BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued 2)

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

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

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—

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:

“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:

“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:

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:

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:

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.