The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy
Author: W. H. Wyman
Release date: January 22, 2026 [eBook #77752]
Language: English
Original publication: Cincinnati: Peter G. Thomson, 1884
Credits: deaurider, John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY ***
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 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
