. * * * Thus, it may be seen, that from the works and lives + of such as Spenser, Bunyan, Jonson, and Milton, no argument can + be adduced in favor of William Shakespeare.” + + +134 DID BACON WRITE FLETCHER’S PLAYS? By WILLIAM J. ROLFE. In +_Shakespeariana_, _Literary World_, Boston, February 12, 1881. + + _Unc._ + + “Bacon _did_ write Fletcher’s Plays, for the Judge [Holmes] + proves it--just as he proves that he wrote Shakespeare’s plays.” + + +135 IS THERE ANY DOUBT AS TO THE AUTHORSHIP? In the _Harvard +University Bulletin_, April 1, 1881. + + _Unc._ + +A short list of the references for the use of students in debate. + + +136 “OUR CLUB.” SHAKESPEARE NIGHT, April 26, 1881. H. HOLL in the +Chair. An address delivered by Mr. Holl, being in part an answer to +Dr. Benj. W. Richardson. With letter to Dr. R. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 22. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The address of Dr. RICHARDSON’S, alluded to above, was delivered +before “Our Club” (the original Hooks and Eyes, rechristened), at +the annual Shakespeare dinner, in April, 1877. It has never been +published. It seems, while expressing some doubts, to have opposed +the Baconian hypothesis. + + +137 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IN ROMANCE AND REALITY. By WILLIAM THOMSON. +Melbourne: Sands & McDougall, 1881. 8vo. pp. 95. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This is a continuation of the _Renascence Drama_, including an answer +to the criticisms of that work, but of a more practical turn--devoted +more to the historical than to the allegorical and political argument. + + “Not only is Bacon’s name always linked with that of Shakespeare, + but no other name is ever so associated. No other author + unwittingly enters men’s thoughts along with the author of the + drama, except alone Bacon; and he is the only magician or creator + of the prevailing Baconian philosophy. Alluding to Shakespeare’s + forestalling Newton when making Cressida compare her heart to the + center of the earth, drawing all things to it, it is asked how + he knew what Newton was going to discover. But Voltaire long ago + showed where Bacon forestalled Newton. How, then, did he know + what Newton would discover? Either _both_ Bacon and Shakespeare + forestalled Newton on the great physical discovery, or one mind + did so in two different ways, at the same instant of time. * * + * When Bacon explained to King James how ‘bodies fall toward + the center of the earth,’ and ‘iron trembles under adamant,’ + Shakespeare made Prince Troilus vow he would be true to Cressida, + + ‘As iron to adamant, as earth to the centre.’ + + While her love for him in return + + ‘Is as the very centre of the earth, + Drawing all things to it.’” + + +138 SHAKESPEARE--THE PLAYS AND POEMS LOGICALLY AND HISTORICALLY +CONSIDERED. Addendum to “Who Wrote Shakespeare?” By O. F. [O. +FOLLETT]. Sandusky, O.: May, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 12. + + Anti-Sh. + +A continuation of Mr. Follett’s first pamphlet. + + +139 WAS SHAKESPEARE A MYTH? By BROADBRIM. [J. H. WARWICK, Brooklyn, +N. Y.] A series of three articles in the Angola (Ind.) _Republican_, +May 25, June 8, and June 22, 1881. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The first two of these articles treat the subject, in the author’s +words, “from the ground-work of fact and historical probability;” the +concluding one invites attention to “the character of the age that +produced Shakespeare,” with an analysis of “the character of those +who have been instrumental in propagating the libels on his memory.” + + +140 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_. In the _Literary World_, Boston, of +dates following: + +_a_--Judge Holmes on Julius Cæsar, June 4, 1881. + +_b_--New Champions of the Baconian Theory (Mrs. Windle and Dr. +Thomson), November 5, 1881. + +_c_--Morgan’s Shakespearean Myth, Dec. 3, 1881. + + _Unc._ + + +141 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? AN EXPOSITION OF THE GREAT CONTROVERSY. By +E. W. TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake City, +Utah, July, 1881. 13 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + “It is startlingly singular that directly Shakespeare is brought + down to the human plane, and considered there, whether as a + supreme poet, or a supreme metaphysician (both of which he was) + he became Bacon. Of all men of the Elizabethan age, and perhaps + of any age, Bacon is the only equivalent for Shakespeare. * * * + And it is something very like a hidden record, long concealed, of + the real identity of Shakespeare suddenly brought to light, that + the name of Bacon, once started, so nearly answers to the entire + mystery of Shakespeare, even before investigation of the proof + that he was the one who had lent to another his lion’s skin. + It was this very fact, indeed, which has started able authors + and critics to investigate this subject, and which inclines + multitudes to believe ‘there is something in it.’” + +(Mr. TULLIDGE is the editor of the _Quarterly_, and a strong +Baconian. Several lengthy articles from his pen will be found noted +in this list.) + + +142 THE SWEET BARD OF AVON, and THE SHAKESPEAREAN QUESTION. By +BACONIAN. [WILLIAM W. FERRIER.] Two articles in the Angola (Ind.) +_Herald_, dated July 27, and August 5, 1881. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +An answer to the “Broadbrim” articles. + + +143 ADDRESS TO THE NEW SHAKESPERE SOCIETY OF LONDON. Discovery of +Lord Verulam’s undoubted authorship of the “Shakespere” Works. By +Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Joseph Winterburn & Co., +Printers, 1881. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 46. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The first of Mrs. WINDLE’S pamphlets. For an example of her special +theories see title of the second pamphlet, No. 165. + + +144 SHAKESPEARE, NOT BACON. By J. S. [JAMES SMITH]. In the Daily +_Argus_, Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. 3½ columns. +(Reprinted in the Stratford-on-Avon _Herald_, November 4, and +November 11, 1881.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +After citing contemporary authorities as to the authorship of _Venus +and Adonis_, _The Rape of Lucrece_, and _The Passionate Pilgrim_, the +writer says: + + “I submit that Shakespeare’s authorship of the three poems + enumerated, is established by contemporary testimony sufficiently + strong to satisfy any court of justice in the world, albeit I + am not aware that his paternity of the _Sonnets_, or of _The + Lover’s Complaint_, has ever been seriously disputed. I shall + now proceed to show that the same hand which wrote the whole of + the before-mentioned works also produced the dramas. And I shall + rely upon the very same kind of evidence as that which has been + employed to sustain the fanciful and extravagant theory that + Bacon was the author of them. But though it will resemble it in + kind, it will be found to be, unless I am very much mistaken, + greater in volume and weightier in character than that which has + been so laboriously collected and so ingeniously set forth by Mr. + N. Holmes, Miss Delia Bacon, and by Mr. W. H. Smith.” + +He then cites a long list of parallelisms between the poems and +the plays, and peculiar words used in the same sense in each, to +substantiate his position. “In his plays, Shakespeare naturally fell +into the same forms of expression as those he has previously made use +of in his poems, and occasionally repeated himself both in thought +and word.” + +(Mr. SMITH is a resident of Melbourne--an editorial writer on the +_Argus_.) + + +145 BACON, NOT SHAKESPEARE. By W. T., in rejoinder to the +_Shakespeare, not Bacon_, of J. S. [By Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON]. +Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 16. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +A portion of this only appears in an addenda to _Romance and Reality_. + + “The bare fact that the dramas and poems are from the same hand + has never been doubted, but I affirm that _not_ Shakespeare + but Bacon wrote both. J. S. only compares Shakespeare with + Shakespeare, but he does not compare Shakespeare with Bacon, + as he necessarily must do before he can confute any inference + deduced from that comparison. * * * He, therefore, dare not allow + himself to become acquainted with the contents of my book, whose + syllogism is-- + + “Whoever wrote the _Sonnets_ wrote the _Plays_. + I show Bacon to have writ the _Sonnets_; + Therefore, Bacon also wrote the _Plays_.” + + +146 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION. By E. H. PLUMPTRE, D.D. +In the _Spectator_, London, August 24, 1881. (Copied in _Good +Literature_, New York, September 17, 1881.) + + _Unc._ + +This does not refer to the Bacon-Shakespeare question proper, but the +title is inserted as Dr. Thomson answered it from the standpoint of +the authorship. (See title 156.) + + +147 THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL +EVIDENCE. By APPLETON MORGAN, A.M., L.L.B., author of “The Law of +Literature,” “Notes to Best’s Principles of Evidence,” etc., etc. +Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1881. 8vo. pp. 342. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This work is an enlargement of the four articles under the same +title, appearing in _Appletons’ Journal_ in 1879 and 1880. + +Mr. MORGAN adopts the editorial or proprietary theory. He gives a +schedule of the difficulties connected with the question of the +authorship, and a digest of the several theories framed to meet them. +He states his reasons for rejecting all of the latter, and offers a +new synthetic theory in their place, somewhat as follows: + + “I. From contemporary evidence, recorded in law courts and public + offices, we are, perhaps, better informed of the _personnel_ + of William Shakespeare, than of any other private gentleman of + Elizabeth’s reign. + + “II. There can be no doubt that he came to London in great + poverty, and in a comparatively few years’ residence, was enabled + to retire with a fortune which--although variously estimated by + his friends and rivals--was certainly very large for those days. + + “III. To have accumulated so large a fortune in so short a time + by literary labor would have been exceptional in any case, but + the mental equipment brought by William Shakespeare to London + does not seem to have been equal to such an accumulation in + his; it certainly was not equal to the _Venus and Adonis_, the + _Hamlet_, and the other masterpieces which began to crowd upon + each other--in none of which can any trace of Warwickshire + dialect or origin be found. + + “IV. If, however, Shakespeare made his fortune in the management + of theatres (which became popular in London at this time, and + in which he met but indifferent competition), it is reasonable + to suppose that these plays, being exclusively secured by him, + and becoming popular through his stage handling, came to be, not + only the sources of his fortune, but identified and called by his + name; certainly, less unreasonable (however exceptional) than to + rest all this poetry, pathos, philosophy, and human experience + in the genius of a letterless rustic, with a reputation in + his native village for scapegrace escapades, gallantries, and + poaching expeditions, rather than for meditation, study, or + literary composition. + + “V. But while claiming for Shakespeare a proprietary rather than + a productive title in the plays, Mr. Morgan is very far from + estimating him a dummy. ‘Surely it is a less violent supposition + that this funny Mr. Shakespeare, as he wrote out the parts in big + round hand, improved on or interpolated a palpable hit, a droll + speech, the last popular song; or sketched entire a role with + a name familiar to his boyish ear--the village butt or sot, or + justice of the peace, or why not some fellow-scapegrace of olden + times by Avon banks. He did it with a swift touch and mellow + humor that relieved and refreshed the stately speeches--making + the play all the more available.’ * * * + + “VI. The only testimony really negativing this view is Ben + Jonson’s. But that this is mere mortuary eulogy--is anything + but the sort of evidence ‘we accept in our personal affairs, + our courts of justice, in matters in which we have anything + at stake, or any living interest’ (p. 131), and is, moreover, + perfectly disposed of by Jonson himself, in his _Discoveries_, + and conversations with Drummond, when he commends Shakespeare’s + fluency and industry, but omits all mention of him in his list of + eminent writers, poets, and thinkers of that age. + + “Mr. Morgan disclaims any conjectures as to the authors of + the Shakespearean text. But while admitting that Bacon, or + even Raleigh, may have had a hand in them, insists that the + extant records of Elizabeth’s day (and what are extant are a + presumptive clue to such as have disappeared) point directly to + a proprietary, rather than any other description of interest, in + the plays and poems in William Shakespeare.” + +We give a portion of the closing paragraph: + + * * * “Having lost ‘our Shakespeare’ both to-day and forever, it + will doubtless remain--as it is--the question, ‘Who wrote the + Shakespearean dramas?’ The evidence is all in--the testimony + is all taken. Perhaps it is a secret that even Time will never + tell, that is hidden down in the crypt and sacristy of the + Past, whose seal shall never more be broken. In the wise land + of China it is said that where a man has deserved well of the + State, his countrymen honor, with houses and lands and gifts + and decorations, not himself, but his father and his mother. + Perhaps, learning a lesson from the Celestials, we might rear a + shaft to the fathers and mothers of the Immortality that wrote + the Book of Nature, the mighty book which ‘age can not wither, + nor custom stale,’ and whose infinite variety for three centuries + has been, and, until Time shall be no more, will be close to the + hearts of every age and cycle of men--household words for ever + and ever. The Book--thank heaven!--that nothing can divorce from + us.” + +(Mr. APPLETON MORGAN, whose frequent contributions to this +controversy will be found mentioned in this list, is a graduate of +Racine College, Wisconsin, class of 1867. He is at present a resident +of New York City--by profession, an attorney at law.) + + +148 WHO WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WAS. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE, of Washington. +Two articles in the _Republic_, Washington, D. C., October 29 and +November 5, 1881. 3 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. ADEE’S papers give the contemporary evidences of Shakespeare’s +authorship. + + +149 THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE. In the +_Republic_, Washington, D. C., November 12, 1881. 3 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This article refers only incidentally to the authorship. + + +150 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” [By J. G. PYLE]. A review of Mr. +Morgan’s book. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minnesota, November +15, 1881. 1 column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + “Such an addition as this volume to the evidence of the case + against Shakespeare, is a noteworthy event in the literary + world. * * * Mr. Morgan’s book, gathering up, in lawyer fashion, + the scattered threads of inconsistencies and improbabilities, + is a valuable and welcome addition to the evidence in this + controversy. * * * The questions raised long ago, and now + presented in form, make up an indictment which the Shakespearean + must break down by cogent explanations, or yield to the growing + belief that, whether the ‘myriad-minded’ Shakespeare be metaphor + or fact, he never wrote all that has come down the centuries as + his, to rank his name with the immortals.” + + +151 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. In the +journals following: + +_a_--Sandusky (O.) _Register_, November 15, 1881. + +_b_--Pittsburgh _Telegraph_, November 15, 1881. + +_c_--Cincinnati _Gazette_, November 15, 1881. + +_d_--Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, November 19, 1881. + +_e_--Sacramento (Cal.) _Record-Union_, Nov. 19, 1881. + +_f_--Philadelphia _American_, November 26, 1881. + + _Unc._ + + +152 A BRIEF AGAINST SHAKESPEARE. In the _Tribune_, New York, November +25, 1881. 1 column. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A review of the _Myth_: + + * * * “The presumption, for example, that Mr. Appleton Morgan is + the author of the book before us is so strong, so overwhelming, + that nobody living will entertain the thought of addressing + a question on that point to the publishers; and yet we have + absolutely no evidence of the fact, except the implied assertion + of the title-page; no more evidence, indeed--and no less--than + we have that Shakespeare wrote the plays that bear his name. + Three hundred years hence it will be as impossible to prove + that Mr. Morgan really wrote the book, as it is now to prove + that Shakespeare wrote the plays, and for some man of the + twenty-second century to argue that some other lawyer probably + wrote it, merely because there is no way of proving that the + alleged is the real authorship, will be no more illogical than + Mr. Morgan’s parallel argument in the Shakespeare case is.” + + +153 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A review of Mr. Morgan’s book, by N. +H. [NATHANIEL HOLMES]. Printed in the St. Louis _Globe Democrat_, +November 17, 1881. 1½ columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + “We have to regret that the author’s ‘scope’ did not allow him + to bring his critical abilities to bear on a comparison of the + plays with the writings of Francis Bacon. Hidden down deep in + the crypt, a ‘Delian diver’ like him might possibly find the + key that would unlock the principal secret. Not that he appears + himself so much to controvert that possibility--it seems not + to have come within his historical and circumstantial point of + view. * * * The theory that manuscripts were brought to the + theatre by sundry authors, to be scissored and adapted by the + manager, strikes out at one stroke, or tacitly overlooks, nearly + all that has ever been peculiar (_sui generis_), extraordinary, + precious and wonderful in this work; * * * it leaves them open to + manifold contributors, as if such a thing as this Shakespearean + drama really is, however the case may have been with Homer, or + the psalms of David, were at all possible in that way; and we + are strongly inclined to think that this mode of creation of it, + though perhaps possible to some extent, may prove to be, on the + whole, as mythical as the man William himself.” + + +154 DR. THOMSON’S PAMPHLETS. A notice of two of the pamphlets, in the +_Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin, November 23, 1881. + + _Unc._ + +An extract from this will be found under title 121. + + +155 HISTORICAL ICONOCLASTS. What are we to believe? Joan of Arc, +William Tell, Marshal Ney, Pocahontas, Powhatan, Captain Kidd, etc. +gone! Is Shakespeare to follow? By JOHN W. BELL. In the Toledo (O.) +_Blade_, December 4, 1881. 1½ columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The tenor of this article is sufficiently indicated by the head-lines +given above. + + +156 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION, in reply to Dean PLUMPTRE. +By W. T. [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON.] Melbourne, December 10, 1881. +Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 39. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Though Dean Plumptre’s paper did not refer to the question of the +authorship, Dr. Thomson answers it from that standpoint. + + +157 SHAKESPEARE IN AMERIKA. EINE LITERARHISTORISCHE STUDIE. Von +KARL KNORTZ. Berlin: Verlag von Theodor Hofmann. 1882. pp. 85. +(SHAKESPEARE IN AMERICA. A LITERARY-HISTORICAL STUDY.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This book, though printed in Berlin, is really an American work, +as it was written in this country. Pages 29 to 41 are devoted to a +review of the works on the authorship question. Mr. Knortz sums up +his conclusions against the Baconian theory, and adds: + + (_Translation._) “Yet this controversy did some good; it induced + the public to give more attention to the works of these two + Englishmen; but it especially promoted the study of Shakespeare.” + +(KARL KNORTZ is well known as the author of several works on American +literature, translations of American poetry, etc.--for the most part +printed in Germany. He resides in New York.) + + +158 THE POLITICAL ALLEGORIES IN THE RENASCENCE DRAMA OF FRANCIS +BACON. By WILLIAM THOMSON, F.R.C.S. Melbourne: Sands & McDougall, +1882. Pamphlet, pp. 46. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Dr. THOMSON here carries out his idea of the political purpose, +alludes to the forthcoming _Promus_, and replies to his critics +of the Australian press. He answers Dr. Stearns at considerable +length, and recapitulates and expands his own arguments as to Bacon’s +authorship of the Sonnets. + + +159 SPEDDING’S VINDICATION OF BACON. A review of “_Spedding’s +Evenings with a Reviewer; or, Macaulay and Bacon_.” By R. M. +THEOBALD. In the _Nonconformist and Independent_, London. Two +articles, January 12, 1882; and January 26, 1882. 5 columns. + + _Unc._ + +These papers contain a reference to the Northumberland manuscripts. + + +160 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES. Bacon’s Essex-Sonnet, +and Thomson’s Renascence Drama. By Dr. C. M. INGLEBY. v. 62, January +28, 1882. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +161 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH: + +_a_--_Saturday Review_, London, January 28, 1882. + +_b_--Milwaukee _Sentinel_, February 12, 1882. + +_c_--Washington _Post_, April 24, 1882. + +_d_--Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, July 22, 1882. + + _Unc._ + + +162 FRANCIS BACON AND SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. In the _Oracle_, London, +February 4, 1882. 2 columns. + + _Unc._ + +This is in answer to the request of L. J. M. for information, and +gives, in a short form, the arguments (evidently condensed from +Vaile’s paper in _Scribner_) used to support the anti-Shakespearian +theory, with a list of the authorities. + + +163 QUERY 4275. In _Notes and Queries_ column, _Evening Transcript_, +Boston, February 13, 1882. + + _Unc._ + +It having been intimated that Delia Bacon was induced to commence her +investigations through a fancied relationship to the family of Lord +Bacon, this query asked for information on that point. The answers, +five in number, give various references and authorities, but no +definite answer to the question. The fact seems to be that no such +consanguinity was ever claimed. + + +164 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, of +dates following: + +_a_--Letter of Appleton Morgan, with answer, February 25, 1882. + +_b_--“The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature,” October +21, 1882. + + _Unc._ + + +165 REPORT TO THE BRITISH MUSEUM on behalf of the Annals of Great +Britain and the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Discovery and +opening of the cipher of Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, alike in his +prose writings and the “Shakespere” dramas, proving him the author +of the dramas. By Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Jos. +Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1882. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet, +pp. 40. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Mrs. WINDLE’S second pamphlet. We would rather avoid any mention +of this if it could be done with justice to the history of the +discussion. The following extract from the article (title 179), on +the author and her latest essay, in the San Francisco _Chronicle_ of +August 20, 1882, will give an idea of the extraordinary unreason of +this effusion: + + “The text of this irrational essay seems to have been the passage + in Bacon’s _De Augmentis Scientiarum_ on Ciphers, and putting + this to the idea of allegory, she gets, as the result, the belief + that all of Shakspere’s (Bacon’s) plays are written in cipher. + The nature of that cipher is a puzzler, indeed; it is cabalistic, + it is bi-lateral, it has a Biblical aspect, it is prophetic, + it is under a spell, it is commodious, it is adroit, and it is + altogether the most extraordinary example of moonshine and vagary + that the curious could wish to puzzle over. The reader, however, + had best judge for himself by an example or two. The title of + every play has its explanatory catch. That of _Othello_ is: + + A tale, oh! I tell, oh! + Oh, dell, oh! What wail, oh! + Oh, hill, oh! What willow! + What hell, oh! What will, oh! + At will, oh! At well, oh! + I dwell, oh! + + “All the characters in the play have their attendant jingles. + _Desdemona_ goes ‘With a demon A, with a moan, ah!’ and means + the double tragedy of Bacon’s muse; and _Emilia_ stands with + ‘I’m ill, you, I mill you,’ and refers to ‘the expression of + Bacon’s ill, continued in play after play, as milestones of + his life.’ All the characters are sphinxes and riddle-mongers; + they are ‘related cues’ to everything under the sun, and it all + means--nothing. Similar catches and symbols are repeated in all + the plays. _Titus Andronicus_ has: + + Tie t’ us and drone accuse; + Tie t’ us and drown a curse; + Tie t’ us and drum the news. + + “This play is Bacon’s judgment of his own case, since _Martius_ + means ‘March you us,’ and refers to his service; _Publius_ + means ‘Publish us,’ and refers to his fame, etc. As the work + goes on, even the plays are not adhered to, and Holy Writ and + Montaigne’s Essays come in for an equal share of ‘explanation.’ + If by this time the value of Mrs. Windle’s discovery is not + apparent, it will need no further extracts to know that too close + an application to ‘a startling exemplification in philological + science’ has wrought its mischief and unsettled a mind which, + with proper use, might have produced something more valuable and + less pitiable than a Cipher.” + + +166 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES. + +_a_--Bacon a poet, by Henry G. Atkinson, V, 205, March 18, 1882. + +_b_--Answer to above, by Dr. Ingleby, V, 316, April 22, 1882. + +_c_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 277, September 30, 1882. + +_d_--From Este, VI, 416, November 18, 1882. + +_e_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 492, December 16, 1882. + + _Unc._ + + +167 SHYLOCK’S CASE. By NATHANIEL HOLMES. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly +Magazine_, Salt Lake, Utah, April, 1882. 13 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This is a review of _The Struggle for Law_, by Dr. Rudolph von +Ihering, of Göttingen, who maintains that injustice was done to +Shylock. Judge Holmes’s argument is that the writer of the Trial Act +in the _Merchant of Venice_ was a skillful lawyer--in fact, Bacon +himself. + + +168 “MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A notice of the book in the +_Westminster Review_, London, April 1, 1882. 2 pages. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +169 JUDGE HOLMES AND HIS GREAT SUBJECT--FRANCIS BACON. By E. W. +TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, April, 1882. +8 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +170 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE LITERATURE. By W. H. W. [W. H. WYMAN]. In +the Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, April 24, 1882. 5 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A partial Bibliographical list (25 titles), with some account of +Delia Bacon, and an outline of the origin, history, and arguments of +the controversy. + + +171 THE BIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. By F. [EDWARD FILLEBROWN, +Brookline, Mass.] In the Brookline _Chronicle_, May 27, 1882. 1 +column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +172 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” By R. M. THEOBALD. In the +_Nonconformist and Independent_, London, June 1, 1882. 2 columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +A comprehensive and favorable review of the _Myth_: + + “It is intended to prove that the author of Shakespeare, being a + scholar, a courtier, a lawyer, master of all the knowledge and + science of his age, could not have been a rustic adventurer, + ill-educated, untraveled, unfamiliar with court life, busy in + making money, and with no time for self-culture. Mr. Morgan is + unable to believe this amazing paradox, and accordingly rejects + it.” + + +173 THE GENIUS AND METHODS OF SHAKESPEARE. By E. W. TULLIDGE. In +_Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, Utah, July, 1882. 12 +pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +174 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” Notice of Morgan’s book in the _British +Quarterly Review_, London, July 1, 1882. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +175 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE LITERATURE. Compiled by W. +H. WYMAN. 8vo. pp. 8. Cincinnati, July 1, 1882. 63 titles. + + _Unc._ + +This was privately-printed, and contained all the ascertained titles +up to the time of issue. The present Bibliography is an extension of +it. + + +176 SHAKESPEARE, BACON AND CHRISTIANITY. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the +_Philosophic Inquirer_, Madras, India, July 2, 1882. 1 column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +177 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE HIS OWN WORKS? An editorial article in the +Oshkosh (Wis.) _Northwestern_, July 17, 1882. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The Editor, Gen. T. S. ALLEN, calls attention to a lecture by the +late Hon. GEORGE B. SMITH, of Madison, Wisconsin, delivered at +Chicago, Madison, and other places a few years since. Mr. Smith’s +lecture was never printed. It was a forcible presentation of the +Baconian theory. + + +178 AN ANTI-SHAKESPEAREAN PLEA. By J. W. B. [JOHN W. BELL]. In the +Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, July 22, 1882. 1 column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Occasioned by the Bibliographical article and summary in the same +paper, April 24, 1882. + + +179 THE BACON CIPHER. The ruin it wrought on a strong intellect. A +strange discovery in Literature. In the San Francisco _Chronicle_, +August 20, 1882. (Copied in the Cincinnati _Enquirer_, Sept. 19, +1882.) 1½ columns. + + _Unc._ + +This article refers to Mrs. Windle and her writings. An extract from +it will be found in connection with Mrs. W.’s second pamphlet (title +165). + + +180 QUERY 4929. In _Notes and Queries_ column of the _Evening +Transcript_, Boston. + +_a_--Query as to merits of the question, August 21, 1882. + +_b_--Answers to above, September 24, 1882. + + _Unc._ + + +181 BACON AS A MAN OF LETTERS. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the _Secular +Review_, London, September 23, 1882. 1 column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +182 NOTICE of the bibliography of the discussion, in the +_Bibliographer_, London, October 22, 1882, page 151. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +After mentioning the early authorities, the editor says: “but before +this we believe an Englishman lectured to such people as would listen +to him on his theory that Shakespeare’s plays were written by the +monks.” + + +183 SHAKESPEARE, BACON AND FREE THOUGHT. By HENRY G. ATKINSON, in the +_National Reformer_, London, October 22, 1882. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +184 SOME SHAKESPEAREAN COMMENTATORS. By APPLETON MORGAN. Cincinnati: +Robert Clarke & Co., 1882. Fifty copies printed for sale. Pamphlet, +12mo. pp. 44. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This pamphlet is a general answer by Mr. MORGAN to the criticisms of +the _Shakespearean Myth_. The following extract from a summary of it +will indicate some of the points made by the author: + + “So far from being new-fangled, a doubt as to _what were_ + Shakespeare’s plays and poems is as old as the first folio + itself; that the name was often pirated, and the piracies often + detected; that there was a statute in Elizabeth’s day that would + have operated to forbid the publication of plays without being + first editorially scrutinized; that these plays must have had an + editor or editors, as well as an author or authors; and that if + produced anonymously, it was much more likely that they should + pass by their editors’ then by their authors’ names. Further, + that instead of laying this question at rest, the labors of + the Shakespeareans are only emphasizing it, and adding to its + difficulty.” + +The Milwaukee _Sentinel_ (title 202) has this in its summary: + + “In the present treatise Mr. Morgan simply recapitulates some of + his previous statements; touches at some length on the general + absurdity of Edmond Malone; discusses the views of Wm. J. Rolfe, + James Freeman Clarke, Henry N. Hudson, and Dr. Ingleby; and + finally proceeds to review several disagreeable reviewers, each + one of whom, Mr. Morgan intimates, through a very pithy quotation + from Huxley, ‘acquired his knowledge from the book he judges--as + the Abyssinian is said to provide himself with steaks from the ox + who carries him.’” + + +185 THE ABSURDITY OF THE THEORY THAT LORD BACON WROTE THE PLAYS OF +SHAKESPEARE. By J. WILSON ROSS. In _Modern Thought_, London, for +December, 1882. 4 pages. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +186 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the +_National Reformer_, London, December 31, 1882. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +187 THE PROMUS OF FORMULARIES AND ELEGANCIES (being Private Notes, +_circ._ 1594, hitherto unpublished) by Francis Bacon, illustrated and +elucidated by passages from Shakespeare. By Mrs. HENRY POTT. With +preface by E. A. ABBOTT, D.D., Head Master of the City of London +School, 1883. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin +& Co. (with fac-simile sheet of Promus). 8vo. pp. 628. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This book is the latest important contribution to the Baconian theory. + +The MSS. known as the _Promus_ form a part of the Harleian Collection +in the British Museum, and have never before been published. They +consist of fifty sheets or folios, nearly all in the handwriting of +Bacon, containing 1655 different entries or memorandums. The whole +seems to have been kept by Bacon as a sort of commonplace book, +in which he entered at different times brief forms of expression, +phrases, proverbs, verses from the Bible; and quotations from Seneca, +Horace, Virgil, Erasmus, and many other writers. These are in various +languages--English, French, Italian, etc. As to the use of this +collection, we give Mrs. Pott’s explanation: + + “The _Promus_, then, was Bacon’s shop or storehouse, from which + he would draw forth things new and old--turning, twisting, + expanding, modifying, changing them, with that ‘nimbleness’ + of mind, that ‘aptness to perceive analogies,’ which he notes + as being necessary to the inventor of aphorisms, and which, + elsewhere, he speaks of decidedly, though modestly, as gifts with + which he felt himself to be specially endowed. + + “It was a storehouse also of pithy and suggestive sayings, of + new, graceful, or quaint terms of expression, of repartee, with + bright ideas jotted down as they occurred, and which were to + reappear, ‘made-up,’ variegated, intensified, and indefinitely + multiplied, as they radiated from that wonderful ‘brayne cut with + many facets.’” + +Mrs. Pott believes that Bacon prepared these notes for use in his +literary works, and she elaborates her theory that Bacon wrote +“Shakespeare” by taking up in review the whole of the 1655 entries, +and citing, by the thousand, what she claims to be parallel thoughts +and passages in the plays. To prove that the forms of expression +used in the _Promus_ are not contained in contemporary or precedent +literature, the author gives, in an appendix, a list of upwards of +five thousand works which she has examined for that purpose and in +which she claims they are almost unknown. + + “It must be held, then, that no sufficient explanation of the + resemblances which have been noted between the writings of Bacon + and Shakespeare is afforded by the supposition that these authors + may have studied the same sciences, learned the same languages, + read the same books, frequented the same sort of society. To + satisfy the requirements of such a hypothesis, it will be + necessary further to admit that from their scientific studies + these two men derived identically the same theories; from their + knowledge of languages the same proverbs, turns of expression, + and peculiar use of words; that they preferred and chiefly quoted + the same books in the Bible and the same authors; and last, not + least, that they derived from their education and surroundings + the same tastes and the same antipathies, and from their + learning, in whatever way it was acquired, the same opinions and + the same subtle thoughts. + + * * * * * + + “We should almost have to bring ourselves to believe that Bacon + took notes for the use of Shakespeare, since in the _Promus_ + may be found several hundred notes of which no trace has been + discovered in the acknowledged writings of Bacon, or of any + contemporary writer but Shakespeare, but which are more or less + clearly reproduced in the plays, and sometimes in the Sonnets. + + “Such things, it must be owned, pass all ordinary powers of + belief, and the comparison of points such as those which + have been hinted at impress the mind with a firm conviction + that Francis Bacon, and he alone, wrote all the plays and + sonnets which are attributed to Shakespeare, and that William + Shakespeare was merely the able and jovial manager, who, being + supported by some of Bacon’s rich and gay friends (such as Lord + Southampton and Lord Pembroke), furnished the theatre for the due + representation of the plays, which were thus produced by Will. + Shakespeare, and thenceforward called by his name.” + +(Mrs. POTT resides in London. This book, to which she has devoted +many years of labor, is, we believe, her only literary work. But +it is understood that she has another work in preparation, devoted +to the historical side of the question, which will probably appear +within a few months, under the title of “_Francis Bacon, Poet, +Philosopher, and Dramatist_.”) + + +188 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, of +dates following: + +_a_--Letter from Appleton Morgan, Jan. 13, 1883. + +_b_--Bacon’s _Promus_, January 27, 1883. + + _Unc._ + + +189 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? The New Evidences from the Harleian +Collection. In the _Advertiser_, Boston, January 13, 1883. (Copied in +the _Tribune_, Chicago, January 20, 1883.) 1½ columns. + + _Unc._ + + +190 THE PROMUS, etc. [By RICHARD J. HINTON]. In the _Gazette_, +Washington, D. C., January 14, 1883. 1 column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +A mention of the _Promus_, with a sketch of Mr. O’Connor’s +“Harrington” theories, and some reminiscences of Delia Bacon. + + +191 BACON’S NOTES IN SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. In the _World_, New York, +Jan. 15, 1883. 1½ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A review of the _Promus_: + + “Mrs. Pott has really made the most important, because it is the + most direct and scientific, contribution to the Baconian side of + the controversy, but her book does little to confirm any theory + except the theory that great minds think alike.” + + +192 BACON-SHAKESPEARE. By Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE. A series of three +articles in the Boston _Evening Transcript_, January 19, 23, and 25, +1883. 3 columns each. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +In these papers are comprised a very complete general review of the +whole subject; an account of the various theories and the books +containing them; and a comparison of the intellect, character and +writings of Bacon and Shakespeare. A short extract as to style: + + “Bacon’s style is stiff and weighty, where Shakespeare’s is + free and light. Bacon is classical, while Shakespeare is + natural. Bacon has always the same formal mode of expression, + his own mode only, even if he tries to write dialogues and to + represent characters; while Shakespeare easily introduces a + high variety--always, too, in character. The hand that wrote + the plays could easily have imitated Bacon, but there is not a + page of Shakespeare which Bacon could have written. The style of + Shakespeare is as impossible to Bacon as violets to a pumpkin + vine, or tea roses to a prize cabbage. The one was the most + prosaic of classical writers, a Latinist more than an English + writer; while the other was as thoroughly English as he was + perfectly poetical.” + + +193 THE NEW LITERARY CONUNDRUM. Was it Shakespeare or Bacon? The +Story the Plays tell. A letter in the New York correspondence of the +_Evening Post_, Hartford, Conn., January 20, 1883. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +194 A MINUTE AMONG THE AMENITIES. (_Ad finem_). By WILLIAM THOMSON, +Garnoch, South Yarra, Melbourne, Feb. 1, 1883. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 24. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The _amenities_ in this are undiscoverable. Dr. THOMSON, in his +peculiar style, answers his critics of the _Leader_, the _Argus_, +the _Academy_ and the _Australasian_, claiming that he was denied a +hearing in those periodicals, and forced to reply in a pamphlet. His +_ad finem_ was prophetic, as it was his last work. + + +195 A NEW SHAKESPERIAN COMMENTARY. Review of the _Promus_. In the +_Saturday Review_, London, February 3, 1883. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “It appears that, having been engaged for many years in proving + ‘from internal evidence Bacon’s authorship of the plays known + as Shakespeare’s,’ Mrs. Pott’s attention was called to these + manuscripts by some remarks made by Mr. Spedding in his edition + of Bacon’s works. These remarks led Mrs. Pott to suppose that + a further examination might produce corroborative evidence of + the points she was laboring to establish. This hope has been + fulfilled, she considers, ‘to a degree beyond expectation,’ and + the notes, she adds, ‘whatever may be the views taken of the + commentary upon them, possess in themselves a value which must be + recognized by all the students of language.’ * * * That she has + been instrumental in producing an extremely interesting volume, + as everything must be interesting that contributes in any way to + our knowledge of such a man as Bacon, we allow, and for so much, + as we have said, we tender her our most hearty thanks; but that + its publication tends in any way to establish her theory--of the + theory itself it is quite unnecessary to speak--we do no less + heartily deny.” + + +196 THE PROMUS OF FORMULARIES AND ELEGANCIES. A review in the +_Athenæum_, London, February 3, 1883. 3 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +197 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. An article on the _Promus_ from the +_Courant_, Hartford, February 7, 1883. (Copied in the _Record_, +Philadelphia, February 12, 1883.) 1 column. + + _Unc._ + + +198 WAS LORD BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A communication +in the _Sun_, New York, copied in the _Tribune_, Denver, Colorado, +February 17, 1883. + + _Unc._ + + +199 BACON’S PROMUS. By A. A. A. [Hon. ALVEY A. ADEE, of Washington, +D. C.] In the _Republic_, Washington, February 17, 1883. 8 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A very complete and comprehensive _critique_ of the _Promus_. Mr. +Adee thinks the work valuable to the philologist rather than as a +confirmation of the Baconian theory. “The lovers of the works,” +he says, “which, to adopt a favorite phrase of the Baconians, ‘go +about’ under the name of Shakespeare, owe a debt of gratitude to +this untiring delver in a new and rich mine of virgin ore for her +painstaking contribution to the general knowledge.” He takes up +in review a large number of the _Promus_ entries; questions the +correctness of many of Mrs. Pott’s citations, and differs from her +entirely as to their value as parallelisms in proving the Baconian +authorship. + + “A critical, and above all, impartial and unbiased revision of + this work, with the single aim of selecting only such passages + of the Poet’s work as shall, by their context and their true + spirit and intent, be found to present unquestionable analogy + with the _Promus_ entries, would give invaluable aid to the + earnest student. It would not be venturesome to assert that, + in such a case, the 4404 parallelisms discerned by Mrs. Pott + would shrink to a much more manageable number. Nor would it be + hazardous to surmise that a like impartial re-reading of the + six thousand works through which Mrs. Pott has labored in vain + would be rewarded with the discovery of analogies which have + escaped her toilsome scrutiny. It would, perhaps, be unkind to + hint that, while the most distant allusions and constructions + found in the Poet’s canon have been seized upon, nothing short + of practical identity would seem to have been admitted in the + case of parallelisms between the _Promus_ and other precedent + or contemporary writings. But an impression that this is the + Darwinian law of selection which has governed the survival of the + fittest phrases for the purpose in hand, must inevitably grow on + the unprejudiced mind of the reader. + + * * * * * + + “Of making books, or rather of Mrs. Pott’s manner of making + books, there is no end. Given commonplace texts, time, patience, + the power of reaching conclusions ‘by sudden flight,’ and a + Concordance--and ‘’tis as easy as lying.’ As honest Touchstone + says: ‘I’ll rhyme you so eight years together, dinners + and suppers and sleeping hours excepted; it is the right + butter-women’s rank to market.’ + + “Still, Mrs. Pott’s book is a step in the right direction, and + serves a good turn. It may not instantly convince the world + that Bacon wrote Shakespeare, or even that Shakespeare wrote + the _Promus_, as Dr. Abbott seems to insinuate, but the insight + it gives into structural peculiarities and turns of speech + is well-nigh priceless. * * * As regards the analogies and + parallelisms sought to be shown, the kindest course is to say as + little as possible about them.” + + +200 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. Judge Holmes gives his reasons for +believing Bacon was Shakespeare. And Father Higgins, S. J., gives his +for thinking Shakespeare was himself. In the _Republican_, St. Louis, +Feb. 17, 1883. 1 column. + + _Unc._ + +An account of two interviews, called out by the publication of +the _Promus_. The first is with Judge Holmes, who claims that +the received accounts of Shakespeare’s life do not warrant the +supposition of his authorship, and continues: + + “To this is opposed the supposition that the plays were written + by one [Bacon] whose mind was well disciplined from early + infancy, whose life was spent in the prosecution of the deepest + and most important studies known to man, with results of the + greatest magnitude produced in whatever path his genius may have + chosen for itself to tread. He was surrounded by influences the + most cultured, and those most likely to give him insight into + the lives of the great, which is so prominent a feature in the + plays which give rise to the controversy; and yet he possessed, + from the positions of trust which he held, every opportunity + for looking into and examining the motives for action, even + amongst the most lowly. In the plays as we have them there occur + numberless passages, referring to classical authors, the Latin, + the Greek, the Italian, the German, the French and the Spanish, + and these references are not such as could be learned from + translation, for many of those found in these plays are there for + the first time expressed in the English language. Is it at all + likely one of whom Ben Jonson wrote that he knew ‘little Latin + and less Greek,’ could by any possibility have picked up in his + rather shambling career, the familiarity with these authors which + the plays set forth?” + + * * * * * + +Rev. Father Higgins, of the St. Louis University, takes the opposite +view. We give one point only: + + “There is another objection to the Baconian claim which is of + much weight. The author of the dramas was either a Catholic or + one whose early mind had been imbued with Catholic ideas. If + there be any one religion which is supported by the plays it + is the Catholic faith. You remember the passage in _Hamlet_ + concerning the time in which the mass is celebrated, and in other + places he refers pointedly to a purgatory. If Lord Bacon wrote + the plays these passages could never have occurred, since his + position in regard to the events which were happening at that + time, and which had already happened, would have made him anxious + to blot out all remembrances of the customs of the religion which + was in such disfavor at the court. Shakespeare may not have been + a Catholic, though there are other things which point to his so + being, but at least in the position which he held he would have + had no reasons such as existed in Bacon’s mind for trampling out + traditions, which he has only fastened more closely in men’s + minds, and has done so in a very beautiful manner.” + + +201 GAMMON OF BACON. In the London _Punch_, February 17, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Occasioned by the publication of the _Promus_: + + “SCENE--Lord Bacon’s library. Bacon recumbent and meditating as + usual (‘_Sic Sedebat_’), in his arm-chair. + + BACON--The proof of the pudding lieth in the eating and + experiment, and not in the supposition or imagination thereof. + (_A gentle tap at the door._) Come in! (_Enter_ SHAKESPEARE.) + What, WILL! Thou art right welcome. Sit thee down, WILL. + (SHAKESPEARE _sits_.) And now, how doth business at the Globe? + How goeth our _Hamlet_? + + SHAKESPEARE--Indifferent well, my Lord. + + BACON--Why, so. Playest thou the _Ghost_ still? + + SHAKESPEARE--Aye, my good Lord, even yet, at times, so please you. + + BACON--It pleases me well. Talk of your _Ghost_, doth the Ghost + at the G. continue to walk as he ought? + + SHAKESPEARE--Punctually, my Lord, in good sooth, every Saturday + night. + + BACON--Good. I will therefore thank thee to hand me over the + balance of our little account. + + SHAKESPEARE--I shall, my Lord, incontinently. Meanwhile, so + please your Lordship, I must become yet further your Lordship’s + debtor for the wealth, I mean the workmanship, of your wit. My + Lord, Her Majesty the Queen did last night come to see _Henry the + Fourth_. After the play she called me to her presence, and did + declare her pleasure that I should produce her a piece, with a + part for _Falstaff_, and therein present _Falstaff_ in love. + + BACON--How didst thou answer her? + + SHAKESPEARE--In your Lordship’s own words--‘I shall in all my + best obey you, Madam.’ + + BACON--And what then said she? + + SHAKESPEARE--Straightway capped your line, my Lord, saying, ‘Why + ’tis a loving and a fair reply.’ + + BACON--Long live the Queen! But, _Falstaff_ in love! A most + inconceivable suggestion and unimaginable fancy of Her Most + Gracious Majesty’s, in respect both of love and of _Falstaff_. + + SHAKESPEARE--But how, then, my Lord, may we in anywise manage to + perform her Royal command? + + BACON--About my brains! Methinks I seem to spy some glimmer of a + way. A gross fat man fallen into the conceit that some fair dame + is enamoured of him, lured on to make love to her after his own + fashion. _Falstaff_ in love _c’y pres_, as we say at Westminster. + + SHAKESPEARE--That would serve, my Lord. + + BACON--_Falstaff_ thereto befooled, moreover, by the contrivance + of some merry women. Merry? Ha! So! Why, certainly it seems to + myself that all this hath passed through my mind before--as we + do sometimes feel. I must have dreamt of writing such a play. + Methinks I even recollect the name on’t. Merry! Yea, marry, + quotha--_Merry Wives of Windsor_. + + SHAKESPEARE--A title passing good, my Lord, and a taking. Truly, + a happy thought.--Let me pray your Lordship about it presently. + + BACON--Marry and shall, with all the expedition I may. As soon as + possible, I’ll send it to thy playhouse. + + SHAKESPEARE--A thousand thanks, my Lord. + + BACON--In the meantime, I prithee forget not that small balance. + + SHAKESPEARE--Trust me, my Lord. + + BACON--Needs must I until thou render me the needful. + + SHAKESPEARE--Your Lordship shall be straightway satisfied. I + humbly take my leave.” [_Exit_ SHAKESPEARE.] + + +202 SHAKESPEAREAN CONTROVERSY. Appleton Morgan’s Valiant Fight with +the Shakespeareans. In the _Sentinel_, Milwaukee, February 18, 1883. +1 column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +203 SHAKESPEAREAN PARALLELS. By A. A. A. [Hon. ALVEY A. ADEE]. In the +_Republic_, Washington, February 24, 1883. 5 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +In this article, apropos of the “parallelisms” of Judge Holmes and +Mrs. Pott, the writer says: + + “Theorists such as these appear to lose sight of the circumstance + that, in the limitless mines of human knowledge, there are ideas + so simple and trite in themselves, so natural to all minds, that + their recurrence in varying setting, through successive ages, is + a foregone conclusion.” + +The writer takes the _Imitation of Christ_, by Thomas-a-Kempis (the +first translation into English being printed by Wynkyn de Worde in +1502) as an illustration, and finds many striking analogies and +parallelisms with the plays of Shakespeare, a few of which he gives. +He adds that “treated as Dr. Holmes has treated Bacon’s works, the +alleged identities may be made almost countless.” We quote from the +concluding paragraphs: + + “It is a relief to lay down the cap and bells, and cast the + cocks’-comb truncheon aside, and look for a moral to point + this idle tale. What is it? Simply this, that the fount of + commonplace is inexhaustible from generation to generation, and + that whosoever dippeth therein, whether with a golden goblet + or a pipkin of common clay, whether he be a Thomas-a-Kempis, a + Shakespeare, or a Tupper, brings up, after all, but triteness + and commonplace. What wonder, then, that parallels abound in the + writings of all times? + + * * * * * + + “And yet it must be confessed that to many readers, whose reason + cannot penetrate the mere mask of words and discern behind it the + mystery of style, the soul that fills the form with the breath + of supremest life, this analysis by parallels may be misleading, + even to a sense of partial conviction. To such can only be said, + in the words of the ever-living Poet: + + “O place, O form! + How often dost thou with thy case, thy habit, + Wrench awe from fools, and tie the wiser souls + To thy false meaning.” + (_Measure for Measure, II, iv, 12._)” + + +204 TO CERTAIN THEORISTS. A sonnet. By W. L. SHOEMAKER. In +_Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, February 24, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. SHOEMAKER’S sonnet is the only poetry yet discovered in this +prosaic controversy: + + “Still must I hear the noise of those who claim + That Shakespeare was not Shakespeare, but was Bacon!-- + Seeking from him by whom the stage was shaken + With mightiest buskin, to filch all his fame. + O bats and owls, how impotent your aim! + How purblind, by a little _Promus_ taken, + Drowsing yourselves to think the world to waken, + To exalt the courtier, and the player to shame! + Our “Star of Poets” did not Jonson know, + And praise in lines that well your prate confute, + And put your feminine theories to scorn? + Yea; spite of Greene and every later foe, + His shade serene smiles at the senseless bruit-- + Greatest in drama of all souls yet born.” + + +205 SHAKESPEARE’S GEHEIMNISZ UND BACON’S PROMUS. In the _Allgemeine +Zeitung_, Stuttgart and Munchen: March 1, 1883. 4 columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The first German article. A translation of this title will be found +below. + + +206 SHAKESPEARE’S SECRET AND BACON’S “PROMUS.” An article in the +_Allgemeine Zeitung_ of March 1, 1883. Translated from the German, +and printed by special request. Price three pence. H. Wills, Printer, +Loughborough, England. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 12. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This article is anonymous. It is nominally a review of the _Promus_, +but discusses the question generally, and is most vehemently Baconian +throughout: + + “In the eyes of the masses [in England] Shakespeare passes for a + supernatural being. He who doubts of his divinity is guilty of + high treason, or even of blasphemy. + + “Such prejudice is unknown in America. There it has long + been accepted as an acknowledged fact that Bacon wrote the + Shakespearean dramas.” + + +207 SHAKESPEARE _v._ BACON. A review of the _Promus_ in the +_Spectator_, London, March 3, 1883. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +208 DR. EDWIN A. ABBOTT, MRS. HENRY POTT, AND LORD BACON. In the _St. +James’s Gazette_, London, March 10, 1883. 1 page. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +209 MRS. POTT ON SHAKESPEARE’S WOMEN. In _Shakespeariana_, in the +_Literary World_, Boston, March 10, 1883. + +_a_--Note from A. A. A. [Adee] on the _Promus_. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. ROLFE takes issue with Mrs. Pott as to her opinions of +Shakespeare’s women, and quotes from a foot-note on page 479 of the +_Promus_: + + “From the entries which referred to women we see that Bacon + formed very unfavorable views regarding them, views which + unhappy passages in his own life probably tended to confirm. The + Shakespeare Plays seem to exhibit the same unfavorable sentiments + of their author. There are 130 female personages in the Plays, + and the characters of these seem to be easily divisible into six + classes: + + “1. Furies or viragoes, such as Tamora, Queen Margaret, Goneril, + Regan, and even Lady Macbeth in the dark side of her character. + + “2. Shrews and sharp-tongued women, as Katherine, Constance, and + many others, when they are represented as angry. + + “3. Gossiping and untrustworthy women, as most of the maids, + hostesses, etc., and as Percy insinuates that he considers his + wife to be. + + “4. Fickle, faithless, and artful--a disposition which seems + assumed throughout the Plays to be the normal condition of + womanhood. + + “5. Thoroughly immoral, as Cleopatra, Phrynia, Timandra, Bianca. + + “6. Gentle, simple, and colorless, as Hero, Olivia, Ophelia, + Cordelia, etc. + + “Noteworthy exceptions, which exhibit more exalted and truer + pictures of good and noble women, are the characters of Isabella, + of Volumnia, and of Katherine of Arragon; but these are not + sufficient to do away with the impression that, on the whole, the + author of the Plays had but a poor opinion of women; that love he + regarded as youthful passion, marriage as a doubtful happiness.” + +It will be noticed that Mrs. Pott omits to classify Imogen, Rosalind, +Desdemona, Juliet, Portia, Viola, Miranda, and others. + +In answer, Mr. Rolfe quotes from Charles Cowden-Clarke, “who is one +of the most sympathetic and appreciative of critics (partly, no +doubt, because Mary Cowden-Clarke was his wife and fellow-worker):” + + “Of all the writers that ever existed, no one ought to stand so + high in the love and gratitude of women as he. He has indeed been + their champion, their laureate, their brother, their friend. * * + * He has asserted their prerogative, as intellectual creatures, + to be the companions (in the best sense), the advisers, the + friends, the equals of men. He has endowed them with the true + spirit of Christianity and brotherly love, enduring all things, + forgiving all things, hoping all things; and it is no less + remarkable that, with a prodigality of generosity, he has not + unfrequently placed the heroes in his stories at a disadvantage + with them.” + + Cowden-Clarke proceeds to illustrate this by Hero and Claudio in + _Much Ado_ (the play he is discussing at the time), and quotes + also, in confirmation of the statement, the characters of Bertram + in _All’s Well_, of Posthumus in _Cymbeline_, of Leontes in the + _Winter’s Tale_, and of Proteus in the _Two Gentlemen of Verona_. + He adds: + + “All these characters not only appear at a disadvantage by, + but they are unworthy of the women with whom they are united. + Shakespeare has himself made the Duke in _Twelfth Night_ say: + + However we do praise ourselves, + Our fancies are more giddy and unfirm, + More longing, wavering, sooner lost and worn, + Than women’s are. + + A remarkable confession that for a man! Therefore Shakespeare + is the writer, above all others, whom women should most take to + their hearts; for it may be said to have been mainly through + his influence that their claims in society were acknowledged in + England, when throughout the civilized world their position was + that of mere domestic drudges.” + + +210 THE PROMUS, etc. A review in the _Tribune_, New York, March 11, +1883. 1¼ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “We have made a very thorough examination of these 1655 + Promus memorandums, and of the passages which are produced in + illustration and elucidation of them; we have read every word + that the authoress has written in support of her theory; we + have done so, we are sure, in a candid spirit, but we have to + say, as the result of our examination, that we have not found + an instance, not one, in which a passage in the plays is shown + to have its origin in the Promus. The method of elucidating the + Promus by ‘Shakespeare’ seems to have been to fix upon the most + salient word in one of Bacon’s notes, and then to take up Mrs. + Cowden-Clarke’s Concordance to Shakespeare, and find by its aid + passages in which that word occurs, or more rarely a phrase which + expresses in some modified or related form the idea conveyed by + the Promus word or phrase. The result is a display of a word + or a phrase on one side and several like words or phrases on + the other; but of any necessary connection between them, of any + inkling of a growth of the latter from the former, there is an + utter and total absence.” + + +211 THE PROMUS, etc. A review in the _Nation_, New York, March 15, +1883. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +212 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. An editorial article. [By J. G. +PYLE]. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minn., March 25, 1883. 1 +column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +A notice of the _Promus_, introducing Morgan’s review. + + “While there can be no doubt that the editress has carried her + comparisons to the last degree of attenuation, and has discovered + resemblances where there is nothing but the recurrence of a + single unimportant word in the Promus and in the Plays on which + to stand, yet, when these instances are eliminated, there remains + a body of coincidences which cannot be dismissed with a cool + assumption of superiority to all modern ‘vagaries,’ and which + will require some more coherent explanation than the article by + Richard Grant White in the last _Atlantic_.” + + +213 A REVIEW OF BACON’S PROMUS. BY APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Pioneer +Press_, St. Paul, Minn. Part I, March 25, 1883; Part II, April 1, +1883. 5 columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +In this paper, besides going into a general review of the subject, +Mr. Morgan gives a summary, under twelve heads, of the _Net Results +of the Promus_, at the conclusion of which he says: + + “Now which existing anti-Shakespearean theory does the evidence + of this Promus most clearly corroborate? There are four of these + theories, all of which have many parts in common, but no two of + which are exactly alike, viz: + + “1. That Bacon and the rest of a coterie of political + philosophers and moralists wrote in Hermetic or cryptographical + compositions a philosophy for ‘the next ages’ which they dared + not promulgate in Elizabeth’s reign (Miss Delia Bacon’s theory). + + “2. That Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare (the Baconian theory). + + “3. That the coterie (perhaps the same as that Miss Bacon + suggested) wrote the plays to amuse themselves--and induced + William Shakespeare to father them for a consideration (the New + theory). + + “4. That whoever wrote them, William Shakespeare was stage editor + only of the plays (the Editorial theory). + + “It seems to us that the new evidence offered by the Promus + marshals itself, with the least violence, on the side of either + Theory 2 or Theory 4, and, as between these latter, most + naturally on the side of Theory 4.” + + +214 THE AUTHORSHIP OF MISS BACON’S BOOK. In the _Sunday Telegraph_, +Milwaukee, Wis. Three articles of dates following: + + _Unc._ + +_a_--AN ODD LITERARY SENSATION. [Editorial, by Col. E. A. CALKINS]. +March 25, 1883. + + “Miss Bacon, as she alleged to be the case with Shakespeare, + was not the author of her own book. It was written throughout + by T. C. Leland, then a stenographic reporter on the New York + _Tribune_. * * * Mr. Leland stated to literary gentlemen with + whom he became acquainted at Madison [in 1853] that he was + engaged in this labor, and had partly completed Miss Bacon’s + work. * * * He did not claim to be more than her mere amanuensis, + though in fact he was something more, as he furnished the forms + of expression which Miss Bacon employed while transferring her + views to paper.” + +_b_--MISS DELIA BACON. Letter from W. H. W. [W. H. WYMAN]. April 8, +1883. + + “Doubtless there would be a poetic or retributive justice in + denying to Delia Bacon the authorship of her own book, but, + unfortunately for this theory, I cannot see how it can have + the slightest foundation in fact. * * * [References are given + to Mrs. Farrar’s _Recollections_, and to Hawthorne’s _Preface_ + to Miss Bacon’s work.] * * * These extracts show conclusively + that neither of her works on this subject were written in this + country, nor until some years after the reported conversations; + and even that in England she could have had no assistance is + clear, from the fact that she was alone, and it was with the + utmost difficulty that she sustained herself during that time. + * * * I do not call your attention to these misapprehensions + because I have any belief in Delia Bacon’s theories, but simply + that justice may be done to the memory of a woman whose sad fate + has caused her to be greatly misunderstood.” + +_c_--LETTER FROM T. C. LELAND, dated New York, August 22, 1883; +printed September 9, 1883. + + “I think it was in the late fall of 1852, or perhaps it was + December, I was engaged to report some lectures delivered in this + city by Miss Delia Bacon, on the Art and Culture of Egypt and + other ancient nations. Though she was a very ready, fluent, and, + at times, eloquent speaker, yet when she came to take up her pen + she wrote slowly and with difficulty. She expressed a wish one + day that I should help her in this respect. I suggested that, + if she could dictate to me, an audience of one, as fluently and + happily as she did to an audience of hundreds, she would be a + perfect success. We agreed to make the experiment, but, on trial, + she found that an amanuensis was practically somewhat better, + but not much, than a pen. There was, on trial, one advantage; + that occasionally she would have inspired moments and a spurt + of thought and rapid utterances; and these gushes I could take + down and save, which otherwise she could not have traced rapidly + enough on paper, and would have lost. * * * But in all this I + played the part, simply and only, of an amanuensis, putting down + her words conscientiously without any change or amendment of + mine. My short-hand notes were translated into long-hand copy + just as she delivered the words, and handed to her. I suppose + that these notes were the basis, in whole or in part--probably a + larger part--of her subsequent book.” + + +215 BACON’S PROMUS AGAIN. By A. A. A. [ADEE]. In the _Republic_, +Washington, March 31, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +216 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON QUESTION. A Bibliographical list of the +works on the subject in the Boston Public Library. In the _Bulletin_ +of the Library for April, 1883. 38 titles. + + _Unc._ + + +217 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE. By RICHARD GRANT WHITE. In the +_Atlantic Monthly_ for April, 1883. (See pages 507-521.) + + _Pro-Sh._ + +In this paper, Mr. White expresses his personal indifference as to +whether Bacon, Shakespeare, or anybody else is to be credited with +the authorship, as it “affects in no way the value or interest of +the plays;” he gives a very complete and unfavorable review of the +_Promus_, occupying ten pages; instances the sonnets, as impossible +to have been written by Bacon, who did not therefore write the plays; +and makes a brilliant comparison between Bacon and Shakespeare, +showing “the unlikeness of Bacon’s mind and of his style to those +of the writer of the plays.” The following is an extract from the +concluding paragraph: + + “As to treating the question seriously, that is not to be done + by men of common sense and moderate knowledge of the subject. * + * * It is as certain that William Shakespeare wrote (after the + theatrical fashion, and under the theatrical conditions of his + day) the plays that bear his name, as it is that Francis Bacon + wrote the Novum Organum, the Advancement of Learning, and the + Essays. The notion that Bacon also wrote Titus Andronicus, The + Comedy of Errors, Hamlet, King Lear, and Othello, is not worth + five minutes’ consideration by any reasonable creature.” + + +218 RICHARD GRANT WHITE and “THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE.” By F. +[EDWARD FILLEBROWN]. In the _Commonwealth_, Boston, March 31, 1883. 1 +column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +219 “THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE.” Letter of APPLETON MORGAN in the +_Post_, Boston, April 2, 1883. ¼ column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +220 “THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE” of Richard Grant White. By O. F. +[O. FOLLETT]. In the _Register_, Sandusky, O., April 5, 1883. 1 +column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +221 THE PROMUS, etc. A notice of the book in the _Mercury_, Leeds, +England, April 11, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +222 SHAKESPEARE’S SCHOOLING, WITH SOME LIGHT AS TO THE ELIZABETHAN +BOY. Letter from APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, +Minn., April 15, 1883. ½ column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +A dissertation on the insufficiency of the schools in Shakespeare’s +day. In illustration of this, Mr. Morgan quotes schoolmaster Evans +and his pupil William, in _Merry Wives of Windsor_, Act IV, Scene 1. + + +223 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE THEORY. In the _Morning Journal_, +Cincinnati, April 16, 1883. 1 column. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +224 SHAKESPEARIAN CIRCLE-SQUARING. A criticism of the _Promus_, in +the _Pall Mall Gazette_, London, April 20, 1883. 1½ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +225 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, +April 21, 1883. + +_a_--Cleopatra’s “Billiards.” Note from Hon. A. A. Adee, with remarks +by the Editor. + +_b_--Mr. Grant White on Bacon and Shakespeare. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. ADEE calls attention to the fact that the often quoted (but +disputed) anachronism in _Antony and Cleopatra_--where _Cleopatra_ +says to her attendant, _Charmian_, “let’s to billiards”--was +doubtless obtained from Chapman, who uses the word “billiards” +similarly in his _Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, printed ten years +before _Antony and Cleopatra_, was written. As to the anachronisms +generally, Mr. Rolfe says: + + * * * “If, to preserve his incognito, Bacon had refrained from + any parade of his scholarship, and had even put occasional + anachronisms into the mouths of his characters, we cannot + imagine him showing the habitual ignorance in such matters that + Shakespeare does. He could never have made Coriolanus talk of + ‘graves in the holy church-yard,’ or Menenius, in the same + play, of ‘Galen’--‘an anachronism of near 650 years,’ as Dr. + Grey called it--or Mark Antony, of coming to ‘bury’ Cæsar, and + the like. These frequent and free-and-easy blunders, so utterly + inconsistent with the scholarly habit of mind, are of themselves + a sufficient refutation of the theory that ‘Bacon wrote + Shakespeare.’” + + +226 SHAKESPEARE. By Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE. Two articles in the +_Evening Transcript_, Boston. I, April 28, 1883; II, August 3, 1883. +3 columns each. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +These articles are devoted principally to the life, genius, and +character of Shakespeare as disproving the Baconian theory. + + +227 “OUR SHAKESPEARE CLUB.” Remarks of SAM. TIMMINS, Chairman. In the +_Daily Mail_, Birmingham, England, April 24, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. TIMMINS presided at the annual dinner of the club on the +birth-day of Shakespeare, at the Plow and Harrow Hotel, Birmingham, +and made the opening address, opposing all the anti-Shakespearian +theories. + + +228 “BACON’S PROMUS.” Two letters of APPLETON MORGAN of this title. +In the _Republic_, Washington, April 28, and March 24, 1883. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + +229 SHAKESPEARE AS A MYTH. By HENRY HOOPER. In the _Commercial +Gazette_, Cincinnati, April 29, 1883. 3 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Occasioned by Morgan’s _Shakespearean Myth_, to which it is a reply. + + “If Shakespeare alone wrote these plays, then it is the greatest + miracle on record, says Mr. Morgan. If it be a miracle for one, + it would be a combination of miracles for ten, or even two, + to compose _Hamlet_ or _Othello_. * * * The joint composition + theory is as improbable and impossible as it would be for an + orchestra to invent a Symphony of Beethoven. You might just as + well say that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is the joint work of a + number of musicians, viz: that the violin players composed the + string parts, the reed players the flute and oboe parts, and the + trombones and double basses their scores. This is not more absurd + than the theory that a pale student, a needy scholar, a ready + writer, an actor and a stage manager produced _Twelfth Night_ and + _King Lear_.” + + +230 WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE? Address by Mr. WILLIAM LEIGHTON, JR., at the +Shakespeare Club Banquet, Wheeling, W. Va., April 23, 1883. In the +_Sunday Register_, Wheeling, April 29, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +In Mr. LEIGHTON’S address the authorship is only incidentally +referred to. + + “Genius is the touch of God’s hand, an inspiration that comes + not out of any college, but is evoked from the soul by its own + tendencies and aspirations; and, so born, can only be fostered + into healthy maturity by unremitting labor. The attempt to take + from Shakespeare’s brow the laurel crown of the most glorious of + bards is a vain effort to rob a dead man of well-earned honors; + and why? Because a yeoman must not presume to stand above a + nobleman; or a poet, who has not been to college, dare to mount + the winged steed. But Shakespeare’s honors can not be taken from + him by idle sophistry or arbitrary dogmatism; he has entrenched + himself in the hearts of his countrymen, and his position is + impregnable.” + + +231 WHO IS SHAKESPEARE? Address by Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY, at the +Shakespeare Club Banquet, Wheeling, W. Va., as above. In the _Sunday +Register_, Wheeling, April 29, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Mr. CROSBY--whose views will be found under title 126--devotes a +portion only of this address to the authorship. + + +232 LETTER FROM APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Church Eclectic_, Utica, N. +Y., for May, 1883. 3 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +A reply to the letter of Mr. Crosby’s in the same magazine for +November, 1880. We quote one point only: + + “I am sure I can refer the writer to at least half a score of + authorities which will agree that the tuition in provincial + grammar-schools of the Sixteenth Century was simply ridiculous, + and a travesty; a little of A, B, C, and Lily’s Accidence, and + a good deal of birch; and that however it made boys truants, it + hardly graduated ‘men of letters.’” + + +233 BOSH ABOUT BACON. By A. B. B. [A. B. BRALEY, Madison, Wis.] In +the _Sunday Telegraph_, Milwaukee, Wis., May 20, 1883, 1½ columns. +Also, THE BACON CRANKS. Evidence of Shakespeare’s Contemporaries. In +the same paper, June 10, 1883. 1½ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +234 SHAKESPEARE AT HOME. Letter from M. D. C. [MONCURE D. CONWAY], +from Stratford-on-Avon, April 21, 1883. In the _Commercial Gazette_, +Cincinnati, May 26, 1883. 2 columns. + + _Unc._ + +An interesting letter from Mr. Conway on the occasion of one of the +commemorative celebrations at Stratford. + +Referring to Delia Bacon’s book: + + * * * “Perhaps there never was such a monument of wasted + ability. There is hardly anything in it of a negative character, + very little that shows apprehension of the real points in the + Shakespearean traditions that tempt skepticism. Her book dwells + on the affirmation that Bacon wrote the plays; that may easily be + answered by any one who will turn from a page of Shakespeare to + one of Bacon, which, to most people, is turning from a winged to + an earth-bound genius. But the incidental theory that Shakespeare + did _not_ write these plays, though at present the fad of a few, + is not unlikely to acquire large proportions in the future. Such + is the inevitable doom of every set of traditions that have not + been subjected to severe skeptical criticism. + + * * * * * + + “For the back-ground of miracle is always present--namely, that + the village lad, son of a man who could not write his name, wrote + all these mighty works, died at the age of fifty-three, and yet + left no manuscript, no records, so that not even his birth-day is + known. + + “Yet here are the works. Somebody wrote them. Or it would be + truer to say that somebody recognized the great world-histories + and legends, exhumed them, covered them with flesh and blood, and + breathed into them the breath of life. For here we are enjoying + them, and finding amid all these creations the presence of a + central mind, however inapprehensible.” + + +235 WHO WROTE JULIUS CÆSAR? By H. I. In the _Times-Star_, Cincinnati, +May 29, 1883. 2 columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The writer takes the occasion of the Cincinnati Dramatic Festival to +make this inquiry: + + “The Dramatic Festival of this city was inaugurated by the + production, at immense cost and great splendor, of the play + of Julius Cæsar. It must have been ‘indeed an oasis’--with + McCullough and Murdoch, Barrett, Louis James, and Miss Forsyth + in the fore-front, five hundred Roman citizens and soldiers in + perfect drill--a spectacle this to have gladdened with happy + moisture the eyes, could they have seen it, of--the--author. Who + was he?” + +The writer professes his belief that the author was Francis Bacon, +and advances a claim of parallel thoughts, etc., between the plays +and the _Advancement of Learning_ in support of his opinion. + + +236 HAT FRANCIS BACON DIE DRAMEN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S GESCHRIEBEN? +Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der geistigen Verirrungen. Von Dr. EDUARD +ENGEL, Leipzig, 1883. (DID FRANCIS BACON WRITE WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S +PLAYS? A contribution to the history of Intellectual Errors.) +Pamphlet, pp. 43. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +Dr. ENGEL takes for his text Mrs. Pott’s _Promus_, and this pamphlet +is in answer to that work, and to the favorable notice of it +appearing in the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ (see titles 205 and 206), which +he ascribes to ‘Herr V.’ He strongly opposes all anti-Shakespearian +theories. + + “It would be deplorable, and would contradict all the + history of the world’s literature, if Lord Bacon had written + Shakespeare’s plays. It would be deplorable--and this decides + the matter--because it would then be shown, for the first time + in the history of mankind, that a poetical genius of the highest + sublimity, and a character of the lowest baseness, could exist in + one and the same man.” + +Dr. Engel closes his essay with a quotation from Herder: + + “I have in my mind an immense figure of a man, sitting high on a + rocky summit; at his feet, storm, tempest, and the raging of the + sea; but his head in the beams of heaven. This is Shakespeare. + Only, with this addition, that far below, at the foot of his + rocky throne, are murmuring crowds, who expound, preserve, + condemn, defend, worship, slander, over-rate, and abuse him--and + of all this he hears nothing.” + + +237 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. In _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary +World_, Boston, June 2, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +The editor introduces in this article an extract from a letter +received by Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY from “one of the most learned and +philosophical of living Shakespearian critics.” The writer of the +letter [Dr. INGLEBY, of England] says, after expressing his dissent +from the opinions of those who believe that it is immaterial whether +the plays were written by Shakespeare or Bacon: + + “And I cannot without concern witness the crazy efforts of these + would-be critics to separate what history has joined together, + and to make over the better half of Shakespeare’s fame to a man, + not only immeasurably his inferior, but of a totally different + order of mind. * * * I have read, studied, and written upon + Francis Bacon, and seem to myself to know the man well; as well + as I know Shakespeare, through his works. I do not hesitate to + say that Bacon’s strength lay in his Analysis: he was a most + acute and sagacious critic of the past, and moreover knew the + needs of man, and in what direction those needs could be met, + and to some extent satisfied. But this made him a tremendous + Apollyon--a destructive force of the greatest, the most momentous + character. He succeeded as a destroyer, but when he attempted to + construct, he made a conspicuous failure. * * * Such a man write + Shakespeare! It is really not worth five minutes’ discussion.” + + +238 ABOUT SHAKESPEARE. By JOSEPH A. WOODHULL. In the _Republican_, +Angola, Ind., June 27, 1883. 1½ columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + +239 A BIT OF THE BACONIAN THEORY. A letter from CONSTANCE M. POTT. +[Mrs. HENRY POTT.] In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minn., July 15, +1883. 1 column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This letter is mainly a description of St. Albans, the residence +of Lord Bacon, with its historical associations and its objects of +archæological interest, as compared with Stratford-on-Avon, and what +R. Grant White calls its “museum of doubtful relics and gimcracks.” + + +240 WILLIAM DONE FOR. By JOHN W. BELL. In the _Commercial Gazette_, +July 21, 1883. ½ column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +An answer to Mr. Hooper’s article (title 229) in same paper. + + +241 Mr. O’CONNOR’S LETTER. In BUCKE’S life of _Walt Whitman_. +Philadelphia, August, 1883. (See pages 88 to 93.) + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This is an introductory letter by William D. O’Connor to his _Good +Grey Poet_, printed in the appendix to the above work. + + “The main scope and purpose of the Shakespeare drama are + definitely given by Lord Bacon in connection with his assertion + that the compilation of the natural history of the human passions + is the first duty of philosophy, and that it is particularly + the province of poetry. In this connection he describes the + Shakespearean work perfectly. Therein, he says, ‘we may find + painted forth, with great life, how passions are kindled and + incited; how pacified and refrained; and how again contained + from act and further degree; how they disclose themselves; how + they work; how they vary; how they gather and fortify; how they + are inwrapped, one within another; and how they do fight and + encounter one with another; and other the like particulars.’ + ‘That is to say,’ remarks Dr. Kuno Fischer, quoting this passage: + ‘Bacon desires nothing less than a natural history of the + passions; _the very thing_ that Shakespeare has produced.’ + + * * * * * + + “The only supreme tyrant is ignorance. If I sought to express the + Shakespeare drama in the image of a person, I would not choose + the eidolon of any feudal emperor. My choice would be a man like + Francis Bacon, * * * wise with all the lore of all the ages, the + companion and counsellor of princes, the familiar of gypsies, + and tinkers, and sailors as well; deep-eyed, with long insight + into the minds of men of every degree; master of multiform + experiences; traveled, elegant, courtly, august, intrepid, loyal, + gentle, compassionate, sorrowful, beautiful; clothed, from + fondness for sumptuous apparel, in purple three-piled velvet, + rich laces, and the hat with plumes, yet loving--another anecdote + tells of him--to ride with bared head, in the warm and perfumed + rains of spring, that he might feel upon him, he said, the + universal spirit of the world.” + + +242 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE EXHUMATION QUESTION. By Dr. C. M. INGLEBY. +In _Shakespeare’s Bones_. London: Trübner & Co., 1883. 4to. pp. 48. + + _Unc._ + +This Bibliography is appended to Dr. INGLEBY’S book, and is pertinent +to this question only in its references to an exhumation as likely to +set at rest the theories (Miss Bacon’s, for instance) as to documents +being deposited in the tomb of Shakespeare. + + +243 THE SONNETS OF SHAKESPEARE. WHEN, TO WHOM, AND BY WHOM WRITTEN. +By ANTIQUARY. (Reprinted from the _Truth Seeker_, New York, of August +18, 1883.) Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 12. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The author gives the dedication of the Sonnets: + + “To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. H. all + happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our ever-living + poet | wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting forth + | T. T.” + + The American Cyclopedia says: + + “To whom they were written, and in whose person [T. T.] is among + the most difficult of unsolved literary problems. * * * Who this + ‘onlie begetter’ was, no man has yet been able satisfactorily to + show.” + +The writer discusses the various theories on this subject. His +conclusions may be summed up in the following extract: + + “All the internal and external evidence points to the year 1590 + as the date, Francis Bacon as the writer, and the Earl of Essex + as the person addressed.” + + +244 MR. MORGAN AND SHAKESPEARE. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, +August 19, 1883, introducing a letter from Appleton Morgan. 1½ +columns. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This refers mainly to Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, which (Mr. Morgan +claims) proves that “many hands and many brains were concerned in +composing the works we call Shakespeare.” + + +245 THE GOUT CLUB DISCUSSES THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the +_Tribune_, Denver, Col., October 14, 1883. 3 columns. + + _Unc._ + +What is here called the Gout Club of Denver, consists of a few +congenial spirits who meet socially and discuss various subjects in +an informal way. In this article various gentlemen are credited with +opinions and speeches on the question. The colloquists consist of +Col. Ward H. Lamon, Col. J. B. Belford, Judge Ward, Col. Craig, Major +Carson, Col. Dormer, and Judge Steck. + +Reference is made in this discussion to an article, _Who Wrote +Shakespeare’s Henry VIII?_ by J. S. [JAMES SPEDDING], in the +_Gentleman’s Magazine_ for August, 1850, as the earliest mention +of a doubt as to the authorship. (The date is erroneously given as +February, 1852.) That article, however, does not raise the general +question of the authorship, but simply claims to discover the hand of +Fletcher in a portion of this play, as a co-worker with Shakespeare. + + +246 THE OFFER TO THE NEW SHAKESPERE SOCIETY. In the _Academy_, +London, November 24, 1883. + + _Unc._ + +The “curiosities” of this literature would be incomplete without the +following: + + “Mr. Furnivall, as director of the New Shakespere Society, has + received an amusing letter from New South Wales. A gentleman + there has, after seven years’ search, discovered, not only the + well-known historical character who wrote all Shakespeare’s plays + and poems, but the very month and spot in which eleven of the + plays were written, and the probable date and locality in which + the rest were composed, the author’s object in writing them, + and the historical characters and events meant by the dramatic + ones; further, that one character was interpolated, and one + entire play was written by the author after Shakespeare’s death. + This antipodean discoverer can also now date and explain all + the Sonnets except four (123, 124, 144, 146), and those ‘will + be explained on a future occasion.’ He knows who ‘Mr. W. H.,’ + the begetter of the Sonnets, was, and all the persons to whom + they were addressed; and he can show that our royal family is + descended from Perdita. So certain is the researcher of the + value of his discoveries that he offers to come to London and + unfold his secrets to the New Shakespere Society, if only they + will guarantee him the payment of £30,000 in case he can convince + the majority of them of the truth of his discoveries. A letter + from the Premier of New South Wales attests the high standing and + sanity of the discoverer.” + + +247 NOTES ON JULIUS CÆSAR. By WM. J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana_ (the +new Shakespearian monthly. New York: Leonard Scott Publishing Co.), +for December, 1883. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +A part only of the article refers to this subject: + + “The closeness with which the dramatist follows Plutarch in + Julius Cæsar and the other Roman plays has been noted by the + commentators generally. * * * Even the blunders of Plutarch, + or of his copyists or editors (as _Decius Brutus_ for _Decimus + Brutus_, _Calphurnia_ for _Calpurnia_, and the like), are + literally reproduced in the play. To my mind this is proof + positive that Bacon did not write it. He was too good a scholar + to follow blindly the translation of a translation, repeating + errors which a scholar would neither make himself nor fail to + detect in another; and he was too independent to adopt the views + of any one authority without comparing them with others that were + equally well known to him.” + + +248 LAWYER OR NO LAWYER. Letter from APPLETON MORGAN. In +_Shakespeariana_, New York, for January, 1884. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +Mr. Morgan argues from the “grave-digger travesty” in _Hamlet_, +and the trial scene in the _Merchant of Venice_, that “William +Shakespeare was neither a lawyer nor a lawyer’s clerk.” + + “It is wicked to peep and botanize over the magnificent and + matchless poetry of that matchless trial scene. But if it is + worth while to find out who wrote that magnificent and matchless + poetry, these questions ought not to be stifled.” + + +249 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE? By Prof. J. H. GILMORE. In the +_Standard_, Chicago, January 31, 1884. 2 columns. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “The plays do not evince _learning_, but _genius_. They are + especially deficient in that refinement which springs from + thorough culture, and which Bacon pre-eminently possessed. + Indeed, as insisted by Dowden, the whole habit and spirit of + Bacon’s mind and the mind of Shakespeare were different.” + +The comparison of Shakespeare and Bacon alluded to above will be +found in DOWDEN’S _Shakespeare: His Mind and Art_, pages 16, 17. + + +250 “WHO WAS HOLOFERNES?” By Mrs. HENRY POTT. In _Shakespeariana_, +New York, for February, 1884. 2 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +This was occasioned by an article of Mr. Henry Hooper’s, in +_Shakespeariana_, for December, 1883, under the same title, +intimating that Shakespeare had Lord Bacon in his mind as the model +for _Holofernes_, the pedantic schoolmaster in _Love’s Labor Lost_. +Mrs. Pott believes that the character of _Holofernes_ was drawn by +Bacon himself as an example of “pedantic and wordy affectations,” and +quotes from his works to sustain her opinion. + + +251 THE LAW IN SHAKESPEARE. By C. K. DAVIS. St. Paul: West Publishing +Co., 1884. 12mo. pp. 303. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +An index of Legal Terms and References in the plays, with an +introduction (pages 3-59) devoted to the Baconian theory in part. + + “And now comes some one and says that here is more proof that + Shakespeare is a mere _alias_ for Bacon. It is difficult to touch + or let alone this vagary with any patience. One is inclined to + protest simply in the words of Shakespeare’s epitaph: + + Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare + To digg the dust encloased heare, + + and pass on, deeming all secure against a desecration worse than + that which the poet cursed. + + * * * * * + + “Charles I. was sixteen years of age when Shakespeare died. + Bacon dedicated to him his history of Henry VII. Shakespeare in + Macbeth nobly magnified the House of Stuart by a prophecy of its + perpetuity. The works of Shakespeare were the closet companion of + Charles, who was reproached for this by Milton, at a time when + the fierce zealots of rebellion had come to look upon the drama + as sinful. Falkland was Charles’s councilor, and it is from him + that we have respecting Caliban, the first critical estimate + extant of any character in Shakespeare. And yet from prince, + king, courtier, poet, or scholar, we hear no hint which can give + this modern theory the slightest support.” + + +252 DAVIS’S “THE LAW IN SHAKESPEARE.” Two articles in the _Pioneer +Press_, St. Paul, February 24, 1884. [By APPLETON MORGAN]. + +_a_--Review of the book. 2½ columns. + +_b_--Gov. Davis on Shakespeare. ½ column. + + _Anti-Sh._ + +The following is the conclusion of the last named article: + + “Gov. Davis has added a notable contribution to the material + accumulating to answer this question, if answered it ever is to + be. The Baconians will, perhaps, accuse him of unprofessional + conduct in moving to cross off the roll of Shakespearean + possibilities the name of a great lawyer and Lord Chancellor. + But they will find their consolation in the fact that here + is an entirely new arsenal for carrying on their warfare. + For nobody has ever so unmistakably shown the lawyer in the + plays before. In fact, Gov. Davis will thus find his peace all + around. Shakespeareans will purr him for his heavy blows at the + Baconians; Baconians will secretly approve him for building + better than he knew when he traced an aristocratic lawyer in + every Shakespearean line; and the neutral student will add the + book to his Shakespeariana, among the fresh rather than the + stale matter, with pleasure and thanksgiving. No Minnesotian + will fail to feel honored that one of our most distinguished + fellow-citizens has, for the first time, drawn from the history + of Francis Bacon, if not from that of William Shakespeare, an + almost insuperable and insurmountable reason why Francis Bacon, + at least, could not have been William Himself.” + + +253 THE BACONIAN THEORY. Review of the _Promus_, in the _Times_, New +York, Feb. 25, 1884. 1 column. + + _Pro-Sh._ + + “In publishing this _Promus_, Mrs. Pott has not only failed to + prove that Bacon wrote Shakespeare’s plays, but she has gone + a long way toward proving that Bacon could not possibly have + written them. It is inconceivable that a poet in keeping a note + book of phrases, etc., to be used in his finished work, should + not frequently write out in the glow of creation, whole passages, + or, at least, consecutive lines of verse, to be afterward + incorporated in his poem. Let any one compare, for instance, + Hawthorne’s note book with his tales and romances. He will find + entire pages transferred almost bodily from the former into the + latter. He will find scores of metaphors, similes, reflections, + outlines for stories, descriptions, incidents, etc., the + language of which is reproduced, in great part literally, in the + completed works of the romancer. There is no such resemblance + to be detected anywhere between the fragmentary jottings in the + _Promus_ and the text of Shakespeare’s plays. On the other hand, + there are in the _Promus_ numbers of quotations and sentences + which Bacon did use in his acknowledged writings, and in such + cases the language is almost always identical, and any one + familiar with the Essays, _e. g._ will recognize the source of + many sayings that have struck his mind.” + + +254 SHAKESPEARE AS A FOREIGN LINGUIST. By Prof. JAMES A. HARRISON. In +_Shakespeariana_, New York, for March, 1884. + + _Pro-Sh._ + +This paper merely refers to the authorship in this suggestive +question: + + “If Bacon had been the author of these plays, would he not have + strewn them with innumerable Latinisms?” + + +255 WHOSE SONNETS? By APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Manhattan_, New York, +May, 1884. 8 pages. + + _Anti-Sh._ + + “Either these Sonnets are those mentioned as circulating among + Shakespeare’s private friends prior to 1598, or they are not. + If they are, they are as doubtfully his as is the rest of the + literary matter given by Meres, so far as we know. If they are + not, then they have no claim to be called Shakespeare’s except + from the fact that his name was put on the title pages of three + books of verses, among which verses they appeared.” + + + + +INDEX TO TITLES. + + In this index is included, not only the writers, but others who + are mentioned as having expressed opinions. Where initials or + assumed names are used, and the name of the writer is not known, + the articles are indexed only to the magazine or other serial in + which they appeared. References are to Title numbers, not pages. + + + ABBOTT, Dr. EDWIN A., 187. + + _Academy_, London, 246. + + ADEE, ALVEY A., 199, 203, 209, 215, 225. + + ADEE, DAVID GRAHAM, 148, 149. + + _Advance_, Chicago, 49. + + _Advertiser_, Boston, 189. + + AINSLIE, TH., 65. + + ALLEN, T. S., 177. + + _Allgemeine Zeitung_, Stuttgart, 205, 206. + + ALLIBONE, S. AUSTIN, 104. + + _American_, Philadelphia, 151. + + _American Register_, Paris, 108. + + _Appletons’ Journal_, N. Y., 114, 116. + + _Argus and Radical_, Beaver, Pa., 54. + + _Argus_, Melbourne, 144. + + _Athenæum_, London, 5, 8, 14, 16, 18, 22, 46, 196. + + ATKINSON, HENRY G., 120, 123, 166, 176, 181, 183, 186. + + _Atlantic Monthly_, Boston, 27, 217. + + + BACON, Miss DELIA, 4, 17. + + BEECHER, HENRY WARD, 70. + + BELFORD, J. B., 245. + + BELL, JOHN W., 155, 178, 240. + + _Bell’s Weekly Messenger_, London, 117. + + BENTON, MYRON B., 116. + + _Bibliographer_, London, 182. + + _Bibliopolist (American)_, N. Y., 57. + + _Blackwood’s Magazine_, Edinburgh, 11. + + _Blade_, Toledo, O., 155. + + BOHN, HENRY G., 28. + + _Boston Public Library Bulletin_, 216. + + BOUCICAULT, DION, 61. + + BRADFORD, Rev. A. B., 54. + + BRADY, JAMES T., 62. + + BRALEY, A. B., 233. + + _British Quarterly Review_, London, 174. + + BROUGHAM, JOHN, 62. + + BUCCELLATI, Prof. ANTONIO, 94. + + BUCKTON, T. J., 26. + + _Bulletin_, Philadelphia, 64. + + BULLOCH, JOHN, 105, 106. + + BURGESS, J. B., 65. + + BURK, ADDISON B., 68. + + BURTON, WILLIAM E., 62. + + BUTLER, Gen. B. F., 95. + + + CALDWELL, GEORGE S., 98. + + CALKINS, E. A., 214. + + _Canadian Monthly_, Toronto, 119. + + CARLYLE, THOMAS, 73, 131. + + CARSON, Major, 245. + + CARVALHO, S. N., 77. + + _Catholic World_, New York, 101. + + CATTELL, CHARLES C., 103, 112, 113, 123, 130. + + _Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal_, 2. + + _Christian Observer_, Richmond, 45. + + _Christian Register_, Boston, 88. + + _Chronicle_, Brookline, Mass., 171. + + _Chronicle_, Newcastle, Eng., 92. + + _Chronicle_, San Francisco, 165, 179. + + _Church Eclectic_, Utica, N. Y., 126, 232. + + _Civil Service Review_, 90. + + CLARKE, Rev. J. FREEMAN, 132. + + _Clipper_, New York, 51. + + CLOSE, RICHARD COLAMA, 127. + + COLQUHOUN, Sir PATRICK, 117. + + _Commercial Gazette_, Cincinnati, 229, 234, 240. + + _Commonwealth_, Boston, 218. + + CONWAY, MONCURE D., 131, 234. + + _Cornell Review_, Ithaca, N. Y., 87. + + CORSON, Prof. HIRAM, 71, 87. + + _Courant_, Hartford, Conn., 197. + + _Courier_, Lebanon, Pa., 70. + + CRAIG, Col., 245. + + CROSBY, JOSEPH, 81, 126, 129, 231. + + + DAVEY, R., 63. + + DAVIS, C. K., 251. + + DAVIS, L. CLARKE, 71. + + DIXON, WILLIAM HEPWORTH, 93. + + DONNELLY, IGNATIUS, 53. + + DORMER, Col., 245. + + DOUGHERTY, DANIEL, 65. + + + _Eagle_, Brooklyn, 34, 61. + + ENGEL, Dr. EDUARD, 236. + + _Enquirer_, Cincinnati, 179. + + _Evening Post_, New York, 44. + + + FARRAR, Mrs. JOHN, 30. + + FERRIER, WILLIAM W., 133, 142. + + FILLEBROWN, EDWARD, 171, 218. + + FOLLETT, O., 118, 138, 220. + + _Fraser’s Magazine_, London, 29, 41, 58. + + _Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin, 121, 154. + + FURNESS, HORACE HOWARD, 63. + + FURNIVALL, F. J., 97. + + + _Gazette_, Birmingham, Eng., 48. + + _Gazette_, Cincinnati, 151. + + _Gazette_, Washington, 190. + + GILMORE, J. H., 249. + + _Globe Democrat_, St. Louis, 153. + + _Globe_, London, 117. + + _Golden Age_, 54. + + _Good Literature_, New York, 146. + + + HACKETT, JAMES H., 44, 62. + + HACKETT, Recorder, 67. + + HALL, A. OAKEY, 62. + + _Harper’s Magazine_, New York, 43. + + HARRISON, Prof. JAMES A., 254. + + HART, Prof. JOHN S., 78. + + HART, JOSEPH C., 1. + + HARTE, BRET, 61. + + _Harvard University Bulletin_, 135. + + HAWTHORNE, NATHANIEL, 6, 17, 22, 24, 27. + + HENSHAW, Mrs. SARAH E., 49. + + _Herald_, Angola, Ind., 133, 142. + + _Herald_, New York, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, + 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80. + + _Herald_, Stratford-on-Avon, 144. + + HIGGINS, Rev. Father, 200. + + HINTON, RICHARD J., 39, 190. + + HOLL, H., 136. + + HOLMES, NATHANIEL, 32, 93, 153, 167, 200. + + _Home Journal_, New York, 36. + + HOOPER, HENRY, 229, 250. + + HOPPER, A., 9. + + _Hornet_, London, 91. + + HUDSON, Rev. HENRY N., 122. + + + _Illustrated London News_, 10, 12, 13. + + INGLEBY, Dr. C. M., 12, 59, 81, 83, 99, 100, 122, 160, 166, 237, + 242. + + _Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, 151. + + + _Jewish Messenger_, New York, 37. + + _Journal des Debats_, Paris, 107. + + + KING, THOMAS D., 84. + + KNORTZ, KARL, 157. + + + LAMON, WARD H., 245. + + LEACH, Rev. WILLIAM T., 84. + + LEIGHTON, WILLIAM, JR., 230. + + LELAND, T. C., 214. + + _L’Instruction Publique_, Paris, 109. + + _Literary Gazette_, London, 7, 16, 19. + + _Literary World_, Boston, 115, 125, 134, 140, 164, 188, 204, 209, + 225, 237. + + _Littell’s Living Age_, Boston, 6, 58. + + + _Mail_, Birmingham, Eng., 227. + + _Manhattan_, New York, 255. + + _Memoriale Diplomatique_, Paris, 94. + + _Mercury_, Leeds, Eng., 221. + + _Mercury (Sunday)_, Philadelphia, 55. + + _Methodist_, New York, 40. + + _Modern Thought_, London, 185. + + MORGAN, APPLETON, 114, 147, 164, 184, 188, 213, 219, 222, 228, 232, + 244, 248, 252, 255. + + _Morning Journal_, Cincinnati, 223. + + + _Nation_, New York, 33, 211. + + _National Reformer_, London, 183, 186. + + _National Review_, London, 20. + + _Nederlandsche Spectator_, The Hague, 110. + + _News_, Milwaukee, 70. + + _Nonconformist and Independent_, London, 159, 172. + + _North American Review_, Boston and New York, 23, 42, 132. + + _Northwestern_, Oshkosh, Wis., 177. + + _Notes and Queries_, London, 3, 9, 26, 31, 59, 83, 100, 160, 166. + + + O’CONNOR, WILLIAM D., 24, 241. + + O’LEARY, Prof., 74. + + _Oracle_, London, 162. + + OWENS, JOHN E., 65. + + + _Pall Mall Gazette_, London, 224. + + PALMERSTON, Lord, 29, 95. + + _Philosophic Inquirer_, Madras, India, 176. + + PIERREPONT, EDWARDS, 65. + + _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, 150, 212, 213, 222, 239, 244, 252. + + PLUMPTRE, Rev. E. H., 146. + + POLLOCK, DAVID, 78. + + _Post_, Boston, 66, 219. + + _Post (Evening)_, Hartford, Conn., 193. + + _Post_, Washington, 161. + + POTT, Mrs. HENRY, 187, 239, 250. + + _Press_, Philadelphia, 61, 64. + + PRICHARD, J. V., 58, 80. + + PRIOR, Sir JAMES, 25. + + _Punch_, London, 201. + + _Putnam’s Monthly_, New York, 5. + + PYLE, J. G., 150, 212. + + + _Record_, Philadelphia, 197. + + _Record-Union_, Sacramento, Cal., 151. + + REES, JAMES, 55. + + _Register_, Sandusky, O., 151, 220. + + _Register_, Wheeling, W. Va., 230, 231. + + _Republic (Sunday)_, Philadelphia, 56. + + _Republic_, Washington, 148, 149, 199, 203, 215, 228. + + _Republican_, Angola, Ind., 139, 238. + + _Republican_, Springfield, Mass., 38. + + _Republican_, St. Louis, 72, 200. + + RICHARDSON, Dr. B. W., 136. + + ROBERTS, R. P. HAMPTON, 100. + + ROBINSON, W. S., 38. + + ROLFE, WILLIAM J., 115, 125, 134, 209, 225, 247. + + ROSS, J. WILSON, 185. + + _Round Table_, New York, 35, 39. + + RYE, FRANCIS, 119. + + + _Saturday Reader_, Montreal, 47. + + _Saturday Review_, London, 89, 161, 195. + + _Scribner’s Monthly_, New York, 82, 85, 86. + + _Secular Review_, London, 123, 181. + + SEDGWICK, A. G., 42. + + _Sentinel_, Indianapolis, 70. + + _Sentinel_, Milwaukee, 161, 184, 202. + + SHACKFORD, Rev. C. C., 23. + + _Shakespeariana_, New York, 247, 248, 250, 254. + + SHOEMAKER, W. L., 204. + + SKIPTON, H. S., 59, 83. + + SLOCOMB, R., 9. + + SMITH, GEORGE B., 177. + + SMITH, JAMES, 144. + + SMITH, LUCY TOULMIN, 81. + + SMITH, WILLIAM HENRY, 6, 9, 14, 21, 22, 48. + + _Southern Quarterly Review_, New Orleans, 124. + + _Spectator_, London, 146, 207. + + SPEDDING, JAMES, 52, 93, 245. + + _Spiritualist_, London, 120. + + _Standard_, Chicago, 249. + + _State Journal_, Madison, Wis., 161, 170, 178. + + STEARNS, CHAS. W., 50. + + STECK, Judge, 245. + + STEDMAN, E. C., 62. + + STOUDER, O. C., 128. + + _St. James’s Gazette_, London, 208. + + STRONACH, GEORGE, 91. + + _Sun_, New York, 198. + + + TAVERNER, Prof. J. W., 96. + + _Telegraph_, London, 117. + + _Telegraph (Sunday)_, Milwaukee, 214, 233. + + _Telegraph_, Pittsburg, 151. + + THEOBALD, R. M., 159, 172. + + THOMSON, Dr. WILLIAM, 102, 121, 137, 145, 156, 158, 194. + + _Times_, New York, 64, 253. + + _Times-Star_, Cincinnati, 235. + + TIMMINS, SAM., 227. + + TOWNE, Rev. EDWARD C., 88, 192, 226. + + TOWNSEND, GEO. H., 15. + + _Transcript (Evening)_, Boston, 163, 180, 192, 226. + + _Transcript_, Oakland, Cal., 69. + + _Tribune_, Chicago, 189. + + _Tribune_, Denver, Col., 198, 245. + + _Tribune_, Minneapolis, Minn., 53. + + _Tribune_, New York, 152, 210. + + _Truth Seeker_, New York, 243. + + TUEL, J. E., 70. + + TULLIDGE, E. W., 141, 169, 173. + + _Tullidge’s Quarterly_, Salt Lake, Utah, 141, 167, 169, 173. + + + VAILE, E. O., 85. + + VARAGNAC, BERARD, 107, 108. + + _Victorian Review_, Melbourne, 127. + + VILLEMAIN, M. J., 109. + + + WALLACK, LESTER, 61. + + WARD, C. A., 59, 83. + + WARD, Judge, 245. + + WARWICK, J. H., 139. + + WEISS, JOHN, 111. + + _Westminster Review_, London, 168. + + WHEELER, A. C., 61. + + WHITAKER, DANIEL K., 124. + + WHITE, RICHARD GRANT, 61, 217. + + WILKES, GEORGE, 58, 95. + + WINDLE, Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD, 143, 165. + + _Wittenberger Magazine_, Springfield, O., 128, 129. + + WOODHULL, JOSEPH A., 238. + + _World_, New York, 191. + + WYMAN, W. H., 170, 175, 214. + + + + + TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE + + Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been + corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within + the text and consultation of external sources. + + Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, + when a predominant preference was found in the original book. + + Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, + and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. + + Pg 30: ‘Chistian Observer’ replaced by ‘Christian Observer’. + Pg 44: ‘methaphysicians, etc.’ replaced by ‘metaphysicians, etc.’. + Pg 45: ‘a Milliion of’ replaced by ‘a Million of’. + Pg 51: ‘Skakespearian plays’ replaced by ‘Shakespearian plays’. + Pg 86: ‘amazing parodox’ replaced by ‘amazing paradox’. + Pg 105: ‘an extact from’ replaced by ‘an extract from’. + Pg 110: ‘the fadd of’ replaced by ‘the fad of’. + + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77752 *** diff --git a/77752-h/77752-h.htm b/77752-h/77752-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..96375a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/77752-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7630 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title> + Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%;} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + margin-top: 1.5em; + margin-bottom: 0em; + word-spacing: 0.2em; + letter-spacing: 0.1em; + line-height: 2.5em; + font-weight: normal;} + +h1 {font-size: 160%;} +h2 {font-size: 150%; line-height: 1.7em; margin-top: 3em;} +h3 {font-size: 80%;} + +p { + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em; + text-indent: 1em;} + +.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} +.p6 {margin-top: 6em;} + +.p1b {margin-bottom: 1em;} +.p2b {margin-bottom: 2em;} +.p4b {margin-bottom: 4em;} +.p6b {margin-bottom: 6em;} + +.negin2 {padding-left: 4.5em; text-indent: -2em; text-align: justify;} +.neg {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -.5em;} + +.noindent {text-indent: 0em;} + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +.pfs150 {font-size: 150%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs135 {font-size: 135%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs120 {font-size: 120%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs85 {font-size: 85%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs80 {font-size: 80%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs70 {font-size: 70%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} + +.fs40 {font-size: 40%; font-style: normal;} +.fs80 {font-size: 80%; font-style: normal;} +.fs120 {font-size: 120%; font-style: normal;} +.fs180 {font-size: 180%; font-style: normal;} + + +/* for horizontal lines */ +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: .7em; + margin-bottom: .7em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both;} + +hr.tb {width: 30%; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%;} +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +hr.full {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%;} + +hr.r30 {width: 30%; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%;} +hr.r30a {width: 30%; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%; + margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: .1em;} +hr.r30b {width: 30%; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%; + margin-top: .1em; margin-bottom: 1em;} + +.x-ebookmaker hr.chap {width: 0%; display: none;} + + +/* for inserting info from TN and Errata changes */ +.corr { + text-decoration: none; + border-bottom: thin dashed blue;} + +.x-ebookmaker .corr { + text-decoration: none; + border-bottom: none;} + + +/* for different code on screen versus handhelds */ +.screenonly { display: block; } + +.x-ebookmaker .screenonly { display: none; } + + +/* for basic lists */ +ul.index { list-style-type: none; } +li.ifrst { margin-top: 1.5em; text-indent: -2em; padding-left: 1em;} +li.indx { margin-top: .5em; text-indent: -2em; padding-left: 1em;} + + +/* for tables */ +table {margin: 1.5em auto 1.5em auto;} + +table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } + +td {padding: .2em .3em 0 .3em;} +th {font-weight: normal; font-size: 80%; padding: .4em;} + +.tdl {text-align: left; padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1em;} + +.wd70 {width: 70%;} + + +/* for spacing */ +.pad1 {padding-left: 1em;} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + color: #A9A9A9; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: .5em;} + + +/* blockquote (/# #/) */ +blockquote { margin: 1.5em 2% 1.5em 2%; font-size: 85%;} + + +/* general placement and presentation */ +.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} + +.right {text-align: right; margin-right: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: -.5em; font-size: 110%;} +.rt {text-align: right; margin-right: 1em;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} +.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} + +.entry {font-size: 120%; padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em; padding-top: 1.5em;} + +sup {font-size: 60%;} +sub {font-size: 60%;} + +.lsp2 {letter-spacing: 0.2em;} + + +/* Images */ +img {border: none; + max-width: 100%; + height: auto;} + +img.w100 {width: 100%; padding-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0em;} +img.icon {height: 1.2em; width: auto; vertical-align: -.2em;} +img.iconx {height: 1.2em; width: auto; vertical-align: -.3em;} + +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; + page-break-inside: avoid; + max-width: 100%;} + + +/* Poetry */ +.poetry-container {display: flex; justify-content: center;} +.poetry-container {text-align: center;} +.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} +.poetry {display: inline-block; font-size: 90%} +.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} +.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} +.poetry .indentq {text-indent: -3.5em;} + +/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ +.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block; margin-left: 4.5em;} + + +/* Transcriber's notes */ +.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; + color: black; + font-size:small; + padding:0.5em; + margin-bottom:5em; + font-family:sans-serif, serif;} + +.transnote p {text-indent: 0em;} + + +/* custom cover (cover.jpg) */ +.customcover {visibility: hidden; display: none;} +.x-ebookmaker .customcover {visibility: visible; display: block;} + + +/* Poetry indents */ +.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3.0em;} +.poetry .indent2 {text-indent: -2.0em;} +.poetry .indent4 {text-indent: -1.0em;} +.poetry .indent6 {text-indent: 0.0em;} +.poetry .indent8 {text-indent: 1.0em;} +.poetry .indent12 {text-indent: 3.0em;} +.poetry .indent14 {text-indent: 4.0em;} +.poetry .indent17 {text-indent: 5.5em;} +.poetry .indent18 {text-indent: 6.0em;} +.poetry .indent28 {text-indent: 11.0em;} + + +/* Illustration classes */ +.illowp100 {width: 100%;} + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77752 ***</div> + + +<div class="transnote"> +<p><strong>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</strong></p> + +<p class="customcover">New original cover art included with this eBook is +granted to the public domain.</p> + +<p>Three or four asterisks in a quotation indicates omitted text.</p> + +<p>Some minor changes to the text are noted at the <a href="#TN">end of the book.</a> +<span class="screenonly">These are indicated by a <ins class="corr">dashed blue</ins> underline.</span></p> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h1> +<span class="fs120 lsp2">BIBLIOGRAPHY</span><br> +<span class="fs40">—OF THE—</span><br> +<span class="fs180">BACON-SHAKESPEARE</span><br> +CONTROVERSY,</h1> + + +<p class="p4 p4b pfs70">—WITH—</p> +<p class=" p4b pfs150 lsp2">NOTES AND EXTRACTS.</p> + +<hr class="r30"> +<p class="pfs120"><span class="smcap">By</span> W. H. WYMAN.</p> +<hr class="r30"> + +<div class="p4 poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">“Shikspur! Shikspur! Who wrote it?”</div> + <div class="verse indent14">Miss <span class="smcap">Kitty</span>, in <cite>High Life Below Stairs</cite>.</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class="p4 pfs85"> +<span class="fs80">CINCINNATI:</span><br> +PETER G. THOMSON,<br> +1884.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p class="p6 p6b pfs80"> +COPYRIGHTED,<br> +1884,<br> +<span class="allsmcap">BY</span> W. H. WYMAN. +</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> +<div class="chapter"></div> + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE"> + <img class="icon" src="images/icon-l.jpg" alt="Small decorative icon to left of the word PREFACE">PREFACE.<img class="iconx" src="images/icon-r.jpg" alt="Small decorative icon to right of the word PREFACE"> + </h2> + +<figure class="figcenter illowp100" style="max-width: 8em;"> + <img class="p1b w100" src="images/hrsep.jpg" alt="Decorative separator"> +</figure> + + +<p>In July, 1882, the compiler of this work issued a small +privately-printed <cite>Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature</cite>, +including all the titles then ascertained—63 in number. Since +that time, additional titles and interesting material have so +accumulated that he has thought proper to present this volume—the +work, or amusement of leisure evenings—believing +that the discussion has reached a point that entitles it to as +complete a Bibliography as can be made. While personally +entertaining no doubts as to Shakespeare’s authorship, he +believes that the discussion has its compensating features in +inciting a study of the Shakespearian dramas, and of the works +as well of the dramatists and philosophers—in fact, the literary +history—of the Elizabethan age. It is, perhaps, due to the +various theorists that the ground-work of their opinions be +known, and it is due no less to the memory of William Shakespeare +that these adverse theories, and the arguments in answer, +shall be so presented as to enable any one, who wishes +to investigate the question, to form an intelligent opinion for +himself.</p> + +<p>As to the Bibliography, so far as titles are concerned, no +pains have been spared to make it complete. It is believed +to contain a list of all the books, pamphlets, and magazine +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[4]</span>articles on the question, as well as a large proportion of the +reviews, the more important newspaper articles, etc. Of the +latter, a few may be included that are unimportant—as it has +been difficult to decide just where to draw the line—but the +intention has been to include nothing, except some collateral +matters of special interest, that is not of some use in the +formation of an opinion.</p> + +<p>While the endeavor has been to embody in some part of +it, in a general way, all the main points of the discussion, +this work does not pretend to be a complete reflex of all the +arguments or the evidence adduced. It is simply a list of +the titles, to which are added such brief memoranda as will +give the main facts in regard to this literature, and something +as to its authors. By the notes and extracts, an effort has +been made to relieve the tediousness of a dry Bibliography. +Where extracts are given, such have usually been chosen as +were thought to embody some interesting feature, or a hint +of the argument—these to be distributed so evenly as to leave +no doubts of a bibliographical impartiality. In short, the aim +has been to point out to those who desire this information +just where it may be found. In common with one of the +writers, who has adopted an expression of Lord Bacon’s: “We +have only taken upon us to ring a bell, to call other wits +together, which is the meanest office.”</p> + +<p>And as to the extracts, an apology is doubtless due to +the writers. It may well be appalling to the author of a book +or an article, bristling with telling arguments and eloquent +passages, to find here a quotation wrenched from its appropriate +context, embodying only a single idea, and that, perhaps, +the one he values least—or, possibly, none at all. The +compiler admits all this in advance, with the single remark +that he has made no attempt—it being simply impossible +within the limits of this work—to do any sort of justice to the +various productions, many of them learned, ingenious, and +cultured.</p> + +<p>The compilation and arrangement has not been without +its difficulties. With such a varied mass of material—many +of the articles being without any proper titles, it has been impossible +to follow an exact Bibliographical formula. Though +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span>crude in this respect, it is hoped that it has been so arranged +as to be intelligible. The titles have been placed chronologically +as best calculated to show the history and progress of +the discussion, thus rendering it necessary to divide a few, +such as <cite>Notes and Queries</cite>, which would more properly come +together. As it has been found impracticable to give a full +explanation of many of the titles, the general tenor of each +has been thus indicated:</p> + +<table class="autotable wd70"> +<tr> +<td class="tdl smcap">For Shakespeare,</td> +<td class="tdl"><em>Pro-Sh.</em></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl smcap">Against Shakespeare,</td> +<td class="tdl"><em>Anti-Sh.</em></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl smcap">Unclassified,</td> +<td class="tdl"><em>Unc.</em></td> +</tr> +</table> + +<p class="noindent">the last including all articles which for any reason can not +be classed as For or Against.</p> + +<p>A recapitulation of some of the main features of the Bibliography +may be interesting:</p> + +<p>Of the 255 titles, there are, For Shakespeare, 117; Against +Shakespeare, 73; Unclassified, 65. In addition to the above, +there are about 100 sub-titles, of more or less importance, +represented by <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>, <i>c</i>, etc.</p> + +<p>As to nationality, the origin of the articles (titles) may +be classed as follows: American, 161; English, 69; Australian, +10; Scotch, 4; Canadian, 3; German, 2; French, 2; +Italy, Holland, Ireland, and India, 1 each.</p> + +<p>Taken chronologically, there appeared in 1848, 1; 1852, +1; 1853, 1; 1856, 9; 1857, 11; 1860, 2; 1862, 1; 1863, 2; +1865, 1; 1866, 12; 1867, 8; 1869, 2; 1870, 2; 1874, 28; +1875, 11; 1876, 2; 1877, 7; 1878, 9; 1879, 10; 1880, 9; +1881, 27; 1882, 30; 1883, 61; 1884, to date, 8. This can +not, of course, be relied upon as giving more than an approximate +idea of the relative progress of the controversy, as the +titling of articles—especially those of minor importance—has +been much more practicable in the later years.</p> + +<p>There has been ample opportunity for an examination +of these works. Of the 255 titles, copies of 249 are in the +library of the compiler. The titles lacking are <a href="#t-48">48</a>, <a href="#t-92">92</a>, <a href="#t-109">109</a>, +<a href="#t-117">117</a>; also, the articles under <a href="#t-151">151</a> and <a href="#t-161">161</a> in part.</p> + +<p>In explanation of the different ways of spelling Shakespeare, +Shakespearian, etc., in these pages, it is proper to say +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span>that the intention has been to follow, in all titles and extracts, +the methods adopted by the various writers.</p> + +<p>The compiler tenders his acknowledgments to many +friends and correspondents for information and assistance, in +all cases courteously furnished. An additional favor will be +conferred by further information as to any errors or omitted +titles.</p> + +<p>It will be seen by a reference to the notes, that not less +than five new works are foreshadowed, some of which will +be published. Evidently the discussion is not ended. The +subject is one that appeals too strongly to the iconoclastic +spirit of the age for that. It is likely to afford as endless a +theme as the authorship of Junius, or the personality of Homer. +If the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas is not <em>now</em> +settled, in that sense it never will be settled, for it is not, in +its very nature, susceptible of such proof as will satisfy everybody. +And though the world may always hold to its faith +in William Shakespeare, none the less will there always be +doubters.</p> + +<p class="rt"> + W. H. W. +</p> + +<p class="pad1 p2b"> + <span class="smcap">Walnut Hills,</span><br> + <span class="smcap">Cincinnati</span>, April 10th, 1884. +</p> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span></p> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<hr class="p6 full"> +<p class="pfs150">BACON-SHAKESPEARE</p> +<p class="pfs135">CONTROVERSY.</p> +<hr class="p6b full"> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8"></a>[8]</span><br> + <span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_9"></a>[9]</span></p> + + +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<figure class="figcenter illowp100" id="i_p009" style="max-width: 50em;"> + <img class="w100" src="images/banner.jpg" alt="Decorative banner heading"> +</figure> + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="BIBLIOGRAPHY"> + <img class="icon" src="images/icon2-l.jpg" alt="Small decorative icon to left of the word BIBLIOGRAPHY">BIBLIOGRAPHY<img class="iconx" src="images/icon2-r.jpg" alt="Small decorative icon to right of the word BIBLIOGRAPHY"> + </h2> + +<hr class="r30a"> +<hr class="r30b"> + +<p class="entry" id="t-1">1 <span class="smcap">The Ancient Lethe.</span> In <cite>The Romance of Yachting; +Voyage the First</cite>. By <span class="smcap">Joseph C. Hart</span>, +author of “Miriam Coffin,” etc. New York: +Harper & Brothers, 1848; 12mo. pp. 332. (See +pages 207-243).</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The first known publication questioning the right of Shakespeare +to the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Col. Hart’s</span> article seems to have been overlooked, and not +brought to the notice of those who were interested in the +question, until it was used by the compiler of this work as +the first title in <cite>The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature</cite>, +of which this is an extension. Up to that time, the +article in <cite>Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal</cite> (see <a href="#t-2">next title</a>), seems +to have been accepted by all the authorities as the first mention. +<cite>The Romance of Yachting</cite> is a gossipy account of a voyage +to Spain, in a merchant ship, in which are interwoven +discussions of various topics in a free and easy style. This +chapter is supposed to be written on the banks of the Guadalete—the +ancient Lethe. Hence the title.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Alas, Shakespeare! Lethe is upon thee! But if it drown thee, +it will give up and work the resurrection of <em>better men and more worthy</em>. +Thou hast had thy century; they are about having theirs.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“He was not the mate of the literary characters of his day, and none +knew it better than himself. It is a fraud upon the world to thrust his +surreptitious fame upon us. He had none that was worthy of being +transmitted. The enquiry will be, <em>who were the able literary men who wrote +the dramas imputed to him</em>? The plays themselves, or rather a small +portion of them, will live as long as English literature is regarded as +worth pursuit. The <em>authorship</em> of the plays is no otherwise material to +us, than as a matter of curiosity, and to enable us to render exact +justice; but they should not be assigned to Shakespeare alone, if at all.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The author contrasts Shakespeare with the other Elizabethan +writers. He argues that the facts known in the life +of Shakespeare, so far as they are known, are incompatible +with the authorship, and takes up the plays in review, claiming +that he had very little part in them. He suggests no +other author.</p> + +<p>(Col. Hart was a lawyer, journalist, and yachtsman—residing +in, and well-known in New York, especially from 1832 to 1850—the +friend and associate of Willis, Poe, Park Benjamin, Col. +Porter, of <i>The Spirit</i>, etc. He was a Colonel in the National +Guard. During his later years he was U. S. Consul lo Santa +Cruz de Teneriffe, and died there in 1855, in his 57th year. +A private letter concerning him says: “He was quite proud +of writing that chapter as to Shakespeare, and declared that +in time his views must become accepted.”)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-2">2 <span class="smcap">Who Wrote Shakespeare?</span> An article in <cite>Chambers’s +Edinburgh Journal</cite>, August 7, 1852.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The author of this is unknown. The article was for a long +time accepted as “the first mention.” It is moderate in tone, +contrasting the commonplace life of Shakespeare with his +works, and suggests that he may have “kept a poet.”</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“May not William Shakespeare—the cautious, calculating man, careless +of fame, and intent only on money-making—have found, in some +furtherest garret, overlooking the silent highway of the Thames, some +pale, wasted student, with a brow as ample and lofty as his own, who +had written the <cite>Wars of the Roses</cite>, and who, with eyes of genius gleaming +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span>through despair, was about, like Chatterton, to spend his last copper +coin upon some cheap and speedy mode of death? What was to hinder +William Shakespeare from reading, appreciating, and purchasing these +dramas, and thereafter keeping his poet as Mrs. Packwood did?”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“Well, reader, how like you our hypothesis? We confess we do not +like it ourselves; but we humbly think it is, at least, as plausible as +most of what is contained in the many bulky volumes written to connect +the man, William Shakespeare, with the poet of <cite>Hamlet</cite>. We +repeat, there is nothing recorded in his every-day life that connects the +two, except the simple fact of his selling the poems and realizing the +proceeds, and their being afterwards published with his name attached; +and the statements of Ben Jonson, which, however, are quite compatible +with his being in the secret.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The writer opens his article with an allusion to Miss Kitty’s +“<span class="smcap">Shikspur! Who wrote it?</span>” in <cite>High Life Below Stairs</cite>. To +explain this allusion: This farce, with the query so frequently +alluded to in this controversy, was written by the Rev. James +Townley, and first acted in Drury Lane in 1759. The <i lang="la">dramatis +personæ</i> in the following dialogue are servants, who hold +high carnival in the absence of the owners of the mansion, +all, except Kitty, assuming the titles of their respective masters +and mistresses:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p class="neg">“<span class="smcap">Lady Bab</span>— * * * I never read but one book.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Kitty</span>—What is it your ladyship is so fond of?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Lady Bab</span>—Shikspur. Did you never read Shikspur?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sir Harry</span>—I never heard of it.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Kitty</span>—Shikspur! Shikspur! Who wrote it? No, I never read +Shikspur.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Lady Bab</span>—Then you have an immense pleasure to come.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Duke</span>—Shikspur! Who wrote it?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sir Harry</span>—Who wrote it? Why, Ben Jonson.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Duke</span>—Oh, I remember, it was Kolly Kibber.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Kitty</span>—Well, then, I’ll read it over one afternoon or other.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-3">3 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">First Series.</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—From Theta, Vol. <span class="allsmcap">VIII</span>, p. 438, November 5, 1853.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Answer by C, Vol. <span class="allsmcap">X</span>, p. 106, August 15, 1854.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>Unimportant, except as the commencement of the series +of articles running through Notes and Queries, which will be +found hereafter arranged in chronological order.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-4">4 <span class="smcap">William Shakespeare and his Plays.</span> An Inquiry +Concerning Them. By <span class="smcap">Delia Bacon</span>. In +<cite>Putnam’s Monthly</cite>, January, 1856, pages 1-19.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Bacon</span> was the first writer who connected Lord Bacon +with the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas, and in this +article she first suggests it—not directly, but rather by inference. +It was written during her stay in England (at St. Albans), +and was the real commencement of the “Bacon-Shakespeare” +controversy. As this was before her mind became so +completely clouded by her intense thought on the subject, +it is much clearer in its style than her subsequent book. In +it she draws the contrast between the known facts in the life +of Shakespeare, and the magnificence of the dramas that bear +his name.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Shall this crowning literary product of that great epoch, wherein +these new ages have their beginning, vividly arranged in its choicest +refinements, flashing everywhere on the surface with its costliest wit, +crowded everywhere with its subtlest scholasticisms, betraying, on every +page, its broadest, freshest range of experience, its most varied culture, +its profoundest insight, its boldest grasp of comprehension—shall this +crowning result of so many preceding ages of growth and culture, with +its essential, and now probable connection with the new scientific movement +of the time from which it issues, be able to conceal from us, +much longer, its history?—shall we be able to accept in explanation of +it, much longer, the story of the Stratford poacher?”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(<span class="smcap">Delia Bacon</span> was born in Tallmadge, Ohio, February 2, +1811. She was the daughter of Rev. David Bacon, one of +the early Western missionaries, and sister of the late Rev. Dr. +Leonard Bacon. She was educated at Miss Catherine E. +Beecher’s school, in Hartford, and is described as a woman +of rare intellect and attainments. Her profession was that of a +teacher and lecturer—the first woman, Mrs. Farrar says, whom +she had ever known to speak in public. At this time, she +resided in Boston. Having conceived the idea of the Baconian +authorship, she became a monomaniac on the subject. Visiting +England, in 1853, in search of proofs for her theory, she +spent five years there, first at St. Albans, where she supposed +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span>Bacon to have written the plays; then at London, where she +wrote <cite>The Philosophy of Shakespeare Unfolded</cite>; and subsequently +at Stratford-on-Avon. Here, after the publication and non-success +of her book, she lost her reason wholly and entirely. +She was returned to her friends in Hartford, in April, 1858, +and died there September 2, 1859.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-5">5 <span class="smcap">Review of Delia Bacon’s Article</span> in <cite>Putnam’s +Monthly</cite>. In the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, July 26, +1856, p. 108.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The process by which Shakespeare is reduced to nothing is certainly +startling. Take away all the evidences of the poet’s supreme +intellect—refuse him the witness of his works—and it is, of course, +very easy to say the poor player was unequal to his mighty task. But +the same process could reduce Bacon from a great law-giver in the +empire of thought, to a corrupt lawyer and base flatterer in the Court +of King James. Take the facts which stand apart from his intellectual +action—erect the idea of man upon them—and it will be as easy to +raise a theory that not Bacon but Shakespeare wrote the <cite>Essays</cite> and +<cite lang="la">Novum Organum</cite>.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-6">6 <span class="smcap">Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare’s +Plays?</span> A letter to Lord <span class="smcap">Ellesmere</span>. By <span class="smcap">William +Henry Smith</span>. Pamphlet. Printed for private +circulation. London: September, 1856. (This +was reproduced in <cite>Littell’s Living Age</cite>, November, +1856. 4 pages in <cite>Littell</cite>).</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This was addressed to the Earl of Ellesmere, as the late +President of the Shakespeare Society. It takes strong grounds +in favor of the Baconian authorship.</p> + +<p>A question of precedence as to the Baconian advocacy arose +between Mr. Smith and Miss Bacon’s friends. <span class="smcap">Hawthorne</span> in +his preface to Miss Bacon’s book animadverted upon Mr. Smith +for “taking to himself this lady’s theory,” resulting in the +correspondence published in Smith’s book. In his letter +Mr. Smith claimed that he had never seen Miss Bacon’s <cite>Putnam’s +Monthly</cite> article until after his pamphlet was published, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span>and also that he had held these opinions for twenty years +previously. But as Miss Bacon’s article was published eight +months previous to his pamphlet, and reviewed in the <cite>Athenæum</cite> +in the meantime, his want of knowledge was certainly +very singular, and the precedence must be awarded to her.</p> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">William Henry Smith</span>, who still resides in London, +was the first English Baconian. He not only wrote, but +lectured on the subject. During the past fifteen years, we +find nothing from his pen, but from recent advices we infer +that his interest in the question is unabated, and that he may +yet be heard from.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-7">7 <span class="smcap">Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare’s +Plays?</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—In the <cite>Literary Gazette</cite>, London, Sept. 6, 1856.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—In the same, Oct. 18, 1856.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Both articles are notices of Smith’s Ellesmere pamphlet—the +latter a comprehensive review. Towards its close, the +writer recapitulates the contemporary evidence, and adds:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Now, before Mr. Smith proceeds to take possession of the plays in +the name of Lord Bacon, he should show his right to dispossess the occupying +tenant. This can be done only by overturning the mass of +evidence, upon the faith of which the whole world has hitherto believed +Shakespeare, if we may so express it, to be the author of his own works. +When Mr. Smith shall have done this, and proved that Greene, Chettle, +Ben Jonson, Beaumont and the rest, and the traditions, to boot, as +thick as leaves in Vallambrosa, are one and all unworthy of credit, he +shall then be in a position to assert Lord Bacon’s claim—but not one +moment sooner.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-8">8 <span class="smcap">Review of Smith’s Letter to Lord Ellesmere.</span> +In the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, Sept. 13, 1856, p. 1133.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Of course—as our readers have seen—we reject altogether the +theory of an extra authorship of Shakespeare’s plays; and on any idle +day of the year, should we ever find one, we will undertake to prove, +just as plausibly as Mr. Smith here proves the authorship of <cite>Lear</cite> and +<cite>Hamlet</cite> to belong to Bacon, that Shakespeare composed the <cite>Instauration</cite> +and wrote the Essays.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-9">9 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">Second Series.</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—From A. Hopper, <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 267, Oct. 4, 1856.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Review of Ellesmere letter, <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 320, Oct. 18, 1856.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—From Vox, <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 369, Nov. 8, 1856.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—From W. H. S. [Smith] <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 503, Dec. 27, 1856.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>e</i>—From R. Slocomb, <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 504, Dec. 27, 1856.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-10">10 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Lord Bacon.</span> In the <cite>Illustrated +London News</cite>, October 25, 1856. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>An account of a lecture by Wm. Henry Smith, at the +Beethoven Rooms, Harley street, London.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-11">11 <span class="smcap">On the Art of Cavilling.</span> “All is humbug.” +In <cite>Blackwood’s Magazine</cite>, Edinburgh, November, +1856. 15 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>An answer to Smith’s Ellesmere letter.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It proves an unlimited power of credulity among the class [the +cavillers] to which its writer belongs, and throws some light upon that +extraordinary mental process by which men of a crotchety turn of mind +can set up pure unreason in the face of plain truth; but it proves +nothing whatever about Francis Bacon, nor throws the smallest glimmer +of illumination on those mysterious productions called Shakespeare’s +Plays.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-12">12 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Bacon.</span> “A little chink may +let in much light.” Anonymous. [By <span class="smcap">Dr. C. M. +Ingleby</span>.] In <cite>Illustrated London News</cite>, Dec. 6, +1856, p. 577.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>In this <span class="smcap">Dr. Ingleby</span> summarizes the arguments of Smith +in the Ellesmere letter, and comprehensively answers them.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-13">13 <span class="smcap">I won’t have Bacon.</span> A communication by <span class="smcap">John +Bull</span>. In <cite>Illustrated London News</cite>, January 10, +1857.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I won’t have Bacon. I will have my own cherished “Will.” I +have borne a great deal, and never changed my faith. I have seen +him chipped, mauled, befribbled, and overdone. I have seen upholsterers +and classic managers cloud his genius in fustian and explanations. I +have heard shouts against his anachronisms, and anathemas against his +want of the unities and his knowledge of Greek; but never thought +an Englishman and a Smith would try to prove that he was a swindler—a +thief—a jackdaw, and died in the odor of sanctity, the pilferer of +Bacon. * * * * I know the pestilent vapor will pass away, and +the steady glories of Will. Shakespeare break forth again; but in the +meantime we shiver under a passing cloud.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-14">14 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare.</span> Letter from <span class="smcap">William +Henry Smith</span>, on the Psalms translated by Bacon. +In the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, January 24, 1857, p. 122.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Smith</span> claims that these translations show the poetic +faculty in Bacon. “His mind was so essentially poetical, that +it was as great a constraint to him to write prose, as to spare, +or pass by a jest.”</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-15">15 <span class="smcap">William Shakespeare not an Impostor.</span> By +an English Critic. [<span class="smcap">Geo. H. Townsend.</span>] London +and New York: G. Routledge & Co., 1857, +12mo. pp. 122.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The especial purpose of this book is to answer Smith’s +Ellesmere letter, which the author criticises severely, but it +takes in the question in its fullest scope. His preface aptly +describes it:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The author has endeavored to collect within the compass of a +small volume the historical documents and the testimonies of the poet’s +contemporaries, by which the claim of William Shakespeare to the +authorship of the six-and-thirty plays, published in the folio edition +of 1623, is clearly established. His title is confirmed by such a mass +of evidence, that many readers, who have not investigated the matter, +will wonder how it could have been called in question.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The author gives a summary of Smith’s argument (copied +from <cite>Notes and Queries</cite>), and answers it as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“He contends: 1. That the character of Shakespeare, as sketched +by Pope, is the exact biography of Bacon. 2. That Bacon possessed +dramatic talent to a high degree, and could, according to his biographers, +assume the most different characters, and speak the language +proper to each, with a facility that was perfectly natural. 3. That he +wrote and assisted at bal-masques, and was an intimate friend of Lord +Southampton, the alleged patron of Shakespeare. 4. That the first +folio of 1623 was not published till Bacon had been driven to private +life, and had leisure to revise his literary works; and that as he was +obliged to raise money by almost any means, it is at least probable that +he did so by writing plays. 5. That Shakespeare was a man of business +rather than poetry, and acknowledged his poems and sonnets, but +never laid claim to the plays.”</p> + +<p>“This is, after all [says Mr. Townsend], as good a summary as can +be given of the wretched arguments upon which Mr. William Henry +Smith bases his new, preposterous and altogether untenable theory. +They may be dismissed in a few sentences. 1. Shakespeare’s character +could not possibly be the biography of another man. 2. Bacon’s ability +for dramatic composition can not be accepted as proof that he wrote +plays, to the authorship of which he never laid claim, and which were +attributed to, and acknowledged by, one of his contemporaries. 3. Lord +Southampton, the friend of Shakespeare and Bacon, is, as we shall +see more fully in another chapter, a witness against Mr. William Henry +Smith and his theory. 4. Bacon’s leisure and want of funds will never +justify even the suspicion that he wrote the plays of Shakespeare. 5. The +assertion that Shakespeare was a man of business rather than poetry +is directly at variance with the truth, as any person who has perused +the <cite>Venus and Adonis</cite>, <cite>Lucrece</cite>, and the <cite>Sonnets</cite>, will at once admit. It +is equally false to assert that Shakespeare did not claim the authorship +of these dramas.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Here is the author’s comparison of Bacon and Shakespeare:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“No two minds could be more dissimilar than those of Bacon and +Shakespeare; they were both monarchs in the realms of literature, but +they sat upon different thrones; theirs was not a joint sovereignty; they +ruled over different empires. Shakespeare possessed great natural genius; +Bacon’s mind was a store-house of learning. The one had power to +create, the other to mould all human knowledge to his mighty will. +Bacon was a dictator amongst philosophers and schoolmen; Shakespeare, +a king among poets. The one dived deep beneath the surface, and +brought up rich pearls of thought; the other plucked the flowers as he +passed along; received his inspiration direct from all-bounteous Nature, +and held mysterious communion with her.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(Mr. Townsend is better known as the author of the <cite>Manual +of Dates</cite> and <cite>Men of the Time</cite>. He resided in London, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span>and died there in 1869. A series of disappointments so +affected his mind as to lead him to take his own life.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-16">16 <span class="smcap">Reviews of Townsend’s Shakespeare Not an +Impostor.</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—In the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, February 14, 1857, p. 213.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—In the <cite>Literary Gazette</cite>, London, Feb. 21, 1857, p. 181.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The book is honestly meant, but can its writer conceive that any +such book was needed? If he does, the fact is as noticeable as Mr. +William Henry Smith’s lucubrations.”—<cite>Athenæum.</cite></p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-17">17 <span class="smcap">The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare +Unfolded.</span> By <span class="smcap">Delia Bacon</span>. With a Preface +by <span class="smcap">Nathaniel Hawthorne</span>. London: Groombridge +& Sons, 1857. Boston: Ticknor & Fields, +1857. 8vo. pp. 582.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Miss Bacon’s book was mainly written during her residence +in London. In it she makes no attempt to deal with +the historical side of the question—that being reserved for +another volume, never published. She confines herself to the +development of her theory of a hidden under-current of +philosophy in the works of both Bacon and Shakespeare, +veiled in cipher and allegory for the Elizabethan times, but +to be read and understood by a future age. This is outlined +in Mr. Hawthorne’s preface:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“In the present volume, accordingly, the writer applies herself to +the demonstration and development of a system of philosophy, which +has presented itself to her as underlying the superficial and ostensible +text of Shakespeare’s plays. Traces of the same philosophy, too, she +conceives herself to have found in the acknowledged works of Lord +Bacon, and in the works of other writers contemporary with him. All +agree in one system; all the traces indicate a common understanding +and unity of purpose in men among whom no brotherhood has hitherto +been suspected, except as representatives of a grand and brilliant age, +when the human intellect made a marked step in advance.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span></p> + +<p>As to the authorship, Miss Bacon points to Lord Bacon, +Sir Walter Raleigh, and possibly others of the wits and dramatists +of the age. Her style of writing is so redundant +that no brief extract can be made, within the limits of this +work, which will give anything like a clear statement of her +theories. In the following, the theme is the Shakespearian +dramas:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Man, as he is, booked, surveyed—surveyed from the continent of +nature, put down as he is in her book of kinds, not as he is from his +own interior, isolated conceptions only—the universal powers and causes +as they are developed in him, in his untaught affections, in his utmost +sensuous darkness—the universal principle instanced where it is most +buried, the cause in nature found—man as he is in his heights and in +his depths, ‘from his lowest note to the top of his key’—man in his +possibilities, in his actualities, in his thought, in his speech, in his book +language, and in his every day words, in his loftiest lyric tongue, in +his lowest pit of play-house degradation, searched out, explained, interpreted. +* * * * It is man’s life, and the culture of it, erected +into an art or science, that these books contain. In the lowness +of the lowest, and in the aspiration of the noblest, the powers +whose entire history must make the basis of a successful morality and +policy are found. It is all abstracted or drawn into contemplation, +‘that the precepts of cure and culture may be more rightly concluded.’ +‘For that which in speculative philosophy corresponds to +the cause, in practical philosophy becomes the rule.’”</p> + +<p>“It is not necessary to illustrate this criticism in this case, because +in this case the design looks through the execution elsewhere. The +criticism of the Novum Organum, the criticism of the Advancement of +Learning, and the criticism of Raleigh’s History of the World, than +which there is none finer, when once you penetrate its crust of profound +erudition, is here on the surface. And the scholasticism is not +more obtrusive here, the learned sock is not more ostentatiously paraded, +than in some critical places in these performances; while the humor +that underlies the erudition issues from a depth of learning not less +profound.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>For a sketch of the theory of the book, see the extract +(Title <a href="#t-20">20</a>) from the <cite>National Review</cite>.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-18">18 <span class="smcap">Review of Delia Bacon’s Philosophy of Shakespeare +Unfolded.</span> In the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, +April 11, 1857, p. 461.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-19">19 <span class="smcap">Review of the Books of Delia Bacon and W. +H. Smith.</span> In the <cite>Literary Gazette</cite>, London, May +9, 1857.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-20">20 <span class="smcap">The Alleged Non-Existence of Shakespeare.</span> +In the <cite>National Review</cite>, London, July, 1857.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A very long and caustic review of Delia Bacon’s book. +We give the commencement of it, from its value to the reader +as an interpretation of the book itself.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“American philosophy delights in hiding its light under a bushel. +Emerson is not easy reading; the Poughkeepsie seer (not that we wish +to class them together) is sometimes difficult of construction; but Delia +Bacon is harder still. We have met with nothing in the range of +literature so like the attempt to find a needle in a bundle of hay, as +the task of extracting a definite meaning from the vast body of obscure +verbiage and inconsequential reasoning in which she has folded up her +ideas. As far as we can make out, however, the following is her theme +and the thread of her argument:</p> + +<p>In the days of Elizabeth and James, a conquest more complete and +more degrading than that of the first Norman King had overwhelmed +England. At the same time, the first fruits of the revival of learning +were ripening in England. There was a body of men here, at the head +of whom were Raleigh and Lord Bacon, of boundless penetration, +wisdom, and philanthropy. The cause of freedom and human advancement +was that to which their whole souls and lives were devoted. +Some of them ventured an overt act against the government, which +was speedily crushed. It was necessary to conceal the new light which +it was their mission to shed forth upon the world. Yet so to hide it, +that while it should not betray itself to the jealous scrutiny of a tyrannical +autocracy, it yet should be discoverable to the gifted eye, and buried +only to be disinterred, in its due time, by the sagacity of future generations. +We know that in his youth Lord Bacon busied himself with +ciphers; he speaks of word ciphers as well as letter ciphers; be sure, +then, that in ciphers he has hidden the learning he dared not lay bare +to the face of day. Those who search his works with a discriminating +eye, will find abundant hints scattered through them that they have an +esoteric meaning subtly hidden beneath their obvious expressions. He +was the master-mind of a ‘secret association’ of men who made it their +business to perfect and transmit to posterity a ‘new and all-comprehending +science of life and practice.’ It is in the later and more finished +works of this school—the Advancement of Learning, Hamlet, Lear, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span>the Tempest, and the Novum Organum—that the key to the secret +doctrines of which it is the object of Miss Bacon’s work to furnish the +interpretation is best found; but it lies also wrapt up, like the tree in +the bud, in the earliest and most faulty plays of the collection.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-21">21 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare.</span> An Inquiry Touching +Players, Play-Houses, and Play-Writers, in the +days of Elizabeth. By <span class="smcap">William Henry Smith, +Esq.</span> To which is appended an abstract of a MS. +respecting Tobie Matthew. London: John Russell +Smith, 1857. 12mo. pp. 162.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is an enlargement and extension of the letter to Lord +Ellesmere.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“To consider the probability of these plays having been written +by William Shakespeare, and to attack the evidence by which the +assertion that they were is supported, is our present object.”</p> + +<p>“Proof that they were written by some other person, we do not yet +hope to be able to adduce, but merely such evidence of the probability +of this being the case, as may induce some active inquiry in the +direction indicated.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>A short summary of Mr. Smith’s arguments will be found +under the answer of Mr. Townsend to the Ellesmere letter +(Title <a href="#t-15">15</a>). Mr. Smith says in his epitome:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “Very little indeed is known of the history of Shakespeare, +and that in no way connects him with these plays—that the +writer of them must have possessed a vast variety of talents, such as +have been reported to have been found in Francis Bacon, and in him +alone; that the wit and poetry are of a kind that were peculiarly +his—that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, connected himself +with a class which had only recently sprung into existence, and which +were held in the utmost contempt—that he was neither eminent as an +actor, nor as a writer, during his life time, nor celebrated as such in +the period immediately succeeding his death—that there are some +remarkable coincidences of expression in these plays and in the writings +of Bacon, and that the latter was ever careful to note any thing like a +quotation * * * [and, as reasons why Bacon did not claim the plays] +that literary labor was not at that time voluntarily pursued for pecuniary +recompense, and the few that followed such an occupation were +regarded with the utmost contempt—that a play was hardly considered +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span>a literary work, and ranked infinitely below a sonnet, and that learned +men would as little have prided themselves upon writing one, as upon +writing a <i lang="fr">bon mot</i>.” * * * * *</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-22">22 <span class="smcap">Notice</span> in the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, August 15, +1857, of the correspondence between Hawthorne +and William Henry Smith, p. 1036.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. Smith transmits a copy of the correspondence above +mentioned, but the <cite>Athenæum</cite> declines to be convinced that +he knew nothing of Delia Bacon’s theory previous to the +publication of his Ellesmere letter.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-23">23 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare in Modern Thought.</span> In the <cite>North +American Review</cite>, October, 1857. [By <span class="smcap">Rev. C. +C. Shackford</span>.] 24 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A portion of the article is devoted to a review of Miss +Bacon’s book.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“There is, on the other hand, in Miss Bacon’s work, a spirit of +subtile analysis, a deep moral insight, and a penetrating research, which, +separated from the monomania of her particular theory, enlists our admiration, +and is adapted to throw much light upon Shakespeare’s genius, +and makes us feel that there are in him vast depths of thought, and +presentations of great human and social laws of development, of which, +as yet, we have scarcely dreamed. On every page, nay, over almost +every paragraph, we are forced to exclaim: ‘O matter and impertinency, +mixed reason in madness!’ The significant contents of the +political and philosophical <em>status</em> of that age are minutely exhibited. +The particular theory of the book, and the special pleading through +inferences, hints, and analogies in thought and expression, to prove +that the philosophy and the plays of the age proceeded literally from +the same brain and the same hand, we may put aside as impertinent, +and a merely fine-spun, fanciful speculation, and there will be left a +valuable contribution to the real criticism of Shakespeare, as embodying +the whole spirit of the Baconian philosophy, and as the ripe flower +and consummated product of the tendencies and outstreaming influences +of that wonderful period of development for the English genius.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-24">24 <span class="smcap">Harrington: A Story of True Love.</span> [By <span class="smcap">William +D. O’Connor</span>.] Boston: Thayer & Eldridge, +1860, 12mo. pp. 558. (See Chapter XII, pages +215-221).</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>To explain this unique title: Hawthorne, in his <cite>Recollections +of a Gifted Woman</cite> (Title <a href="#t-27">27</a>), says of Miss Bacon’s book:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I believe it has been the fate of this remarkable book never to +have had more than a single reader. But, since my return to America, +a young man of genius and enthusiasm has assured me that he has +positively read the book from beginning to end, and is completely +a convert to its doctrines. It belongs to him, therefore, and not +to me—whom, in almost the last letter that I received from her, she +declared unworthy to meddle with her work—it belongs surely to this +one individual, who has done her so much justice as to know what +she wrote, to place Miss Bacon in her due position before the public +and posterity.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The “young man” referred to (in 1863) is the author of +this novel. The story itself is of the times of the Fugitive +Slave Law. Mr. O’Connor introduces his own Baconian +theories through the dialogue of his title-hero, Harrington. +He also renders an acknowledgment to Miss Bacon as their +source, in a note at the end of the book:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The reader of the twelfth chapter of this book, may already have +observed that Harrington, if he had lived, would have been a believer +in the theory regarding the origin and purpose of the Shakespearian drama, +as developed in the admirable work by Miss Delia Bacon, entitled, ‘The +Philosophy of Shakespeare’s Plays Unfolded,’ in which belief I should +certainly agree with Harrington. I wish it were in my power to do +even the smallest justice to that mighty and eloquent volume, whose +masterly comprehension and insight, though they could not save it +from being trampled upon by the brutal bison of the English press, +yet lift it to the dignity, whatever may be its faults, of being the best +work ever composed upon the Baconian or Shakespearian writings. It +has been scouted by the critics as the product of a distempered ideality. +Perhaps it is. But there is a prudent wisdom, says Goethe, and there +is a wisdom that does not remind us of prudence; and, in like manner, +I may say that there is a sane sense, and there is a sense that does +not remind us of sanity. At all events, I am assured that the candid +and ingenuous reader Miss Bacon wishes for, will find it more to his +profit to be insane with her on the subject of Shakespeare, than sane +with Dr. Johnson.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span></p> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">O’Connor</span> resides in Washington, and is an officer +connected with the Treasury Department. It is understood that +he has finally obeyed the injunction Hawthorne put upon him, +“to place Miss Bacon in her due position before the public +and posterity,” and has prepared an article on the subject, +which will soon be published.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-25">25 <span class="smcap">Editors and Commentators</span>, in the Life of Edmond +Malone, Editor of Shakespeare. By <span class="smcap">Sir +James Prior</span>. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1860.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>Writing of a date about 1780-90, Sir James Prior says of +the Shakespearian discussions:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Editors and commentators appear at every turn in all societies. +In the club-house we meet three or four of a morning; in the park +see them meditating by the Serpentine, or under a tree in Kensington +Gardens; no dinner table is without one or two; in the theatre you +view them by the dozens. Volume after volume is poured out in note, +comment, conjecture, new reading, statement, or mis-statement, contradiction, +or variation of all kinds. Reviews, magazines, and newspapers +report these with as little mercy on the reader, as to give occasional +emendations of their own. Some descant upon his sentiments, some +upon his extravagancies, some upon his wonderful creations, or flights +of imagination, some upon his language, or phraseology. Several suppose +that he wrote more plays than he acknowledged; others, that he +fathered more than he had written, while the last opinions are still +more original and extraordinary—that his name is akin to a myth, and +<em>that he wrote no plays at all</em>! Every new aspirant in this struggle for +distinction aims to push his predecessor from his stool.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-26">26 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London: <span class="smcap">Third Series</span>. +From T. J. Buckton, <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 502, Dec. 27, 1862.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-27">27 <span class="smcap">Recollections of a Gifted Woman.</span> By <span class="smcap">Nathaniel +Hawthorne</span>. In the <cite>Atlantic Monthly</cite>, +January, 1863. (See pages 43-58.) Reprinted +also with Hawthorne’s Works in <cite>Our Old Home</cite>.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is interesting as a record of Miss Bacon’s experiences +in England while writing her book, and especially so as to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span>her efforts to have the tomb of Shakespeare opened, believing +that she would find within it manuscript proofs of her theory. +Hawthorne himself, though he wrote the preface to her book, +was not a believer. “Being conscious within myself of a +sturdy unbelief,” he says.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I had heard, long ago, that she believed that the material evidences +of her dogma as to the authorship, together with the key of +the new philosophy, would be found buried in Shakespeare’s grave. +Recently, as I understood her, this notion had been somewhat modified, +and was now accurately defined and fully developed in her mind, with +a result of perfect certainty. In Lord Bacon’s letters, on which she +laid her finger as she spoke, she had discovered the key and clue to +the whole mystery. There were definite and minute instructions how +to find a will and other documents relating to the conclave of Elizabethan +philosophers, which were concealed (when and by whom she +did not inform me) in a hollow space in the under surface of Shakespeare’s +grave-stone. Thus the terrible prohibition to remove the stone +was accounted for. The directions, she intimated, went completely and +precisely to the point, obviating all difficulties in the way of coming at +the treasures; and even, if I remember right, were so contrived as to +ward off any troublesome consequences likely to ensue from the interference +of the parish-officers. All that Miss Bacon now remained in +England for—indeed, the object for which she had come hither, and +which had kept her here for three years past—was to obtain possession +of these material and unquestionable proofs of the authenticity of +her theory.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-28">28 <span class="smcap">The Identity of Shakespeare as a Writer of +Plays.</span> A chapter in <cite>The Biography and Bibliography +of Shakespeare</cite>. By <span class="smcap">Henry G. Bohn</span>. +Privately-printed (40 copies) for the Philobiblon Society. +London, 1863. (See pages 291-300.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This chapter gives a sketch of the various anti-Shakespearian +works, following it by the historical and contemporary +evidence in favor of Shakespeare, derived from Ben Jonson, +Francis Meres, Milton, Greene, Basse, etc., and adds:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The positive testimony of Ben Jonson alone, who, though Shakespeare’s +friend, was a rival, and not at all likely to concede more than +belonged to him, ought in itself be a sufficient answer. He was constantly +near the poet; knew what he wrote, and when he wrote; and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span>after his death was engaged in promoting the publication of his works. +In conjunction with him, John Heminge and Henry Condell, Shakespeare’s +intimate friends and fellow-players, and who are recognized as +such in his will, attest the authorship of all the plays in the first folio, +by subscribing themselves as witnesses. This volume, too, is dedicated +to those high-minded noblemen, William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip, +Earl of Montgomery, who would not, and could not, have consented to +let themselves be made party to a notorious fraud. Indeed, King +James himself, as well as the Earl of Southampton (who was intimate +with both Lord Bacon and Shakespeare) and all the players, playwrights, +and literati of the day, must have been acquiescent in the contemptible +and gratuitous deception—may we not say forgery?”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“In conclusion, we will only observe that Shakespeare had jealous +and watchful rivals enough to expose him had any suspicion existed of +his not being the actual author of the fame-absorbing plays which +bore his name during his life-time.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-29">29 <span class="smcap">Lord Palmerston.</span> An article in <cite>Fraser’s Magazine</cite>, +London, November, 1865.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Page 666 contains the paragraph usually relied upon to +prove Lord Palmerston’s belief in the Baconian theory:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Literature was the fashion of Lord Palmerston’s early days, when +(as Sydney Smith remarked) a false quantity in a man was pretty +nearly the same as a <i lang="fr">faux pas</i> in a woman. He was tolerably well up +in the chief Latin and English classics; but he entertained one of the +most extraordinary paradoxes touching the greatest of them, that was +ever broached by a man of his intellectual calibre. He maintained +that the plays of Shakespeare were really written by Bacon, who passed +them off under the name of an actor, for fear of compromising his +professional prospects and philosophic gravity. Only last year when +this subject was discussed at Broadlands, Lord Palmerston suddenly left +the room, and speedily returned with a small volume of dramatic criticisms, +in which the same theory (originally started by an American +lady) was supported by supposed analogies of thought and expression. +‘There,’ he said, ‘read that and you will come to my opinion.’ When +the positive testimony of Ben Jonson, in the verses prefixed to the +edition of 1623, was adduced, he remarked, ‘O, those fellows always +stand up for one another, or he may have been deceived like the rest.’ +The argument had struck Lord Palmerston by its originality, and he +wanted leisure for a searching exposure of its groundlessness.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The volume alluded to was Smith’s <cite>Bacon and Shakespeare</cite>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-30">30 <span class="smcap">Miss Delia Bacon.</span> Chapter XL, in Mrs. <span class="smcap">John +Farrar’s</span> <cite>Recollections of Seventy Years</cite>. Boston: +Ticknor & Fields, 1866. 16mo. (Pages 319-331.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>An interesting account of Miss Bacon’s historical lectures, +and of her subsequent experiences in England.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“She [Miss Bacon] had no notion of going to England to teach +history; all she wanted to go for was to obtain proof of the truth of +her theory, that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him, +but that Lord Bacon did. * * * The lady whom she was visiting +put her copy of his works out of sight, and never allowed her to +converse with her on this, her favorite subject. We considered it +dangerous for Miss Bacon to dwell on this fancy, and thought that, if +indulged, it might become a monomania, which it subsequently did.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“She suffered many privations [in London] during the time that she +was writing her book. She lived on the poorest food, and was often +without the means of having a fire in her chamber. She told me that +she wrote a great part of her large octavo volume sitting up in bed, in +order to keep warm.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-31">31 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">Third Series.</span> +From Q, with editorial answer, <span class="allsmcap">IX</span>, 155, February +24, 1866.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-32">32 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> By <span class="smcap">Nathaniel +Holmes</span>. New York: Hurd & Houghton, +1866, 12mo. pp. 601. Second edition, 1868. +(Third edition, with appendix, referred to hereafter, +1876, pp. 696.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Judge <span class="smcap">Holmes</span> is the apostle of Baconianism. His book, +first published in 1866, has gone through several editions, +and has been regarded as the text-book and authority for all +controversialists on that side. Though largely reviewed and +discussed, there has been but one book written directly in +answer to it—that of Mr. King.</p> + +<p>We can not do better than to give Judge Holmes’s theorem +in his own language (hitherto unpublished):</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“This work undertakes to demonstrate, not only that William +Shakespeare did not, but that Francis Bacon did, write the plays and +poems. It presents a critical view of the personal history of the two +men, their education, learning, attainments, surroundings, and associates, +the contemporaneousness of the writings in question, in prose and verse, +an account of the earlier plays and editions, the spurious plays, and +‘the true original copies.’ It gives some evidence that Bacon was +known to be the author by some of his contemporaries. It shows in +what manner William Shakespeare came to have the reputation of +being the writer. It exhibits a variety of facts and circumstances, +which are strongly suggestive of Bacon as the real author. A comparison +of the writings of contemporary authors in prose and verse, proves +that no other writer of that age, but Bacon, can come into any competition +for the authorship. It sifts out a chronological order of the +production of the plays, and of the several writings of Bacon, ascertaining +the exact dates, whenever possible, and shows that the more +significant parallelisms run in the same order, and are of such a nature, +both by their dates and their own character, as absolutely to preclude +all possibility of borrowing, otherwise than as Bacon borrowed from +himself. It is amply demonstrated that mere common usage, or the +ordinary practice of writers, can furnish no satisfactory explanation of +these parallelisms and identities. There is a continuous presentation of +parallel or identical passages, throughout the work, with such commentary +as was deemed necessary or advisable in order to bring out their +full force and significance; and twenty pages of minor parallelisms are +given in one body, without commentary.”</p> + +<p>“It gives some extensive proofs that Bacon was a poet, and suggests +some reasons for his concealment of his poetical authorship. +There is some indication of the object and purpose the author had in +view in writing these plays. It is shown that the tenor of their teaching +is in keeping with Bacon’s ideas upon the subject treated in them. +The latter half of the book presents more especially the parallelism in +scientific and philosophical thought, with a view to show the identity +of the plays and the writings of Bacon, in respect to their philosophy +and standard of criticism; and in this there is an endeavor to show +that the character and drift of the philosophy of Bacon (as well as +that of the plays) was substantially identical with the realistic idealism +of the more modern, as of the more ancient writers on the subject.”</p> + +<p>“It is recognized that the evidence drawn from historical facts +and biographical circumstances, are not in themselves alone entirely conclusive +of the matter, however suggestive or significant as clearing the way +for more decisive proofs, or as raising a high degree of probability; and it +is conceded, that, in the absence of more direct evidence, the most decisive +proof attainable is to be found in a critical and thorough comparison of +the writings themselves, and that such a comparison will clearly establish +the identity of the author as no other than Francis Bacon.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span></p> + +<p>We have been recently assured by Judge Holmes, that he +has seen nothing in any new fact, criticism, or discussion of +the subject, that has in the least degree shaken his convictions.</p> + +<p>(Hon. <span class="smcap">Nathaniel Holmes</span> is a graduate of Harvard University, +in the class of 1837. Since 1839 he has practiced +law in St. Louis for the greater part of the time, but was, +from 1865 to 1868, Judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri, +and from 1868 to 1872, a Professor of Law in the Law +School of Harvard. He has now retired from professional +life, and resides at Cambridge, Mass.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-33">33 <span class="smcap">Notice of Judge Holmes’s Work.</span> In <cite>The Nation</cite>, +New York, March 29, 1866, p. 402.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-34">34 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> A review of +Holmes’s <cite>Authorship</cite> in the Brooklyn (N. Y.) <cite>Daily +Eagle</cite>, October 24, 1866. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-35">35 <span class="smcap">Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?</span> Review +of Holmes’s <cite>Authorship</cite> in the <cite>Round Table</cite>, +New York, October 27, 1866. 4 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-36">36 <span class="smcap">Hypotheses of Shakespearian Criticism.</span> In +the <cite>Home Journal</cite>, New York, October 27, 1866. +3 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-37">37 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> A review of +Holmes, in the <cite>Jewish Messenger</cite>, New York, November +2, 1866. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-38">38 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare. Was he Himself or Somebody +Else?</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Article in the Springfield (Mass.) <cite>Republican</cite>, +November 7, 1866. 2½ columns.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—In same paper, a letter from its Boston correspondent, +November 3, 1866.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-39">39 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> A communication +from <span class="smcap">Richard J. Hinton</span>, of Washington, +D. C. In the <cite>Round Table</cite>, New York, Nov. 17, +1866. 3 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. Hinton writes this to call the attention of the public +to the position taken by Mr. O’Connor in his <cite>Harrington</cite> +novel.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-40">40 <span class="smcap">Bacon vs. Shakespeare.</span> An article in review +of Judge Holmes. In the New York <cite>Methodist</cite>, +November 17, 1866. 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-41">41 <span class="smcap">Was Lord Bacon an Impostor?</span> In <cite>Fraser’s +Magazine</cite>, London, December, 1866.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>There are incidental allusions to the authorship on pages +718, 721, 730, and 731. It was answered by Baron <span class="smcap">Liebig</span>, +in <cite>Fraser</cite> of April, 1867, under the same title, without special +reference to this question.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-42">42 <span class="smcap">Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> [By <span class="smcap">A. +G. Sedgwick</span>.] In <cite>North American Review</cite>, January, +1867. 2½ pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-43">43 <span class="smcap">Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> In Literary +Notices, <cite>Harper’s Magazine</cite>, January, 1867, +p. 263. ½ page.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-44">44 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare.</span> A letter from <span class="smcap">James +H. Hackett</span>. In the <cite>Evening Post</cite>, New York, +January 26, 1867. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-45">45 <span class="smcap">Was Bacon the Author of Shakespeare?</span> Two +articles by <span class="smcap">Marmontel</span>, in the +<cite><ins class="corr" id="tn-30" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'Chistian Observer'"> +Christian</ins> Observer and Presbyterian Witness</cite>, Richmond, Va. The +first dated February 7, 1867. 2 columns each.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-46">46 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> A review of +Holmes in the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, February 23, +1867, page 249.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-47">47 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> An article in +review of Holmes, in the <cite>Saturday Reader</cite>, Montreal, +Canada, April 6, 1867. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-48">48 <span class="smcap">Communications</span> in the <cite>Daily Gazette</cite>, Birmingham, +England.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—By T. H. P., May 27, 1867.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—By William Henry Smith, July 1, 1867.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—By T. H. P., July 1, 1867.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-49">49 <span class="smcap">Delia Bacon.</span> By <span class="smcap">Sidney E. Holmes</span>. [Mrs. +<span class="smcap">Sarah E. Henshaw</span>.] In <cite>The Advance</cite>, Chicago, +December 26, 1867. 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>A tribute to the memory of Delia Bacon, including a mention +of her theory, by a former friend and pupil.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Delia Bacon was a woman of a genius rare and incomparable. +Wherever she went, there walked a queen in the realm of mind. To +converse with her was to be carried captive. The most ordinary topic +became fascinating when she dealt with it, for whatever subject she +touched, she invested with her own wonderful wealth of thought and +illustration, and association, and imagery, until all else was forgotten in +her magical converse.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“Her theory of Shakespeare has been accepted by some able minds. +Had <em>she</em> lived to advocate it, it is not too much to say that it would +have deeply impressed the literary world. But while she was in the +midst of her researches, that fine intellect, overwrought and too highly +sublimated, fell into confusion, and henceforth was to be, as was that +of the Hamlet which she had so often analyzed, ‘like sweet bells jangled, +out of tune, and harsh.’ Thus discredit was thrown upon her +favorite theory, and a melancholy key afforded to some of her later +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span>experiences. ‘O! What a noble mind was here o’erthrown!’ Alas! +Alas! Who would have thought that these words, so often read and +dwelt upon in her study of the great dramatist, were but the prophecy +of her own tragical end?”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-50">50 <span class="smcap">Did William Shakespeare write Shakespeare’s +Plays?</span> Chapter XIII, in <cite>The Shakespeare Treasury +of Wisdom and Knowledge</cite>. By <span class="smcap">Chas. W. +Stearns</span>, M. D. New York: G. P. Putnam’s +Sons, 1869 and 1878. See pages 394-413.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Assuming that there is no possible question as to the authorship +of the poems, Dr. Stearns shows the parallelisms in +thought and expression between the poems and the plays, as +conclusive evidence in favor of Shakespeare.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-51">51 <span class="smcap">Did Bacon Write Shakespeare?</span> An anonymous +article in the New York <cite>Clipper</cite>, May 1, 1869. +1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-52">52 <span class="smcap">A Conference of Pleasure</span>, Composed for some +festive occasion about the year 1592. By <span class="smcap">Francis +Bacon</span>. Edited from a Manuscript belonging to +the Duke of Northumberland. By <span class="smcap">James Spedding</span>. +London: (Privately-printed) 1870. 4to +pp. xxxi, 54.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This was edited by Mr. Spedding from a portion of the +Northumberland MSS. referred to by Judge Holmes (see pages +657-682, edition of 1876). These MSS. were found in 1867, +in a box of old papers, which had probably lain for nearly a +century unopened, in the library of Northumberland House in +London. With them was a MS. title-page, indicating that the +paper book which it covered had once contained, in addition +to the four speeches composing the Conference of Pleasure, +several other of Bacon’s orations and essays. Also, <cite>Richard II</cite>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span><cite>Richard III</cite>, <cite>Asmund and Cornelia</cite>, Thomas Nashe’s <cite>Isle +of Dogs</cite>, and papers by other authors. Of these, only a part +remained, when the document was discovered, the Shakespeare +plays being amongst the missing. The MSS. were in +bad condition, from fire and the ravages of time—the edges +being badly burned, probably from a fire which occured in +Northumberland House in 1780.</p> + +<p>Accompanying Mr. Spedding’s book is a fac-simile of this +MS. title-page, and it is on this that the interest turns. It shows, +in addition to the original table of contents, a mass of scribblings, +written all over the sheet, containing a variety of +names, phrases, quotations, idly and carelessly written, apparently +by some copyist or clerk. Amongst these scribblings +occurs the name of <em>Frauncis Bacon</em> several times, and that of +<em>William Shakespeare</em> eight or nine times repeated. As to its +date, Mr. Spedding says: “All I can say is that I find +nothing, either in these later scribblings, or what remains of +the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of +Elizabeth.” Further, that he finds no traces of the handwriting +of Bacon.</p> + +<p>The reference to this question is to be found in the introduction, +pages xxii-xxv.</p> + +<p>Mr. Spedding discovers nothing in these MSS. to disturb +his belief in the Shakespearian authorship, and regards it as +a simple coincidence that the productions of Shakespeare and +Bacon should be copied in the same book, and their names +scribbled on the title-page. “At the present time,” he says, +“if the waste leaf on which a law-stationer’s apprentice tries +his pens were examined, I should expect to find on it the +name of the poet, novelist, dramatic author, or actor of the +day, mixed with snatches of the last new song,” etc. * * * +“And that is exactly the sort of thing we have here.” Judge +Holmes, however, ventures the suggestion that they may have +been made in Bacon’s own study, by his own amanuensis; that +this fact would account for the two names being scribbled on +the title-leaf by one in the secret; and that Bacon himself may +have destroyed the missing Shakespeare plays before his death, +by way of suppressing the evidence of his authorship.</p> + +<p>These MSS. are especially interesting from the fact that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span>if the scribblings are of a date contemporary with Shakespeare +and Bacon, it is believed to be the only place where +their names have been found mentioned together in anything +written in that age.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-53">53 <span class="smcap">Notice of Holmes’s Authorship.</span> In the Minneapolis +(Minn.) <cite>Tribune</cite>, of March 23, 1870. +1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This article refers to a lecture delivered in Minneapolis in +the winter of 1872-73, by Hon. <span class="smcap">Ignatius Donnelly</span>, of Minnesota, +taking the position that the pro-Bacon argument was +a strong one, but not conclusive; in short, that the verdict +must be the Scotch one, “not proven.” It is understood +that Mr. Donnelly is now engaged upon a work, in which, +after further thought and study of the question, he takes the +ground that Bacon was the author of both the plays and +poems. It is expected that it will be published soon.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-54">54 <span class="smcap">The Baconian Origin of Shakespeare’s Plays</span>, +being some facts and arguments going to show that +the dramatic works imputed to William Shakespeare +were not, and could not have been, written +by him, but were the production of Lord Bacon. +By Rev. <span class="smcap">A. B. Bradford</span>, of Enon, Pa. A lecture, +printed in the <cite>Golden Age</cite>, May 30, 1874. +Also, in the <cite>Argus and Radical</cite>, Beaver, Pa., +December 29, 1875. 6 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The author is a strong Baconian. He follows mainly the +same line of argument as Judge Holmes.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-55">55 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Lord Bacon.</span> By “<span class="smcap">Colley +Cibber</span>.” [<span class="smcap">James Rees</span>]. A series of six articles +in the <cite>Sunday Mercury</cite>, Philadelphia, for June 7, +14, 21, and 28; and July 5 and 12, 1874. 9 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span></p> + +<p>The writer takes for his motto: “Mingle no matter of +doubtful with the simplicity of truth,” from Ben Jonson’s +<cite>Discoveries</cite>. The articles cover the whole range of the subject.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-56">56 <span class="smcap">Authenticity of Shakespeare’s Plays.</span> By +“<span class="smcap">Gallery Critic</span>.” A series of twelve articles +in the <cite>Sunday Republic</cite>, Philadelphia, for June +28; July 5, 12, 19, and 26; August 2, 9, 16, 23, +and 30; September 6 and 20, 1874. 20 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Written in answer to “Colley Cibber” above, and fully +as comprehensive. The author is unknown.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-57">57 <span class="smcap">The Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy.</span> Two +short notices in the <cite>American Bibliopolist</cite>, New +York, for July and August, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Letter from Hibernicus.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Did Bacon write Shakespeare?</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-58">58 <span class="smcap">Who Wrote “Shakespere?”</span> By J. V. P. +[<span class="smcap">J. V. Prichard</span>]? In <cite>Fraser’s Magazine</cite>, London, +August, 1874. (Reproduced in <cite>Littell’s Living +Age</cite>, October, 1874). 10 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is a noted article in the controversy. On it were +founded the series of opinions, interviews, etc., appearing soon +after in the New York <cite>Herald</cite>, and frequent reference to it +will be found in the writings on the subject. The article +itself is devoted mainly to a very full and complete summary +of Judge Holmes’s book, with many extracts and references.</p> + +<p>The name of the writer has not generally been known. +Mr. Wilkes, in his book, speaks of the paper as an “exceedingly +ingenious article, written by a young American,” whom +he met in London at the time of the publication; but does +not give his name. We have sufficient reason, however, for +crediting it to Mr. J. V. Prichard.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-59">59 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">Fifth Series.</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—From C. A. Ward, <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 161, August 29, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—From Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 246, Sept. 26, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—From H. S. Skipton, <span class="allsmcap">II</span>, 350, Oct. 31, 1874.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-60">60 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare—An Interesting Discussion. Who +wrote Shakespeare?</span> In the New York <cite>Herald</cite>, +September 6, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Letter from London, embodying a copy of the +“J. V. P.” article in <cite>Fraser’s Magazine</cite>.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Did Bacon write Shakespeare’s Plays? an +editorial article.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>The commencement of the interesting series of articles—communications, +interviews, editorials, etc.—appearing in the +<cite>Herald</cite> during September and October, which will be found +in subsequent titles. It has not been thought necessary to +add to them many notes or explanations, as the head-lines +have been liberally copied, and serve to explain their general +tenor.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-61">61 <span class="smcap">Was Shakespeare a Dummy?</span> Opinions of Live +Dramatic Authorities on the subject. The Press +and Public taking up the discussion. Baconians +rather rare. In the <cite>Herald</cite>, Sept. 8, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Who wrote Bacon? by Franklin.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Shakespeare as a Stage Manager, from the +Brooklyn <cite>Eagle</cite>.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Let Shakespeare Alone, from the Philadelphia +<cite>Press</cite>.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—Shakespeare and Bacon, an editorial.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This article also gives interviews with Dion Boucicault, +Howard Paul, Bret Harte, Richard Grant White, Nym Crinkle +[A. C. Wheeler], and Lester Wallack. It is proper to say +that Mr. White disavows the interview.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-62">62 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare or Bacon?</span> Commentators, Quidnuncs, +and Annotators. In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September +9, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Views of men who have studied the subject.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—The Elizabethan Era, by A. M.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Letters from “Old Punch Writer” and “Garrick.”</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This issue comprises interviews with John Brougham, A. +Oakey Hall, E. C. Stedman, and Mayor Havemeyer. Mr. +Hall gives the opinions, also, of William E. Burton, James T. +Brady, and “Falstaff” Hackett.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-63">63 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare.</span> Explanations as to why the authenticity +of the plays are doubted. The origin +of the Baconian theory. In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September +10, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Views of Horace Howard Furness.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Bacon did not write Shakespeare, by R. Davey.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Editorial article.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-64">64 <span class="smcap">A Shakespearean Mare’s Nest.</span> In New York +<cite>Times</cite>, September 10, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—The Intellectual Department of the <cite>Herald</cite>, etc., +in Philadelphia <cite>Evening Bulletin</cite>, September +8, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—The Hogs Again. In Philadelphia <cite>Press</cite>, September +7, 1874.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>All of these are editorials, and devoted mainly to the +humorous disparagement of the <cite>Herald</cite> articles.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The voice of the interviewer is still heard in the land. * * * +His mind is racked as to the authenticity of Shakespeare’s works. +* * * The great absurdity of the fancy or notion (for it does not +attain to the dignity of a theory), is that, starting from the point that +it is incredible to believe that Shakespeare could have written his +plays, so astonishing are their evidences of knowledge, and of mental +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span>power, it adds these plays to the wonderful offspring of Bacon’s mind, +thus seeking to set aside one fact assumed to be monstrously incredible +by setting up another, still more monstrous and still more incredible. +Shakespeare is impossible, but Bacon <em>plus</em> Shakespeare is possible!”—<cite>Daily +Times.</cite></p> + +<p>“The intellectual department of the New York <cite>Herald</cite> has begun +to devote its energies to the settlement of the authorship of Shakespeare’s +plays, and in pursuance of its purpose it has obtained the +opinions of several eminent citizens of New York upon the subject. +A feeling of sadness, perhaps of gloom, will overspread the world when +the fact becomes public that the person known as ‘Nym Crinkle’ has +expressed the conviction that Shakespeare did not write the dramas in +question. * * * * In the meantime, while these giant minds +in New York are wrestling with the great subject, the vast multitude +of us sit here in the outer darkness, unable to scale the intellectual +heights reached by Crinkle and the rest, but waiting with nervous +anxiety the result of their deliberations.”—<cite>Evening Bulletin.</cite></p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-65">65 <span class="smcap">Shadowy Shakespeare.</span> A graphic interview with +the disembodied Bard. He admits being a Boucicault. +Lord Bacon’s wraith refuses to tell his secret. +In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September 11, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Opinions of Judge Pierrepont, John E. Owens, +and Daniel Dougherty.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Shakespeare a spirit medium. By J. B. Burgess.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Did Shakespeare write Bacon? By J. E. T.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—A Poser from Scotia. By Th. Ainslie.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This contains an alleged interview with the spirit of Shakespeare, +through Foster, the medium, with the result as above. +Bacon was also assumed to be present, but “would not talk.”</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-66">66 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare or Bacon?</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September +12, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Et tu, Brute? by T.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Bacon never claimed them, by Ylon.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Sir Walter Scott’s idea, by Hibernicus.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—A word for him, by Solferino.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>e</i>—Puzzling Facts, from the Boston <cite>Post</cite>.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-67">67 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare vs. Bacon. A Judicial Luminary +sums up the Charges.</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September +13, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Interview with Recorder Hackett.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—A New View of Shakespeare.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—The Value of the Shakespearian Discussion, an +editorial.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-68">68 <span class="smcap">The Shakespeare Controversy.</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, +September 14, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Comparison of the Events of Shakespeare’s and +Bacon’s Lives, by Addison B. Burk.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—No one person ever wrote them, by R. S. G.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Bacon’s learning a point against his authorship, +by T. L. W.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-69">69 <span class="smcap">Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> In the Oakland +(Cal.) <cite>Daily Transcript</cite>, September 15, 1874. +2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-70">70 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Authorship.</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September +19, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Views of Henry Ward Beecher on the new +Criticisms of the Baconian School.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, by C. G. G.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—A Question for the Baconians, by W. V.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—Bacon’s Lifetime—Pursuit of Philosophy and +Politics Irreconcilable with the Authorship of +Shakespeare’s Plays, by J. E. Tuel.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>e</i>—The True Authorship Discovered, by Bloxon.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>f</i>—Another triumph, from the Indianapolis <cite>Sentinel</cite>.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>g</i>—Shakespeare. Who is he? from the Lebanon +(Pa.) <cite>Courier</cite>.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>h</i>—Journalistic Enterprise, from the Milwaukee +<cite>News</cite>.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-71">71 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Bacon. The Relations of +Shakespeare to the Modern Stage.</span> The Great +Authors Contrasted and Reviewed. In the <cite>Herald</cite>, +September 20, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Opinion of Prof. Hiram Corson.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Interview with L. Clarke Davis, of the Philadelphia +<cite>Inquirer</cite>.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Shakespeare and the Stage, an editorial.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-72">72 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare.</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September +21, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Did Shakespeare write the Novum Organum? +by S.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Shakespeare’s Soliloquy.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-73">73 <span class="smcap">Carlyle on Shakespeare and Bacon.</span> By <span class="smcap">Amicus</span>. +In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September 25, 1874.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The writer calls attention to Mr. Carlyle’s views, in <cite>Heroes +and Hero Worship</cite>—Lecture III.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It is unexampled, I think, the calm, creative perspicacity of Shakespeare. +<cite lang="la">Novum Organum</cite>, and all the intellect you will find in Bacon, +is of quite a secondary order—earthly material, poor in comparison with +this. Amongst modern men, one finds, with strictness, almost nothing +of the same rank. Goethe alone, since the days of Shakespeare, reminds +one of it.”—<cite>Carlyle.</cite></p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-74">74 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Bacon. Two Opposite Kinds +of Genius.</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September 26, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Shakespeare’s Blunders an Argument against +the Baconians. Opinion of Prof. O’Leary, of +Manhattan College.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—The Internal Evidence of the Plays, by The +Doctor.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-75">75 <span class="smcap">Who Wrote Shakespeare?</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, September +27, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—The answers of leading Corkonians to the +Query.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—A few objections answered—a novel theory refuted, +by D.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—The Shakespeare Controversy, an editorial.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-76">76 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Bacon. Contrast of the two +Minds</span>, by M. D. In the <cite>Herald</cite>, Sept. 28, 1874.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-77">77 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Bacon.</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, October +5, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Intellectual Distinctions, as classified by McDermott.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—The Literary Test, by S. N. Carvalho.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Shakespeare not a borrower, by B. J. A.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-78">78 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare or Bacon?</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, October +11, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Opinion of Professor John S. Hart.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—The Progressive Development of Shakespeare’s +Education in the Plays, by Franklin.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—One more Baconian heard from; letter from +Index.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—What the old actors thought, by David Pollock.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-79">79 <span class="smcap">The Shakespeare Controversy.</span> An editorial +article in the <cite>Herald</cite>, October 11, 1874.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>With this number, the <cite>Herald</cite> supposed the discussion +in its columns closed (though, as it will be seen, there was +one more article), and gave an editorial summary of its conclusions. +Extract:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Up to this time we have declined to interpolate our own opinion +upon the authorship; but now, in closing the discussion, after yielding +ample time and space to those who wished to take part in it, we must +say that the weight of testimony is altogether against the claim made +for Bacon. Nothing new has been advanced in behalf of the Holmes +theory, while on the contrary, the internal evidence of the plays, and +the facts of history, have been overwhelmingly shown to be in favor +of Shakespeare as the author. * * * * We believe, in short, that +nothing has been said in this debate to weaken our faith in Shakespeare, +while much has been shown which strengthens it. William +Shakespeare is, therefore, in our opinion, the author of the plays +which in his own day, and ever since, have been attributed to him +by universal consent, and the plea made for Bacon is of ‘such stuff +as dreams are made on,’ a theory which has for its chief use to make +the fame of Shakespeare more glorious.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-80">80 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare.</span> In the <cite>Herald</cite>, October 19, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—A letter to the editor of the <cite>Herald</cite>, from the +writer of the <cite>Fraser</cite> article, [<span class="smcap">J. V. Prichard</span>]? +dated London, October 1, 1874.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—A New Point in the Discussion, an editorial.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>The last of the <cite>Herald</cite> articles. The <cite>Fraser</cite> writer introduces +several matters not within the scope of his first paper, +such as the discovery of the Northumberland manuscripts, and +the claim that Bacon was the author of <cite>Richard II</cite>, arising +out of the conversation between Queen Elizabeth and Lord +Bacon at the time of the Essex treason. The latter is answered +by the <cite>Herald</cite>.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-81">81 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Centurie of Prayse</span>, being materials +for a history of opinion on Shakespeare and +his works, culled from the writers of the first century +after his rise. By <span class="smcap">C. M. Ingleby</span>, LL.D. +For the Editor. London: 1874. 8vo. pp. 362. +(Second edition, for the New Shakespere Society, +revised with many additions, by <span class="smcap">Lucy Toulmin +Smith</span>. London: 1879. Imp. 8vo. pp. 471.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span></p> + +<p>There may be a question as to the propriety of inserting +this title, but it is so often referred to, and is so important +an authority in the investigation of the subject, that it seems +to be justifiable.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“To my mind, there is no book printed that is a stronger argument +against the Baconians than is Dr. Ingleby’s <cite>Centurie of Prayse</cite>. +Although to prove that Shakespeare wrote the dramas attributed to +him formed no part of the motive of its publication, yet the work +<em>does prove it</em>, and most completely.”—<span class="smcap">Joseph Crosby.</span></p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-82">82 <span class="smcap">The Tendency to Skepticism.</span> A short editorial +notice of the theory in <cite>Scribner’s Monthly</cite>, for January, +1875, p. 392.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Skepticism is the characteristic of the period, and the more mischief +it accomplishes, the better pleased its votaries are. Opinions that +have prevailed for centuries, and have received the sanction of the wisest +and best, are especially obnoxious to them. * * * * To admit the +Baconian theory of Shakespeare, except as an ingenious piece of pleasantry, +demands a brain so addled with theory as to be incapable of +literary judgment, or a capacity for credulity not given to mere commonplace +mortals.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-83">83 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">Fifth Series.</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—From C. A. Ward, <span class="allsmcap">III</span>, 32, January 9, 1875.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—From H. S. Skipton, and Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], +<span class="allsmcap">III</span>, 193, March 6, 1875.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—From C. A. Ward, <span class="allsmcap">III</span>, 458, June 5, 1875.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—From Jabez, <span class="allsmcap">IV</span>, 55, July 17, 1875.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-84">84 <span class="smcap">Bacon</span> <em>versus</em> <span class="smcap">Shakespere</span>. A Plea for the Defendant. +By <span class="smcap">Thomas D. King</span>. Montreal, and +Rouse’s Point, N. Y.: Lovell Printing and Publishing +Company, 1875. 12mo. pp. 187.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">King’s</span> book is an answer to Judge Holmes, and is +intensely Shakespearian. He instances the testimony of Ben +Jonson, Heminge, and Condell, in the folio of 1623, and impliedly +that of Pembroke, Montgomery, and Southampton, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span>who, if there was an untruth, must have been accessories to +it. He also relies on other contemporary evidence, which he +cites, of which we give only that of Francis Meres, in the +<cite lang="la">Palladis Tamia</cite> (Wit’s Treasury), 1598.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“As <cite>Plautus</cite> and <cite>Seneca</cite> are accounted the best for Comedy and +Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among the English is the +most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy witness his +<cite>Gentlemen of Verona</cite>, his <cite>Errors</cite>, his <cite>Love labors lost</cite>, his <cite>Love labours +wonne</cite>, his <cite>Midsummer Nights dreame</cite>; & his <cite>Merchant of Venice</cite>: for +Tragedy his <cite>Richard ii</cite>, <cite>Richard iii</cite>, <cite>Henry iv</cite>, <cite>King John</cite>, <cite>Titus Andronicus</cite>, +and his <cite>Romeo & Juliet</cite>.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>We quote one paragraph:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Read your Shakespeare, peruse and re-peruse him, at your fireside, +in meditative silence apart from the company of <em>theatrical</em> representation; +you will be astonished what a treasure his pages disclose of +noble sentiment, of acute observation, of instructive reflections, of sage +advice, of practical truth, and moral wisdom. Read the writings of Bacon +for their true philosophy, read and compare these two great Elizabethan +lights, and the more carefully and attentively you do so, the more +firmly I am impressed with the belief that but a misguided and infatuated +judgment can bring you to any other conclusion relative to Shakespeare’s +authorship than that formed, and openly stated by Ben Jonson +and Milton, whose testimony ought to be conclusive against the <em>Baconian +Theory</em>.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The author devotes considerable space to a denial of the +claim to the poetic faculty in Bacon, which he illustrates by +copious selections from Shakespeare, and from the well-known +poetry of Bacon, the paraphrases of the Psalms. He claims +that the writer of “Shakespeare” was of Warwickshire origin, +giving instances of terms in that dialect used in the plays in +proof. He also gives a list of ancient and modern authors, +the philosophers, <ins class="corr" id="tn-44" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'Methaphysicians, etc.'"> +metaphysicians</ins>, etc., in one column, and +the poets and dramatists in another, by way of comparison, +and adds:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Let any one read, even cursorily, the works of these philosophers, +dramatists, and poets, and I feel certain that they will come to this +conclusion, that <em>Bacon never wrote the plays and poems of Shakespeare</em>. +Interchange of, or joint authorship, is quite as likely between Locke +and Dryden, Newton and Addison, Blair and Cowper, etc., etc., as +between Bacon and Shakespeare.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span></p> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">King</span> is a resident of Montreal, and is an active +member of its Shakespeare Society.)</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Note</span>—Another Montreal authority on this subject is Ven. +Archdeacon <span class="smcap">William T. Leach</span>, LL.D., of McGill College +and University, who delivered one of the College lectures on +<cite>Bacon and Shakespeare</cite>, November 13, 1879. His studies of +these authors have induced him to believe in Bacon’s authorship +of the works, and his lecture is a strong presentation +of that theory. It has never been published.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-85">85 <span class="smcap">The Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy.</span> By +<span class="smcap">E. O. Vaile</span>. An article in <cite>Scribner’s Monthly</cite>, +April, 1875. (See pages 743 to 754.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is not only a fair history of the controversy, but a +very complete and impartial summary of all the points at issue. +It will be found interesting and useful to any one desiring +information as to the arguments used in the discussion. It summarizes +under numerical heads: Negative propositions against +Shakespeare, 10; circumstantial points in favor of Bacon, 14; +answers to the foregoing, favorable to Shakespeare, 16.</p> + +<p>Of the many points made in this article, we lay it under +contribution for two only. The first refers to such hints as +have been gathered from contemporary literature containing, as +is claimed, circumstantial evidence in favor of the Baconian +theory. In the following extracts the author’s comments are +omitted:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“In 1592, Greene published a satiric poem, <cite>A Groatsworth of +Witte bought with a <ins class="corr" id="tn-45" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'a Milliion of'"> +Million</ins> of Repentance</cite>. In it he warns his +friends who spend their wits in play-making to seek other employment, +“for there is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that with his +Tyger’s heart, wrapt in a player’s hyde, supposes he is as well able to +bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute +Johannes Factotum is, in his own conceyt, the only Shakescene in a +Countrey.”</p> + +<p>Writing to his friend, Mr. Tobie Matthew, about that time [1607-8], +Bacon remarks: “I showed you some model, though at that time +methought you were as willing to hear Julius Cæsar, as Queen Elizabeth +commended.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span></p> + +<p>While Bacon is striving to gain a foothold with the new sovereign, +James I., he writes to Master Davis, then going to meet the King, +committing his interests at court to Master Davis’s faithful care and +discretion, and closing the letter thus: “So desiring you to be good to +concealed poets, I continue.”</p> + +<p>To Mr. Tobie Matthew, Bacon was in the habit of sending his +books as they came out. In a neat letter, “To the Lord Viscount St. +Albans,” without date, Matthew acknowledges the “receipt of your +great and noble token of favor of the 9th of April,” and appends the +following P. S.: “The most prodigious wit that ever I knew of my +nation, and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s name, though +he be known by another.”</p> + +<p>On an occasion Bacon enclosed a “recreation,” as he termed his +lighter literary productions, to Tobie Matthew. Matthew, in a reply, +without date or address, uses these suggestive words: “I will not +promise to return you weight for weight, but measure for measure.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The second point: We here gather from Mr. Vaile’s +article a partial summary of the evidences of Shakespeare’s +authorship, taken from the writings of his contemporaries:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The earliest mention of Shakespeare by a contemporary is by +Edmund Spenser, in 1591, in <cite>The Teares of the Muses</cite>. Complaint +by Thalia, lines 205-210.</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">And he, the man whom Nature selfe had made</div> + <div class="verse indent2">To mock herselfe, and Truth to imitate,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">With kindly counter under mimic shade,</div> + <div class="verse indent2">Our pleasant Willy, Ah! is dead of late:</div> + <div class="verse indent0">With whom all ioy and iolly meriment</div> + <div class="verse indent2">Is also deaded, and in dolour drent.</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>In 1592 appeared <cite>Kinde Hart’s Dreame</cite>, a poem of considerable +interest and merit, by Henrie Chettle. From Chettle’s address to his +readers, we learn that he was the editor of Greene’s posthumous work, +<cite>A Groatsworth of Witte</cite>, before referred to. The quotation which +has been made from this work, together with other allusions in it, +seems to have given offense, at least to two authors of the time. In +Chettle’s <cite>Address</cite>, the following passage occurs, referring to Shakespeare, +as all critics agree:</p> + +<p>“With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and +with one of them I care not if I neuer be; the other, whome at that +time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I +haue moderated the heat of liuing writers, and might haue vsed my +owne discretion (especially in such a case) the author being dead, that +I did not, I am as sorry, as if the originall fault had beene my fault, +because myselfe haue seene his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he exclent +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span>in the qualitie he professes; besides, diuers of worship haue reported +his vprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious +grace in writting that approoues his art.”—<cite>Percy Society Publications, +vol. v.</cite></p> + +<p>John Webster, in the preface to his play, <cite>The White Devil</cite>—1612—speaks +thus:</p> + +<p>“Detraction is the sworne friend to ignorance; for mine owne part, +I haue euer truly cherisht my good opinion of other men’s worthy +labours, especially of that full and haightned style of maister Chapman, +* * * and lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy +and copious industry of m. Shake-speare, m. Decker, and m. Heywood.”—<cite>John +Webster’s Works. London: 1857, vol. ii.</cite></p> + +<p>Ben Jonson’s eulogy upon Shakespeare, first published in the +folio of 1623, is well known. In his prose, the same author makes +a long and affectionate reference to the friend of his youth. The following +is a part: * * * “For I loved the man, and do honour his +memory, on this side idolatry, as much as any. He was indeed honest +and of an open and free nature; had an excellent phantasy, brave +notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility, +that sometimes it was necessary that he should be stopped.”—<cite>Discoveries. +Probably written in 1636.</cite></p> + +<p>A few more quotations, without doubt correct, are added, as given +in Allibone’s <cite>Dictionary of Authors</cite>. <cite>Art.</cite> Shakespeare.</p> + +<p>“As the soule of <em>Euphorbus</em> was thought to liue in <em>Pythagoras</em>; so +the sweete wittie soule of <em>Ouid</em> liues in mellifluous hony-tongued <em>Shakespeare</em>, +witnes his <em>Venus</em> and <em>Adonis</em>, his <em>Lucrece</em>, his sugred Sonnets +among his priuate friends. * * * *</p> + +<p>As <em>Epius Stolo</em> said, the Muses would speak with <em>Plautus</em> tongue, +if they would speak Latin; so I say the Muses would speak with +<em>Shakespeare’s</em> fine filed phrase, if they would speak English.”—<cite>Francis +Meres, Wit’s Treasury, 1598.</cite></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">And Shakespeare, thou whose hony-flowing vaine</div> + <div class="verse indent2">(Pleasing the world) thy praises doth obtaine</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Whose <em>Venus</em> and whose <em>Lucrece</em> (sweete and chaste)</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Thy name in fame’s immortal booke have plac’t,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Live ever you; at least, in fame live ever!</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Well may the bodye die, but fame dies never.</div> + <div class="verse indent4">—<em>Richard Barnefeild</em>, <cite>Poems in Divers Humors</cite>, 1598.</div> + </div> +</div> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0"><span class="smcap">To our English Terence, Mr. William Shake-spere.</span></div> + </div> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">Some say, good Will, which I in sport do sing,</div> + <div class="verse indent2">Hadst thou not plaid some <em>Kingly</em> parts in sport,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Thou hadst been a companion for a King,</div> + <div class="verse indent2">And beene King among the meaner sort.</div> + <div class="verse indent4">—<em>Sir John Davies</em> in his <cite>Scourge of Folly</cite>, 1611-14.</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span></p> + +<p>Mr. Vaile concludes:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“So far as this discussion attempts an explanation of the origin or +existence of genius, it is certainly quite futile; and quite as unworthy +is the attempt to adjust the mere honor of authorship between two +individuals simply. But the question is by no means an unimportant +one, whether genius has worked in this instance, by the use of means +necessary to ordinary mortals, or whether its inspiration has been immediate +and complete.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">Vaile</span> is a resident of Oak Park, Chicago, where he +is connected with several educational publications.)</p> + +<p>A concise statement of the more important contemporary +allusions to Shakespeare, will be found in Mr. F. G. Fleay’s +Shakespeare Manual, pages 12-21.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-86">86 <span class="smcap">Bacon’s Psalms.</span> In the Old Cabinet, <cite>Scribner’s +Monthly</cite>, April, 1875. (See pages 758-59.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This contains extracts from Bacon’s acknowledged verses—the +seven versified psalms—by way of comparison with the +poetry of Shakespeare. The psalms paraphrased are <span class="allsmcap">I</span>, <span class="allsmcap">XII</span>, <span class="allsmcap">XC</span>, +<span class="allsmcap">CIV</span>, <span class="allsmcap">CXXVI</span>, <span class="allsmcap">CXXXVII</span>, and <span class="allsmcap">CXLIX</span>.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“According to the editors of Bacon’s Works (Messrs. Spedding, Ellis, +and Heath), ‘the only verses of Bacon’s making that have come down +to us, and probably, with one or two slight exceptions, the only verses +he ever attempted,’ were ‘the translation of certain Psalms into English +verse.’ He wrote also a sonnet, meant, say the editors, ‘in some way +or other to assist in sweetening the Queen’s temper toward the Earl of +Essex; and it has either not been preserved at all, or not so as to be +identified.’ Two other poems have been ascribed to him, although it +is not absolutely certain that he wrote them. Really, then, the seven +versified Psalms constitute all of Bacon’s poetry which may be said to +be in evidence on the point of his poetic ability. * * * * For the +curiosity of the thing, we transcribe the opening stanzas of Bacon’s +translation of Psalm cxxxvii:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">When as we sat, all sad and desolate,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">By Babylon upon the river’s side,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Eas’d from the tasks which in our captive state</div> + <div class="verse indent4">We were enforced daily to abide,</div> + <div class="verse indent8">Our harps we had brought with us to the field,</div> + <div class="verse indent8">Some solace to our heavy souls to yield.</div> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span> </div> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">But soon we found we fail’d of our account,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">For when our minds some freedom did obtain,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Straightways the memory of Sion Mount</div> + <div class="verse indent4">Did cause afresh our wounds to bleed again;</div> + <div class="verse indent8">So that with present griefs, and future fears,</div> + <div class="verse indent8">Our eyes burst forth into a stream of tears.</div> + </div> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">As for our harps, since sorrow struck them dumb,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">We hang’d them on the willow-trees were near;</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Yet did our cruel masters to us come,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">Asking of us some Hebrew songs to hear;</div> + <div class="verse indent8">Taunting us rather in our misery,</div> + <div class="verse indent8">Than much delighting in our melody.”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-87">87 “<span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Centurie of Prayse.</span>” By Prof. +<span class="smcap">Hiram Corson</span>. In the <cite>Cornell Review</cite> (Cornell +University Literary Magazine), Ithaca, New York, +for May, 1875. 10 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A review of Dr. Ingleby’s book, from the standpoint of +its value in proving the Shakespearian authorship.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“And when we look at the slim arguments that have been so +painstakingly concocted against Shakespeare’s claims, and in favor of +Lord Bacon’s, we are forced to attribute the remarkable dispute to one +of two causes, or to them both, for they are intimately, if not inseparably, +allied:</p> + +<p>1. The iconoclastic tendency of the age; and,</p> + +<p>2. The predominant analytic character of the thought of the age.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-88">88 <span class="smcap">The Bacon-Shakespeare Theory.</span> By E. C. T. +[Rev. <span class="smcap">Edward C. Towne</span>]. Two articles in the +<cite>Christian Register</cite>, Boston, for May 22, and 29, +1875. 1½ columns each.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The first article treats of Delia Bacon, her monomania, +and the causes which may have led to it; the second is a +critical review of Judge Holmes.</p> + +<p>(The author resides at Westboro’, Mass. Several other +papers by him will be found noted hereafter.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-89">89 <span class="smcap">Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> Notice +in the <cite>Saturday Review</cite>, London, July 24, 1875.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-90">90 <span class="smcap">Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> In the +<cite>Civil Service Review</cite>, August 7, 1875.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-91">91 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Bacon.</span> By G. S. [<span class="smcap">George +Stronach, M.A.</span>] In the <cite>Hornet</cite>, London, +August 11, 1875.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Bacon and Shakespeare, by Scotus, in the same, +August 18, 1875.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The paper in the <cite>Hornet</cite> is a concise statement of the Baconian +argument.</p> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">Stronach</span> is connected with the Advocates’ Library, +Edinburgh. It is understood that he has in preparation a +treatise sustaining the Baconian theory, which will be published +at some future time.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-92">92 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare.</span> A series of communications +in the <cite>Notes and Queries</cite> column of the +Newcastle (England) <cite>Weekly Chronicle</cite>, in 1875, +under the dates following: August 28; September +4, 11, 18, and 25; October 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; +and November 6, 13, and 20.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-93">93 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare. By Nathaniel +Holmes, with an Appendix of Additional +Matters</span>, including a notice of the recently +discovered Northumberland MSS., with an +introduction. Edition of 1876. (Appendix, pages +603 to 696.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>As this was printed ten years later than the edition we +have first titled (1866), and contains new matter, it is inserted +here to preserve the chronological order.</p> + +<p>In the introduction Judge Holmes gives a general review +of the argument, and introduces a correspondence between Mr. +James Spedding, the biographer of Bacon, and himself. Also, +between Mr. Spedding and Mr. W. H. Smith.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span></p> + +<p>The appendix, aside from the notices of the Northumberland +MSS., is chiefly made up of cumulative evidence on +the topics of the original edition. We give one passage from +the introduction:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I have not yet discovered one authentic fact which would necessitate +the inference that William Shakespeare was the author of this +poetry. The further facts of a historical kind now presented, while +strongly pointing to Francis Bacon as the author, are not at all conclusive. +Indeed, the extrinsic circumstances all together, though powerfully +suggestive and convincing, can not be said to be absolutely conclusive +of the matter. The strongest evidence lies in the comparison of the +writings, and the demonstration (as I conceive) must rest at last, and +chiefly, upon the essential identity, individuality, and oneness of the +writer of this poetry and of Bacon’s works, as exhibited in a thorough +critical comparison of the writings themselves. But, of course, where +the evidence fails to convince, or carries no weight at all, or even +seems to prove a difference rather than an identity, there is an end +of the argument. Nevertheless, it is my belief that any one who will +take the trouble to make that comparison, in an adequate manner, +will not fail to be convinced of that identity.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>In Mr. Spedding’s letter, occupying six closely-printed pages, +he says:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“If Shakespeare had no knowledge as a scholar or man of science, +neither do the works attributed to him show traces of trained scholarship +or scientific education. Given the <em>faculties</em> (which nature bestows +as freely upon the poor as upon the rich), you will find that all the +acquired knowledge, art, and dexterity which the <ins class="corr" id="tn-51" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'Skakespearian plays'"> +Shakespearian</ins> plays imply, was easily attainable by a man who was laboring in his vocation, +and had nothing else to do.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“Among the parallelisms which you have collected with such industry +to prove the identity of the two writers, I have not observed one in +which I should not myself have inferred from the difference in style a +difference of hand. Great writers, especially being contemporary, have +many features in common; but if they are really great writers, they +write naturally, and nature is always individual. I doubt if there are +five lines together to be found in Bacon which could be mistaken for +Shakespeare, or five lines in Shakespeare which could be mistaken for +Bacon, by one who was familiar with the several styles and practiced +in such observation.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>We insert here an extract from a review of Judge Holmes’s +book in the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, of February 23, 1867, probably +by the Editor, Mr. <span class="smcap">William Hepworth Dixon</span>:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Mr. Nathaniel Holmes is an American gentleman, residing in St. +Louis, a long way from the manuscript papers, which can alone throw +any new light upon the subject. He has mastered Miss Delia Bacon’s +book; also the new edition of Lord Bacon’s works, and The Story of +Lord Bacon’s Life, and with the help of a subtle intellect, he has so +arranged the mass of evidence tending to separate two most important +lives in English history, as to aid in confusing the perception of many +persons. For our own part, we do not care to enter once again into +the reasons which induced us to reject, in mass and detail, all the conjectures +offered in support of Bacon’s authorship of Hamlet and Macbeth. +When we had Miss Bacon’s works before us we gave our reasons +fully; and as nothing new has been found in way of buttress to her +argument, we may safely let the discussion lapse, which we do in thorough +respect for Mr. Holmes, who, distant student though he be of English +literary history, is well aware of what is going on in this country. +He takes a perfectly noble and impartial view of Bacon’s conduct, both +in his relations to Essex and the administration of justice. But we +can not go forward with him in his theory of Bacon being the secret +author of Shakespeare’s plays.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-94">94 <span class="smcap">L’Ideale in Letteratura.</span> Letture fatte avanti +al Regio Istituto Lombardo, dal membro effettivo, +Dott. <span class="smcap">Antonio Buccellati</span>, Milano, 1876. Pamphlet, +pp. 144. (<span class="smcap">The Ideal in Literature.</span> Lectures +delivered before the Royal Lombard Institute, by +the acting member, Dr. Antonio Buccellati.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>A general reference to the subject on pages 74-77. It +includes in a note an extract from a paper in the <cite lang="fr">Memoriale +Diplomatique</cite>, the date of which is not given.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-95">95 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare from an American Point of View</span>; +including an inquiry as to his religious faith, and +his knowledge of law, with the Baconian theory +considered. By <span class="smcap">George Wilkes</span>. New York: D. +Appleton & Co., 1877, 8vo. pp. 471. Second +edition, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>It will be seen from the title of Mr. Wilkes’s book, that +it is quite comprehensive—and his argument that the writer +of the plays was a Catholic, and was not a trained lawyer, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span>are either of them fatal, in his opinion, to the Baconian +theory. He devotes several chapters, by way of illustration, to +a comparison of the life, genius, and characteristics of Shakespeare +and Bacon. He differs from Lord Campbell in his +estimate of the “Legal Acquirements of Shakespeare,” and +takes up “The Testimony of the Plays” (pages 81-419), +reviewing them, as to the question of authorship, from both +the religious and legal point of view. As to the latter, he says:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “The author of the Shakespeare plays did not possess +any great knowledge of the law; or, if he did, his dramatic writings +do not show it. He exhibits, without doubt, a familiarity in law +expressions, and applies them with a precision and a happiness of application +in all cases, which apparently carries the idea that he may have +served in an attorney’s office; but not one of them, nor do all of them +together, mark anything higher than mere general principles and forms +of practice, or such surface clack and knowledge as were within the +mental reach of any clever scrivener or conveyancer’s clerk. On +the contrary, whenever Shakespeare steps beyond the surface comprehension +of the solicitor’s phraseology, and attempts to deal with the +spirit and philosophy of law, he makes a lamentable failure. The <cite>Merchant +of Venice</cite>, <cite>Comedy of Errors</cite>, <cite>Winter’s Tale</cite>, and <cite>Measure for Measure</cite>, +contain conspicuous proofs of this deficiency.” * * *</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>An extract from the recapitulation:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“We may be told, at this stage, that such an extent of search and +demonstration as I have devoted to these Baconian points is not necessary +to dispose of a bubble which has never floated among the public +with any amount of success; and we may be flippantly assured that +the inexorable reasoning faculty of Time alone, would, of itself, dispel +the fallacy; but such contemptuous treatment is not adequate to the +treatment of a theory which has received the support of such minds as +that of Lord Palmerston, and such scholars and critics as Judge Holmes +and General B. F. Butler in America. Bubbles thus patronized must +be entirely exploded, or they will be sure to reappear whenever the +world has a sick or idle hour, and delusions find their opportunity to +strike. Moreover, nothing is lost by our inquiries, after all, beyond a +little time; and I doubt not all true admirers of our poet will agree +that one new ray of light which may thus be thrown upon the +character and history of Shakespeare, will justify octavos of discussion.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The author embodies in his book the Euphonic or Musical +Test, by Prof. Taverner, which is the subject of a separate +title. Of this essay, Mr. Wilkes says:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“To the multitude, its proofs may appear less potent than some +others I have advanced, but with scholars and rhetorical experts, the +Euphonic test will probably be more fatal to the Baconian theory than +any other.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(The author is well known as the former editor of <cite>Wilkes’s +Spirit of the Times</cite>.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-96">96 <span class="smcap">The Musical or Euphonic Test.</span> The respective +styles of Shakespeare and Bacon, judged by the +laws of Elocutionary Analysis, and Melody of +Speech. By Prof. <span class="smcap">J. W. Taverner</span>. 1877.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This essay is included in Mr. Wilkes’s book. See pages +424 to 461.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“As the handwriting of one man among thousands can be determined +by experts, so no lengthy examples of style—the expression and +language of any two authors of note, can fail to indicate the individual +mind to which one or the other belongs. * * * But how much +more comprehensive are the combinations that constitute the style, the +language, the adornments, the illustrations, the figurative expression, the +place of the emphasis, the form of the phrases, the source of the metaphors, +the character of the similes; but our enumeration would become +too long; then, finally, that emanation of the rhythm of the breathing, +and of the pulse, and the endowments of the ear, that marshals all +those forms and phrases in a certain order with reference to melody +and cadence.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“The outcome of the life-long process to which we have referred, +by which the style of a writer is formed—<em>that</em> feature of it to which +our treatment of this subject, for the present, relates—is the most subtle; +for we have to investigate that of which the writer himself was, +possibly, the most unconscious—that which, like his gait, or some other +habit, has, perhaps, received no <em>positive</em> attention whatever. Yet, it may +be held that nothing becomes more rigid and fixed than the mould and +matrix in which his thoughts are ultimately fashioned and expressed. +The modes of thinking would, in some instances, have to be identical, +to produce identical melodies of speech.</p> + +<p>“In Shakespeare’s prose we shall find that all this is marvelously +free and varied, and that his blank verse conforms strictly to a certain +set of chimes. In Bacon, besides Latin forms, we shall not lack examples +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span>of a certain sort of duplicates and triplicates, antithetic parallelisms, +and harmonic or alternate phrases (and, to use a strong Baconianism), +<em>and the like</em>.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“Bacon, himself, gives testimony to the weight and value of such +evidence, for he, himself, relates that Queen Elizabeth, being incensed +with a certain book [Dr. Hayward’s], dedicated to my Lord of Essex, +expressed an opinion that there was treason in it, and would not be +persuaded that it was his writing whose name was to it; but that it +had some more mischievous author, and said, with great indignation, +that she would have him racked to produce his author. ‘I replied,’ +says Bacon, ‘Nay, Madam, he is a doctor; never rack his person, but +rack his style; let him have pen, ink, and paper, and help of books, +and be enjoined to continue the story where it breaketh off, and I +will undertake, by collating the styles, to judge whether he were the +author or no.’”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Prof. Taverner proceeds to illustrate his position by a +comparison of extracts from the essays and the plays.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It would be as easy to suppose, by these evidences, Bacon and +Shelley to have been one and the same author, as that these several +specimens of Shakespeare and of Bacon could proceed from one and +the same mind.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-97">97 <span class="smcap">The Leopold Shakespeare.</span> Edited by <span class="smcap">F. J. +Furnivall</span>. (See Notes, p. <span class="allsmcap">CXXIV</span>, edition 1877.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I doubt whether any such idiotic suggestion as this authorship of +Shakespeare’s works by Bacon has ever been made before, or will ever +be made again, with regard to either Bacon or Shakespeare. The tomfoolery +of it is infinite.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>This note is expanded in the edition of 1882.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-98">98 <span class="smcap">Is Sir Walter Raleigh the Author of Shakespeare’s +Plays and Sonnets?</span> By <span class="smcap">George S. +Caldwell</span>. Melbourne, Australia: Stillwell & +Knight, 1877. Pamphlet, pp. 32.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. Caldwell answers his query in the affirmative. He +is now engaged upon a new book in development of his +theory. We give below an extract from a letter received from +him referring to his new work:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The greater portion of the book will be taken up by extracts +from the History of the World, and from the plays. These extracts +will show so complete an identification of opinions, principles, and peculiarities +of thought and expression, as will, I am sanguine, carry conviction +to the minds of every interested reader, that the plays must +have been written by Raleigh. * * * * After five years’ consideration, +I now say that the materials in my possession are sufficient to +finally settle the controversy.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">Caldwell</span> is a resident of Melbourne, and understood +to be in the British Postal Service.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-99">99 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of the Works Attributed to +Shakespeare.</span> (Chapter IV, part I, pages 38 to +72.) In <cite>Shakespeare: The Man and the Book</cite>. +By <span class="smcap">C. M. Ingleby</span>, M.A., LL.D. London: 1877.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature, +January 22, 1868. See Transactions, Vol. <span class="allsmcap">IX</span>, new series.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The critic has the same interest in the works of Miss Delia Bacon, +Mr. W. H. Smith, and Judge Holmes, as the physician has in morbid +anatomy. He reads them, not so much for the light which they throw +on the question of authorship, as for their interest as examples of wrongheadedness. +It is not at all a matter of moment whether Bacon, +Raleigh, or another be the favorite on whom the works are fathered, +but it is instructive to discover by what plausible process the positive +evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship (scanty as they are) are put out of +court. As to Bacon, as first favorite, I suppose any one conversant +with the life and authentic works of that powerful but unamiable character, +must agree with Mr. Spedding’s judgment, that unless he be +the author of “Shakespeare,” neither his life or his writings give us +any assurance that he could excel as a dramatic poet. Of all men who +have left their impress on the reign of the first maiden Queen, not one +can be found who was so deficient in human sympathies as Lord Bacon. +As for such a man portraying a woman in her natural simplicity, +purity, and grace; as to his imagining and bodying forth in natural +speech and action, such exquisite creations as Miranda, Perdita, Cordelia, +Desdemona, Marina—the supposition is the height of absurdity. +What, as it seems to me, has led astray the few writers who have set +up a claim for Lord Bacon, is his admirable gift of language, scarcely +inferior to Shakespeare himself. This almost unique endowment caused +Bacon to manifest a kind of likeness to Shakespeare in matters into which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span>the sympathies of the man and the training of the dramatic poet do not +enter. Hence it is easy to cull from the works of these two great masters +a considerable number of curious parallels. I have looked over the collections +of Messrs. W. H. Smith and Holmes, and I must confess I am +astonished; but my astonishment has not been provoked by the quantity +or closeness of the resemblances adduced, but by the spectacle of educated +men attempting to found such an edifice on such a foundation.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-100">100 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">Fifth Series.</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—From Jabez [<span class="smcap">Dr. Ingleby</span>], <span class="allsmcap">VII</span>, 55, January +20, 1877.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—From R. P. Hampton Roberts, <span class="allsmcap">VII</span>, 234, March +24, 1877.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-101">101 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare from an American Point of View.</span> +A review of Wilkes’s book in the <cite>Catholic World</cite>, +New York, for June, 1877. (Pages 422-428.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This review refers only slightly to the authorship, the +question mainly discussed being Mr. Wilkes’s views regarding +the Catholicism of Shakespeare.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-102">102 <span class="smcap">The Political Purpose of the Renascence +Drama.</span> The Key to the Argument. By <span class="smcap">Cerimon</span> +[Dr. <span class="smcap">William Thomson</span>], Melbourne, Sidney and +Adelaide: George Robertson, 1878. Pamphlet, +8vo. pp. 57.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The first of the several pamphlets and books by Dr. Thomson, +which will be found distributed through this list. A fair +illustration of his manner of treating the plays—as to the +Political Purpose—may be found in the paragraph following, +relating to <cite>Hamlet</cite>:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“When the King in the play asks if there is ‘no offence in’t,’ he +but repeats Queen Elizabeth’s query, put, in her palace, about another +treasonable entertainment, of which Bacon had, at that very time, to +allay her well-grounded suspicions. She feared the disloyalty of one +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span>whom he endeavored to reconcile and become her loyal servant. ‘She +had good opinion that there was treason in it.’ Readers of history +know the allusion.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The allusion, of course, is to the affair of the Essex treason—Dr. +Hayward’s book, the “<cite>First Yeare of King Henry the +Fourth</cite>”—and the play of Richard II. For this, see Holmes, +p. 96, 97, and 135; in appendix, Spedding’s letter to Holmes, +p. 617; Holmes to Spedding, p. 619.</p> + +<p>(Dr. <span class="smcap">William Thomson</span>, at the time these works were +written, was a practicing physician at Melbourne, Australia. +He was evidently a fine scholar, and an intense Baconian. +He died during the past year, at the age of 63. We quote +from a private letter from Melbourne: “The Baconian +theory of Shakespeare’s writings was an intense hobby with +him, and even the day before he died, he sent for some books +on the subject—the ruling passion strong in death. * * * +He was ever ready to put on the literary war-paint, and raised +up numerous enemies thereby.”)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-103">103 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare. Was he a Myth? or, What +did he Write?</span> By <span class="smcap">Charles Cockbill Cattell</span>. +London: Charles Watts, n. d. [1878]. Pamphlet, +12mo. pp. 16.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The first of a series of pamphlets, which will be found +cited hereafter, all combating the Baconian theory. We extract +one paragraph:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“A curious point in history is that, while it devotes much space to +describe all the details about persons who would now be forgotten but +for Shakespeare, it leaves him unnoticed. So far as I have read, Bacon, +who is supposed to have known nearly every thing of his age, does not +mention Shakespeare. Sir Henry Wotton, to whom we are so much +indebted, does not name him, although he survived Shakespeare twenty +years. It is only common fairness to state that Sir Henry also omits +to mention Spenser, Ben Jonson, Marlowe, Massinger, Beaumont and +many others; so that Shakespeare is only one among the many ‘myths’ +of that generation, if non-mention by Sir Henry proves that. Emerson’s +explanation of that is given in his own inimitable style: ‘No one +suspected he [Shakespeare] was the poet of the human race. * * * +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span>Their genius failed them to find out the best head in the universe. Our +poet’s mask was impenetrable; you can not see the mountain near.’ +Emerson further says: ‘For executive faculty, for creation, Shakespeare +is unique. No man can imagine it better. * * * He clothes the +creatures of his legend with form and sentiment, as if they were people +who lived under his roof.’”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-104">104 <span class="smcap">Article “Shakespeare.”</span> In the <cite>Dictionary of +Authors</cite>. By <span class="smcap">S. Austin Allibone</span>. Philadelphia: +1878.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“<span class="smcap">Shakespeare, the most Illustrious of the Sons of Men.</span>—We +have earned the right, by hard labour, to assert that there is not in the +1100 pages of Delia Bacon and Judge Holmes, the shadow of the shade +of an argument to support their wild and most absurd hypothesis. +Bacon was as little capable of writing ‘Shakespeare’s Plays’ as any +other man.”</p> + +<p class="center"> +“Within that circle, none durst walk but he.” +</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-105">105 <span class="smcap">Who Wrote Shakespeare?</span> In an Appendix to +<cite>Studies on the Text of Shakespeare</cite>. By <span class="smcap">John +Bulloch</span>. London and Aberdeen: 1878, 8vo. +(See pages 317-322.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mainly a review of the question, without an expression of +opinion.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-106">106 <span class="smcap">A Chapter of Comparative Chronology.</span> 1561-1626. +Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare. +By <span class="smcap">John Bulloch</span>. In an Appendix to <cite>Studies +on the Text of Shakespeare</cite>. London and Aberdeen: +1878, 8vo. (See pages 323-328.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>A chronological history of the main facts in the lives +of Bacon and Shakespeare, the dates of the appearance of +their works, etc. It is very valuable in an examination of +the historical side of the subject.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-107">107 <span lang="fr"><span class="smcap">Shakespeare et la Theorie Baconienne.</span> Par +<span class="smcap">M. Berard Varagnac</span></span>. In the <cite lang="fr">Journal des Debats</cite>, +Paris, June 21, 1878. 4 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Nominally a review of Wilkes. The writer, however, goes +into the subject generally. His conclusions are obvious, even +to one who is not proficient in the French language, from his +final remark:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“<i lang="fr">C’est pourquoi l’on nous permettra de penser que la theorie Baconienne +n’est autre chose que ce qu’ils appellent la-bas d’un mot expressif non moins +usite que la chose dans la patrie de</i> Barnum—<i lang="fr">un</i> humbug.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-108">108 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and the Baconian Theory.</span> By +<span class="smcap">M. Berard Varagnac</span>. In the <cite>American Register</cite>, +Paris, July 6, 1878. 2½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A translation of the article in the <cite lang="fr">Journal des Debats</cite>, +above. (See Title <a href="#t-107">107</a>.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-109">109 <span class="smcap">Un Proces Litteraire: Bacon contre Shakespeare!</span> +By <span class="smcap">M. J. Villemain</span>. In <cite lang="fr">L’Instruction +Publique: Revue des Lettres, Science et Arts</cite>, +Paris. Two articles, August 31 and September 7, +1878. (<span class="smcap">A Literary Suit: Bacon against +Shakespeare.</span>)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“To sum it all up, we may conclude thus: everything which there +is good in Shakespeare’s dramas comes from Bacon; everything which +there is bad in Bacon’s dramas comes from Shakespeare.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-110">110 <span class="smcap">Notice</span> in <cite lang="ne">De Nederlandsche Spectator</cite>. The +Hague, Holland, October 12, 1878.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>Unimportant—simply a short notice, occasioned by the +French articles of M. Varagnac and M. Villemain, which will +be found in the preceding titles.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-111">111 <span class="smcap">Lord Bacon and the Plays.</span> Essay No. VII, +in <cite>Wit, Humor, and Shakespeare</cite>. By <span class="smcap">John Weiss</span>. +Boston: 1879. (See pages 247-269.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weiss</span>, after taking strong ground against the Baconian +position, concludes:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It is not entirely just to say that the contributions of men who +favor the theory are specimens of literary futility. They are frequently +valuable to the scholar by throwing unexpected side-lights upon the +plays; they also furnish suggestions to the interpreter. They have +amassed a quantity of collateral information of Shakespeare’s epoch, +which the critic will thankfully acknowledge when he uses it. The +minute and laborious research which Judge Holmes has expended upon +his volume, the literary, historical, and social parallelisms which he discloses, +the philosophy and style of thinking of Elizabeth’s age, put the +lover of Shakespeare under obligation.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-112">112 <span class="smcap">Lord Bacon: Did he write Shakespeare’s +Plays?</span> A reply to Judge Holmes, Miss Delia +<span class="smcap">Bacon</span>, and Mr. W. H. Smith. By <span class="smcap">Charles C. +Cattell</span>. Birmingham: G. & J. H. Shipway, +1879. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Shakespeare has been described as honest, open, gentle, free, honorable, +and amiable, while Bacon has been described as ambitious, covetous, +base, selfish, unamiable, and unscrupulous. Now, taking these +descriptions as a fair index of their souls, which is the more likely to +have portrayed the women of Shakespeare’s plays?”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-113">113 <span class="smcap">Great Men’s Views on Shakespeare.</span> By +<span class="smcap">Charles C. Cattell</span>, with an essay by Dr. +Ingleby. Birmingham: 1879. 12mo. pp. 55, 68, +16, 14.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A collection of extracts from Dryden, Goethe, Lessing, +the Schlegels, De Stael, Scott, Beatty, Coleridge, Irving, and +many others, relating to Shakespeare; Dawson’s Lectures and +Speeches on Shakespeare; and two of Mr. Cattell’s pamphlets—all +bound in one volume.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-114">114 <span class="smcap">The Shakespearean Myth.</span> By <span class="smcap">Appleton Morgan</span>. +A series of four articles in <cite>Appletons’ Journal</cite>, +New York.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—The Shakespearean Myth, February, 1879, p. +112-126.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—The Appeal to History, June, 1879, p. 481-497.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Extra Shakespearean Theories, I, June, 1880, +p. 481-497.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—Extra Shakespearean Theories, II, July, 1880, +p. 14-35.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>These were the first articles Mr. <span class="smcap">Morgan</span> published on the +question. They were subsequently enlarged and reproduced +in his book of the same title. (See <a href="#t-147">147</a>.) As Mr. Morgan’s +views are fully explained in the subsequent title, we do not +refer to them here.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-115">115 <span class="smcap">The Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy.</span> By +<span class="smcap">Wm. J. Rolfe</span>. In <cite>Shakespeariana, Literary +World</cite>, Boston, March 1, 1879. 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rolfe</span>, after a concise review of the subject, sums up: +that the authorship was never questioned by Shakespeare’s +contemporaries, who had every motive for, and opportunity of +detecting such a fraud, nor for nearly three hundred years later; +that the poems are unquestionable, and that there are striking +similarities between them and the questioned plays; that Bacon’s +acknowledged verses bear no comparison to those of Shakespeare; +and that the plays came to an end at Shakespeare’s +death, when Bacon had still ten years of literary leisure, with +no danger of injuring his reputation by acknowledging or +continuing them.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-116">116 <span class="smcap">“Shakespeare and the Musical Glasses.”</span> By +<span class="smcap">Myron B. Benton</span>. In <cite>Appletons’ Journal</cite>, April, +1879. (See pages 336-344.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span></p> + +<p>An answer to Mr. Morgan’s first article in <cite>Appletons’ Journal</cite>:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“While denying with emphatic iteration that Shakespeare is the true +author, he [Mr. Morgan] would persuade us that the plays and poems +attributed to him are the composite work of an indefinite number of +minds, varying in all degrees of the scale of ability, from the insight +of a profound philosopher, and the scholarship and culture of a chivalrous +gentlemen, down to the level—down, indeed, to the very ‘bottom-lands’ +of a grade of imbecility vague and appalling. * * * The genial +Goldsmith must have had a premonition of these latter-day enlightenments +when he wrote of ‘Shakespeare and the Musical Glasses.’ * * * +Here was one of his [Shakespeare’s] contemporaries, for instance, +Lord Bacon, whose acknowledged works are also voluminous. Is it +possible to believe that there was a common authorship to both? +Each is characterized by a strongly individualized style, as all writings +are that the world cares to read. Each has a flavor distinct from the +other. Yet, if Bacon be the author of both sets of works, he must in +one of them have assumed a style of composition foreign to him—a +thing impossible, even were there a motive for such an undertaking. +* * * Similarity, or even identity, of ideas, or precepts, or axioms—any +likeness of speculation or philosophy—all these are nothing whatever. +The human mind, at the root, is everywhere the same. Counterparts +appear constantly in literature, even in widely-severed nations +and ages. Such parallels as are pointed out in Bacon and Shakespeare +can be discovered in almost any two writers; but of that individuality +that must permeate the work of any writer, in manner of treatment, +in style, there seem to be no traces in common.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-117">117 <span class="smcap">Notices</span> of Sir <span class="smcap">Patrick Colquhoun’s</span> Essay on +<cite>The Authorship of Shakespeare</cite>. In the London +journals, as follows:</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—In the <cite>Globe</cite>, May 23, 1879.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—In the <cite>Daily Telegraph</cite>, May 24, 1879.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—In <cite>Bell’s Weekly Messenger</cite>, June 2, 1879.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>Sir <span class="smcap">Patrick Colquhoun’s</span> paper was read before the Royal +Society of Literature, London, May 21, 1879. It has never +been printed. He holds Shakespeare “to have been a mere +theatrical manager, who bought the plays of poor authors, and +perhaps suggested certain buffooneries for the delectation of +the gods,” etc. This essay has since been recast and considerably +augmented; and it is probable that it may yet be published +in book form.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-118">118 <span class="smcap">The Shakespeare Plays, the Theatre, etc. +Who wrote Shakespeare?</span> By O. F. [<span class="smcap">O. Follett</span>, +of Sandusky, O.] Printed for private circulation. +Sandusky: May, 1879. Pamphlet, pp. 47.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“If, then, Shakespeare <em>did not</em> write Shakespeare, who did? The +question is already answered. <span class="smcap">But one man could.</span> Only one [Bacon] +was fully equipped for the task in its full proportions. * * * +It has been <i lang="la">“aut Cæsar aut nullus”</i>—Shakespeare or nothing. Not a +line, not a scrap, not a sentiment outside the dramas and poems has +been vouchsafed to us, as a test of style, or by which to measure capacity. +Without preparation, without drill, this man is master of all learning, +law, physic, theology, nay, of state-craft as well. If Shakespeare +proper was all this, then Shakespeare the poet was a miracle, and +may be worshiped—and Stratford may well be his shrine.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-119">119 <span class="smcap">The So-called Shakespearean Myth.</span> By F. +R., Barrie. [<span class="smcap">Francis Rye</span>, of Barrie, Ontario, +Canada.] In the <cite>Canadian Monthly</cite> for July, 1879. +(See pages 76-79.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>An answer to Mr. Morgan’s articles in <cite>Appletons’ Journal</cite>.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-120">120 <span class="smcap">Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Plays?</span> By <span class="smcap">Henry +G. Atkinson</span>, F.G.S. In the <cite>Spiritualist</cite>, London, +July 4, 1879.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Atkinson</span> is an ardent Baconian. His writings on the +subject consist principally of short articles in various periodicals, +which will be found noted hereafter.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It would be absurd to expect to find the same variety in Bacon’s +philosophical writings as in the plays, where we have philosophy and +poetry combined, together with wit, humor, and every kind of character +and turn of sentiment. But here is Ben Jonson’s account of Bacon. +Bacon’s prose, says Judge Holmes, is Shakespearian poetry, and Shakespeare’s +poetry is Baconian prose. Jonson says: ‘There happened in +my time <em>one</em> noble speaker, who was full of gravity in his speaking. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span>His language, where he could spare, or pass by a jest, was nobly censorious. +No man ever spoke more neatly, more weightily, or suffered +less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his +speech but consisted of his own graces. His hearers could not cough, +or look aside from him without loss. He commanded when he spoke, +and had his judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had +their affections more in his power. The fear of every man who heard +him was lest he should make an end.’ Here, then, we have related, +from one most capable of judging, those very qualities of mind we +should expect to find in the writer of the plays, but which Shakespeare +was never known to have exhibited at any time, or in any place; and +we have not a scrap of his play-writing existing, or ever known to have +existed, nor referred to in his will. Some of his finest plays were not +known to exist until seven years after his death, in the collected folio +of 1623.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-121">121 <span class="smcap">On Renascence Drama, or History made Visible.</span> +By <span class="smcap">William Thomson</span>, F.R.C.S., F.L.S., +Melbourne, Australia: Sands & McDougall, 1880. +8vo. pp. 359.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Dr. Thomson’s</span> title is adopted from Bacon’s <cite>History of +Learning</cite>: “Dramatic poetry is as history made visible; for +it represents actions as if they were present, whereas history +represents them as past.” He continues in this work the +argument as to the political purpose of certain of the Shakespearian +plays, which he classes under the style of the Renascence +Drama; and, reasoning from that standpoint, claims +the authorship for Bacon. The book commences:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The political purpose of the Renascence Drama has never been +defined. And yet for a patriotic object the series of plays so named +were evidently written. The motive is avowed in prologue, epilogue +and induction; and everywhere throughout the works the aim is obvious. +You are required to</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent18">‘Think you see</div> + <div class="verse indent0">The very persons of our noble story</div> + <div class="verse indent0">As they were living.’”</div> + </div> +</div> + +</blockquote> + +<p>The author reviews <cite>The Tempest</cite>, <cite>Twelfth Night</cite>, <cite>Julius +Cæsar</cite>, <cite>Hamlet</cite>, <cite>Othello</cite>, and others of the plays, from his view +as to the political motive of Bacon in producing them, interpreting +them as allegories bearing on persons and events of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span>the time. In his elucidation of <cite>Twelfth Night</cite>, he goes so far +as to indicate “the persons represented in false names” for +all the leading characters. A recapitulation of these may be +interesting to the student of history, as well as the student +of Shakespeare: <em>Duke Orsino</em> is Sir Philip Sidney; <em>Sebastian</em>, +Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex; <em>Sir Toby Belch</em>, Sir Francis +Knollys; <em>Sir Andrew Aguecheek</em>, the Earl of Leicester; <em>Malvolio</em>, +Sir Walter Raleigh; <em>Fabian</em>, Sir Fulke Greville; <em>Feste, +the clown</em>, Dick Tarleton; <em>Olivia</em>, Queen Elizabeth; <em>Viola</em>, Penelope +Devereux; and <em>Maria</em>, Lettice Knollys.</p> + +<p>A critic has said of Dr. Thomson’s argument: “If he has +succeeded in anything, it is in unearthing a wealth of verbiage, +which is more than proof against a powerful microscopic +analysis. Whatever may be his object, he conceals it +by his language.” An extract from an article in the <cite>Freeman’s +Journal</cite>, Dublin (title <a href="#t-154">154</a>), will give evidence of the +scope of the book:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“He [Dr. Thomson] argues from the identity of the language in +the plays and Bacon’s works—from the difficulty of finding where Shakespeare, +who was all but totally uneducated, got all the wondrous learning +that the works attributed to him exhibit—from the notorious fact +of Bacon’s universal learning—and from facts connected with the dates +of the publication of the poems and dramas, which can scarcely be +reconciled with the incidents of Shakespeare’s life, and which fit in +admirably with the stages of Bacon’s chequered career. Dr. Thomson +argues also, with considerable acumen and subtlety, from the inferences +which the allegorical and political interpretation of such plays as even +Hamlet and Macbeth require; and he argues to the same effect from +the sonnets, and from the non-dedication of the sonnets to the Earl of +Southampton in 1609, to whom in 1593 the poems of <cite>Venus and Adonis</cite> +and <cite>Lucrece</cite> were dedicated. This circumstance, which is such a crux +on the ordinary interpretation that Shakespeare was the author of the +sonnets, and that Southampton was his loving patron, is easily explicable +on being reminded that in the interval between the appearance of +the two sets of poems, the Earl of Southampton, on his liberation from +prison, had become a deadly enemy of Bacon.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-122">122 “<span class="smcap">Mr. Hudson’s Four Reasons.</span>” (See <cite>Shakespeare: +his Life, Art, and Character</cite>. By Rev. +<span class="smcap">H. N. Hudson</span>. Vol. I, p. 269, edition of 1880.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “It was Lord Bacon, not Shakespeare, who enjoyed so +richly the friendship and patronage of the generous Essex; and how +he requited the same is known much too well for his credit. I am not +unmindful that this may yield some comfort to those who would persuade +us that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Lord Bacon. Upon +this point I have just four things to say:</p> + +<p>“<em>First</em>—Bacon’s requital of the Earl’s bounty was such a piece of +ingratitude as I can hardly conceive the author of <cite>King Lear</cite> to have +been guilty of.</p> + +<p>“<em>Second</em>—The author of Shakespeare’s plays, whoever he may have +been, certainly was not a scholar; he had indeed something vastly better +than learning, but he had not that.</p> + +<p>“<em>Third</em>—Shakespeare never philosophizes; Bacon never does anything +else.</p> + +<p>“<em>Fourth</em>—Bacon’s mind, great as it was, might have been cut out +of Shakespeare’s without being missed.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Noticing the above, Dr. Ingleby adds another reason:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“<em>Fifth</em>—Bacon excelled all writers of his day in prose; but the very +best of the verses attributed to him (not all his, by the way) are fourth-rate; +while Shakespeare’s verse is everywhere incomparably better than +his prose; and he thus excelled where Bacon most faulted.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-123">123 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> A controversy +between <span class="smcap">H. G. Atkinson</span>, F.G.S., and Mr. +<span class="smcap">Charles C. Cattell</span>. London: H. Cattell & +Co., n. d. [1880]. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This consists of three papers on each side of the question, +reprinted from the pages of the <cite>Secular Review</cite>, London.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-124">124 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays.</span> A +review of Holmes. In the <cite>Southern Quarterly +Review</cite>, New Orleans, January, 1880. By the +editor, <span class="smcap">Daniel K. Whitaker</span>. (See pages 172-179.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-125">125 <span class="smcap">Judge Holmes’s “Parallelisms” between +Shakespeare and Bacon.</span> By <span class="smcap">Wm. J. Rolfe</span>. +In <cite>Shakespeariana, Literary World</cite>, Boston, April +10, 1880. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-126">126 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare.</span> A letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Crosby</span>, +Zanesville, O. In the <cite>Church Eclectic</cite>, Utica, N. +Y., November, 1880. (See pages 719-728.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The paper of Mr. <span class="smcap">Crosby</span> was originally written as a private +letter to Rev. Dr. James A. Bolles, who transmitted it +to the <cite>Eclectic</cite> for publication. It is quite comprehensive, +occupying eight pages of the magazine, and is an answer to +Mr. Morgan’s <cite>Shakespearean Myth</cite> articles, and also to the +other arguments against Shakespeare’s authorship.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“But our Shakespeare was <em>not</em> an uneducated man; on the contrary, +he was, for the time, a man of letters. We know that he received a +fair grammar-school education, * * * and education at those grammar-schools +was very thorough in those days. After he went to London, +we soon hear of him in the best society; he was a natural absorbent, +and no doubt had, in addition to the advantages of high-toned conversation, +access to all such books as the time supplied. It is a great +error to speak of Shakespeare, as many do, as an ‘inspired ignoramus.’ +And then, after all, it was not mere scholastic knowledge that Shakespeare +needed for his productions. Jonson had <em>this</em>, in an eminent +degree; and his dramas are, I think, only the worse for it. Shakespeare +knew enough to read Hall, and More, and Holinshead, and North’s +Plutarch for his history; and enough of the modern languages to read +Italian and other continental novels for the sake of the plots—the dry-bones, +on which he built the flesh and blood of <em>life</em> in his immortal +works. The real books that Shakespeare studied were the <cite>Book of +Mankind</cite> and the <cite>Book of Nature</cite>, and these he knew by heart. He +needed not a university to teach him these. While his style shows +frequently, by the radical and exact senses in which he employs numerous +words, that he had a competent knowledge of the Latin language, +it is in his using the idiomatic powers of the English language, in their +highest perfection, that its force and beauty consist. Jonson’s style, as +a dramatic writer, is often marred, and enfeebled, and spoilt, by his +exuberant Latin quotations, and magniloquence, and learned affectation; +and that is why I say that Shakespeare’s ‘little Latin and less Greek’ +stood him in better stead than all the ponderous learning and classic +conceits that weighted the poetry of his rival.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“There is one argument that these theorists seem never to have +examined, viz: that deducible from Shakespeare’s <em>poems</em> and <em>sonnets</em>. +These no one has ever disputed his authorship of. That <em>cannot</em> be disputed, +for he published them himself, and dedicated them to noblemen +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span>of the day, under his own name. And yet can any intelligent +person read these works, and not be convinced that the same mind and +hand produced them that produced the dramas? There are not only +similar expressions, but whole lines, similes, metaphors, and turns of +thought are constantly recurring, the same in each. This, to my mind, +is as strong an argument as I could ask. A careful study of the poems +and sonnets is a great help to understanding many things in the plays: +and the fact that <em>one person wrote both</em> is as undoubted and clear to me +as noonday.” * * * *</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-127">127 <span class="smcap">Was Bacon Shakespeare?</span> By R. C. C. [<span class="smcap">Richard +Colama Close</span>]. In the <cite>Victorian Review</cite>, +Melbourne, Australia, for November, 1880. (See +pages 54-70.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>An answer to Dr. Thomson’s <cite>Renascence Drama</cite>.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “There has been no single instance, from the earliest historic +times up to the present day, where the combination of a Bacon +and a Shakespeare, the impersonations of the highest talent and the +greatest genius, has found its centre in one man. It is possible, but not +more possible than a miracle. Few have ever exceeded Bacon in the +force, vigour, terseness, clearness, and splendor of his prose. None has +ever exceeded Shakespeare, either as a writer of dramas or comedies. +Bacon, as a prose writer, stands in the midst of a goodly company. +The most we can say of Bacon is, that in this <i lang="fr">genre</i> he was <i lang="la">primus inter +pares</i>. Shakespeare, as a dramatic genius, stood in lonely grandeur. He +was first, and had no equals.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">Close</span> is a barrister in Sydney, New South Wales.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-128">128 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Biography.</span> Does it conform to +the Author of the Plays? By “<span class="smcap">Lancer</span>.” [<span class="smcap">O. C. +Stouder.</span>] In the <cite>Wittenberger Magazine</cite>, Springfield, +O., November, 1880. 2 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-129">129 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> A reply to +“Lancer.” By Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Crosby</span>. In the <cite>Wittenberger</cite>, +December, 1880. 2 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-130">130 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare: Did he write the works +attributed to him?</span> With notes on “<cite>What +Shakespeare Learnt at School</cite>.” By <span class="smcap">Charles C. +Cattell</span>. London: Henry Cattell & Co., n. d. +[probably 1881]. Pamphlet, pp. 16.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It seems desirable that, in a publication of this kind, some reference +should be made to the three articles by Prof. T. F. Baynes, which +appeared in 1879 and 1880, on <cite>What Shakespeare Learnt at School</cite>. +* * * That he could have been sent to one is certain, for the school +at Stratford-on-Avon was restored in 1553 by Edward. VI, and the constitution +and management were the same as other schools established at +that period, and the course of instruction is known by the records preserved +of Rotherham school, which gives a list of books generally used in the +grammar schools of the country. * * * At that time, children were +sent to the English side of the grammar school at the age of five, and +at seven they commenced the study of Latin, the regular course taking +about ten years; so that boys usually left school, for work or for university +study, at fifteen. * * * The articles were published in <cite>Fraser’s +Magazine</cite> in 1879 and 1880, and, to my mind, sufficiently explain how +the youthful Bard of Avon might lay up the treasures of learning +deemed so essential in the production of his immortal works—his possession +of which has been so often doubted, and in some instances positively +denied to him. How such a man, living in such a time, and at +such a place, could acquire the necessary classic knowledge, no longer +remains a mystery.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-131">131 <span class="smcap">Carlyle’s Opinion.</span> (See <cite>Thomas Carlyle</cite>, by +<span class="smcap">Moncure D. Conway</span>. New York: 1881.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Speaking of Carlyle, on page 122, Mr. <span class="smcap">Conway</span> says:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“He was more patient in listening to Miss Bacon, also introduced +by Emerson, when she tried to persuade him that Shakespeare’s plays +were written by Lord Bacon. Carlyle never thought much of the +philosopher who had been unable to recognize such a contemporary +as Kepler; and his only reply to Miss Bacon was, ‘Lord Bacon could +as easily have created this planet as he could have written Hamlet.’ +I have heard that when she had gone he added, to a letter written to +his friend in Concord, the brief postscript, ‘Your woman’s mad.’</p> + +<p class="right"> + T. C.” +</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-132">132 <span class="smcap">Did Shakespeare Write Bacon’s Works?</span> By +Rev. <span class="smcap">James Freeman Clarke</span>. In the <cite>North +American Review</cite> for February, 1881. (See pages +163-175.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“When we ask whether it would have been easier for the author +of the philosophy to have composed the drama, or the dramatic poet +to have written the philosophy, the answer will depend upon which is +the greater of the two. The greater includes the less, but the less can +not include the greater. * * * Great as are the thoughts of the <cite lang="la">Novum +Organum</cite>, they are inferior to that world of thought which is in the +drama. We can easily conceive that Shakespeare, having produced in +his prime the wonders and glories of the plays, should in his after +leisure have developed the leading ideas of the Baconian philosophy. +But it is difficult to imagine that Bacon, while devoting his main +strength to politics, to law, to philosophy, should have, as a mere +pastime for his leisure, produced in his idle moments the greatest intellectual +work ever done on earth.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-133">133 <span class="smcap">Who Wrote Shakespeare?</span> By <span class="smcap">Baconian</span>. +[<span class="smcap">William W. Ferrier</span>, of Angola, Ind.] A series +of eight articles in February and March, 1881, in +the Angola (Ind.) <cite>Herald</cite>. Dated February 9, +16, and 23; March 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The writer gives all the main points in the controversy +from the Baconian standpoint. In his introduction he says +that “a noted Shakespearean doubter—Dr. Farmer—lived in +the eighteenth century, and that still earlier than this, as men +began to study the literature and lives of the Elizabethan +period, difficulties arose in regard to harmonizing the book +Shakespeare with the man Shakespeare.”</p> + +<p>We quote, from the third paper, as to one point only:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The mind that wrote Shakespeare was a mighty mind. But it +was one broadened and deepened, nurtured and cultured by the learning +and experience of ages. These plays tell of more than mere genius. +They tell of years of earnest study; of patient investigation; of a genius +that made available all the concentrated resources of the times. Let +us consider briefly the works and minds of some prominent in the middle +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span>ages, and find there, in this way, a consistency that is not in the +life and works of William Shakespeare. English literature, that had +originated in Caedmon, that had burst into full glory in Chaucer, and +with him had also passed away, met again in its beauty and grandeur +a glad welcome when Spenser, amid the blaze of the magnificent court +of Elizabeth, placed at her feet the <cite>Faerie Queene</cite>. But Spenser’s life +was a life leading to the production of grand ideal poetry. His education, +combined with natural genius, had prepared him for it. * * * Early +in the Christian Renaissance, there originated, within prison walls, a +book which has the greatest hold, next to the Bible, upon the English +people. That book was the <cite>Pilgrim’s Progress</cite>. * * * Linked with +the name of the old prisoner of Bradford, this immortal book has came +down to us in its journey adown the centuries; and the world that +questions the authorship of Shakespeare, finds nothing inharmonious or +incongruous between the life of Bunyan and this grand work. * * * +Contemporary with Shakespeare was one known as a ‘genuine literary +leviathan.’ It was Ben Jonson, erudite in all the classics, of whom it has +been said, ‘he had so well entered into and digested the Greek and +Latin ideas, that they were incorporated with his own.’ But Ben Jonson’s +education made him this. * * * The years of the Christian +Renaissance brought forth another work that the world will not let +die. It is the immortal epic of Milton—<cite>Paradise Lost</cite>. But England +has known no more erudite man than Milton; and whatever of profound +knowledge there is found in his works, may be readily accounted +for by cause and effect. * * * Thus, it may be seen, that from +the works and lives of such as Spenser, Bunyan, Jonson, and Milton, +no argument can be adduced in favor of William Shakespeare.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-134">134 <span class="smcap">Did Bacon Write Fletcher’s Plays?</span> By +<span class="smcap">William J. Rolfe</span>. In <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, <cite>Literary +World</cite>, Boston, February 12, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Bacon <em>did</em> write Fletcher’s Plays, for the Judge [Holmes] proves +it—just as he proves that he wrote Shakespeare’s plays.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-135">135 <span class="smcap">Is there any Doubt as to the Authorship?</span> +In the <cite>Harvard University Bulletin</cite>, April 1, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>A short list of the references for the use of students in +debate.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-136">136 “<span class="smcap">Our Club.</span>” <span class="smcap">Shakespeare Night</span>, April 26, +1881. <span class="smcap">H. Holl</span> in the Chair. An address delivered +by Mr. Holl, being in part an answer to Dr. +Benj. W. Richardson. With letter to Dr. R. +Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 22.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The address of Dr. <span class="smcap">Richardson’s</span>, alluded to above, was +delivered before “Our Club” (the original Hooks and Eyes, +rechristened), at the annual Shakespeare dinner, in April, 1877. +It has never been published. It seems, while expressing +some doubts, to have opposed the Baconian hypothesis.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-137">137 <span class="smcap">William Shakespeare in Romance and Reality.</span> +By <span class="smcap">William Thomson</span>. Melbourne: Sands +& McDougall, 1881. 8vo. pp. 95.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is a continuation of the <cite>Renascence Drama</cite>, including +an answer to the criticisms of that work, but of a more practical +turn—devoted more to the historical than to the allegorical +and political argument.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Not only is Bacon’s name always linked with that of Shakespeare, +but no other name is ever so associated. No other author unwittingly +enters men’s thoughts along with the author of the drama, except alone +Bacon; and he is the only magician or creator of the prevailing Baconian +philosophy. Alluding to Shakespeare’s forestalling Newton when making +Cressida compare her heart to the center of the earth, drawing all +things to it, it is asked how he knew what Newton was going to discover. +But Voltaire long ago showed where Bacon forestalled Newton. +How, then, did he know what Newton would discover? Either <em>both</em> Bacon +and Shakespeare forestalled Newton on the great physical discovery, or +one mind did so in two different ways, at the same instant of time. +* * * When Bacon explained to King James how ‘bodies fall toward +the center of the earth,’ and ‘iron trembles under adamant,’ Shakespeare +made Prince Troilus vow he would be true to Cressida,</p> + +<p class="center"> +‘As iron to adamant, as earth to the centre.’ +</p> + +<p>While her love for him in return</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">‘Is as the very centre of the earth,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Drawing all things to it.’”</div> + </div> +</div> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-138">138 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare—The Plays and Poems Logically +and Historically Considered.</span> Addendum +to “Who Wrote Shakespeare?” By O. F. +[<span class="smcap">O. Follett</span>]. Sandusky, O.: May, 1881. Pamphlet, +pp. 12.</p> + +<p class="right"> + Anti-Sh. +</p> + +<p>A continuation of Mr. Follett’s first pamphlet.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-139">139 <span class="smcap">Was Shakespeare a Myth?</span> By <span class="smcap">Broadbrim</span>. +[<span class="smcap">J. H. Warwick</span>, Brooklyn, N. Y.] A series of +three articles in the Angola (Ind.) <cite>Republican</cite>, +May 25, June 8, and June 22, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The first two of these articles treat the subject, in the +author’s words, “from the ground-work of fact and historical +probability;” the concluding one invites attention to “the +character of the age that produced Shakespeare,” with an +analysis of “the character of those who have been instrumental +in propagating the libels on his memory.”</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-140">140 <span class="smcap">Articles</span> in <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>. In the <cite>Literary +World</cite>, Boston, of dates following:</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Judge Holmes on Julius Cæsar, June 4, 1881.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—New Champions of the Baconian Theory (Mrs. +Windle and Dr. Thomson), November 5, 1881.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Morgan’s Shakespearean Myth, Dec. 3, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-141">141 <span class="smcap">Was Bacon Shakespeare? An Exposition of +the Great Controversy.</span> By <span class="smcap">E. W. Tullidge</span>. +In <cite>Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine</cite>, Salt Lake +City, Utah, July, 1881. 13 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It is startlingly singular that directly Shakespeare is brought down +to the human plane, and considered there, whether as a supreme poet, +or a supreme metaphysician (both of which he was) he became Bacon. +Of all men of the Elizabethan age, and perhaps of any age, Bacon is the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span>only equivalent for Shakespeare. * * * And it is something very like +a hidden record, long concealed, of the real identity of Shakespeare +suddenly brought to light, that the name of Bacon, once started, so +nearly answers to the entire mystery of Shakespeare, even before investigation +of the proof that he was the one who had lent to another his +lion’s skin. It was this very fact, indeed, which has started able +authors and critics to investigate this subject, and which inclines multitudes +to believe ‘there is something in it.’”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">Tullidge</span> is the editor of the <cite>Quarterly</cite>, and a strong +Baconian. Several lengthy articles from his pen will be found +noted in this list.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-142">142 <span class="smcap">The Sweet Bard of Avon</span>, and <span class="smcap">The Shakespearean +Question</span>. By <span class="smcap">Baconian</span>. [<span class="smcap">William +W. Ferrier.</span>] Two articles in the Angola (Ind.) +<cite>Herald</cite>, dated July 27, and August 5, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>An answer to the “Broadbrim” articles.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-143">143 <span class="smcap">Address to the New Shakespere Society of +London.</span> Discovery of Lord Verulam’s undoubted +authorship of the “Shakespere” Works. By Mrs. +<span class="smcap">C. F. Ashmead Windle</span>. San Francisco: Joseph +Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1881. (Printed for +the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 46.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The first of Mrs. <span class="smcap">Windle’s</span> pamphlets. For an example +of her special theories see title of the second pamphlet, No. <a href="#t-165">165</a>.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-144">144 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare, not Bacon.</span> By J. S. [<span class="smcap">James +Smith</span>]. In the Daily <cite>Argus</cite>, Melbourne, Australia, +August 20, 1881. 3½ columns. (Reprinted +in the Stratford-on-Avon <cite>Herald</cite>, November 4, +and November 11, 1881.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>After citing contemporary authorities as to the authorship +of <cite>Venus and Adonis</cite>, <cite>The Rape of Lucrece</cite>, and <cite>The Passionate +Pilgrim</cite>, the writer says:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[76]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I submit that Shakespeare’s authorship of the three poems enumerated, +is established by contemporary testimony sufficiently strong to +satisfy any court of justice in the world, albeit I am not aware that +his paternity of the <cite>Sonnets</cite>, or of <cite>The Lover’s Complaint</cite>, has ever been +seriously disputed. I shall now proceed to show that the same hand +which wrote the whole of the before-mentioned works also produced +the dramas. And I shall rely upon the very same kind of evidence +as that which has been employed to sustain the fanciful and extravagant +theory that Bacon was the author of them. But though it will +resemble it in kind, it will be found to be, unless I am very much +mistaken, greater in volume and weightier in character than that +which has been so laboriously collected and so ingeniously set forth by +Mr. N. Holmes, Miss Delia Bacon, and by Mr. W. H. Smith.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>He then cites a long list of parallelisms between the poems +and the plays, and peculiar words used in the same sense in +each, to substantiate his position. “In his plays, Shakespeare +naturally fell into the same forms of expression as those he +has previously made use of in his poems, and occasionally +repeated himself both in thought and word.”</p> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span> is a resident of Melbourne—an editorial writer +on the <cite>Argus</cite>.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-145">145 <span class="smcap">Bacon, not Shakespeare.</span> By W. T., in rejoinder +to the <cite>Shakespeare, not Bacon</cite>, of J. S. [By Dr. +<span class="smcap">William Thomson</span>]. Melbourne, Australia, August +20, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 16.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A portion of this only appears in an addenda to <cite>Romance +and Reality</cite>.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The bare fact that the dramas and poems are from the same hand +has never been doubted, but I affirm that <em>not</em> Shakespeare but Bacon +wrote both. J. S. only compares Shakespeare with Shakespeare, but he +does not compare Shakespeare with Bacon, as he necessarily must do +before he can confute any inference deduced from that comparison. +* * * He, therefore, dare not allow himself to become acquainted +with the contents of my book, whose syllogism is—</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indentq">“Whoever wrote the <em>Sonnets</em> wrote the <em>Plays</em>.</div> + <div class="verse indent0">I show Bacon to have writ the <em>Sonnets</em>;</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Therefore, Bacon also wrote the <em>Plays</em>.”</div> + </div> +</div> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[77]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-146">146 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare on Vivisection.</span> By +<span class="smcap">E. H. Plumptre</span>, D.D. In the <cite>Spectator</cite>, London, +August 24, 1881. (Copied in <cite>Good Literature</cite>, +New York, September 17, 1881.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This does not refer to the Bacon-Shakespeare question +proper, but the title is inserted as Dr. Thomson answered it +from the standpoint of the authorship. (See title <a href="#t-156">156</a>.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-147">147 <span class="smcap">The Shakespearean Myth. William Shakespeare +and Circumstantial Evidence.</span> By <span class="smcap">Appleton +Morgan</span>, A.M., L.L.B., author of “The +Law of Literature,” “Notes to Best’s Principles +of Evidence,” etc., etc. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke +& Co., 1881. 8vo. pp. 342.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This work is an enlargement of the four articles under the +same title, appearing in <cite>Appletons’ Journal</cite> in 1879 and 1880.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morgan</span> adopts the editorial or proprietary theory. +He gives a schedule of the difficulties connected with the +question of the authorship, and a digest of the several theories +framed to meet them. He states his reasons for rejecting all +of the latter, and offers a new synthetic theory in their place, +somewhat as follows:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I. From contemporary evidence, recorded in law courts and +public offices, we are, perhaps, better informed of the <em>personnel</em> of William +Shakespeare, than of any other private gentleman of Elizabeth’s +reign.</p> + +<p>“II. There can be no doubt that he came to London in great +poverty, and in a comparatively few years’ residence, was enabled to +retire with a fortune which—although variously estimated by his friends +and rivals—was certainly very large for those days.</p> + +<p>“III. To have accumulated so large a fortune in so short a time +by literary labor would have been exceptional in any case, but the +mental equipment brought by William Shakespeare to London does not +seem to have been equal to such an accumulation in his; it certainly +was not equal to the <cite>Venus and Adonis</cite>, the <cite>Hamlet</cite>, and the other masterpieces +which began to crowd upon each other—in none of which can +any trace of Warwickshire dialect or origin be found.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span></p> + +<p>“IV. If, however, Shakespeare made his fortune in the management +of theatres (which became popular in London at this time, and +in which he met but indifferent competition), it is reasonable to suppose +that these plays, being exclusively secured by him, and becoming popular +through his stage handling, came to be, not only the sources of his +fortune, but identified and called by his name; certainly, less unreasonable +(however exceptional) than to rest all this poetry, pathos, philosophy, +and human experience in the genius of a letterless rustic, with a +reputation in his native village for scapegrace escapades, gallantries, and +poaching expeditions, rather than for meditation, study, or literary composition.</p> + +<p>“V. But while claiming for Shakespeare a proprietary rather than +a productive title in the plays, Mr. Morgan is very far from estimating him +a dummy. ‘Surely it is a less violent supposition that this funny Mr. +Shakespeare, as he wrote out the parts in big round hand, improved on +or interpolated a palpable hit, a droll speech, the last popular song; or +sketched entire a role with a name familiar to his boyish ear—the village +butt or sot, or justice of the peace, or why not some fellow-scapegrace +of olden times by Avon banks. He did it with a swift +touch and mellow humor that relieved and refreshed the stately speeches—making +the play all the more available.’ * * *</p> + +<p>“VI. The only testimony really negativing this view is Ben +Jonson’s. But that this is mere mortuary eulogy—is anything but the +sort of evidence ‘we accept in our personal affairs, our courts of justice, +in matters in which we have anything at stake, or any living interest’ +(p. 131), and is, moreover, perfectly disposed of by Jonson himself, in +his <cite>Discoveries</cite>, and conversations with Drummond, when he commends +Shakespeare’s fluency and industry, but omits all mention of him in his +list of eminent writers, poets, and thinkers of that age.</p> + +<p>“Mr. Morgan disclaims any conjectures as to the authors of the +Shakespearean text. But while admitting that Bacon, or even Raleigh, +may have had a hand in them, insists that the extant records of Elizabeth’s +day (and what are extant are a presumptive clue to such as have +disappeared) point directly to a proprietary, rather than any other +description of interest, in the plays and poems in William Shakespeare.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>We give a portion of the closing paragraph:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “Having lost ‘our Shakespeare’ both to-day and forever, +it will doubtless remain—as it is—the question, ‘Who wrote the +Shakespearean dramas?’ The evidence is all in—the testimony is all +taken. Perhaps it is a secret that even Time will never tell, that is +hidden down in the crypt and sacristy of the Past, whose seal shall +never more be broken. In the wise land of China it is said that where a +man has deserved well of the State, his countrymen honor, with houses +and lands and gifts and decorations, not himself, but his father and his +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span>mother. Perhaps, learning a lesson from the Celestials, we might rear +a shaft to the fathers and mothers of the Immortality that wrote the +Book of Nature, the mighty book which ‘age can not wither, nor +custom stale,’ and whose infinite variety for three centuries has been, +and, until Time shall be no more, will be close to the hearts of every +age and cycle of men—household words for ever and ever. The Book—thank +heaven!—that nothing can divorce from us.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(Mr. <span class="smcap">Appleton Morgan</span>, whose frequent contributions to +this controversy will be found mentioned in this list, is a graduate +of Racine College, Wisconsin, class of 1867. He is at +present a resident of New York City—by profession, an attorney +at law.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-148">148 <span class="smcap">Who William Shakespeare Was.</span> By <span class="smcap">David +Graham Adee</span>, of Washington. Two articles in +the <cite>Republic</cite>, Washington, D. C., October 29 and +November 5, 1881. 3 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Adee’s</span> papers give the contemporary evidences of +Shakespeare’s authorship.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-149">149 <span class="smcap">The Plays of Shakespeare.</span> By <span class="smcap">David Graham +Adee</span>. In the <cite>Republic</cite>, Washington, D. C., +November 12, 1881. 3 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This article refers only incidentally to the authorship.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-150">150 “<span class="smcap">The Shakespearean Myth.</span>” [By <span class="smcap">J. G. Pyle</span>]. +A review of Mr. Morgan’s book. In the <cite>Pioneer +Press</cite>, St. Paul, Minnesota, November 15, 1881. +1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Such an addition as this volume to the evidence of the case +against Shakespeare, is a noteworthy event in the literary world. +* * * Mr. Morgan’s book, gathering up, in lawyer fashion, the +scattered threads of inconsistencies and improbabilities, is a valuable +and welcome addition to the evidence in this controversy. * * * +The questions raised long ago, and now presented in form, make up +an indictment which the Shakespearean must break down by cogent +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span>explanations, or yield to the growing belief that, whether the ‘myriad-minded’ +Shakespeare be metaphor or fact, he never wrote all that has +come down the centuries as his, to rank his name with the immortals.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-151">151 <span class="smcap">Reviews and Notices of Morgan’s Shakespearean +Myth.</span> In the journals following:</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Sandusky (O.) <cite>Register</cite>, November 15, 1881.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Pittsburgh <cite>Telegraph</cite>, November 15, 1881.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Cincinnati <cite>Gazette</cite>, November 15, 1881.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—Chicago <cite>Inter-Ocean</cite>, November 19, 1881.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>e</i>—Sacramento (Cal.) <cite>Record-Union</cite>, Nov. 19, 1881.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>f</i>—Philadelphia <cite>American</cite>, November 26, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-152">152 <span class="smcap">A Brief against Shakespeare.</span> In the <cite>Tribune</cite>, +New York, November 25, 1881. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A review of the <cite>Myth</cite>:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “The presumption, for example, that Mr. Appleton Morgan +is the author of the book before us is so strong, so overwhelming, that +nobody living will entertain the thought of addressing a question on that +point to the publishers; and yet we have absolutely no evidence of the +fact, except the implied assertion of the title-page; no more evidence, +indeed—and no less—than we have that Shakespeare wrote the plays +that bear his name. Three hundred years hence it will be as impossible +to prove that Mr. Morgan really wrote the book, as it is now to prove +that Shakespeare wrote the plays, and for some man of the twenty-second +century to argue that some other lawyer probably wrote it, +merely because there is no way of proving that the alleged is the real +authorship, will be no more illogical than Mr. Morgan’s parallel argument +in the Shakespeare case is.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-153">153 “<span class="smcap">The Shakespearean Myth.</span>” A review of Mr. +Morgan’s book, by N. H. [<span class="smcap">Nathaniel Holmes</span>]. +Printed in the St. Louis <cite>Globe Democrat</cite>, November +17, 1881. 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“We have to regret that the author’s ‘scope’ did not allow him to +bring his critical abilities to bear on a comparison of the plays with +the writings of Francis Bacon. Hidden down deep in the crypt, a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[81]</span>‘Delian diver’ like him might possibly find the key that would unlock +the principal secret. Not that he appears himself so much to controvert +that possibility—it seems not to have come within his historical and +circumstantial point of view. * * * The theory that manuscripts +were brought to the theatre by sundry authors, to be scissored and +adapted by the manager, strikes out at one stroke, or tacitly overlooks, +nearly all that has ever been peculiar (<i lang="la">sui generis</i>), extraordinary, +precious and wonderful in this work; * * * it leaves them open +to manifold contributors, as if such a thing as this Shakespearean drama +really is, however the case may have been with Homer, or the psalms +of David, were at all possible in that way; and we are strongly inclined +to think that this mode of creation of it, though perhaps possible to +some extent, may prove to be, on the whole, as mythical as the man +William himself.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-154">154 <span class="smcap">Dr. Thomson’s Pamphlets.</span> A notice of two of +the pamphlets, in the <cite>Freeman’s Journal</cite>, Dublin, +November 23, 1881.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>An extract from this will be found under title <a href="#t-121">121</a>.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-155">155 <span class="smcap">Historical Iconoclasts.</span> What are we to believe? +Joan of Arc, William Tell, Marshal Ney, +Pocahontas, Powhatan, Captain Kidd, etc. gone! +Is Shakespeare to follow? By <span class="smcap">John W. Bell</span>. +In the Toledo (O.) <cite>Blade</cite>, December 4, 1881. +1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The tenor of this article is sufficiently indicated by the +head-lines given above.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-156">156 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare on Vivisection</span>, in +reply to Dean <span class="smcap">Plumptre</span>. By W. T. [Dr. <span class="smcap">William +Thomson</span>.] Melbourne, December 10, 1881. +Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 39.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Though Dean Plumptre’s paper did not refer to the question +of the authorship, Dr. Thomson answers it from that +standpoint.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[82]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-157">157 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare in Amerika. Eine Literarhistorische +Studie.</span> Von <span class="smcap">Karl Knortz</span>. Berlin: +Verlag von Theodor Hofmann. 1882. pp. 85. +(<span class="smcap">Shakespeare in America. A Literary-historical +Study.</span>)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This book, though printed in Berlin, is really an American +work, as it was written in this country. Pages 29 to 41 +are devoted to a review of the works on the authorship question. +Mr. Knortz sums up his conclusions against the Baconian +theory, and adds:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>(<em>Translation.</em>) “Yet this controversy did some good; it induced +the public to give more attention to the works of these two Englishmen; +but it especially promoted the study of Shakespeare.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(<span class="smcap">Karl Knortz</span> is well known as the author of several +works on American literature, translations of American poetry, +etc.—for the most part printed in Germany. He resides in +New York.)</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-158">158 <span class="smcap">The Political Allegories in the Renascence +Drama of Francis Bacon.</span> By <span class="smcap">William Thomson</span>, +F.R.C.S. Melbourne: Sands & McDougall, +1882. Pamphlet, pp. 46.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Thomson</span> here carries out his idea of the political +purpose, alludes to the forthcoming <cite>Promus</cite>, and replies to his +critics of the Australian press. He answers Dr. Stearns at +considerable length, and recapitulates and expands his own +arguments as to Bacon’s authorship of the Sonnets.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-159">159 <span class="smcap">Spedding’s Vindication of Bacon.</span> A review +of “<cite>Spedding’s Evenings with a Reviewer; or, +Macaulay and Bacon</cite>.” By <span class="smcap">R. M. Theobald</span>. +In the <cite>Nonconformist and Independent</cite>, London. +Two articles, January 12, 1882; and January 26, +1882. 5 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[83]</span></p> + +<p>These papers contain a reference to the Northumberland +manuscripts.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-160">160 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">Sixth Series.</span> +Bacon’s Essex-Sonnet, and Thomson’s Renascence +Drama. By Dr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Ingleby</span>. v. 62, January +28, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-161">161 <span class="smcap">Reviews and Notices of Morgan’s Shakespearean +Myth</span>:</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—<cite>Saturday Review</cite>, London, January 28, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Milwaukee <cite>Sentinel</cite>, February 12, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—Washington <cite>Post</cite>, April 24, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—Madison (Wis.) <cite>State Journal</cite>, July 22, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-162">162 <span class="smcap">Francis Bacon and Shakespeare’s Plays.</span> In +the <cite>Oracle</cite>, London, February 4, 1882. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is in answer to the request of L. J. M. for information, +and gives, in a short form, the arguments (evidently +condensed from Vaile’s paper in <cite>Scribner</cite>) used to support the +anti-Shakespearian theory, with a list of the authorities.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-163">163 <span class="smcap">Query 4275.</span> In <cite>Notes and Queries</cite> column, +<cite>Evening Transcript</cite>, Boston, February 13, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>It having been intimated that Delia Bacon was induced to +commence her investigations through a fancied relationship to +the family of Lord Bacon, this query asked for information +on that point. The answers, five in number, give various +references and authorities, but no definite answer to the question. +The fact seems to be that no such consanguinity was +ever claimed.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-164">164 <span class="smcap">Articles</span> in <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, in the <cite>Literary +World</cite>, Boston, of dates following:</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Letter of Appleton Morgan, with answer, February +25, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—“The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare +Literature,” October 21, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-165">165 <span class="smcap">Report to the British Museum</span> on behalf of +the Annals of Great Britain and the reign of Her +Majesty Queen Victoria. Discovery and opening +of the cipher of Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, +alike in his prose writings and the “Shakespere” +dramas, proving him the author of the dramas. +By Mrs. <span class="smcap">C. F. Ashmead Windle</span>. San Francisco: +Jos. Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1882. (Printed +for the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 40.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Windle’s</span> second pamphlet. We would rather avoid +any mention of this if it could be done with justice to the +history of the discussion. The following extract from the +article (title <a href="#t-179">179</a>), on the author and her latest essay, in the +San Francisco <cite>Chronicle</cite> of August 20, 1882, will give an idea +of the extraordinary unreason of this effusion:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The text of this irrational essay seems to have been the passage in +Bacon’s <cite lang="la">De Augmentis Scientiarum</cite> on Ciphers, and putting this to the +idea of allegory, she gets, as the result, the belief that all of Shakspere’s +(Bacon’s) plays are written in cipher. The nature of that cipher is a +puzzler, indeed; it is cabalistic, it is bi-lateral, it has a Biblical aspect, +it is prophetic, it is under a spell, it is commodious, it is adroit, and it +is altogether the most extraordinary example of moonshine and vagary +that the curious could wish to puzzle over. The reader, however, had +best judge for himself by an example or two. The title of every play +has its explanatory catch. That of <cite>Othello</cite> is:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">A tale, oh! I tell, oh!</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Oh, dell, oh! What wail, oh!</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Oh, hill, oh! What willow!</div> + <div class="verse indent0">What hell, oh! What will, oh!</div> + <div class="verse indent0">At will, oh! At well, oh!</div> + <div class="verse indent12">I dwell, oh!</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span></p> + +<p>“All the characters in the play have their attendant jingles. +<em>Desdemona</em> goes ‘With a demon A, with a moan, ah!’ and means the +double tragedy of Bacon’s muse; and <em>Emilia</em> stands with ‘I’m ill, you, I +mill you,’ and refers to ‘the expression of Bacon’s ill, continued in play +after play, as milestones of his life.’ All the characters are sphinxes +and riddle-mongers; they are ‘related cues’ to everything under the +sun, and it all means—nothing. Similar catches and symbols are repeated +in all the plays. <cite>Titus Andronicus</cite> has:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">Tie t’ us and drone accuse;</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Tie t’ us and drown a curse;</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Tie t’ us and drum the news.</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>“This play is Bacon’s judgment of his own case, since <em>Martius</em> means +‘March you us,’ and refers to his service; <em>Publius</em> means ‘Publish +us,’ and refers to his fame, etc. As the work goes on, even the plays +are not adhered to, and Holy Writ and Montaigne’s Essays come in for +an equal share of ‘explanation.’ If by this time the value of Mrs. +Windle’s discovery is not apparent, it will need no further extracts to +know that too close an application to ‘a startling exemplification in +philological science’ has wrought its mischief and unsettled a mind +which, with proper use, might have produced something more valuable +and less pitiable than a Cipher.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-166">166 <span class="smcap">Notes and Queries.</span> London. <span class="smcap">Sixth Series.</span></p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Bacon a poet, by Henry G. Atkinson, <span class="allsmcap">V</span>, 205, +March 18, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Answer to above, by Dr. Ingleby, <span class="allsmcap">V</span>, 316, +April 22, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—From Dr. Ingleby, <span class="allsmcap">VI</span>, 277, September 30, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>d</i>—From Este, <span class="allsmcap">VI</span>, 416, November 18, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>e</i>—From Dr. Ingleby, <span class="allsmcap">VI</span>, 492, December 16, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-167">167 <span class="smcap">Shylock’s Case.</span> By <span class="smcap">Nathaniel Holmes</span>. In +<cite>Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine</cite>, Salt Lake, Utah, +April, 1882. 13 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is a review of <cite>The Struggle for Law</cite>, by Dr. Rudolph +von Ihering, of Göttingen, who maintains that injustice was +done to Shylock. Judge Holmes’s argument is that the writer +of the Trial Act in the <cite>Merchant of Venice</cite> was a skillful +lawyer—in fact, Bacon himself.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-168">168 “<span class="smcap">Morgan’s Shakespearean Myth.</span>” A notice +of the book in the <cite>Westminster Review</cite>, London, +April 1, 1882. 2 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-169">169 <span class="smcap">Judge Holmes and his Great Subject—Francis +Bacon.</span> By <span class="smcap">E. W. Tullidge</span>. In <cite>Tullidge’s +Quarterly Magazine</cite>, Salt Lake, April, 1882. +8 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-170">170 <span class="smcap">The Bacon-Shakespeare Literature.</span> By +W. H. W. [<span class="smcap">W. H. Wyman</span>]. In the Madison +(Wis.) <cite>State Journal</cite>, April 24, 1882. 5 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A partial Bibliographical list (25 titles), with some account +of Delia Bacon, and an outline of the origin, history, and +arguments of the controversy.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-171">171 <span class="smcap">The Biography of William Shakespeare.</span> By +F. [<span class="smcap">Edward Fillebrown</span>, Brookline, Mass.] In +the Brookline <cite>Chronicle</cite>, May 27, 1882. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-172">172 “<span class="smcap">The Shakespearean Myth.</span>” By <span class="smcap">R. M. Theobald</span>. +In the <cite>Nonconformist and Independent</cite>, +London, June 1, 1882. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A comprehensive and favorable review of the <cite>Myth</cite>:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It is intended to prove that the author of Shakespeare, being a +scholar, a courtier, a lawyer, master of all the knowledge and science +of his age, could not have been a rustic adventurer, ill-educated, untraveled, +unfamiliar with court life, busy in making money, and with +no time for self-culture. Mr. Morgan is unable to believe this amazing +<ins class="corr" id="tn-86" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'amazing parodox'"> +paradox</ins>, and accordingly rejects it.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-173">173 <span class="smcap">The Genius and Methods of Shakespeare.</span> By +<span class="smcap">E. W. Tullidge</span>. In <cite>Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine</cite>, +Salt Lake, Utah, July, 1882. 12 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-174">174 “<span class="smcap">The Shakespearean Myth.</span>” Notice of Morgan’s +book in the <cite>British Quarterly Review</cite>, London, +July 1, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-175">175 <span class="smcap">Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature.</span> +Compiled by <span class="smcap">W. H. Wyman</span>. 8vo. +pp. 8. Cincinnati, July 1, 1882. 63 titles.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This was privately-printed, and contained all the ascertained +titles up to the time of issue. The present Bibliography +is an extension of it.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-176">176 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare, Bacon and Christianity.</span> By +<span class="smcap">Henry G. Atkinson</span>. In the <cite>Philosophic Inquirer</cite>, +Madras, India, July 2, 1882. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-177">177 <span class="smcap">Did Shakespeare write his own works?</span> An +editorial article in the Oshkosh (Wis.) <cite>Northwestern</cite>, +July 17, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The Editor, Gen. <span class="smcap">T. S. Allen</span>, calls attention to a lecture +by the late Hon. <span class="smcap">George B. Smith</span>, of Madison, Wisconsin, +delivered at Chicago, Madison, and other places a few years +since. Mr. Smith’s lecture was never printed. It was a +forcible presentation of the Baconian theory.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-178">178 <span class="smcap">An Anti-Shakespearean Plea.</span> By J. W. B. +[<span class="smcap">John W. Bell</span>]. In the Madison (Wis.) <cite>State +Journal</cite>, July 22, 1882. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span></p> + +<p>Occasioned by the Bibliographical article and summary in +the same paper, April 24, 1882.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-179">179 <span class="smcap">The Bacon Cipher.</span> The ruin it wrought on a +strong intellect. A strange discovery in Literature. +In the San Francisco <cite>Chronicle</cite>, August 20, 1882. +(Copied in the Cincinnati <cite>Enquirer</cite>, Sept. 19, 1882.) +1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This article refers to Mrs. Windle and her writings. An +extract from it will be found in connection with Mrs. W.’s +second pamphlet (title <a href="#t-165">165</a>).</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-180">180 <span class="smcap">Query 4929.</span> In <cite>Notes and Queries</cite> column of +the <cite>Evening Transcript</cite>, Boston.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Query as to merits of the question, August +21, 1882.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Answers to above, September 24, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-181">181 <span class="smcap">Bacon as a man of Letters.</span> By <span class="smcap">Henry G. +Atkinson</span>. In the <cite>Secular Review</cite>, London, September +23, 1882. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-182">182 <span class="smcap">Notice</span> of the bibliography of the discussion, in +the <cite>Bibliographer</cite>, London, October 22, 1882, +page 151.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>After mentioning the early authorities, the editor says: +“but before this we believe an Englishman lectured to such +people as would listen to him on his theory that Shakespeare’s +plays were written by the monks.”</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-183">183 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare, Bacon and Free Thought.</span> By +<span class="smcap">Henry G. Atkinson</span>, in the <cite>National Reformer</cite>, +London, October 22, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-184">184 <span class="smcap">Some Shakespearean Commentators.</span> By <span class="smcap">Appleton +Morgan</span>. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & +Co., 1882. Fifty copies printed for sale. Pamphlet, +12mo. pp. 44.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This pamphlet is a general answer by Mr. <span class="smcap">Morgan</span> to the +criticisms of the <cite>Shakespearean Myth</cite>. The following extract +from a summary of it will indicate some of the points made +by the author:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“So far from being new-fangled, a doubt as to <em>what were</em> Shakespeare’s +plays and poems is as old as the first folio itself; that the name +was often pirated, and the piracies often detected; that there was a +statute in Elizabeth’s day that would have operated to forbid the publication +of plays without being first editorially scrutinized; that these +plays must have had an editor or editors, as well as an author or authors; +and that if produced anonymously, it was much more likely that +they should pass by their editors’ then by their authors’ names. Further, +that instead of laying this question at rest, the labors of the Shakespeareans +are only emphasizing it, and adding to its difficulty.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The Milwaukee <cite>Sentinel</cite> (title <a href="#t-202">202</a>) has this in its summary:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“In the present treatise Mr. Morgan simply recapitulates some of +his previous statements; touches at some length on the general absurdity +of Edmond Malone; discusses the views of Wm. J. Rolfe, James +Freeman Clarke, Henry N. Hudson, and Dr. Ingleby; and finally proceeds +to review several disagreeable reviewers, each one of whom, Mr. +Morgan intimates, through a very pithy quotation from Huxley, +‘acquired his knowledge from the book he judges—as the Abyssinian +is said to provide himself with steaks from the ox who carries him.’”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-185">185 <span class="smcap">The Absurdity of the Theory that Lord +Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare.</span> By +<span class="smcap">J. Wilson Ross</span>. In <cite>Modern Thought</cite>, London, +for December, 1882. 4 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-186">186 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> By <span class="smcap">Henry +G. Atkinson</span>. In the <cite>National Reformer</cite>, London, +December 31, 1882.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-187">187 <span class="smcap">The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies</span> +(being Private Notes, <em>circ.</em> 1594, hitherto unpublished) +by Francis Bacon, illustrated and elucidated +by passages from Shakespeare. By Mrs. <span class="smcap">Henry +Pott</span>. With preface by <span class="smcap">E. A. Abbott</span>, D.D., +Head Master of the City of London School, 1883. +London: Longmans, Green & Co. Boston: +Houghton, Mifflin & Co. (with fac-simile sheet of +Promus). 8vo. pp. 628.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This book is the latest important contribution to the +Baconian theory.</p> + +<p>The MSS. known as the <cite>Promus</cite> form a part of the Harleian +Collection in the British Museum, and have never before +been published. They consist of fifty sheets or folios, nearly +all in the handwriting of Bacon, containing 1655 different +entries or memorandums. The whole seems to have been +kept by Bacon as a sort of commonplace book, in which he +entered at different times brief forms of expression, phrases, +proverbs, verses from the Bible; and quotations from Seneca, +Horace, Virgil, Erasmus, and many other writers. These are +in various languages—English, French, Italian, etc. As to +the use of this collection, we give Mrs. Pott’s explanation:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The <cite>Promus</cite>, then, was Bacon’s shop or storehouse, from which +he would draw forth things new and old—turning, twisting, expanding, +modifying, changing them, with that ‘nimbleness’ of mind, that ‘aptness +to perceive analogies,’ which he notes as being necessary to the +inventor of aphorisms, and which, elsewhere, he speaks of decidedly, +though modestly, as gifts with which he felt himself to be specially +endowed.</p> + +<p>“It was a storehouse also of pithy and suggestive sayings, of new, +graceful, or quaint terms of expression, of repartee, with bright ideas +jotted down as they occurred, and which were to reappear, ‘made-up,’ +variegated, intensified, and indefinitely multiplied, as they radiated from +that wonderful ‘brayne cut with many facets.’”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Mrs. Pott believes that Bacon prepared these notes for use +in his literary works, and she elaborates her theory that Bacon +wrote “Shakespeare” by taking up in review the whole of +the 1655 entries, and citing, by the thousand, what she claims +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span>to be parallel thoughts and passages in the plays. To prove +that the forms of expression used in the <cite>Promus</cite> are not contained +in contemporary or precedent literature, the author +gives, in an appendix, a list of upwards of five thousand +works which she has examined for that purpose and in which +she claims they are almost unknown.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It must be held, then, that no sufficient explanation of the resemblances +which have been noted between the writings of Bacon and +Shakespeare is afforded by the supposition that these authors may have +studied the same sciences, learned the same languages, read the same +books, frequented the same sort of society. To satisfy the requirements +of such a hypothesis, it will be necessary further to admit that from +their scientific studies these two men derived identically the same +theories; from their knowledge of languages the same proverbs, turns +of expression, and peculiar use of words; that they preferred and +chiefly quoted the same books in the Bible and the same authors; and +last, not least, that they derived from their education and surroundings +the same tastes and the same antipathies, and from their learning, in +whatever way it was acquired, the same opinions and the same subtle +thoughts.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“We should almost have to bring ourselves to believe that Bacon +took notes for the use of Shakespeare, since in the <cite>Promus</cite> may be +found several hundred notes of which no trace has been discovered in +the acknowledged writings of Bacon, or of any contemporary writer +but Shakespeare, but which are more or less clearly reproduced in the +plays, and sometimes in the Sonnets.</p> + +<p>“Such things, it must be owned, pass all ordinary powers of belief, +and the comparison of points such as those which have been hinted at +impress the mind with a firm conviction that Francis Bacon, and he +alone, wrote all the plays and sonnets which are attributed to Shakespeare, +and that William Shakespeare was merely the able and jovial +manager, who, being supported by some of Bacon’s rich and gay friends +(such as Lord Southampton and Lord Pembroke), furnished the theatre +for the due representation of the plays, which were thus produced by +Will. Shakespeare, and thenceforward called by his name.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>(Mrs. <span class="smcap">Pott</span> resides in London. This book, to which +she has devoted many years of labor, is, we believe, her +only literary work. But it is understood that she has another +work in preparation, devoted to the historical side of the +question, which will probably appear within a few months, under +the title of “<cite>Francis Bacon, Poet, Philosopher, and Dramatist</cite>.”)</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-188">188 <span class="smcap">Articles</span> in <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, in the <cite>Literary +World</cite>, Boston, of dates following:</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Letter from Appleton Morgan, Jan. 13, 1883.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Bacon’s <cite>Promus</cite>, January 27, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-189">189 <span class="smcap">Was Bacon Shakespeare?</span> The New Evidences +from the Harleian Collection. In the <cite>Advertiser</cite>, +Boston, January 13, 1883. (Copied in the <cite>Tribune</cite>, +Chicago, January 20, 1883.) 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-190">190 <span class="smcap">The Promus</span>, etc. [By <span class="smcap">Richard J. Hinton</span>]. +In the <cite>Gazette</cite>, Washington, D. C., January 14, +1883. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A mention of the <cite>Promus</cite>, with a sketch of Mr. O’Connor’s +“Harrington” theories, and some reminiscences of +Delia Bacon.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-191">191 <span class="smcap">Bacon’s Notes in Shakespeare’s Plays.</span> In +the <cite>World</cite>, New York, Jan. 15, 1883. 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A review of the <cite>Promus</cite>:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Mrs. Pott has really made the most important, because it is the +most direct and scientific, contribution to the Baconian side of the controversy, +but her book does little to confirm any theory except the +theory that great minds think alike.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-192">192 <span class="smcap">Bacon-Shakespeare.</span> By Rev. <span class="smcap">Edward C. +Towne</span>. A series of three articles in the Boston +<cite>Evening Transcript</cite>, January 19, 23, and 25, 1883. +3 columns each.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>In these papers are comprised a very complete general +review of the whole subject; an account of the various +theories and the books containing them; and a comparison +of the intellect, character and writings of Bacon and Shakespeare. +A short extract as to style:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Bacon’s style is stiff and weighty, where Shakespeare’s is free and +light. Bacon is classical, while Shakespeare is natural. Bacon has +always the same formal mode of expression, his own mode only, even +if he tries to write dialogues and to represent characters; while Shakespeare +easily introduces a high variety—always, too, in character. The +hand that wrote the plays could easily have imitated Bacon, but there +is not a page of Shakespeare which Bacon could have written. The +style of Shakespeare is as impossible to Bacon as violets to a pumpkin +vine, or tea roses to a prize cabbage. The one was the most +prosaic of classical writers, a Latinist more than an English writer; while +the other was as thoroughly English as he was perfectly poetical.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-193">193 <span class="smcap">The New Literary Conundrum.</span> Was it Shakespeare +or Bacon? The Story the Plays tell. A +letter in the New York correspondence of the +<cite>Evening Post</cite>, Hartford, Conn., January 20, 1883. +2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-194">194 <span class="smcap">A Minute Among the Amenities.</span> (<i lang="la">Ad finem</i>). +By <span class="smcap">William Thomson</span>, Garnoch, South Yarra, +Melbourne, Feb. 1, 1883. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 24.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The <em>amenities</em> in this are undiscoverable. Dr. <span class="smcap">Thomson</span>, +in his peculiar style, answers his critics of the <cite>Leader</cite>, the +<cite>Argus</cite>, the <cite>Academy</cite> and the <cite>Australasian</cite>, claiming that he +was denied a hearing in those periodicals, and forced to reply +in a pamphlet. His <i lang="la">ad finem</i> was prophetic, as it was his +last work.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-195">195 <span class="smcap">A New Shakesperian Commentary.</span> Review +of the <cite>Promus</cite>. In the <cite>Saturday Review</cite>, London, +February 3, 1883. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It appears that, having been engaged for many years in proving +‘from internal evidence Bacon’s authorship of the plays known as Shakespeare’s,’ +Mrs. Pott’s attention was called to these manuscripts by some +remarks made by Mr. Spedding in his edition of Bacon’s works. These +remarks led Mrs. Pott to suppose that a further examination might produce +corroborative evidence of the points she was laboring to establish. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span>This hope has been fulfilled, she considers, ‘to a degree beyond expectation,’ +and the notes, she adds, ‘whatever may be the views taken +of the commentary upon them, possess in themselves a value which +must be recognized by all the students of language.’ * * * That +she has been instrumental in producing an extremely interesting volume, +as everything must be interesting that contributes in any way to our +knowledge of such a man as Bacon, we allow, and for so much, as we +have said, we tender her our most hearty thanks; but that its publication +tends in any way to establish her theory—of the theory itself it is +quite unnecessary to speak—we do no less heartily deny.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-196">196 <span class="smcap">The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies.</span> +A review in the <cite>Athenæum</cite>, London, February +3, 1883. 3 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-197">197 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare.</span> An article on the +<cite>Promus</cite> from the <cite>Courant</cite>, Hartford, February 7, +1883. (Copied in the <cite>Record</cite>, Philadelphia, February +12, 1883.) 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-198">198 <span class="smcap">Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare’s +Plays?</span> A communication in the <cite>Sun</cite>, +New York, copied in the <cite>Tribune</cite>, Denver, Colorado, +February 17, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-199">199 <span class="smcap">Bacon’s Promus.</span> By A. A. A. [Hon. <span class="smcap">Alvey A. +Adee</span>, of Washington, D. C.] In the <cite>Republic</cite>, +Washington, February 17, 1883. 8 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A very complete and comprehensive <i lang="fr">critique</i> of the +<cite>Promus</cite>. Mr. Adee thinks the work valuable to the philologist +rather than as a confirmation of the Baconian theory. +“The lovers of the works,” he says, “which, to adopt a favorite +phrase of the Baconians, ‘go about’ under the name of +Shakespeare, owe a debt of gratitude to this untiring delver +in a new and rich mine of virgin ore for her painstaking +contribution to the general knowledge.” He takes up in review +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span>a large number of the <cite>Promus</cite> entries; questions the +correctness of many of Mrs. Pott’s citations, and differs +from her entirely as to their value as parallelisms in proving +the Baconian authorship.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“A critical, and above all, impartial and unbiased revision of this +work, with the single aim of selecting only such passages of the Poet’s +work as shall, by their context and their true spirit and intent, be found +to present unquestionable analogy with the <cite>Promus</cite> entries, would give +invaluable aid to the earnest student. It would not be venturesome to +assert that, in such a case, the 4404 parallelisms discerned by Mrs. +Pott would shrink to a much more manageable number. Nor would it +be hazardous to surmise that a like impartial re-reading of the six +thousand works through which Mrs. Pott has labored in vain would +be rewarded with the discovery of analogies which have escaped her +toilsome scrutiny. It would, perhaps, be unkind to hint that, while the +most distant allusions and constructions found in the Poet’s canon have +been seized upon, nothing short of practical identity would seem to +have been admitted in the case of parallelisms between the <cite>Promus</cite> and +other precedent or contemporary writings. But an impression that this +is the Darwinian law of selection which has governed the survival of +the fittest phrases for the purpose in hand, must inevitably grow on the +unprejudiced mind of the reader.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“Of making books, or rather of Mrs. Pott’s manner of making +books, there is no end. Given commonplace texts, time, patience, the +power of reaching conclusions ‘by sudden flight,’ and a Concordance—and +‘’tis as easy as lying.’ As honest Touchstone says: ‘I’ll rhyme +you so eight years together, dinners and suppers and sleeping hours excepted; +it is the right butter-women’s rank to market.’</p> + +<p>“Still, Mrs. Pott’s book is a step in the right direction, and serves +a good turn. It may not instantly convince the world that Bacon +wrote Shakespeare, or even that Shakespeare wrote the <cite>Promus</cite>, as Dr. +Abbott seems to insinuate, but the insight it gives into structural +peculiarities and turns of speech is well-nigh priceless. * * * As +regards the analogies and parallelisms sought to be shown, the +kindest course is to say as little as possible about them.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-200">200 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare and Bacon.</span> Judge Holmes gives +his reasons for believing Bacon was Shakespeare. +And Father Higgins, S. J., gives his for thinking +Shakespeare was himself. In the <cite>Republican</cite>, St. +Louis, Feb. 17, 1883. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span></p> + +<p>An account of two interviews, called out by the publication +of the <cite>Promus</cite>. The first is with Judge Holmes, who +claims that the received accounts of Shakespeare’s life do not +warrant the supposition of his authorship, and continues:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“To this is opposed the supposition that the plays were written by +one [Bacon] whose mind was well disciplined from early infancy, whose +life was spent in the prosecution of the deepest and most important +studies known to man, with results of the greatest magnitude produced +in whatever path his genius may have chosen for itself to tread. He +was surrounded by influences the most cultured, and those most likely +to give him insight into the lives of the great, which is so prominent +a feature in the plays which give rise to the controversy; and yet he +possessed, from the positions of trust which he held, every opportunity +for looking into and examining the motives for action, even amongst +the most lowly. In the plays as we have them there occur numberless +passages, referring to classical authors, the Latin, the Greek, the Italian, +the German, the French and the Spanish, and these references are not +such as could be learned from translation, for many of those found in +these plays are there for the first time expressed in the English language. +Is it at all likely one of whom Ben Jonson wrote that he knew +‘little Latin and less Greek,’ could by any possibility have picked up +in his rather shambling career, the familiarity with these authors which +the plays set forth?”</p> +</blockquote> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Rev. Father Higgins, of the St. Louis University, takes +the opposite view. We give one point only:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“There is another objection to the Baconian claim which is of much +weight. The author of the dramas was either a Catholic or one whose +early mind had been imbued with Catholic ideas. If there be any one +religion which is supported by the plays it is the Catholic faith. You +remember the passage in <cite>Hamlet</cite> concerning the time in which the mass +is celebrated, and in other places he refers pointedly to a purgatory. +If Lord Bacon wrote the plays these passages could never have occurred, +since his position in regard to the events which were happening at that +time, and which had already happened, would have made him anxious +to blot out all remembrances of the customs of the religion which was +in such disfavor at the court. Shakespeare may not have been a Catholic, +though there are other things which point to his so being, but at least +in the position which he held he would have had no reasons such as +existed in Bacon’s mind for trampling out traditions, which he has only +fastened more closely in men’s minds, and has done so in a very beautiful +manner.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-201">201 <span class="smcap">Gammon of Bacon.</span> In the London <cite>Punch</cite>, February +17, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Occasioned by the publication of the <cite>Promus</cite>:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“<span class="smcap">Scene</span>—Lord Bacon’s library. Bacon recumbent and meditating +as usual (‘<i lang="la">Sic Sedebat</i>’), in his arm-chair.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—The proof of the pudding lieth in the eating and experiment, +and not in the supposition or imagination thereof. (<em>A gentle tap +at the door.</em>) Come in! (<em>Enter</em> <span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>.) What, <span class="smcap">Will</span>! Thou +art right welcome. Sit thee down, <span class="smcap">Will</span>. (<span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span> <em>sits</em>.) And +now, how doth business at the Globe? How goeth our <cite>Hamlet</cite>?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—Indifferent well, my Lord.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—Why, so. Playest thou the <em>Ghost</em> still?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—Aye, my good Lord, even yet, at times, so please +you.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—It pleases me well. Talk of your <em>Ghost</em>, doth the Ghost at +the G. continue to walk as he ought?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—Punctually, my Lord, in good sooth, every Saturday +night.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—Good. I will therefore thank thee to hand me over the +balance of our little account.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—I shall, my Lord, incontinently. Meanwhile, so +please your Lordship, I must become yet further your Lordship’s +debtor for the wealth, I mean the workmanship, of your wit. My Lord, +Her Majesty the Queen did last night come to see <cite>Henry the Fourth</cite>. +After the play she called me to her presence, and did declare her +pleasure that I should produce her a piece, with a part for <em>Falstaff</em>, and +therein present <em>Falstaff</em> in love.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—How didst thou answer her?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—In your Lordship’s own words—‘I shall in all my +best obey you, Madam.’</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—And what then said she?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—Straightway capped your line, my Lord, saying, +‘Why ’tis a loving and a fair reply.’</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—Long live the Queen! But, <em>Falstaff</em> in love! A most +inconceivable suggestion and unimaginable fancy of Her Most Gracious +Majesty’s, in respect both of love and of <em>Falstaff</em>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—But how, then, my Lord, may we in anywise manage +to perform her Royal command?</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—About my brains! Methinks I seem to spy some glimmer +of a way. A gross fat man fallen into the conceit that some fair dame +is enamoured of him, lured on to make love to her after his own fashion. +<em>Falstaff</em> in love <em>c’y pres</em>, as we say at Westminster.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—That would serve, my Lord.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—<em>Falstaff</em> thereto befooled, moreover, by the contrivance of +some merry women. Merry? Ha! So! Why, certainly it seems to +myself that all this hath passed through my mind before—as we do +sometimes feel. I must have dreamt of writing such a play. Methinks +I even recollect the name on’t. Merry! Yea, marry, quotha—<cite>Merry +Wives of Windsor</cite>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—A title passing good, my Lord, and a taking. Truly, +a happy thought.—Let me pray your Lordship about it presently.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—Marry and shall, with all the expedition I may. As soon +as possible, I’ll send it to thy playhouse.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—A thousand thanks, my Lord.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—In the meantime, I prithee forget not that small balance.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—Trust me, my Lord.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>—Needs must I until thou render me the needful.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>—Your Lordship shall be straightway satisfied. I +humbly take my leave.” [<em>Exit</em> <span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span>.]</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-202">202 <span class="smcap">Shakespearean Controversy.</span> Appleton Morgan’s +Valiant Fight with the Shakespeareans. In +the <cite>Sentinel</cite>, Milwaukee, February 18, 1883. 1 +column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-203">203 <span class="smcap">Shakespearean Parallels.</span> By A. A. A. [Hon. +<span class="smcap">Alvey A. Adee</span>]. In the <cite>Republic</cite>, Washington, +February 24, 1883. 5 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>In this article, apropos of the “parallelisms” of Judge +Holmes and Mrs. Pott, the writer says:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Theorists such as these appear to lose sight of the circumstance +that, in the limitless mines of human knowledge, there are ideas so simple +and trite in themselves, so natural to all minds, that their recurrence +in varying setting, through successive ages, is a foregone conclusion.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The writer takes the <cite>Imitation of Christ</cite>, by Thomas-a-Kempis +(the first translation into English being printed by Wynkyn +de Worde in 1502) as an illustration, and finds many striking +analogies and parallelisms with the plays of Shakespeare, a few +of which he gives. He adds that “treated as Dr. Holmes has +treated Bacon’s works, the alleged identities may be made +almost countless.” We quote from the concluding paragraphs:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It is a relief to lay down the cap and bells, and cast the cocks’-comb +truncheon aside, and look for a moral to point this idle tale. +What is it? Simply this, that the fount of commonplace is inexhaustible +from generation to generation, and that whosoever dippeth therein, +whether with a golden goblet or a pipkin of common clay, whether he +be a Thomas-a-Kempis, a Shakespeare, or a Tupper, brings up, after +all, but triteness and commonplace. What wonder, then, that parallels +abound in the writings of all times?</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“And yet it must be confessed that to many readers, whose reason +cannot penetrate the mere mask of words and discern behind it the +mystery of style, the soul that fills the form with the breath of supremest +life, this analysis by parallels may be misleading, even to a sense +of partial conviction. To such can only be said, in the words of the +ever-living Poet:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent28">“O place, O form!</div> + <div class="verse indent0">How often dost thou with thy case, thy habit,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Wrench awe from fools, and tie the wiser souls</div> + <div class="verse indent0">To thy false meaning.”</div> + <div class="verse indent17">(<cite>Measure for Measure, II, iv, 12.</cite>)”</div> + </div> +</div> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-204">204 <span class="smcap">To Certain Theorists.</span> A sonnet. By <span class="smcap">W. L. +Shoemaker</span>. In <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, in the <cite>Literary +World</cite>, Boston, February 24, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shoemaker’s</span> sonnet is the only poetry yet discovered +in this prosaic controversy:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indentq">“Still must I hear the noise of those who claim</div> + <div class="verse indent4">That Shakespeare was not Shakespeare, but was Bacon!—</div> + <div class="verse indent4">Seeking from him by whom the stage was shaken</div> + <div class="verse indent0">With mightiest buskin, to filch all his fame.</div> + <div class="verse indent0">O bats and owls, how impotent your aim!</div> + <div class="verse indent4">How purblind, by a little <cite>Promus</cite> taken,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">Drowsing yourselves to think the world to waken,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">To exalt the courtier, and the player to shame!</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Our “Star of Poets” did not Jonson know,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">And praise in lines that well your prate confute,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">And put your feminine theories to scorn?</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Yea; spite of Greene and every later foe,</div> + <div class="verse indent4">His shade serene smiles at the senseless bruit—</div> + <div class="verse indent4">Greatest in drama of all souls yet born.”</div> + </div> +</div> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-205">205 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Geheimnisz und Bacon’s Promus.</span> +In the <cite lang="de">Allgemeine Zeitung</cite>, Stuttgart and +Munchen: March 1, 1883. 4 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span></p> + +<p>The first German article. A translation of this title will +be found below.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-206">206 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Secret and Bacon’s “Promus.”</span> +An article in the <cite lang="de">Allgemeine Zeitung</cite> of March 1, +1883. Translated from the German, and printed +by special request. Price three pence. H. Wills, +Printer, Loughborough, England. Pamphlet, 12mo. +pp. 12.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This article is anonymous. It is nominally a review of +the <cite>Promus</cite>, but discusses the question generally, and is most +vehemently Baconian throughout:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“In the eyes of the masses [in England] Shakespeare passes for a +supernatural being. He who doubts of his divinity is guilty of high +treason, or even of blasphemy.</p> + +<p>“Such prejudice is unknown in America. There it has long been +accepted as an acknowledged fact that Bacon wrote the Shakespearean +dramas.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-207">207 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare</span> <i>v.</i> <span class="smcap">Bacon</span>. A review of the <cite>Promus</cite> +in the <cite>Spectator</cite>, London, March 3, 1883. +2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-208">208 <span class="smcap">Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, Mrs. Henry Pott, and +Lord Bacon.</span> In the <cite>St. James’s Gazette</cite>, London, +March 10, 1883. 1 page.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-209">209 <span class="smcap">Mrs. Pott on Shakespeare’s Women.</span> In +<cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, in the <cite>Literary World</cite>, Boston, +March 10, 1883.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Note from A. A. A. [Adee] on the <cite>Promus</cite>.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rolfe</span> takes issue with Mrs. Pott as to her opinions +of Shakespeare’s women, and quotes from a foot-note on page +479 of the <cite>Promus</cite>:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“From the entries which referred to women we see that Bacon +formed very unfavorable views regarding them, views which unhappy +passages in his own life probably tended to confirm. The Shakespeare +Plays seem to exhibit the same unfavorable sentiments of their author. +There are 130 female personages in the Plays, and the characters of +these seem to be easily divisible into six classes:</p> + +<p>“1. Furies or viragoes, such as Tamora, Queen Margaret, Goneril, +Regan, and even Lady Macbeth in the dark side of her character.</p> + +<p>“2. Shrews and sharp-tongued women, as Katherine, Constance, +and many others, when they are represented as angry.</p> + +<p>“3. Gossiping and untrustworthy women, as most of the maids, +hostesses, etc., and as Percy insinuates that he considers his wife to be.</p> + +<p>“4. Fickle, faithless, and artful—a disposition which seems assumed +throughout the Plays to be the normal condition of womanhood.</p> + +<p>“5. Thoroughly immoral, as Cleopatra, Phrynia, Timandra, Bianca.</p> + +<p>“6. Gentle, simple, and colorless, as Hero, Olivia, Ophelia, Cordelia, +etc.</p> + +<p>“Noteworthy exceptions, which exhibit more exalted and truer +pictures of good and noble women, are the characters of Isabella, of +Volumnia, and of Katherine of Arragon; but these are not sufficient to +do away with the impression that, on the whole, the author of the +Plays had but a poor opinion of women; that love he regarded as +youthful passion, marriage as a doubtful happiness.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>It will be noticed that Mrs. Pott omits to classify Imogen, +Rosalind, Desdemona, Juliet, Portia, Viola, Miranda, and +others.</p> + +<p>In answer, Mr. Rolfe quotes from Charles Cowden-Clarke, +“who is one of the most sympathetic and appreciative of +critics (partly, no doubt, because Mary Cowden-Clarke was +his wife and fellow-worker):”</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Of all the writers that ever existed, no one ought to stand so +high in the love and gratitude of women as he. He has indeed been +their champion, their laureate, their brother, their friend. * * * He +has asserted their prerogative, as intellectual creatures, to be the companions +(in the best sense), the advisers, the friends, the equals of +men. He has endowed them with the true spirit of Christianity and +brotherly love, enduring all things, forgiving all things, hoping all +things; and it is no less remarkable that, with a prodigality of generosity, +he has not unfrequently placed the heroes in his stories at a +disadvantage with them.”</p> + +<p>Cowden-Clarke proceeds to illustrate this by Hero and Claudio in +<cite>Much Ado</cite> (the play he is discussing at the time), and quotes also, in +confirmation of the statement, the characters of Bertram in <cite>All’s Well</cite>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span>of Posthumus in <cite>Cymbeline</cite>, of Leontes in the <cite>Winter’s Tale</cite>, and of +Proteus in the <cite>Two Gentlemen of Verona</cite>. He adds:</p> + +<p>“All these characters not only appear at a disadvantage by, but they +are unworthy of the women with whom they are united. Shakespeare +has himself made the Duke in <cite>Twelfth Night</cite> say:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent6">However we do praise ourselves,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Our fancies are more giddy and unfirm,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">More longing, wavering, sooner lost and worn,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Than women’s are.</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>A remarkable confession that for a man! Therefore Shakespeare is +the writer, above all others, whom women should most take to their +hearts; for it may be said to have been mainly through his influence +that their claims in society were acknowledged in England, when +throughout the civilized world their position was that of mere domestic +drudges.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-210">210 <span class="smcap">The Promus</span>, etc. A review in the <cite>Tribune</cite>, +New York, March 11, 1883. 1¼ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“We have made a very thorough examination of these 1655 Promus +memorandums, and of the passages which are produced in +illustration and elucidation of them; we have read every word that the +authoress has written in support of her theory; we have done so, we +are sure, in a candid spirit, but we have to say, as the result of our +examination, that we have not found an instance, not one, in which a +passage in the plays is shown to have its origin in the Promus. The +method of elucidating the Promus by ‘Shakespeare’ seems to have +been to fix upon the most salient word in one of Bacon’s notes, and +then to take up Mrs. Cowden-Clarke’s Concordance to Shakespeare, and +find by its aid passages in which that word occurs, or more rarely a +phrase which expresses in some modified or related form the idea conveyed +by the Promus word or phrase. The result is a display of a +word or a phrase on one side and several like words or phrases on the +other; but of any necessary connection between them, of any inkling +of a growth of the latter from the former, there is an utter and total +absence.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-211">211 <span class="smcap">The Promus</span>, etc. A review in the <cite>Nation</cite>, New +York, March 15, 1883. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-212">212 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Shakespeare.</span> An editorial +article. [By <span class="smcap">J. G. Pyle</span>]. In the <cite>Pioneer Press</cite>, +St. Paul, Minn., March 25, 1883. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A notice of the <cite>Promus</cite>, introducing Morgan’s review.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“While there can be no doubt that the editress has carried her +comparisons to the last degree of attenuation, and has discovered resemblances +where there is nothing but the recurrence of a single unimportant +word in the Promus and in the Plays on which to stand, yet, when +these instances are eliminated, there remains a body of coincidences +which cannot be dismissed with a cool assumption of superiority to all +modern ‘vagaries,’ and which will require some more coherent explanation +than the article by Richard Grant White in the last <cite>Atlantic</cite>.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-213">213 <span class="smcap">A Review of Bacon’s Promus. By Appleton +Morgan.</span> In the <cite>Pioneer Press</cite>, St. Paul, Minn. +Part I, March 25, 1883; Part II, April 1, 1883. +5 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>In this paper, besides going into a general review of the +subject, Mr. Morgan gives a summary, under twelve heads, +of the <em>Net Results of the Promus</em>, at the conclusion of which +he says:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Now which existing anti-Shakespearean theory does the evidence +of this Promus most clearly corroborate? There are four of these +theories, all of which have many parts in common, but no two of +which are exactly alike, viz:</p> + +<p>“1. That Bacon and the rest of a coterie of political philosophers +and moralists wrote in Hermetic or cryptographical compositions a philosophy +for ‘the next ages’ which they dared not promulgate in Elizabeth’s +reign (Miss Delia Bacon’s theory).</p> + +<p>“2. That Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare (the Baconian theory).</p> + +<p>“3. That the coterie (perhaps the same as that Miss Bacon suggested) +wrote the plays to amuse themselves—and induced William +Shakespeare to father them for a consideration (the New theory).</p> + +<p>“4. That whoever wrote them, William Shakespeare was stage +editor only of the plays (the Editorial theory).</p> + +<p>“It seems to us that the new evidence offered by the Promus +marshals itself, with the least violence, on the side of either Theory +2 or Theory 4, and, as between these latter, most naturally on the side +of Theory 4.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-214">214 <span class="smcap">The Authorship of Miss Bacon’s Book.</span> In +the <cite>Sunday Telegraph</cite>, Milwaukee, Wis. Three +articles of dates following:</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—<span class="smcap">An Odd Literary Sensation.</span> [Editorial, by +Col. <span class="smcap">E. A. Calkins</span>]. March 25, 1883.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Miss Bacon, as she alleged to be the case with Shakespeare, was +not the author of her own book. It was written throughout by T. C. +Leland, then a stenographic reporter on the New York <cite>Tribune</cite>. +* * * Mr. Leland stated to literary gentlemen with whom he became +acquainted at Madison [in 1853] that he was engaged in this +labor, and had partly completed Miss Bacon’s work. * * * He did +not claim to be more than her mere amanuensis, though in fact he was +something more, as he furnished the forms of expression which Miss +Bacon employed while transferring her views to paper.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—<span class="smcap">Miss Delia Bacon.</span> Letter from W. H. W. +[<span class="smcap">W. H. Wyman</span>]. April 8, 1883.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Doubtless there would be a poetic or retributive justice in denying +to Delia Bacon the authorship of her own book, but, unfortunately +for this theory, I cannot see how it can have the slightest foundation in +fact. * * * [References are given to Mrs. Farrar’s <cite>Recollections</cite>, and +to Hawthorne’s <cite>Preface</cite> to Miss Bacon’s work.] * * * These extracts +show conclusively that neither of her works on this subject were +written in this country, nor until some years after the reported conversations; +and even that in England she could have had no assistance +is clear, from the fact that she was alone, and it was with the utmost +difficulty that she sustained herself during that time. * * * I do +not call your attention to these misapprehensions because I have any +belief in Delia Bacon’s theories, but simply that justice may be done +to the memory of a woman whose sad fate has caused her to be greatly +misunderstood.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p class="negin2"><i>c</i>—<span class="smcap">Letter from T. C. Leland</span>, dated New York, +August 22, 1883; printed September 9, 1883.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I think it was in the late fall of 1852, or perhaps it was December, +I was engaged to report some lectures delivered in this city by +Miss Delia Bacon, on the Art and Culture of Egypt and other ancient +nations. Though she was a very ready, fluent, and, at times, eloquent +speaker, yet when she came to take up her pen she wrote slowly and +with difficulty. She expressed a wish one day that I should help her +in this respect. I suggested that, if she could dictate to me, an audience +of one, as fluently and happily as she did to an audience of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[105]</span>hundreds, she would be a perfect success. We agreed to make the +experiment, but, on trial, she found that an amanuensis was practically +somewhat better, but not much, than a pen. There was, on trial, one +advantage; that occasionally she would have inspired moments and a +spurt of thought and rapid utterances; and these gushes I could take +down and save, which otherwise she could not have traced rapidly +enough on paper, and would have lost. * * * But in all this I +played the part, simply and only, of an amanuensis, putting down her +words conscientiously without any change or amendment of mine. My +short-hand notes were translated into long-hand copy just as she delivered +the words, and handed to her. I suppose that these notes were +the basis, in whole or in part—probably a larger part—of her subsequent +book.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-215">215 <span class="smcap">Bacon’s Promus Again.</span> By A. A. A. [<span class="smcap">Adee</span>]. +In the <cite>Republic</cite>, Washington, March 31, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-216">216 <span class="smcap">The Shakespeare-Bacon Question.</span> A Bibliographical +list of the works on the subject in the +Boston Public Library. In the <cite>Bulletin</cite> of the +Library for April, 1883. 38 titles.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-217">217 <span class="smcap">The Bacon-Shakespeare Craze.</span> By <span class="smcap">Richard +Grant White</span>. In the <cite>Atlantic Monthly</cite> for +April, 1883. (See pages 507-521.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>In this paper, Mr. White expresses his personal indifference +as to whether Bacon, Shakespeare, or anybody else is +to be credited with the authorship, as it “affects in no way the +value or interest of the plays;” he gives a very complete and +unfavorable review of the <cite>Promus</cite>, occupying ten pages; instances +the sonnets, as impossible to have been written by +Bacon, who did not therefore write the plays; and makes a +brilliant comparison between Bacon and Shakespeare, showing +“the unlikeness of Bacon’s mind and of his style to those of +the writer of the plays.” The following is an +<ins class="corr" id="tn-105" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'an extact from'"> +extract</ins> from the concluding paragraph:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“As to treating the question seriously, that is not to be done by men +of common sense and moderate knowledge of the subject. * * * It +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[106]</span>is as certain that William Shakespeare wrote (after the theatrical fashion, +and under the theatrical conditions of his day) the plays that bear his +name, as it is that Francis Bacon wrote the Novum Organum, the +Advancement of Learning, and the Essays. The notion that Bacon +also wrote Titus Andronicus, The Comedy of Errors, Hamlet, King +Lear, and Othello, is not worth five minutes’ consideration by any +reasonable creature.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-218">218 <span class="smcap">Richard Grant White</span> and “<span class="smcap">The Bacon-Shakespeare +Craze</span>.” By F. [<span class="smcap">Edward Fillebrown</span>]. +In the <cite>Commonwealth</cite>, Boston, March +31, 1883. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-219">219 “<span class="smcap">The Bacon-Shakespeare Craze.</span>” Letter of +<span class="smcap">Appleton Morgan</span> in the <cite>Post</cite>, Boston, April 2, +1883. ¼ column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-220">220 “<span class="smcap">The Bacon-Shakespeare Craze</span>” of Richard +Grant White. By O. F. [<span class="smcap">O. Follett</span>]. In the +<cite>Register</cite>, Sandusky, O., April 5, 1883. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-221">221 <span class="smcap">The Promus</span>, etc. A notice of the book in the +<cite>Mercury</cite>, Leeds, England, April 11, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-222">222 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Schooling, with Some Light +as to the Elizabethan Boy.</span> Letter from +<span class="smcap">Appleton Morgan</span>. In the <cite>Pioneer Press</cite>, St. +Paul, Minn., April 15, 1883. ½ column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A dissertation on the insufficiency of the schools in Shakespeare’s +day. In illustration of this, Mr. Morgan quotes schoolmaster +Evans and his pupil William, in <cite>Merry Wives of Windsor</cite>, +Act <span class="allsmcap">IV</span>, Scene 1.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[107]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-223">223 <span class="smcap">The Bacon-Shakespeare Theory.</span> In the <cite>Morning +Journal</cite>, Cincinnati, April 16, 1883. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-224">224 <span class="smcap">Shakespearian Circle-Squaring.</span> A criticism +of the <cite>Promus</cite>, in the <cite>Pall Mall Gazette</cite>, London, +April 20, 1883. 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-225">225 <span class="smcap">Articles</span> in <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, in the <cite>Literary +World</cite>, Boston, April 21, 1883.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Cleopatra’s “Billiards.” Note from Hon. A. +A. Adee, with remarks by the Editor.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Mr. Grant White on Bacon and Shakespeare.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Adee</span> calls attention to the fact that the often quoted +(but disputed) anachronism in <cite>Antony and Cleopatra</cite>—where +<em>Cleopatra</em> says to her attendant, <em>Charmian</em>, “let’s to billiards”—was +doubtless obtained from Chapman, who uses +the word “billiards” similarly in his <cite>Blind Beggar of Alexandria</cite>, +printed ten years before <cite>Antony and Cleopatra</cite>, was written. +As to the anachronisms generally, Mr. Rolfe says:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “If, to preserve his incognito, Bacon had refrained from +any parade of his scholarship, and had even put occasional anachronisms +into the mouths of his characters, we cannot imagine him showing +the habitual ignorance in such matters that Shakespeare does. He +could never have made Coriolanus talk of ‘graves in the holy church-yard,’ +or Menenius, in the same play, of ‘Galen’—‘an anachronism of +near 650 years,’ as Dr. Grey called it—or Mark Antony, of coming to +‘bury’ Cæsar, and the like. These frequent and free-and-easy blunders, +so utterly inconsistent with the scholarly habit of mind, are of themselves +a sufficient refutation of the theory that ‘Bacon wrote Shakespeare.’”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-226">226 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare.</span> By Rev. <span class="smcap">Edward C. Towne</span>. +Two articles in the <cite>Evening Transcript</cite>, Boston. +I, April 28, 1883; II, August 3, 1883. 3 columns +each.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[108]</span></p> + +<p>These articles are devoted principally to the life, genius, +and character of Shakespeare as disproving the Baconian +theory.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-227">227 “<span class="smcap">Our Shakespeare Club.</span>” Remarks of <span class="smcap">Sam. +Timmins</span>, Chairman. In the <cite>Daily Mail</cite>, Birmingham, +England, April 24, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Timmins</span> presided at the annual dinner of the club +on the birth-day of Shakespeare, at the Plow and Harrow +Hotel, Birmingham, and made the opening address, opposing +all the anti-Shakespearian theories.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-228">228 “<span class="smcap">Bacon’s Promus.</span>” Two letters of <span class="smcap">Appleton +Morgan</span> of this title. In the <cite>Republic</cite>, Washington, +April 28, and March 24, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-229">229 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare as a Myth.</span> By <span class="smcap">Henry Hooper</span>. +In the <cite>Commercial Gazette</cite>, Cincinnati, April 29, +1883. 3 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Occasioned by Morgan’s <cite>Shakespearean Myth</cite>, to which it +is a reply.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“If Shakespeare alone wrote these plays, then it is the greatest miracle +on record, says Mr. Morgan. If it be a miracle for one, it would +be a combination of miracles for ten, or even two, to compose <cite>Hamlet</cite> +or <cite>Othello</cite>. * * * The joint composition theory is as improbable and +impossible as it would be for an orchestra to invent a Symphony of +Beethoven. You might just as well say that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony +is the joint work of a number of musicians, viz: that the violin +players composed the string parts, the reed players the flute and oboe +parts, and the trombones and double basses their scores. This is not +more absurd than the theory that a pale student, a needy scholar, a +ready writer, an actor and a stage manager produced <cite>Twelfth Night</cite> and +<cite>King Lear</cite>.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[109]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-230">230 <span class="smcap">Who Was Shakespeare?</span> Address by Mr. <span class="smcap">William +Leighton, Jr.</span>, at the Shakespeare Club +Banquet, Wheeling, W. Va., April 23, 1883. In +the <cite>Sunday Register</cite>, Wheeling, April 29, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>In Mr. <span class="smcap">Leighton’s</span> address the authorship is only incidentally +referred to.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Genius is the touch of God’s hand, an inspiration that comes not +out of any college, but is evoked from the soul by its own tendencies +and aspirations; and, so born, can only be fostered into healthy maturity +by unremitting labor. The attempt to take from Shakespeare’s +brow the laurel crown of the most glorious of bards is a vain effort to +rob a dead man of well-earned honors; and why? Because a yeoman +must not presume to stand above a nobleman; or a poet, who has not +been to college, dare to mount the winged steed. But Shakespeare’s +honors can not be taken from him by idle sophistry or arbitrary dogmatism; +he has entrenched himself in the hearts of his countrymen, +and his position is impregnable.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-231">231 <span class="smcap">Who Is Shakespeare?</span> Address by Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph +Crosby</span>, at the Shakespeare Club Banquet, Wheeling, +W. Va., as above. In the <cite>Sunday Register</cite>, +Wheeling, April 29, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Crosby</span>—whose views will be found under title <a href="#t-126">126</a>—devotes +a portion only of this address to the authorship.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-232">232 <span class="smcap">Letter from Appleton Morgan.</span> In the <cite>Church +Eclectic</cite>, Utica, N. Y., for May, 1883. 3 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A reply to the letter of Mr. Crosby’s in the same magazine +for November, 1880. We quote one point only:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I am sure I can refer the writer to at least half a score of authorities +which will agree that the tuition in provincial grammar-schools +of the Sixteenth Century was simply ridiculous, and a travesty; a little +of A, B, C, and Lily’s Accidence, and a good deal of birch; and that +however it made boys truants, it hardly graduated ‘men of letters.’”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[110]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-233">233 <span class="smcap">Bosh about Bacon.</span> By A. B. B. [<span class="smcap">A. B. Braley</span>, +Madison, Wis.] In the <cite>Sunday Telegraph</cite>, Milwaukee, +Wis., May 20, 1883, 1½ columns. Also, +<span class="smcap">The Bacon Cranks</span>. Evidence of Shakespeare’s +Contemporaries. In the same paper, June 10, 1883. +1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-234">234 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare at Home.</span> Letter from M. D. C. +[<span class="smcap">Moncure D. Conway</span>], from Stratford-on-Avon, +April 21, 1883. In the <cite>Commercial Gazette</cite>, Cincinnati, +May 26, 1883. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>An interesting letter from Mr. Conway on the occasion of +one of the commemorative celebrations at Stratford.</p> + +<p>Referring to Delia Bacon’s book:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>* * * “Perhaps there never was such a monument of wasted +ability. There is hardly anything in it of a negative character, very +little that shows apprehension of the real points in the Shakespearean +traditions that tempt skepticism. Her book dwells on the affirmation +that Bacon wrote the plays; that may easily be answered by any one who +will turn from a page of Shakespeare to one of Bacon, which, to most +people, is turning from a winged to an earth-bound genius. But the +incidental theory that Shakespeare did <em>not</em> write these plays, though +at present the <ins class="corr" id="tn-110" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'the fadd of'"> +fad</ins> of a few, is not unlikely to acquire large proportions +in the future. Such is the inevitable doom of every set of traditions +that have not been subjected to severe skeptical criticism.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“For the back-ground of miracle is always present—namely, that +the village lad, son of a man who could not write his name, wrote +all these mighty works, died at the age of fifty-three, and yet left no +manuscript, no records, so that not even his birth-day is known.</p> + +<p>“Yet here are the works. Somebody wrote them. Or it would +be truer to say that somebody recognized the great world-histories and +legends, exhumed them, covered them with flesh and blood, and breathed +into them the breath of life. For here we are enjoying them, and +finding amid all these creations the presence of a central mind, however +inapprehensible.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-235">235 <span class="smcap">Who Wrote Julius Cæsar?</span> By H. I. In the +<cite>Times-Star</cite>, Cincinnati, May 29, 1883. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[111]</span></p> + +<p>The writer takes the occasion of the Cincinnati Dramatic +Festival to make this inquiry:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The Dramatic Festival of this city was inaugurated by the production, +at immense cost and great splendor, of the play of Julius +Cæsar. It must have been ‘indeed an oasis’—with McCullough and +Murdoch, Barrett, Louis James, and Miss Forsyth in the fore-front, five +hundred Roman citizens and soldiers in perfect drill—a spectacle this +to have gladdened with happy moisture the eyes, could they have seen +it, of—the—author. Who was he?”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The writer professes his belief that the author was Francis +Bacon, and advances a claim of parallel thoughts, etc., +between the plays and the <cite>Advancement of Learning</cite> in support +of his opinion.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-236">236 <span class="smcap">Hat Francis Bacon die Dramen William +Shakespeare’s Geschrieben?</span> Ein Beitrag zur +Geschichte der geistigen Verirrungen. Von Dr. +<span class="smcap">Eduard Engel</span>, Leipzig, 1883. (<span class="smcap">Did Francis +Bacon Write William Shakespeare’s Plays?</span> +A contribution to the history of Intellectual Errors.) +Pamphlet, pp. 43.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Engel</span> takes for his text Mrs. Pott’s <cite>Promus</cite>, and this +pamphlet is in answer to that work, and to the favorable +notice of it appearing in the <cite lang="de">Allgemeine Zeitung</cite> (see titles <a href="#t-205">205</a> +and <a href="#t-206">206</a>), which he ascribes to ‘Herr V.’ He strongly +opposes all anti-Shakespearian theories.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It would be deplorable, and would contradict all the history of +the world’s literature, if Lord Bacon had written Shakespeare’s plays. +It would be deplorable—and this decides the matter—because it would +then be shown, for the first time in the history of mankind, that a +poetical genius of the highest sublimity, and a character of the lowest +baseness, could exist in one and the same man.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Dr. Engel closes his essay with a quotation from Herder:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“I have in my mind an immense figure of a man, sitting high on +a rocky summit; at his feet, storm, tempest, and the raging of the sea; +but his head in the beams of heaven. This is Shakespeare. Only, with +this addition, that far below, at the foot of his rocky throne, are murmuring +crowds, who expound, preserve, condemn, defend, worship, +slander, over-rate, and abuse him—and of all this he hears nothing.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[112]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-237">237 <span class="smcap">Bacon and Shakespeare.</span> In <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, +in the <cite>Literary World</cite>, Boston, June 2, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The editor introduces in this article an extract from a +letter received by Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Crosby</span> from “one of the most +learned and philosophical of living Shakespearian critics.” +The writer of the letter [Dr. <span class="smcap">Ingleby</span>, of England] says, after +expressing his dissent from the opinions of those who believe +that it is immaterial whether the plays were written by Shakespeare +or Bacon:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“And I cannot without concern witness the crazy efforts of these +would-be critics to separate what history has joined together, and to +make over the better half of Shakespeare’s fame to a man, not only +immeasurably his inferior, but of a totally different order of mind. +* * * I have read, studied, and written upon Francis Bacon, and +seem to myself to know the man well; as well as I know Shakespeare, +through his works. I do not hesitate to say that Bacon’s strength lay +in his Analysis: he was a most acute and sagacious critic of the past, +and moreover knew the needs of man, and in what direction those +needs could be met, and to some extent satisfied. But this made him +a tremendous Apollyon—a destructive force of the greatest, the most +momentous character. He succeeded as a destroyer, but when he +attempted to construct, he made a conspicuous failure. * * * Such +a man write Shakespeare! It is really not worth five minutes’ discussion.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-238">238 <span class="smcap">About Shakespeare.</span> By <span class="smcap">Joseph A. Woodhull</span>. +In the <cite>Republican</cite>, Angola, Ind., June 27, 1883. +1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-239">239 <span class="smcap">A Bit of the Baconian Theory.</span> A letter from +<span class="smcap">Constance M. Pott</span>. [Mrs. <span class="smcap">Henry Pott</span>.] In +the <cite>Pioneer Press</cite>, St. Paul, Minn., July 15, 1883. +1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This letter is mainly a description of St. Albans, the residence +of Lord Bacon, with its historical associations and its +objects of archæological interest, as compared with Stratford-on-Avon, +and what R. Grant White calls its “museum of +doubtful relics and gimcracks.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[113]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-240">240 <span class="smcap">William Done For.</span> By <span class="smcap">John W. Bell</span>. In the +<cite>Commercial Gazette</cite>, July 21, 1883. ½ column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>An answer to Mr. Hooper’s article (title <a href="#t-229">229</a>) in same paper.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-241">241 Mr. <span class="smcap">O’Connor’s Letter</span>. In <span class="smcap">Bucke’s</span> life of +<cite>Walt Whitman</cite>. Philadelphia, August, 1883. (See +pages 88 to 93.)</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This is an introductory letter by William D. O’Connor to +his <cite>Good Grey Poet</cite>, printed in the appendix to the above work.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The main scope and purpose of the Shakespeare drama are definitely +given by Lord Bacon in connection with his assertion that the +compilation of the natural history of the human passions is the first +duty of philosophy, and that it is particularly the province of poetry. +In this connection he describes the Shakespearean work perfectly. +Therein, he says, ‘we may find painted forth, with great life, how passions +are kindled and incited; how pacified and refrained; and how +again contained from act and further degree; how they disclose themselves; +how they work; how they vary; how they gather and fortify; +how they are inwrapped, one within another; and how they do fight +and encounter one with another; and other the like particulars.’ ‘That +is to say,’ remarks Dr. Kuno Fischer, quoting this passage: ‘Bacon +desires nothing less than a natural history of the passions; <em>the very +thing</em> that Shakespeare has produced.’</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“The only supreme tyrant is ignorance. If I sought to express +the Shakespeare drama in the image of a person, I would not choose +the eidolon of any feudal emperor. My choice would be a man like +Francis Bacon, * * * wise with all the lore of all the ages, +the companion and counsellor of princes, the familiar of gypsies, and +tinkers, and sailors as well; deep-eyed, with long insight into the +minds of men of every degree; master of multiform experiences; traveled, +elegant, courtly, august, intrepid, loyal, gentle, compassionate, sorrowful, +beautiful; clothed, from fondness for sumptuous apparel, in +purple three-piled velvet, rich laces, and the hat with plumes, yet loving—another +anecdote tells of him—to ride with bared head, in the +warm and perfumed rains of spring, that he might feel upon him, he +said, the universal spirit of the world.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[114]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-242">242 <span class="smcap">A Bibliography of the Exhumation Question.</span> +By Dr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Ingleby</span>. In <cite>Shakespeare’s Bones</cite>. +London: Trübner & Co., 1883. 4to. pp. 48.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>This Bibliography is appended to Dr. <span class="smcap">Ingleby’s</span> book, and +is pertinent to this question only in its references to an exhumation +as likely to set at rest the theories (Miss Bacon’s, for +instance) as to documents being deposited in the tomb of +Shakespeare.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-243">243 <span class="smcap">The Sonnets of Shakespeare. When, to +Whom, and by Whom Written.</span> By <span class="smcap">Antiquary</span>. +(Reprinted from the <cite>Truth Seeker</cite>, New York, of +August 18, 1883.) Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 12.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The author gives the dedication of the Sonnets:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. H. all +happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our ever-living poet | +wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting forth | T. T.”</p> + +<p>The American Cyclopedia says:</p> + +<p>“To whom they were written, and in whose person [T. T.] is +among the most difficult of unsolved literary problems. * * * Who +this ‘onlie begetter’ was, no man has yet been able satisfactorily to +show.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The writer discusses the various theories on this subject. +His conclusions may be summed up in the following extract:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“All the internal and external evidence points to the year 1590 as +the date, Francis Bacon as the writer, and the Earl of Essex as the +person addressed.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-244">244 <span class="smcap">Mr. Morgan and Shakespeare.</span> In the <cite>Pioneer +Press</cite>, St. Paul, August 19, 1883, introducing a +letter from Appleton Morgan. 1½ columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This refers mainly to Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, which +(Mr. Morgan claims) proves that “many hands and many brains +were concerned in composing the works we call Shakespeare.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[115]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-245">245 <span class="smcap">The Gout Club Discusses the Authorship of +Shakespeare.</span> In the <cite>Tribune</cite>, Denver, Col., October +14, 1883. 3 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>What is here called the Gout Club of Denver, consists of +a few congenial spirits who meet socially and discuss various +subjects in an informal way. In this article various gentlemen +are credited with opinions and speeches on the question. +The colloquists consist of Col. Ward H. Lamon, Col. J. B. +Belford, Judge Ward, Col. Craig, Major Carson, Col. Dormer, +and Judge Steck.</p> + +<p>Reference is made in this discussion to an article, <cite>Who +Wrote Shakespeare’s Henry VIII?</cite> by J. S. [<span class="smcap">James Spedding</span>], +in the <cite>Gentleman’s Magazine</cite> for August, 1850, as the earliest +mention of a doubt as to the authorship. (The date is erroneously +given as February, 1852.) That article, however, does +not raise the general question of the authorship, but simply +claims to discover the hand of Fletcher in a portion of this +play, as a co-worker with Shakespeare.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-246">246 <span class="smcap">The Offer to the New Shakespere Society.</span> +In the <cite>Academy</cite>, London, November 24, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Unc.</em> +</p> + +<p>The “curiosities” of this literature would be incomplete +without the following:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Mr. Furnivall, as director of the New Shakespere Society, has +received an amusing letter from New South Wales. A gentleman there +has, after seven years’ search, discovered, not only the well-known historical +character who wrote all Shakespeare’s plays and poems, but the +very month and spot in which eleven of the plays were written, and +the probable date and locality in which the rest were composed, the +author’s object in writing them, and the historical characters and events +meant by the dramatic ones; further, that one character was interpolated, +and one entire play was written by the author after Shakespeare’s +death. This antipodean discoverer can also now date and explain all +the Sonnets except four (123, 124, 144, 146), and those ‘will be explained +on a future occasion.’ He knows who ‘Mr. W. H.,’ the begetter +of the Sonnets, was, and all the persons to whom they were addressed; +and he can show that our royal family is descended from Perdita. So +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[116]</span>certain is the researcher of the value of his discoveries that he offers to +come to London and unfold his secrets to the New Shakespere Society, +if only they will guarantee him the payment of £30,000 in case he can +convince the majority of them of the truth of his discoveries. A letter +from the Premier of New South Wales attests the high standing and +sanity of the discoverer.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-247">247 <span class="smcap">Notes on Julius Cæsar.</span> By <span class="smcap">Wm. J. Rolfe</span>. In +<cite>Shakespeariana</cite> (the new Shakespearian monthly. +New York: Leonard Scott Publishing Co.), for +December, 1883.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>A part only of the article refers to this subject:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The closeness with which the dramatist follows Plutarch in Julius +Cæsar and the other Roman plays has been noted by the commentators +generally. * * * Even the blunders of Plutarch, or of his copyists or +editors (as <em>Decius Brutus</em> for <em>Decimus Brutus</em>, <em>Calphurnia</em> for <em>Calpurnia</em>, +and the like), are literally reproduced in the play. To my mind this +is proof positive that Bacon did not write it. He was too good a +scholar to follow blindly the translation of a translation, repeating errors +which a scholar would neither make himself nor fail to detect in another; +and he was too independent to adopt the views of any one authority +without comparing them with others that were equally well known +to him.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-248">248 <span class="smcap">Lawyer or no Lawyer.</span> Letter from <span class="smcap">Appleton +Morgan</span>. In <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, New York, for January, +1884.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>Mr. Morgan argues from the “grave-digger travesty” in +<cite>Hamlet</cite>, and the trial scene in the <cite>Merchant of Venice</cite>, that +“William Shakespeare was neither a lawyer nor a lawyer’s +clerk.”</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It is wicked to peep and botanize over the magnificent and matchless +poetry of that matchless trial scene. But if it is worth while to +find out who wrote that magnificent and matchless poetry, these questions +ought not to be stifled.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[117]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-249">249 <span class="smcap">Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?</span> By +Prof. <span class="smcap">J. H. Gilmore</span>. In the <cite>Standard</cite>, Chicago, +January 31, 1884. 2 columns.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The plays do not evince <em>learning</em>, but <em>genius</em>. They are especially +deficient in that refinement which springs from thorough culture, and +which Bacon pre-eminently possessed. Indeed, as insisted by Dowden, +the whole habit and spirit of Bacon’s mind and the mind of Shakespeare +were different.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The comparison of Shakespeare and Bacon alluded to +above will be found in <span class="smcap">Dowden’s</span> <cite>Shakespeare: His Mind and +Art</cite>, pages 16, 17.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-250">250 “<span class="smcap">Who Was Holofernes?</span>” By Mrs. <span class="smcap">Henry +Pott</span>. In <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, New York, for February, +1884. 2 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This was occasioned by an article of Mr. Henry Hooper’s, +in <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, for December, 1883, under the same title, +intimating that Shakespeare had Lord Bacon in his mind as +the model for <em>Holofernes</em>, the pedantic schoolmaster in <cite>Love’s +Labor Lost</cite>. Mrs. Pott believes that the character of <em>Holofernes</em> +was drawn by Bacon himself as an example of “pedantic and +wordy affectations,” and quotes from his works to sustain her +opinion.</p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-251">251 <span class="smcap">The Law in Shakespeare.</span> By <span class="smcap">C. K. Davis</span>. +St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1884. 12mo. +pp. 303.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>An index of Legal Terms and References in the plays, +with an introduction (pages 3-59) devoted to the Baconian +theory in part.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“And now comes some one and says that here is more proof that +Shakespeare is a mere <em>alias</em> for Bacon. It is difficult to touch or let +alone this vagary with any patience. One is inclined to protest simply +in the words of Shakespeare’s epitaph:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[118]</span></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare</div> + <div class="verse indent0">To digg the dust encloased heare,</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">and pass on, deeming all secure against a desecration worse than that +which the poet cursed.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“Charles I. was sixteen years of age when Shakespeare died. Bacon +dedicated to him his history of Henry VII. Shakespeare in Macbeth +nobly magnified the House of Stuart by a prophecy of its perpetuity. +The works of Shakespeare were the closet companion of Charles, who +was reproached for this by Milton, at a time when the fierce zealots of +rebellion had come to look upon the drama as sinful. Falkland was +Charles’s councilor, and it is from him that we have respecting Caliban, +the first critical estimate extant of any character in Shakespeare. And +yet from prince, king, courtier, poet, or scholar, we hear no hint which +can give this modern theory the slightest support.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-252">252 <span class="smcap">Davis’s “The Law in Shakespeare.”</span> Two +articles in the <cite>Pioneer Press</cite>, St. Paul, February +24, 1884. [By <span class="smcap">Appleton Morgan</span>].</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>a</i>—Review of the book. 2½ columns.</p> + +<p class="negin2"><i>b</i>—Gov. Davis on Shakespeare. ½ column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>The following is the conclusion of the last named article:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Gov. Davis has added a notable contribution to the material +accumulating to answer this question, if answered it ever is to be. The +Baconians will, perhaps, accuse him of unprofessional conduct in moving +to cross off the roll of Shakespearean possibilities the name of a +great lawyer and Lord Chancellor. But they will find their consolation +in the fact that here is an entirely new arsenal for carrying on their +warfare. For nobody has ever so unmistakably shown the lawyer in +the plays before. In fact, Gov. Davis will thus find his peace all +around. Shakespeareans will purr him for his heavy blows at the +Baconians; Baconians will secretly approve him for building better than +he knew when he traced an aristocratic lawyer in every Shakespearean +line; and the neutral student will add the book to his Shakespeariana, +among the fresh rather than the stale matter, with pleasure and thanksgiving. +No Minnesotian will fail to feel honored that one of our most +distinguished fellow-citizens has, for the first time, drawn from the +history of Francis Bacon, if not from that of William Shakespeare, an +almost insuperable and insurmountable reason why Francis Bacon, at +least, could not have been William Himself.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[119]</span></p> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-253">253 <span class="smcap">The Baconian Theory.</span> Review of the <cite>Promus</cite>, +in the <cite>Times</cite>, New York, Feb. 25, 1884. 1 column.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“In publishing this <cite>Promus</cite>, Mrs. Pott has not only failed to prove +that Bacon wrote Shakespeare’s plays, but she has gone a long way +toward proving that Bacon could not possibly have written them. It is +inconceivable that a poet in keeping a note book of phrases, etc., to be +used in his finished work, should not frequently write out in the glow +of creation, whole passages, or, at least, consecutive lines of verse, to +be afterward incorporated in his poem. Let any one compare, for instance, +Hawthorne’s note book with his tales and romances. He will +find entire pages transferred almost bodily from the former into the +latter. He will find scores of metaphors, similes, reflections, outlines +for stories, descriptions, incidents, etc., the language of which is reproduced, +in great part literally, in the completed works of the romancer. +There is no such resemblance to be detected anywhere between the +fragmentary jottings in the <cite>Promus</cite> and the text of Shakespeare’s plays. +On the other hand, there are in the <cite>Promus</cite> numbers of quotations and +sentences which Bacon did use in his acknowledged writings, and in +such cases the language is almost always identical, and any one familiar +with the Essays, <em>e. g.</em> will recognize the source of many sayings +that have struck his mind.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-254">254 <span class="smcap">Shakespeare as a Foreign Linguist.</span> By Prof. +<span class="smcap">James A. Harrison</span>. In <cite>Shakespeariana</cite>, New +York, for March, 1884.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Pro-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<p>This paper merely refers to the authorship in this suggestive +question:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“If Bacon had been the author of these plays, would he not have +strewn them with innumerable Latinisms?”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<p class="entry" id="t-255">255 <span class="smcap">Whose Sonnets?</span> By <span class="smcap">Appleton Morgan</span>. In +the <cite>Manhattan</cite>, New York, May, 1884. 8 pages.</p> + +<p class="right"> + <em>Anti-Sh.</em> +</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“Either these Sonnets are those mentioned as circulating among +Shakespeare’s private friends prior to 1598, or they are not. If they +are, they are as doubtfully his as is the rest of the literary matter +given by Meres, so far as we know. If they are not, then they have +no claim to be called Shakespeare’s except from the fact that his name +was put on the title pages of three books of verses, among which verses +they appeared.”</p> +</blockquote> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_120"></a><a id="Page_121"></a>[121]</span></p> + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX_TO_TITLES"> + INDEX TO TITLES. + </h2> + + +<blockquote> +<p>In this index is included, not only the writers, but others who are mentioned +as having expressed opinions. Where initials or assumed names are used, and the +name of the writer is not known, the articles are indexed only to the magazine or +other serial in which they appeared. References are to Title numbers, not pages.</p> +</blockquote> + + +<ul class="index"> + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Abbott</span>, Dr. <span class="smcap">Edwin A.</span>, <a href="#t-187">187</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Academy</i>, London, <a href="#t-246">246</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Adee, Alvey A.</span>, <a href="#t-199">199</a>, <a href="#t-203">203</a>, <a href="#t-209">209</a>, <a href="#t-215">215</a>, + <a href="#t-225">225</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Adee, David Graham</span>, <a href="#t-148">148</a>, <a href="#t-149">149</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Advance</i>, Chicago, <a href="#t-49">49</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Advertiser</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-189">189</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Ainslie, Th.</span>, <a href="#t-65">65</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Allen, T. S.</span>, <a href="#t-177">177</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Allgemeine Zeitung</i>, Stuttgart, <a href="#t-205">205</a>, <a href="#t-206">206</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Allibone, S. Austin</span>, <a href="#t-104">104</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>American</i>, Philadelphia, <a href="#t-151">151</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>American Register</i>, Paris, <a href="#t-108">108</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Appletons’ Journal</i>, N. Y., <a href="#t-114">114</a>, <a href="#t-116">116</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Argus and Radical</i>, Beaver, Pa., <a href="#t-54">54</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Argus</i>, Melbourne, <a href="#t-144">144</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Athenæum</i>, London, <a href="#t-5">5</a>, <a href="#t-8">8</a>, <a href="#t-14">14</a>, <a href="#t-16">16</a>, <a href="#t-18">18</a>, <a href="#t-22">22</a>, + <a href="#t-46">46</a>, <a href="#t-196">196</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Atkinson, Henry G.</span>, <a href="#t-120">120</a>, <a href="#t-123">123</a>, <a href="#t-166">166</a>, <a href="#t-176">176</a>, + <a href="#t-181">181</a>, <a href="#t-183">183</a>, <a href="#t-186">186</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-27">27</a>, <a href="#t-217">217</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Bacon</span>, Miss <span class="smcap">Delia</span>, <a href="#t-4">4</a>, <a href="#t-17">17</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Beecher, Henry Ward</span>, <a href="#t-70">70</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Belford, J. B.</span>, <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Bell, John W.</span>, <a href="#t-155">155</a>, <a href="#t-178">178</a>, <a href="#t-240">240</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Bell’s Weekly Messenger</i>, London, <a href="#t-117">117</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Benton, Myron B.</span>, <a href="#t-116">116</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Bibliographer</i>, London, <a href="#t-182">182</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Bibliopolist (American)</i>, N. Y., <a href="#t-57">57</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Blackwood’s Magazine</i>, Edinburgh, <a href="#t-11">11</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Blade</i>, Toledo, O., <a href="#t-155">155</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Bohn, Henry G.</span>, <a href="#t-28">28</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Boston Public Library Bulletin</i>, <a href="#t-216">216</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Boucicault, Dion</span>, <a href="#t-61">61</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Bradford</span>, Rev. A. B., <a href="#t-54">54</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Brady, James T.</span>, <a href="#t-62">62</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Braley, A. B.</span>, <a href="#t-233">233</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>British Quarterly Review</i>, London, <a href="#t-174">174</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Brougham, John</span>, <a href="#t-62">62</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Buccellati</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Antonio</span>, <a href="#t-94">94</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Buckton, T. J.</span>, <a href="#t-26">26</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Bulletin</i>, Philadelphia, <a href="#t-64">64</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Bulloch, John</span>, <a href="#t-105">105</a>, <a href="#t-106">106</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Burgess, J. B.</span>, <a href="#t-65">65</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Burk, Addison B.</span>, <a href="#t-68">68</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Burton, William E.</span>, <a href="#t-62">62</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Butler</span>, Gen. B. F., <a href="#t-95">95</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Caldwell, George S.</span>, <a href="#t-98">98</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Calkins, E. A.</span>, <a href="#t-214">214</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[122]</span><i>Canadian Monthly</i>, Toronto, <a href="#t-119">119</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Carlyle, Thomas</span>, <a href="#t-73">73</a>, <a href="#t-131">131</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Carson</span>, Major, <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Carvalho, S. N.</span>, <a href="#t-77">77</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Catholic World</i>, New York, <a href="#t-101">101</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Cattell, Charles C.</span>, <a href="#t-103">103</a>, <a href="#t-112">112</a>, <a href="#t-113">113</a>, <a href="#t-123">123</a>, + <a href="#t-130">130</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal</i>, <a href="#t-2">2</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Christian Observer</i>, Richmond, <a href="#t-45">45</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Christian Register</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-88">88</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Chronicle</i>, Brookline, Mass., <a href="#t-171">171</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Chronicle</i>, Newcastle, Eng., <a href="#t-92">92</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Chronicle</i>, San Francisco, <a href="#t-165">165</a>, <a href="#t-179">179</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Church Eclectic</i>, Utica, N. Y., <a href="#t-126">126</a>, <a href="#t-232">232</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Civil Service Review</i>, <a href="#t-90">90</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Clarke</span>, Rev. <span class="smcap">J. Freeman</span>, <a href="#t-132">132</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Clipper</i>, New York, <a href="#t-51">51</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Close, Richard Colama</span>, <a href="#t-127">127</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Colquhoun</span>, Sir <span class="smcap">Patrick</span>, <a href="#t-117">117</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Commercial Gazette</i>, Cincinnati, <a href="#t-229">229</a>, <a href="#t-234">234</a>, <a href="#t-240">240</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Commonwealth</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-218">218</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Conway, Moncure D.</span>, <a href="#t-131">131</a>, <a href="#t-234">234</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Cornell Review</i>, Ithaca, N. Y., <a href="#t-87">87</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Corson</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Hiram</span>, <a href="#t-71">71</a>, <a href="#t-87">87</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Courant</i>, Hartford, Conn., <a href="#t-197">197</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Courier</i>, Lebanon, Pa., <a href="#t-70">70</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Craig</span>, Col., <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Crosby, Joseph</span>, <a href="#t-81">81</a>, <a href="#t-126">126</a>, <a href="#t-129">129</a>, <a href="#t-231">231</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Davey, R.</span>, <a href="#t-63">63</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Davis, C. K.</span>, <a href="#t-251">251</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Davis, L. Clarke</span>, <a href="#t-71">71</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Dixon, William Hepworth</span>, <a href="#t-93">93</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Donnelly, Ignatius</span>, <a href="#t-53">53</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Dormer</span>, Col., <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Dougherty, Daniel</span>, <a href="#t-65">65</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Eagle</i>, Brooklyn, <a href="#t-34">34</a>, <a href="#t-61">61</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Engel</span>, Dr. <span class="smcap">Eduard</span>, <a href="#t-236">236</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Enquirer</i>, Cincinnati, <a href="#t-179">179</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Evening Post</i>, New York, <a href="#t-44">44</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Farrar</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">John</span>, <a href="#t-30">30</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Ferrier, William W.</span>, <a href="#t-133">133</a>, <a href="#t-142">142</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Fillebrown, Edward</span>, <a href="#t-171">171</a>, <a href="#t-218">218</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Follett, O.</span>, <a href="#t-118">118</a>, <a href="#t-138">138</a>, <a href="#t-220">220</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Fraser’s Magazine</i>, London, <a href="#t-29">29</a>, <a href="#t-41">41</a>, <a href="#t-58">58</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Freeman’s Journal</i>, Dublin, <a href="#t-121">121</a>, <a href="#t-154">154</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Furness, Horace Howard</span>, <a href="#t-63">63</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Furnivall, F. J.</span>, <a href="#t-97">97</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Gazette</i>, Birmingham, Eng., <a href="#t-48">48</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Gazette</i>, Cincinnati, <a href="#t-151">151</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Gazette</i>, Washington, <a href="#t-190">190</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Gilmore, J. H.</span>, <a href="#t-249">249</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Globe Democrat</i>, St. Louis, <a href="#t-153">153</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Globe</i>, London, <a href="#t-117">117</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Golden Age</i>, <a href="#t-54">54</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Good Literature</i>, New York, <a href="#t-146">146</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Hackett, James H.</span>, <a href="#t-44">44</a>, <a href="#t-62">62</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hackett</span>, Recorder, <a href="#t-67">67</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hall, A. Oakey</span>, <a href="#t-62">62</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Harper’s Magazine</i>, New York, <a href="#t-43">43</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Harrison</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">James A.</span>, <a href="#t-254">254</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hart</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">John S.</span>, <a href="#t-78">78</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hart, Joseph C.</span>, <a href="#t-1">1</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Harte, Bret</span>, <a href="#t-61">61</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Harvard University Bulletin</i>, <a href="#t-135">135</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hawthorne, Nathaniel</span>, <a href="#t-6">6</a>, <a href="#t-17">17</a>, <a href="#t-22">22</a>, <a href="#t-24">24</a>, + <a href="#t-27">27</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Henshaw</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Sarah E.</span>, <a href="#t-49">49</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Herald</i>, Angola, Ind., <a href="#t-133">133</a>, <a href="#t-142">142</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Herald</i>, New York, <a href="#t-60">60</a>, <a href="#t-61">61</a>, <a href="#t-62">62</a>, <a href="#t-63">63</a>, <a href="#t-65">65</a>, + <a href="#t-66">66</a>, <a href="#t-67">67</a>, <a href="#t-68">68</a>, <a href="#t-70">70</a>, <a href="#t-71">71</a>, <a href="#t-72">72</a>, <a href="#t-73">73</a>, + <a href="#t-74">74</a>, <a href="#t-75">75</a>, <a href="#t-76">76</a>, <a href="#t-77">77</a>, <a href="#t-78">78</a>, <a href="#t-79">79</a>, <a href="#t-80">80</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Herald</i>, Stratford-on-Avon, <a href="#t-144">144</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Higgins</span>, Rev. Father, <a href="#t-200">200</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hinton, Richard J.</span>, <a href="#t-39">39</a>, <a href="#t-190">190</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Holl, H.</span>, <a href="#t-136">136</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Holmes, Nathaniel</span>, <a href="#t-32">32</a>, <a href="#t-93">93</a>, <a href="#t-153">153</a>, <a href="#t-167">167</a>, + <a href="#t-200">200</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Home Journal</i>, New York, <a href="#t-36">36</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hooper, Henry</span>, <a href="#t-229">229</a>, <a href="#t-250">250</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hopper, A.</span>, <a href="#t-9">9</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Hornet</i>, London, <a href="#t-91">91</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Hudson</span>, Rev. <span class="smcap">Henry N.</span>, <a href="#t-122">122</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Illustrated London News</i>, <a href="#t-10">10</a>, <a href="#t-12">12</a>, <a href="#t-13">13</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Ingleby</span>, Dr. C. M., <a href="#t-12">12</a>, <a href="#t-59">59</a>, <a href="#t-81">81</a>, <a href="#t-83">83</a>, <a href="#t-99">99</a>, + <a href="#t-100">100</a>, <a href="#t-122">122</a>, <a href="#t-160">160</a>, <a href="#t-166">166</a>, <a href="#t-237">237</a>, <a href="#t-242">242</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[123]</span><i>Inter-Ocean</i>, Chicago, <a href="#t-151">151</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Jewish Messenger</i>, New York, <a href="#t-37">37</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Journal des Debats</i>, Paris, <a href="#t-107">107</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">King, Thomas D.</span>, <a href="#t-84">84</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Knortz, Karl</span>, <a href="#t-157">157</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Lamon, Ward H.</span>, <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Leach</span>, Rev. <span class="smcap">William T.</span>, <a href="#t-84">84</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Leighton, William, Jr.</span>, <a href="#t-230">230</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Leland, T. C.</span>, <a href="#t-214">214</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>L’Instruction Publique</i>, Paris, <a href="#t-109">109</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Literary Gazette</i>, London, <a href="#t-7">7</a>, <a href="#t-16">16</a>, <a href="#t-19">19</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Literary World</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-115">115</a>, <a href="#t-125">125</a>, <a href="#t-134">134</a>, <a href="#t-140">140</a>, <a href="#t-164">164</a>, + <a href="#t-188">188</a>, <a href="#t-204">204</a>, <a href="#t-209">209</a>, <a href="#t-225">225</a>, <a href="#t-237">237</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Littell’s Living Age</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-6">6</a>, <a href="#t-58">58</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Mail</i>, Birmingham, Eng., <a href="#t-227">227</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Manhattan</i>, New York, <a href="#t-255">255</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Memoriale Diplomatique</i>, Paris, <a href="#t-94">94</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Mercury</i>, Leeds, Eng., <a href="#t-221">221</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Mercury (Sunday)</i>, Philadelphia, <a href="#t-55">55</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Methodist</i>, New York, <a href="#t-40">40</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Modern Thought</i>, London, <a href="#t-185">185</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Morgan, Appleton</span>, <a href="#t-114">114</a>, <a href="#t-147">147</a>, <a href="#t-164">164</a>, <a href="#t-184">184</a>, + <a href="#t-188">188</a>, <a href="#t-213">213</a>, <a href="#t-219">219</a>, <a href="#t-222">222</a>, <a href="#t-228">228</a>, <a href="#t-232">232</a>, + <a href="#t-244">244</a>, <a href="#t-248">248</a>, <a href="#t-252">252</a>, <a href="#t-255">255</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Morning Journal</i>, Cincinnati, <a href="#t-223">223</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Nation</i>, New York, <a href="#t-33">33</a>, <a href="#t-211">211</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>National Reformer</i>, London, <a href="#t-183">183</a>, <a href="#t-186">186</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>National Review</i>, London, <a href="#t-20">20</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Nederlandsche Spectator</i>, The Hague, <a href="#t-110">110</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>News</i>, Milwaukee, <a href="#t-70">70</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Nonconformist and Independent</i>, London, <a href="#t-159">159</a>, <a href="#t-172">172</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>North American Review</i>, Boston and New York, <a href="#t-23">23</a>, <a href="#t-42">42</a>, <a href="#t-132">132</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Northwestern</i>, Oshkosh, Wis., <a href="#t-177">177</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Notes and Queries</i>, London, <a href="#t-3">3</a>, <a href="#t-9">9</a>, <a href="#t-26">26</a>, <a href="#t-31">31</a>, <a href="#t-59">59</a>, + <a href="#t-83">83</a>, <a href="#t-100">100</a>, <a href="#t-160">160</a>, <a href="#t-166">166</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">O’Connor, William D.</span>, <a href="#t-24">24</a>, <a href="#t-241">241</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">O’Leary</span>, Prof., <a href="#t-74">74</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Oracle</i>, London, <a href="#t-162">162</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Owens, John E.</span>, <a href="#t-65">65</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Pall Mall Gazette</i>, London, <a href="#t-224">224</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Palmerston</span>, Lord, <a href="#t-29">29</a>, <a href="#t-95">95</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Philosophic Inquirer</i>, Madras, India, <a href="#t-176">176</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Pierrepont, Edwards</span>, <a href="#t-65">65</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Pioneer Press</i>, St. Paul, <a href="#t-150">150</a>, <a href="#t-212">212</a>, <a href="#t-213">213</a>, <a href="#t-222">222</a>, <a href="#t-239">239</a>, + <a href="#t-244">244</a>, <a href="#t-252">252</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Plumptre</span>, Rev. E. H., <a href="#t-146">146</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Pollock, David</span>, <a href="#t-78">78</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Post</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-66">66</a>, <a href="#t-219">219</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Post (Evening)</i>, Hartford, Conn., <a href="#t-193">193</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Post</i>, Washington, <a href="#t-161">161</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Pott</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Henry</span>, <a href="#t-187">187</a>, <a href="#t-239">239</a>, <a href="#t-250">250</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Press</i>, Philadelphia, <a href="#t-61">61</a>, <a href="#t-64">64</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Prichard, J. V.</span>, <a href="#t-58">58</a>, <a href="#t-80">80</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Prior</span>, Sir <span class="smcap">James</span>, <a href="#t-25">25</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Punch</i>, London, <a href="#t-201">201</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Putnam’s Monthly</i>, New York, <a href="#t-5">5</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Pyle, J. G.</span>, <a href="#t-150">150</a>, <a href="#t-212">212</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Record</i>, Philadelphia, <a href="#t-197">197</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Record-Union</i>, Sacramento, Cal., <a href="#t-151">151</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Rees, James</span>, <a href="#t-55">55</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Register</i>, Sandusky, O., <a href="#t-151">151</a>, <a href="#t-220">220</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Register</i>, Wheeling, W. Va., <a href="#t-230">230</a>, <a href="#t-231">231</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Republic (Sunday)</i>, Philadelphia, <a href="#t-56">56</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Republic</i>, Washington, <a href="#t-148">148</a>, <a href="#t-149">149</a>, <a href="#t-199">199</a>, <a href="#t-203">203</a>, <a href="#t-215">215</a>, + <a href="#t-228">228</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Republican</i>, Angola, Ind., <a href="#t-139">139</a>, <a href="#t-238">238</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Republican</i>, Springfield, Mass., <a href="#t-38">38</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Republican</i>, St. Louis, <a href="#t-72">72</a>, <a href="#t-200">200</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Richardson</span>, Dr. B. W., <a href="#t-136">136</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Roberts, R. P. Hampton</span>, <a href="#t-100">100</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Robinson, W. S.</span>, <a href="#t-38">38</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Rolfe, William J.</span>, <a href="#t-115">115</a>, <a href="#t-125">125</a>, <a href="#t-134">134</a>, <a href="#t-209">209</a>, + <a href="#t-225">225</a>, <a href="#t-247">247</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Ross, J. Wilson</span>, <a href="#t-185">185</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Round Table</i>, New York, <a href="#t-35">35</a>, <a href="#t-39">39</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Rye, Francis</span>, <a href="#t-119">119</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><i>Saturday Reader</i>, Montreal, <a href="#t-47">47</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Saturday Review</i>, London, <a href="#t-89">89</a>, <a href="#t-161">161</a>, <a href="#t-195">195</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[124]</span><i>Scribner’s Monthly</i>, New York, <a href="#t-82">82</a>, <a href="#t-85">85</a>, <a href="#t-86">86</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Secular Review</i>, London, <a href="#t-123">123</a>, <a href="#t-181">181</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Sedgwick, A. G.</span>, <a href="#t-42">42</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Sentinel</i>, Indianapolis, <a href="#t-70">70</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Sentinel</i>, Milwaukee, <a href="#t-161">161</a>, <a href="#t-184">184</a>, <a href="#t-202">202</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Shackford</span>, Rev. C. C., <a href="#t-23">23</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Shakespeariana</i>, New York, <a href="#t-247">247</a>, <a href="#t-248">248</a>, <a href="#t-250">250</a>, <a href="#t-254">254</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Shoemaker, W. L.</span>, <a href="#t-204">204</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Skipton, H. S.</span>, <a href="#t-59">59</a>, <a href="#t-83">83</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Slocomb, R.</span>, <a href="#t-9">9</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Smith, George B.</span>, <a href="#t-177">177</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Smith, James</span>, <a href="#t-144">144</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Smith, Lucy Toulmin</span>, <a href="#t-81">81</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Smith, William Henry</span>, <a href="#t-6">6</a>, <a href="#t-9">9</a>, <a href="#t-14">14</a>, <a href="#t-21">21</a>, <a href="#t-22">22</a>, + <a href="#t-48">48</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Southern Quarterly Review</i>, New Orleans, <a href="#t-124">124</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Spectator</i>, London, <a href="#t-146">146</a>, <a href="#t-207">207</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Spedding, James</span>, <a href="#t-52">52</a>, <a href="#t-93">93</a>, <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Spiritualist</i>, London, <a href="#t-120">120</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Standard</i>, Chicago, <a href="#t-249">249</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>State Journal</i>, Madison, Wis., <a href="#t-161">161</a>, <a href="#t-170">170</a>, <a href="#t-178">178</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Stearns, Chas. W.</span>, <a href="#t-50">50</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Steck</span>, Judge, <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Stedman, E. C.</span>, <a href="#t-62">62</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Stouder, O. C.</span>, <a href="#t-128">128</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>St. James’s Gazette</i>, London, <a href="#t-208">208</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Stronach, George</span>, <a href="#t-91">91</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Sun</i>, New York, <a href="#t-198">198</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Taverner</span>, Prof. J. W., <a href="#t-96">96</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Telegraph</i>, London, <a href="#t-117">117</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Telegraph (Sunday)</i>, Milwaukee, <a href="#t-214">214</a>, <a href="#t-233">233</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Telegraph</i>, Pittsburg, <a href="#t-151">151</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Theobald, R. M.</span>, <a href="#t-159">159</a>, <a href="#t-172">172</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Thomson</span>, Dr. <span class="smcap">William</span>, <a href="#t-102">102</a>, <a href="#t-121">121</a>, <a href="#t-137">137</a>, + <a href="#t-145">145</a>, <a href="#t-156">156</a>, <a href="#t-158">158</a>, <a href="#t-194">194</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Times</i>, New York, <a href="#t-64">64</a>, <a href="#t-253">253</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Times-Star</i>, Cincinnati, <a href="#t-235">235</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Timmins, Sam.</span>, <a href="#t-227">227</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Towne</span>, Rev. <span class="smcap">Edward C.</span>, <a href="#t-88">88</a>, <a href="#t-192">192</a>, <a href="#t-226">226</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Townsend, Geo. H.</span>, <a href="#t-15">15</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Transcript (Evening)</i>, Boston, <a href="#t-163">163</a>, <a href="#t-180">180</a>, <a href="#t-192">192</a>, <a href="#t-226">226</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Transcript</i>, Oakland, Cal., <a href="#t-69">69</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Tribune</i>, Chicago, <a href="#t-189">189</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Tribune</i>, Denver, Col., <a href="#t-198">198</a>, <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Tribune</i>, Minneapolis, Minn., <a href="#t-53">53</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Tribune</i>, New York, <a href="#t-152">152</a>, <a href="#t-210">210</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Truth Seeker</i>, New York, <a href="#t-243">243</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Tuel, J. E.</span>, <a href="#t-70">70</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Tullidge, E. W.</span>, <a href="#t-141">141</a>, <a href="#t-169">169</a>, <a href="#t-173">173</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Tullidge’s Quarterly</i>, Salt Lake, Utah, <a href="#t-141">141</a>, <a href="#t-167">167</a>, <a href="#t-169">169</a>, <a href="#t-173">173</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Vaile, E. O.</span>, <a href="#t-85">85</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Varagnac, Berard</span>, <a href="#t-107">107</a>, <a href="#t-108">108</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Victorian Review</i>, Melbourne, <a href="#t-127">127</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Villemain, M. J.</span>, <a href="#t-109">109</a>.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Wallack, Lester</span>, <a href="#t-61">61</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Ward, C. A.</span>, <a href="#t-59">59</a>, <a href="#t-83">83</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Ward</span>, Judge, <a href="#t-245">245</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Warwick, J. H.</span>, <a href="#t-139">139</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Weiss, John</span>, <a href="#t-111">111</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Westminster Review</i>, London, <a href="#t-168">168</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Wheeler, A. C.</span>, <a href="#t-61">61</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Whitaker, Daniel K.</span>, <a href="#t-124">124</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">White, Richard Grant</span>, <a href="#t-61">61</a>, <a href="#t-217">217</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Wilkes, George</span>, <a href="#t-58">58</a>, <a href="#t-95">95</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Windle</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">C. F. Ashmead</span>, <a href="#t-143">143</a>, <a href="#t-165">165</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>Wittenberger Magazine</i>, Springfield, O., <a href="#t-128">128</a>, <a href="#t-129">129</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Woodhull, Joseph A.</span>, <a href="#t-238">238</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><i>World</i>, New York, <a href="#t-191">191</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="smcap">Wyman, W. H.</span>, <a href="#t-170">170</a>, <a href="#t-175">175</a>, <a href="#t-214">214</a>.</li> +</ul> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<div class="p4 transnote"> +<a id="TN"></a> +<p><strong>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</strong></p> + +<p>Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been +corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within +the text and consultation of external sources.</p> + +<p>Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, +when a predominant preference was found in the original book.</p> + +<p>Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, +and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.</p> +<p> + <a href="#tn-30">Pg 30</a>: ‘Chistian Observer’ replaced by ‘Christian Observer’.<br> + <a href="#tn-44">Pg 44</a>: ‘methaphysicians, etc.’ replaced by ‘metaphysicians, etc.’.<br> + <a href="#tn-45">Pg 45</a>: ‘a Milliion of’ replaced by ‘a Million of’.<br> + <a href="#tn-51">Pg 51</a>: ‘Skakespearian plays’ replaced by ‘Shakespearian plays’.<br> + <a href="#tn-86">Pg 86</a>: ‘amazing parodox’ replaced by ‘amazing paradox’.<br> + <a href="#tn-105">Pg 105</a>: ‘an extact from’ replaced by ‘an extract from’.<br> + <a href="#tn-110">Pg 110</a>: ‘the fadd of’ replaced by ‘the fad of’. +</p> +</div> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77752 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/77752-h/images/banner.jpg b/77752-h/images/banner.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..bc186f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/images/banner.jpg diff --git a/77752-h/images/cover.jpg b/77752-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c2e7be0 --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/77752-h/images/hrsep.jpg b/77752-h/images/hrsep.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..caaee51 --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/images/hrsep.jpg diff --git a/77752-h/images/icon-l.jpg b/77752-h/images/icon-l.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..873f189 --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/images/icon-l.jpg diff --git a/77752-h/images/icon-r.jpg b/77752-h/images/icon-r.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..aae2c6a --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/images/icon-r.jpg diff --git a/77752-h/images/icon2-l.jpg b/77752-h/images/icon2-l.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..caaa3e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/images/icon2-l.jpg diff --git a/77752-h/images/icon2-r.jpg b/77752-h/images/icon2-r.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..79c7f7d --- /dev/null +++ b/77752-h/images/icon2-r.jpg diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6c72794 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This book, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7296920 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for eBook #77752 +(https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77752) |
