BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 The Ancient Lethe. In The Romance of Yachting; Voyage the First. By Joseph C. Hart, author of “Miriam Coffin,” etc. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1848; 12mo. pp. 332. (See pages 207-243).

Anti-Sh.

The first known publication questioning the right of Shakespeare to the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas.

Col. Hart’s article seems to have been overlooked, and not brought to the notice of those who were interested in the question, until it was used by the compiler of this work as the first title in The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature, of which this is an extension. Up to that time, the article in Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal (see next title), seems to have been accepted by all the authorities as the first mention. The Romance of Yachting is a gossipy account of a voyage to Spain, in a merchant ship, in which are interwoven discussions of various topics in a free and easy style. This chapter is supposed to be written on the banks of the Guadalete—the ancient Lethe. Hence the title.

“Alas, Shakespeare! Lethe is upon thee! But if it drown thee, it will give up and work the resurrection of better men and more worthy. Thou hast had thy century; they are about having theirs.”

“He was not the mate of the literary characters of his day, and none knew it better than himself. It is a fraud upon the world to thrust his surreptitious fame upon us. He had none that was worthy of being transmitted. The enquiry will be, who were the able literary men who wrote the dramas imputed to him? The plays themselves, or rather a small portion of them, will live as long as English literature is regarded as worth pursuit. The authorship of the plays is no otherwise material to us, than as a matter of curiosity, and to enable us to render exact justice; but they should not be assigned to Shakespeare alone, if at all.”

The author contrasts Shakespeare with the other Elizabethan writers. He argues that the facts known in the life of Shakespeare, so far as they are known, are incompatible with the authorship, and takes up the plays in review, claiming that he had very little part in them. He suggests no other author.

(Col. Hart was a lawyer, journalist, and yachtsman—residing in, and well-known in New York, especially from 1832 to 1850—the friend and associate of Willis, Poe, Park Benjamin, Col. Porter, of The Spirit, etc. He was a Colonel in the National Guard. During his later years he was U. S. Consul lo Santa Cruz de Teneriffe, and died there in 1855, in his 57th year. A private letter concerning him says: “He was quite proud of writing that chapter as to Shakespeare, and declared that in time his views must become accepted.”)

2 Who Wrote Shakespeare? An article in Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal, August 7, 1852.

Anti-Sh.

The author of this is unknown. The article was for a long time accepted as “the first mention.” It is moderate in tone, contrasting the commonplace life of Shakespeare with his works, and suggests that he may have “kept a poet.”

“May not William Shakespeare—the cautious, calculating man, careless of fame, and intent only on money-making—have found, in some furtherest garret, overlooking the silent highway of the Thames, some pale, wasted student, with a brow as ample and lofty as his own, who had written the Wars of the Roses, and who, with eyes of genius gleaming through despair, was about, like Chatterton, to spend his last copper coin upon some cheap and speedy mode of death? What was to hinder William Shakespeare from reading, appreciating, and purchasing these dramas, and thereafter keeping his poet as Mrs. Packwood did?”

“Well, reader, how like you our hypothesis? We confess we do not like it ourselves; but we humbly think it is, at least, as plausible as most of what is contained in the many bulky volumes written to connect the man, William Shakespeare, with the poet of Hamlet. We repeat, there is nothing recorded in his every-day life that connects the two, except the simple fact of his selling the poems and realizing the proceeds, and their being afterwards published with his name attached; and the statements of Ben Jonson, which, however, are quite compatible with his being in the secret.”

The writer opens his article with an allusion to Miss Kitty’s “Shikspur! Who wrote it?” in High Life Below Stairs. To explain this allusion: This farce, with the query so frequently alluded to in this controversy, was written by the Rev. James Townley, and first acted in Drury Lane in 1759. The dramatis personæ in the following dialogue are servants, who hold high carnival in the absence of the owners of the mansion, all, except Kitty, assuming the titles of their respective masters and mistresses:

“Lady Bab— * * * I never read but one book.

Kitty—What is it your ladyship is so fond of?

Lady Bab—Shikspur. Did you never read Shikspur?

Sir Harry—I never heard of it.

Kitty—Shikspur! Shikspur! Who wrote it? No, I never read Shikspur.

Lady Bab—Then you have an immense pleasure to come.

Duke—Shikspur! Who wrote it?

Sir Harry—Who wrote it? Why, Ben Jonson.

Duke—Oh, I remember, it was Kolly Kibber.

Kitty—Well, then, I’ll read it over one afternoon or other.”

3 Notes and Queries. London. First Series.

a—From Theta, Vol. VIII, p. 438, November 5, 1853.

b—Answer by C, Vol. X, p. 106, August 15, 1854.

Unc.

Unimportant, except as the commencement of the series of articles running through Notes and Queries, which will be found hereafter arranged in chronological order.

4 William Shakespeare and his Plays. An Inquiry Concerning Them. By Delia Bacon. In Putnam’s Monthly, January, 1856, pages 1-19.

Anti-Sh.

Miss Bacon was the first writer who connected Lord Bacon with the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas, and in this article she first suggests it—not directly, but rather by inference. It was written during her stay in England (at St. Albans), and was the real commencement of the “Bacon-Shakespeare” controversy. As this was before her mind became so completely clouded by her intense thought on the subject, it is much clearer in its style than her subsequent book. In it she draws the contrast between the known facts in the life of Shakespeare, and the magnificence of the dramas that bear his name.

“Shall this crowning literary product of that great epoch, wherein these new ages have their beginning, vividly arranged in its choicest refinements, flashing everywhere on the surface with its costliest wit, crowded everywhere with its subtlest scholasticisms, betraying, on every page, its broadest, freshest range of experience, its most varied culture, its profoundest insight, its boldest grasp of comprehension—shall this crowning result of so many preceding ages of growth and culture, with its essential, and now probable connection with the new scientific movement of the time from which it issues, be able to conceal from us, much longer, its history?—shall we be able to accept in explanation of it, much longer, the story of the Stratford poacher?”

(Delia Bacon was born in Tallmadge, Ohio, February 2, 1811. She was the daughter of Rev. David Bacon, one of the early Western missionaries, and sister of the late Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon. She was educated at Miss Catherine E. Beecher’s school, in Hartford, and is described as a woman of rare intellect and attainments. Her profession was that of a teacher and lecturer—the first woman, Mrs. Farrar says, whom she had ever known to speak in public. At this time, she resided in Boston. Having conceived the idea of the Baconian authorship, she became a monomaniac on the subject. Visiting England, in 1853, in search of proofs for her theory, she spent five years there, first at St. Albans, where she supposed Bacon to have written the plays; then at London, where she wrote The Philosophy of Shakespeare Unfolded; and subsequently at Stratford-on-Avon. Here, after the publication and non-success of her book, she lost her reason wholly and entirely. She was returned to her friends in Hartford, in April, 1858, and died there September 2, 1859.)

5 Review of Delia Bacon’s Article in Putnam’s Monthly. In the Athenæum, London, July 26, 1856, p. 108.

Pro-Sh.

“The process by which Shakespeare is reduced to nothing is certainly startling. Take away all the evidences of the poet’s supreme intellect—refuse him the witness of his works—and it is, of course, very easy to say the poor player was unequal to his mighty task. But the same process could reduce Bacon from a great law-giver in the empire of thought, to a corrupt lawyer and base flatterer in the Court of King James. Take the facts which stand apart from his intellectual action—erect the idea of man upon them—and it will be as easy to raise a theory that not Bacon but Shakespeare wrote the Essays and Novum Organum.”

6 Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare’s Plays? A letter to Lord Ellesmere. By William Henry Smith. Pamphlet. Printed for private circulation. London: September, 1856. (This was reproduced in Littell’s Living Age, November, 1856. 4 pages in Littell).

Anti-Sh.

This was addressed to the Earl of Ellesmere, as the late President of the Shakespeare Society. It takes strong grounds in favor of the Baconian authorship.

A question of precedence as to the Baconian advocacy arose between Mr. Smith and Miss Bacon’s friends. Hawthorne in his preface to Miss Bacon’s book animadverted upon Mr. Smith for “taking to himself this lady’s theory,” resulting in the correspondence published in Smith’s book. In his letter Mr. Smith claimed that he had never seen Miss Bacon’s Putnam’s Monthly article until after his pamphlet was published, and also that he had held these opinions for twenty years previously. But as Miss Bacon’s article was published eight months previous to his pamphlet, and reviewed in the Athenæum in the meantime, his want of knowledge was certainly very singular, and the precedence must be awarded to her.

(Mr. William Henry Smith, who still resides in London, was the first English Baconian. He not only wrote, but lectured on the subject. During the past fifteen years, we find nothing from his pen, but from recent advices we infer that his interest in the question is unabated, and that he may yet be heard from.)

7 Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare’s Plays?

a—In the Literary Gazette, London, Sept. 6, 1856.

b—In the same, Oct. 18, 1856.

Pro-Sh.

Both articles are notices of Smith’s Ellesmere pamphlet—the latter a comprehensive review. Towards its close, the writer recapitulates the contemporary evidence, and adds:

“Now, before Mr. Smith proceeds to take possession of the plays in the name of Lord Bacon, he should show his right to dispossess the occupying tenant. This can be done only by overturning the mass of evidence, upon the faith of which the whole world has hitherto believed Shakespeare, if we may so express it, to be the author of his own works. When Mr. Smith shall have done this, and proved that Greene, Chettle, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and the rest, and the traditions, to boot, as thick as leaves in Vallambrosa, are one and all unworthy of credit, he shall then be in a position to assert Lord Bacon’s claim—but not one moment sooner.”

8 Review of Smith’s Letter to Lord Ellesmere. In the Athenæum, London, Sept. 13, 1856, p. 1133.

Pro-Sh.

“Of course—as our readers have seen—we reject altogether the theory of an extra authorship of Shakespeare’s plays; and on any idle day of the year, should we ever find one, we will undertake to prove, just as plausibly as Mr. Smith here proves the authorship of Lear and Hamlet to belong to Bacon, that Shakespeare composed the Instauration and wrote the Essays.”

9 Notes and Queries. London. Second Series.

a—From A. Hopper, II, 267, Oct. 4, 1856.

b—Review of Ellesmere letter, II, 320, Oct. 18, 1856.

c—From Vox, II, 369, Nov. 8, 1856.

d—From W. H. S. [Smith] II, 503, Dec. 27, 1856.

e—From R. Slocomb, II, 504, Dec. 27, 1856.

Unc.

10 Shakespeare and Lord Bacon. In the Illustrated London News, October 25, 1856. 1 column.

Unc.

An account of a lecture by Wm. Henry Smith, at the Beethoven Rooms, Harley street, London.

11 On the Art of Cavilling. “All is humbug.” In Blackwood’s Magazine, Edinburgh, November, 1856. 15 pages.

Pro-Sh.

An answer to Smith’s Ellesmere letter.

“It proves an unlimited power of credulity among the class [the cavillers] to which its writer belongs, and throws some light upon that extraordinary mental process by which men of a crotchety turn of mind can set up pure unreason in the face of plain truth; but it proves nothing whatever about Francis Bacon, nor throws the smallest glimmer of illumination on those mysterious productions called Shakespeare’s Plays.”

12 Shakespeare and Bacon. “A little chink may let in much light.” Anonymous. [By Dr. C. M. Ingleby.] In Illustrated London News, Dec. 6, 1856, p. 577.

Pro-Sh.

In this Dr. Ingleby summarizes the arguments of Smith in the Ellesmere letter, and comprehensively answers them.

13 I won’t have Bacon. A communication by John Bull. In Illustrated London News, January 10, 1857.

Pro-Sh.

“I won’t have Bacon. I will have my own cherished “Will.” I have borne a great deal, and never changed my faith. I have seen him chipped, mauled, befribbled, and overdone. I have seen upholsterers and classic managers cloud his genius in fustian and explanations. I have heard shouts against his anachronisms, and anathemas against his want of the unities and his knowledge of Greek; but never thought an Englishman and a Smith would try to prove that he was a swindler—a thief—a jackdaw, and died in the odor of sanctity, the pilferer of Bacon. * * * * I know the pestilent vapor will pass away, and the steady glories of Will. Shakespeare break forth again; but in the meantime we shiver under a passing cloud.”

14 Bacon and Shakespeare. Letter from William Henry Smith, on the Psalms translated by Bacon. In the Athenæum, London, January 24, 1857, p. 122.

Anti-Sh.

Mr. Smith claims that these translations show the poetic faculty in Bacon. “His mind was so essentially poetical, that it was as great a constraint to him to write prose, as to spare, or pass by a jest.”

15 William Shakespeare not an Impostor. By an English Critic. [Geo. H. Townsend.] London and New York: G. Routledge & Co., 1857, 12mo. pp. 122.

Pro-Sh.

The especial purpose of this book is to answer Smith’s Ellesmere letter, which the author criticises severely, but it takes in the question in its fullest scope. His preface aptly describes it:

“The author has endeavored to collect within the compass of a small volume the historical documents and the testimonies of the poet’s contemporaries, by which the claim of William Shakespeare to the authorship of the six-and-thirty plays, published in the folio edition of 1623, is clearly established. His title is confirmed by such a mass of evidence, that many readers, who have not investigated the matter, will wonder how it could have been called in question.”

The author gives a summary of Smith’s argument (copied from Notes and Queries), and answers it as follows:

“He contends: 1. That the character of Shakespeare, as sketched by Pope, is the exact biography of Bacon. 2. That Bacon possessed dramatic talent to a high degree, and could, according to his biographers, assume the most different characters, and speak the language proper to each, with a facility that was perfectly natural. 3. That he wrote and assisted at bal-masques, and was an intimate friend of Lord Southampton, the alleged patron of Shakespeare. 4. That the first folio of 1623 was not published till Bacon had been driven to private life, and had leisure to revise his literary works; and that as he was obliged to raise money by almost any means, it is at least probable that he did so by writing plays. 5. That Shakespeare was a man of business rather than poetry, and acknowledged his poems and sonnets, but never laid claim to the plays.”

“This is, after all [says Mr. Townsend], as good a summary as can be given of the wretched arguments upon which Mr. William Henry Smith bases his new, preposterous and altogether untenable theory. They may be dismissed in a few sentences. 1. Shakespeare’s character could not possibly be the biography of another man. 2. Bacon’s ability for dramatic composition can not be accepted as proof that he wrote plays, to the authorship of which he never laid claim, and which were attributed to, and acknowledged by, one of his contemporaries. 3. Lord Southampton, the friend of Shakespeare and Bacon, is, as we shall see more fully in another chapter, a witness against Mr. William Henry Smith and his theory. 4. Bacon’s leisure and want of funds will never justify even the suspicion that he wrote the plays of Shakespeare. 5. The assertion that Shakespeare was a man of business rather than poetry is directly at variance with the truth, as any person who has perused the Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, and the Sonnets, will at once admit. It is equally false to assert that Shakespeare did not claim the authorship of these dramas.”

Here is the author’s comparison of Bacon and Shakespeare:

“No two minds could be more dissimilar than those of Bacon and Shakespeare; they were both monarchs in the realms of literature, but they sat upon different thrones; theirs was not a joint sovereignty; they ruled over different empires. Shakespeare possessed great natural genius; Bacon’s mind was a store-house of learning. The one had power to create, the other to mould all human knowledge to his mighty will. Bacon was a dictator amongst philosophers and schoolmen; Shakespeare, a king among poets. The one dived deep beneath the surface, and brought up rich pearls of thought; the other plucked the flowers as he passed along; received his inspiration direct from all-bounteous Nature, and held mysterious communion with her.”

(Mr. Townsend is better known as the author of the Manual of Dates and Men of the Time. He resided in London, and died there in 1869. A series of disappointments so affected his mind as to lead him to take his own life.)

16 Reviews of Townsend’s Shakespeare Not an Impostor.

a—In the Athenæum, London, February 14, 1857, p. 213.

b—In the Literary Gazette, London, Feb. 21, 1857, p. 181.

Pro-Sh.

“The book is honestly meant, but can its writer conceive that any such book was needed? If he does, the fact is as noticeable as Mr. William Henry Smith’s lucubrations.”—Athenæum.

17 The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded. By Delia Bacon. With a Preface by Nathaniel Hawthorne. London: Groombridge & Sons, 1857. Boston: Ticknor & Fields, 1857. 8vo. pp. 582.

Anti-Sh.

Miss Bacon’s book was mainly written during her residence in London. In it she makes no attempt to deal with the historical side of the question—that being reserved for another volume, never published. She confines herself to the development of her theory of a hidden under-current of philosophy in the works of both Bacon and Shakespeare, veiled in cipher and allegory for the Elizabethan times, but to be read and understood by a future age. This is outlined in Mr. Hawthorne’s preface:

“In the present volume, accordingly, the writer applies herself to the demonstration and development of a system of philosophy, which has presented itself to her as underlying the superficial and ostensible text of Shakespeare’s plays. Traces of the same philosophy, too, she conceives herself to have found in the acknowledged works of Lord Bacon, and in the works of other writers contemporary with him. All agree in one system; all the traces indicate a common understanding and unity of purpose in men among whom no brotherhood has hitherto been suspected, except as representatives of a grand and brilliant age, when the human intellect made a marked step in advance.”

As to the authorship, Miss Bacon points to Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and possibly others of the wits and dramatists of the age. Her style of writing is so redundant that no brief extract can be made, within the limits of this work, which will give anything like a clear statement of her theories. In the following, the theme is the Shakespearian dramas:

“Man, as he is, booked, surveyed—surveyed from the continent of nature, put down as he is in her book of kinds, not as he is from his own interior, isolated conceptions only—the universal powers and causes as they are developed in him, in his untaught affections, in his utmost sensuous darkness—the universal principle instanced where it is most buried, the cause in nature found—man as he is in his heights and in his depths, ‘from his lowest note to the top of his key’—man in his possibilities, in his actualities, in his thought, in his speech, in his book language, and in his every day words, in his loftiest lyric tongue, in his lowest pit of play-house degradation, searched out, explained, interpreted. * * * * It is man’s life, and the culture of it, erected into an art or science, that these books contain. In the lowness of the lowest, and in the aspiration of the noblest, the powers whose entire history must make the basis of a successful morality and policy are found. It is all abstracted or drawn into contemplation, ‘that the precepts of cure and culture may be more rightly concluded.’ ‘For that which in speculative philosophy corresponds to the cause, in practical philosophy becomes the rule.’”

“It is not necessary to illustrate this criticism in this case, because in this case the design looks through the execution elsewhere. The criticism of the Novum Organum, the criticism of the Advancement of Learning, and the criticism of Raleigh’s History of the World, than which there is none finer, when once you penetrate its crust of profound erudition, is here on the surface. And the scholasticism is not more obtrusive here, the learned sock is not more ostentatiously paraded, than in some critical places in these performances; while the humor that underlies the erudition issues from a depth of learning not less profound.”

For a sketch of the theory of the book, see the extract (Title 20) from the National Review.

18 Review of Delia Bacon’s Philosophy of Shakespeare Unfolded. In the Athenæum, London, April 11, 1857, p. 461.

Pro-Sh.

19 Review of the Books of Delia Bacon and W. H. Smith. In the Literary Gazette, London, May 9, 1857.

Pro-Sh.

20 The Alleged Non-Existence of Shakespeare. In the National Review, London, July, 1857.

Pro-Sh.

A very long and caustic review of Delia Bacon’s book. We give the commencement of it, from its value to the reader as an interpretation of the book itself.

“American philosophy delights in hiding its light under a bushel. Emerson is not easy reading; the Poughkeepsie seer (not that we wish to class them together) is sometimes difficult of construction; but Delia Bacon is harder still. We have met with nothing in the range of literature so like the attempt to find a needle in a bundle of hay, as the task of extracting a definite meaning from the vast body of obscure verbiage and inconsequential reasoning in which she has folded up her ideas. As far as we can make out, however, the following is her theme and the thread of her argument:

In the days of Elizabeth and James, a conquest more complete and more degrading than that of the first Norman King had overwhelmed England. At the same time, the first fruits of the revival of learning were ripening in England. There was a body of men here, at the head of whom were Raleigh and Lord Bacon, of boundless penetration, wisdom, and philanthropy. The cause of freedom and human advancement was that to which their whole souls and lives were devoted. Some of them ventured an overt act against the government, which was speedily crushed. It was necessary to conceal the new light which it was their mission to shed forth upon the world. Yet so to hide it, that while it should not betray itself to the jealous scrutiny of a tyrannical autocracy, it yet should be discoverable to the gifted eye, and buried only to be disinterred, in its due time, by the sagacity of future generations. We know that in his youth Lord Bacon busied himself with ciphers; he speaks of word ciphers as well as letter ciphers; be sure, then, that in ciphers he has hidden the learning he dared not lay bare to the face of day. Those who search his works with a discriminating eye, will find abundant hints scattered through them that they have an esoteric meaning subtly hidden beneath their obvious expressions. He was the master-mind of a ‘secret association’ of men who made it their business to perfect and transmit to posterity a ‘new and all-comprehending science of life and practice.’ It is in the later and more finished works of this school—the Advancement of Learning, Hamlet, Lear, the Tempest, and the Novum Organum—that the key to the secret doctrines of which it is the object of Miss Bacon’s work to furnish the interpretation is best found; but it lies also wrapt up, like the tree in the bud, in the earliest and most faulty plays of the collection.”

21 Bacon and Shakespeare. An Inquiry Touching Players, Play-Houses, and Play-Writers, in the days of Elizabeth. By William Henry Smith, Esq. To which is appended an abstract of a MS. respecting Tobie Matthew. London: John Russell Smith, 1857. 12mo. pp. 162.

Anti-Sh.

This is an enlargement and extension of the letter to Lord Ellesmere.

“To consider the probability of these plays having been written by William Shakespeare, and to attack the evidence by which the assertion that they were is supported, is our present object.”

“Proof that they were written by some other person, we do not yet hope to be able to adduce, but merely such evidence of the probability of this being the case, as may induce some active inquiry in the direction indicated.”

A short summary of Mr. Smith’s arguments will be found under the answer of Mr. Townsend to the Ellesmere letter (Title 15). Mr. Smith says in his epitome:

* * * “Very little indeed is known of the history of Shakespeare, and that in no way connects him with these plays—that the writer of them must have possessed a vast variety of talents, such as have been reported to have been found in Francis Bacon, and in him alone; that the wit and poetry are of a kind that were peculiarly his—that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, connected himself with a class which had only recently sprung into existence, and which were held in the utmost contempt—that he was neither eminent as an actor, nor as a writer, during his life time, nor celebrated as such in the period immediately succeeding his death—that there are some remarkable coincidences of expression in these plays and in the writings of Bacon, and that the latter was ever careful to note any thing like a quotation * * * [and, as reasons why Bacon did not claim the plays] that literary labor was not at that time voluntarily pursued for pecuniary recompense, and the few that followed such an occupation were regarded with the utmost contempt—that a play was hardly considered a literary work, and ranked infinitely below a sonnet, and that learned men would as little have prided themselves upon writing one, as upon writing a bon mot.” * * * * *

22 Notice in the Athenæum, London, August 15, 1857, of the correspondence between Hawthorne and William Henry Smith, p. 1036.

Pro-Sh.

Mr. Smith transmits a copy of the correspondence above mentioned, but the Athenæum declines to be convinced that he knew nothing of Delia Bacon’s theory previous to the publication of his Ellesmere letter.

23 Shakespeare in Modern Thought. In the North American Review, October, 1857. [By Rev. C. C. Shackford.] 24 pages.

Pro-Sh.

A portion of the article is devoted to a review of Miss Bacon’s book.

“There is, on the other hand, in Miss Bacon’s work, a spirit of subtile analysis, a deep moral insight, and a penetrating research, which, separated from the monomania of her particular theory, enlists our admiration, and is adapted to throw much light upon Shakespeare’s genius, and makes us feel that there are in him vast depths of thought, and presentations of great human and social laws of development, of which, as yet, we have scarcely dreamed. On every page, nay, over almost every paragraph, we are forced to exclaim: ‘O matter and impertinency, mixed reason in madness!’ The significant contents of the political and philosophical status of that age are minutely exhibited. The particular theory of the book, and the special pleading through inferences, hints, and analogies in thought and expression, to prove that the philosophy and the plays of the age proceeded literally from the same brain and the same hand, we may put aside as impertinent, and a merely fine-spun, fanciful speculation, and there will be left a valuable contribution to the real criticism of Shakespeare, as embodying the whole spirit of the Baconian philosophy, and as the ripe flower and consummated product of the tendencies and outstreaming influences of that wonderful period of development for the English genius.”

24 Harrington: A Story of True Love. [By William D. O’Connor.] Boston: Thayer & Eldridge, 1860, 12mo. pp. 558. (See Chapter XII, pages 215-221).

Anti-Sh.

To explain this unique title: Hawthorne, in his Recollections of a Gifted Woman (Title 27), says of Miss Bacon’s book:

“I believe it has been the fate of this remarkable book never to have had more than a single reader. But, since my return to America, a young man of genius and enthusiasm has assured me that he has positively read the book from beginning to end, and is completely a convert to its doctrines. It belongs to him, therefore, and not to me—whom, in almost the last letter that I received from her, she declared unworthy to meddle with her work—it belongs surely to this one individual, who has done her so much justice as to know what she wrote, to place Miss Bacon in her due position before the public and posterity.”

The “young man” referred to (in 1863) is the author of this novel. The story itself is of the times of the Fugitive Slave Law. Mr. O’Connor introduces his own Baconian theories through the dialogue of his title-hero, Harrington. He also renders an acknowledgment to Miss Bacon as their source, in a note at the end of the book:

“The reader of the twelfth chapter of this book, may already have observed that Harrington, if he had lived, would have been a believer in the theory regarding the origin and purpose of the Shakespearian drama, as developed in the admirable work by Miss Delia Bacon, entitled, ‘The Philosophy of Shakespeare’s Plays Unfolded,’ in which belief I should certainly agree with Harrington. I wish it were in my power to do even the smallest justice to that mighty and eloquent volume, whose masterly comprehension and insight, though they could not save it from being trampled upon by the brutal bison of the English press, yet lift it to the dignity, whatever may be its faults, of being the best work ever composed upon the Baconian or Shakespearian writings. It has been scouted by the critics as the product of a distempered ideality. Perhaps it is. But there is a prudent wisdom, says Goethe, and there is a wisdom that does not remind us of prudence; and, in like manner, I may say that there is a sane sense, and there is a sense that does not remind us of sanity. At all events, I am assured that the candid and ingenuous reader Miss Bacon wishes for, will find it more to his profit to be insane with her on the subject of Shakespeare, than sane with Dr. Johnson.”

(Mr. O’Connor resides in Washington, and is an officer connected with the Treasury Department. It is understood that he has finally obeyed the injunction Hawthorne put upon him, “to place Miss Bacon in her due position before the public and posterity,” and has prepared an article on the subject, which will soon be published.)

25 Editors and Commentators, in the Life of Edmond Malone, Editor of Shakespeare. By Sir James Prior. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1860.

Unc.

Writing of a date about 1780-90, Sir James Prior says of the Shakespearian discussions:

“Editors and commentators appear at every turn in all societies. In the club-house we meet three or four of a morning; in the park see them meditating by the Serpentine, or under a tree in Kensington Gardens; no dinner table is without one or two; in the theatre you view them by the dozens. Volume after volume is poured out in note, comment, conjecture, new reading, statement, or mis-statement, contradiction, or variation of all kinds. Reviews, magazines, and newspapers report these with as little mercy on the reader, as to give occasional emendations of their own. Some descant upon his sentiments, some upon his extravagancies, some upon his wonderful creations, or flights of imagination, some upon his language, or phraseology. Several suppose that he wrote more plays than he acknowledged; others, that he fathered more than he had written, while the last opinions are still more original and extraordinary—that his name is akin to a myth, and that he wrote no plays at all! Every new aspirant in this struggle for distinction aims to push his predecessor from his stool.”

26 Notes and Queries. London: Third Series. From T. J. Buckton, II, 502, Dec. 27, 1862.

Unc.

27 Recollections of a Gifted Woman. By Nathaniel Hawthorne. In the Atlantic Monthly, January, 1863. (See pages 43-58.) Reprinted also with Hawthorne’s Works in Our Old Home.

Unc.

This is interesting as a record of Miss Bacon’s experiences in England while writing her book, and especially so as to her efforts to have the tomb of Shakespeare opened, believing that she would find within it manuscript proofs of her theory. Hawthorne himself, though he wrote the preface to her book, was not a believer. “Being conscious within myself of a sturdy unbelief,” he says.

“I had heard, long ago, that she believed that the material evidences of her dogma as to the authorship, together with the key of the new philosophy, would be found buried in Shakespeare’s grave. Recently, as I understood her, this notion had been somewhat modified, and was now accurately defined and fully developed in her mind, with a result of perfect certainty. In Lord Bacon’s letters, on which she laid her finger as she spoke, she had discovered the key and clue to the whole mystery. There were definite and minute instructions how to find a will and other documents relating to the conclave of Elizabethan philosophers, which were concealed (when and by whom she did not inform me) in a hollow space in the under surface of Shakespeare’s grave-stone. Thus the terrible prohibition to remove the stone was accounted for. The directions, she intimated, went completely and precisely to the point, obviating all difficulties in the way of coming at the treasures; and even, if I remember right, were so contrived as to ward off any troublesome consequences likely to ensue from the interference of the parish-officers. All that Miss Bacon now remained in England for—indeed, the object for which she had come hither, and which had kept her here for three years past—was to obtain possession of these material and unquestionable proofs of the authenticity of her theory.”

28 The Identity of Shakespeare as a Writer of Plays. A chapter in The Biography and Bibliography of Shakespeare. By Henry G. Bohn. Privately-printed (40 copies) for the Philobiblon Society. London, 1863. (See pages 291-300.)

Pro-Sh.

This chapter gives a sketch of the various anti-Shakespearian works, following it by the historical and contemporary evidence in favor of Shakespeare, derived from Ben Jonson, Francis Meres, Milton, Greene, Basse, etc., and adds:

“The positive testimony of Ben Jonson alone, who, though Shakespeare’s friend, was a rival, and not at all likely to concede more than belonged to him, ought in itself be a sufficient answer. He was constantly near the poet; knew what he wrote, and when he wrote; and after his death was engaged in promoting the publication of his works. In conjunction with him, John Heminge and Henry Condell, Shakespeare’s intimate friends and fellow-players, and who are recognized as such in his will, attest the authorship of all the plays in the first folio, by subscribing themselves as witnesses. This volume, too, is dedicated to those high-minded noblemen, William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip, Earl of Montgomery, who would not, and could not, have consented to let themselves be made party to a notorious fraud. Indeed, King James himself, as well as the Earl of Southampton (who was intimate with both Lord Bacon and Shakespeare) and all the players, playwrights, and literati of the day, must have been acquiescent in the contemptible and gratuitous deception—may we not say forgery?”

“In conclusion, we will only observe that Shakespeare had jealous and watchful rivals enough to expose him had any suspicion existed of his not being the actual author of the fame-absorbing plays which bore his name during his life-time.”

29 Lord Palmerston. An article in Fraser’s Magazine, London, November, 1865.

Anti-Sh.

Page 666 contains the paragraph usually relied upon to prove Lord Palmerston’s belief in the Baconian theory:

“Literature was the fashion of Lord Palmerston’s early days, when (as Sydney Smith remarked) a false quantity in a man was pretty nearly the same as a faux pas in a woman. He was tolerably well up in the chief Latin and English classics; but he entertained one of the most extraordinary paradoxes touching the greatest of them, that was ever broached by a man of his intellectual calibre. He maintained that the plays of Shakespeare were really written by Bacon, who passed them off under the name of an actor, for fear of compromising his professional prospects and philosophic gravity. Only last year when this subject was discussed at Broadlands, Lord Palmerston suddenly left the room, and speedily returned with a small volume of dramatic criticisms, in which the same theory (originally started by an American lady) was supported by supposed analogies of thought and expression. ‘There,’ he said, ‘read that and you will come to my opinion.’ When the positive testimony of Ben Jonson, in the verses prefixed to the edition of 1623, was adduced, he remarked, ‘O, those fellows always stand up for one another, or he may have been deceived like the rest.’ The argument had struck Lord Palmerston by its originality, and he wanted leisure for a searching exposure of its groundlessness.”

The volume alluded to was Smith’s Bacon and Shakespeare.

30 Miss Delia Bacon. Chapter XL, in Mrs. John Farrar’s Recollections of Seventy Years. Boston: Ticknor & Fields, 1866. 16mo. (Pages 319-331.)

Unc.

An interesting account of Miss Bacon’s historical lectures, and of her subsequent experiences in England.

“She [Miss Bacon] had no notion of going to England to teach history; all she wanted to go for was to obtain proof of the truth of her theory, that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him, but that Lord Bacon did. * * * The lady whom she was visiting put her copy of his works out of sight, and never allowed her to converse with her on this, her favorite subject. We considered it dangerous for Miss Bacon to dwell on this fancy, and thought that, if indulged, it might become a monomania, which it subsequently did.”

“She suffered many privations [in London] during the time that she was writing her book. She lived on the poorest food, and was often without the means of having a fire in her chamber. She told me that she wrote a great part of her large octavo volume sitting up in bed, in order to keep warm.”

31 Notes and Queries. London. Third Series. From Q, with editorial answer, IX, 155, February 24, 1866.

Unc.

32 The Authorship of Shakespeare. By Nathaniel Holmes. New York: Hurd & Houghton, 1866, 12mo. pp. 601. Second edition, 1868. (Third edition, with appendix, referred to hereafter, 1876, pp. 696.)

Anti-Sh.

Judge Holmes is the apostle of Baconianism. His book, first published in 1866, has gone through several editions, and has been regarded as the text-book and authority for all controversialists on that side. Though largely reviewed and discussed, there has been but one book written directly in answer to it—that of Mr. King.

We can not do better than to give Judge Holmes’s theorem in his own language (hitherto unpublished):

“This work undertakes to demonstrate, not only that William Shakespeare did not, but that Francis Bacon did, write the plays and poems. It presents a critical view of the personal history of the two men, their education, learning, attainments, surroundings, and associates, the contemporaneousness of the writings in question, in prose and verse, an account of the earlier plays and editions, the spurious plays, and ‘the true original copies.’ It gives some evidence that Bacon was known to be the author by some of his contemporaries. It shows in what manner William Shakespeare came to have the reputation of being the writer. It exhibits a variety of facts and circumstances, which are strongly suggestive of Bacon as the real author. A comparison of the writings of contemporary authors in prose and verse, proves that no other writer of that age, but Bacon, can come into any competition for the authorship. It sifts out a chronological order of the production of the plays, and of the several writings of Bacon, ascertaining the exact dates, whenever possible, and shows that the more significant parallelisms run in the same order, and are of such a nature, both by their dates and their own character, as absolutely to preclude all possibility of borrowing, otherwise than as Bacon borrowed from himself. It is amply demonstrated that mere common usage, or the ordinary practice of writers, can furnish no satisfactory explanation of these parallelisms and identities. There is a continuous presentation of parallel or identical passages, throughout the work, with such commentary as was deemed necessary or advisable in order to bring out their full force and significance; and twenty pages of minor parallelisms are given in one body, without commentary.”

“It gives some extensive proofs that Bacon was a poet, and suggests some reasons for his concealment of his poetical authorship. There is some indication of the object and purpose the author had in view in writing these plays. It is shown that the tenor of their teaching is in keeping with Bacon’s ideas upon the subject treated in them. The latter half of the book presents more especially the parallelism in scientific and philosophical thought, with a view to show the identity of the plays and the writings of Bacon, in respect to their philosophy and standard of criticism; and in this there is an endeavor to show that the character and drift of the philosophy of Bacon (as well as that of the plays) was substantially identical with the realistic idealism of the more modern, as of the more ancient writers on the subject.”

“It is recognized that the evidence drawn from historical facts and biographical circumstances, are not in themselves alone entirely conclusive of the matter, however suggestive or significant as clearing the way for more decisive proofs, or as raising a high degree of probability; and it is conceded, that, in the absence of more direct evidence, the most decisive proof attainable is to be found in a critical and thorough comparison of the writings themselves, and that such a comparison will clearly establish the identity of the author as no other than Francis Bacon.”

We have been recently assured by Judge Holmes, that he has seen nothing in any new fact, criticism, or discussion of the subject, that has in the least degree shaken his convictions.

(Hon. Nathaniel Holmes is a graduate of Harvard University, in the class of 1837. Since 1839 he has practiced law in St. Louis for the greater part of the time, but was, from 1865 to 1868, Judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri, and from 1868 to 1872, a Professor of Law in the Law School of Harvard. He has now retired from professional life, and resides at Cambridge, Mass.)

33 Notice of Judge Holmes’s Work. In The Nation, New York, March 29, 1866, p. 402.

Pro-Sh.

34 The Authorship of Shakespeare. A review of Holmes’s Authorship in the Brooklyn (N. Y.) Daily Eagle, October 24, 1866. 2 columns.

Pro-Sh.

35 Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare? Review of Holmes’s Authorship in the Round Table, New York, October 27, 1866. 4 columns.

Pro-Sh.

36 Hypotheses of Shakespearian Criticism. In the Home Journal, New York, October 27, 1866. 3 columns.

Pro-Sh.

37 The Authorship of Shakespeare. A review of Holmes, in the Jewish Messenger, New York, November 2, 1866. 1 column.

Pro-Sh.

38 Shakespeare. Was he Himself or Somebody Else?

a—Article in the Springfield (Mass.) Republican, November 7, 1866. 2½ columns.

b—In same paper, a letter from its Boston correspondent, November 3, 1866.

Pro-Sh.

39 The Authorship of Shakespeare. A communication from Richard J. Hinton, of Washington, D. C. In the Round Table, New York, Nov. 17, 1866. 3 columns.

Anti-Sh.

Mr. Hinton writes this to call the attention of the public to the position taken by Mr. O’Connor in his Harrington novel.

40 Bacon vs. Shakespeare. An article in review of Judge Holmes. In the New York Methodist, November 17, 1866. 1½ columns.

Pro-Sh.

41 Was Lord Bacon an Impostor? In Fraser’s Magazine, London, December, 1866.

Unc.

There are incidental allusions to the authorship on pages 718, 721, 730, and 731. It was answered by Baron Liebig, in Fraser of April, 1867, under the same title, without special reference to this question.

42 Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare. [By A. G. Sedgwick.] In North American Review, January, 1867. 2½ pages.

Pro-Sh.

43 Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare. In Literary Notices, Harper’s Magazine, January, 1867, p. 263. ½ page.

Pro-Sh.

44 Bacon and Shakespeare. A letter from James H. Hackett. In the Evening Post, New York, January 26, 1867. 2 columns.

Pro-Sh.

45 Was Bacon the Author of Shakespeare? Two articles by Marmontel, in the Christian Observer and Presbyterian Witness, Richmond, Va. The first dated February 7, 1867. 2 columns each.

Pro-Sh.

46 The Authorship of Shakespeare. A review of Holmes in the Athenæum, London, February 23, 1867, page 249.

Pro-Sh.

47 The Authorship of Shakespeare. An article in review of Holmes, in the Saturday Reader, Montreal, Canada, April 6, 1867. 2 columns.

Pro-Sh.

48 Communications in the Daily Gazette, Birmingham, England.

a—By T. H. P., May 27, 1867.

b—By William Henry Smith, July 1, 1867.

c—By T. H. P., July 1, 1867.

Unc.

49 Delia Bacon. By Sidney E. Holmes. [Mrs. Sarah E. Henshaw.] In The Advance, Chicago, December 26, 1867. 1½ columns.

Unc.

A tribute to the memory of Delia Bacon, including a mention of her theory, by a former friend and pupil.

“Delia Bacon was a woman of a genius rare and incomparable. Wherever she went, there walked a queen in the realm of mind. To converse with her was to be carried captive. The most ordinary topic became fascinating when she dealt with it, for whatever subject she touched, she invested with her own wonderful wealth of thought and illustration, and association, and imagery, until all else was forgotten in her magical converse.”

“Her theory of Shakespeare has been accepted by some able minds. Had she lived to advocate it, it is not too much to say that it would have deeply impressed the literary world. But while she was in the midst of her researches, that fine intellect, overwrought and too highly sublimated, fell into confusion, and henceforth was to be, as was that of the Hamlet which she had so often analyzed, ‘like sweet bells jangled, out of tune, and harsh.’ Thus discredit was thrown upon her favorite theory, and a melancholy key afforded to some of her later experiences. ‘O! What a noble mind was here o’erthrown!’ Alas! Alas! Who would have thought that these words, so often read and dwelt upon in her study of the great dramatist, were but the prophecy of her own tragical end?”

50 Did William Shakespeare write Shakespeare’s Plays? Chapter XIII, in The Shakespeare Treasury of Wisdom and Knowledge. By Chas. W. Stearns, M. D. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1869 and 1878. See pages 394-413.

Pro-Sh.

Assuming that there is no possible question as to the authorship of the poems, Dr. Stearns shows the parallelisms in thought and expression between the poems and the plays, as conclusive evidence in favor of Shakespeare.

51 Did Bacon Write Shakespeare? An anonymous article in the New York Clipper, May 1, 1869. 1½ columns.

Unc.

52 A Conference of Pleasure, Composed for some festive occasion about the year 1592. By Francis Bacon. Edited from a Manuscript belonging to the Duke of Northumberland. By James Spedding. London: (Privately-printed) 1870. 4to pp. xxxi, 54.

Pro-Sh.

This was edited by Mr. Spedding from a portion of the Northumberland MSS. referred to by Judge Holmes (see pages 657-682, edition of 1876). These MSS. were found in 1867, in a box of old papers, which had probably lain for nearly a century unopened, in the library of Northumberland House in London. With them was a MS. title-page, indicating that the paper book which it covered had once contained, in addition to the four speeches composing the Conference of Pleasure, several other of Bacon’s orations and essays. Also, Richard II, Richard III, Asmund and Cornelia, Thomas Nashe’s Isle of Dogs, and papers by other authors. Of these, only a part remained, when the document was discovered, the Shakespeare plays being amongst the missing. The MSS. were in bad condition, from fire and the ravages of time—the edges being badly burned, probably from a fire which occured in Northumberland House in 1780.

Accompanying Mr. Spedding’s book is a fac-simile of this MS. title-page, and it is on this that the interest turns. It shows, in addition to the original table of contents, a mass of scribblings, written all over the sheet, containing a variety of names, phrases, quotations, idly and carelessly written, apparently by some copyist or clerk. Amongst these scribblings occurs the name of Frauncis Bacon several times, and that of William Shakespeare eight or nine times repeated. As to its date, Mr. Spedding says: “All I can say is that I find nothing, either in these later scribblings, or what remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Elizabeth.” Further, that he finds no traces of the handwriting of Bacon.

The reference to this question is to be found in the introduction, pages xxii-xxv.

Mr. Spedding discovers nothing in these MSS. to disturb his belief in the Shakespearian authorship, and regards it as a simple coincidence that the productions of Shakespeare and Bacon should be copied in the same book, and their names scribbled on the title-page. “At the present time,” he says, “if the waste leaf on which a law-stationer’s apprentice tries his pens were examined, I should expect to find on it the name of the poet, novelist, dramatic author, or actor of the day, mixed with snatches of the last new song,” etc. * * * “And that is exactly the sort of thing we have here.” Judge Holmes, however, ventures the suggestion that they may have been made in Bacon’s own study, by his own amanuensis; that this fact would account for the two names being scribbled on the title-leaf by one in the secret; and that Bacon himself may have destroyed the missing Shakespeare plays before his death, by way of suppressing the evidence of his authorship.

These MSS. are especially interesting from the fact that if the scribblings are of a date contemporary with Shakespeare and Bacon, it is believed to be the only place where their names have been found mentioned together in anything written in that age.

53 Notice of Holmes’s Authorship. In the Minneapolis (Minn.) Tribune, of March 23, 1870. 1 column.

Unc.

This article refers to a lecture delivered in Minneapolis in the winter of 1872-73, by Hon. Ignatius Donnelly, of Minnesota, taking the position that the pro-Bacon argument was a strong one, but not conclusive; in short, that the verdict must be the Scotch one, “not proven.” It is understood that Mr. Donnelly is now engaged upon a work, in which, after further thought and study of the question, he takes the ground that Bacon was the author of both the plays and poems. It is expected that it will be published soon.

54 The Baconian Origin of Shakespeare’s Plays, being some facts and arguments going to show that the dramatic works imputed to William Shakespeare were not, and could not have been, written by him, but were the production of Lord Bacon. By Rev. A. B. Bradford, of Enon, Pa. A lecture, printed in the Golden Age, May 30, 1874. Also, in the Argus and Radical, Beaver, Pa., December 29, 1875. 6 columns.

Anti-Sh.

The author is a strong Baconian. He follows mainly the same line of argument as Judge Holmes.

55 Shakespeare and Lord Bacon. By “Colley Cibber.” [James Rees]. A series of six articles in the Sunday Mercury, Philadelphia, for June 7, 14, 21, and 28; and July 5 and 12, 1874. 9 columns.

Pro-Sh.

The writer takes for his motto: “Mingle no matter of doubtful with the simplicity of truth,” from Ben Jonson’s Discoveries. The articles cover the whole range of the subject.

56 Authenticity of Shakespeare’s Plays. By “Gallery Critic.” A series of twelve articles in the Sunday Republic, Philadelphia, for June 28; July 5, 12, 19, and 26; August 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; September 6 and 20, 1874. 20 columns.

Anti-Sh.

Written in answer to “Colley Cibber” above, and fully as comprehensive. The author is unknown.

57 The Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy. Two short notices in the American Bibliopolist, New York, for July and August, 1874.

a—Letter from Hibernicus.

b—Did Bacon write Shakespeare?

Pro-Sh.

58 Who Wrote “Shakespere?” By J. V. P. [J. V. Prichard]? In Fraser’s Magazine, London, August, 1874. (Reproduced in Littell’s Living Age, October, 1874). 10 pages.

Anti-Sh.

This is a noted article in the controversy. On it were founded the series of opinions, interviews, etc., appearing soon after in the New York Herald, and frequent reference to it will be found in the writings on the subject. The article itself is devoted mainly to a very full and complete summary of Judge Holmes’s book, with many extracts and references.

The name of the writer has not generally been known. Mr. Wilkes, in his book, speaks of the paper as an “exceedingly ingenious article, written by a young American,” whom he met in London at the time of the publication; but does not give his name. We have sufficient reason, however, for crediting it to Mr. J. V. Prichard.

59 Notes and Queries. London. Fifth Series.

a—From C. A. Ward, II, 161, August 29, 1874.

b—From Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], II, 246, Sept. 26, 1874.

c—From H. S. Skipton, II, 350, Oct. 31, 1874.

Unc.

60 Shakespeare—An Interesting Discussion. Who wrote Shakespeare? In the New York Herald, September 6, 1874.

a—Letter from London, embodying a copy of the “J. V. P.” article in Fraser’s Magazine.

b—Did Bacon write Shakespeare’s Plays? an editorial article.

Unc.

The commencement of the interesting series of articles—communications, interviews, editorials, etc.—appearing in the Herald during September and October, which will be found in subsequent titles. It has not been thought necessary to add to them many notes or explanations, as the head-lines have been liberally copied, and serve to explain their general tenor.

61 Was Shakespeare a Dummy? Opinions of Live Dramatic Authorities on the subject. The Press and Public taking up the discussion. Baconians rather rare. In the Herald, Sept. 8, 1874.

a—Who wrote Bacon? by Franklin.

b—Shakespeare as a Stage Manager, from the Brooklyn Eagle.

c—Let Shakespeare Alone, from the Philadelphia Press.

d—Shakespeare and Bacon, an editorial.

Unc.

This article also gives interviews with Dion Boucicault, Howard Paul, Bret Harte, Richard Grant White, Nym Crinkle [A. C. Wheeler], and Lester Wallack. It is proper to say that Mr. White disavows the interview.

62 Shakespeare or Bacon? Commentators, Quidnuncs, and Annotators. In the Herald, September 9, 1874.

a—Views of men who have studied the subject.

b—The Elizabethan Era, by A. M.

c—Letters from “Old Punch Writer” and “Garrick.”

Unc.

This issue comprises interviews with John Brougham, A. Oakey Hall, E. C. Stedman, and Mayor Havemeyer. Mr. Hall gives the opinions, also, of William E. Burton, James T. Brady, and “Falstaff” Hackett.

63 Shakespeare. Explanations as to why the authenticity of the plays are doubted. The origin of the Baconian theory. In the Herald, September 10, 1874.

a—Views of Horace Howard Furness.

b—Bacon did not write Shakespeare, by R. Davey.

c—Editorial article.

Pro-Sh.

64 A Shakespearean Mare’s Nest. In New York Times, September 10, 1874.

a—The Intellectual Department of the Herald, etc., in Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, September 8, 1874.

b—The Hogs Again. In Philadelphia Press, September 7, 1874.

Pro-Sh.

All of these are editorials, and devoted mainly to the humorous disparagement of the Herald articles.

“The voice of the interviewer is still heard in the land. * * * His mind is racked as to the authenticity of Shakespeare’s works. * * * The great absurdity of the fancy or notion (for it does not attain to the dignity of a theory), is that, starting from the point that it is incredible to believe that Shakespeare could have written his plays, so astonishing are their evidences of knowledge, and of mental power, it adds these plays to the wonderful offspring of Bacon’s mind, thus seeking to set aside one fact assumed to be monstrously incredible by setting up another, still more monstrous and still more incredible. Shakespeare is impossible, but Bacon plus Shakespeare is possible!”—Daily Times.

“The intellectual department of the New York Herald has begun to devote its energies to the settlement of the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, and in pursuance of its purpose it has obtained the opinions of several eminent citizens of New York upon the subject. A feeling of sadness, perhaps of gloom, will overspread the world when the fact becomes public that the person known as ‘Nym Crinkle’ has expressed the conviction that Shakespeare did not write the dramas in question. * * * * In the meantime, while these giant minds in New York are wrestling with the great subject, the vast multitude of us sit here in the outer darkness, unable to scale the intellectual heights reached by Crinkle and the rest, but waiting with nervous anxiety the result of their deliberations.”—Evening Bulletin.

65 Shadowy Shakespeare. A graphic interview with the disembodied Bard. He admits being a Boucicault. Lord Bacon’s wraith refuses to tell his secret. In the Herald, September 11, 1874.

a—Opinions of Judge Pierrepont, John E. Owens, and Daniel Dougherty.

b—Shakespeare a spirit medium. By J. B. Burgess.

c—Did Shakespeare write Bacon? By J. E. T.

d—A Poser from Scotia. By Th. Ainslie.

Unc.

This contains an alleged interview with the spirit of Shakespeare, through Foster, the medium, with the result as above. Bacon was also assumed to be present, but “would not talk.”

66 Shakespeare or Bacon? In the Herald, September 12, 1874.

a—Et tu, Brute? by T.

b—Bacon never claimed them, by Ylon.

c—Sir Walter Scott’s idea, by Hibernicus.

d—A word for him, by Solferino.

e—Puzzling Facts, from the Boston Post.

Unc.

67 Shakespeare vs. Bacon. A Judicial Luminary sums up the Charges. In the Herald, September 13, 1874.

a—Interview with Recorder Hackett.

b—A New View of Shakespeare.

c—The Value of the Shakespearian Discussion, an editorial.

Unc.

68 The Shakespeare Controversy. In the Herald, September 14, 1874.

a—Comparison of the Events of Shakespeare’s and Bacon’s Lives, by Addison B. Burk.

b—No one person ever wrote them, by R. S. G.

c—Bacon’s learning a point against his authorship, by T. L. W.

Unc.

69 Authorship of Shakespeare. In the Oakland (Cal.) Daily Transcript, September 15, 1874. 2 columns.

Pro-Sh.

70 Shakespeare’s Authorship. In the Herald, September 19, 1874.

a—Views of Henry Ward Beecher on the new Criticisms of the Baconian School.

b—Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, by C. G. G.

c—A Question for the Baconians, by W. V.

d—Bacon’s Lifetime—Pursuit of Philosophy and Politics Irreconcilable with the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays, by J. E. Tuel.

e—The True Authorship Discovered, by Bloxon.

f—Another triumph, from the Indianapolis Sentinel.

g—Shakespeare. Who is he? from the Lebanon (Pa.) Courier.

h—Journalistic Enterprise, from the Milwaukee News.

Unc.

71 Shakespeare and Bacon. The Relations of Shakespeare to the Modern Stage. The Great Authors Contrasted and Reviewed. In the Herald, September 20, 1874.

a—Opinion of Prof. Hiram Corson.

b—Interview with L. Clarke Davis, of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

c—Shakespeare and the Stage, an editorial.

Unc.

72 Bacon and Shakespeare. In the Herald, September 21, 1874.

a—Did Shakespeare write the Novum Organum? by S.

b—Shakespeare’s Soliloquy.

Unc.

73 Carlyle on Shakespeare and Bacon. By Amicus. In the Herald, September 25, 1874.

Pro-Sh.

The writer calls attention to Mr. Carlyle’s views, in Heroes and Hero Worship—Lecture III.

“It is unexampled, I think, the calm, creative perspicacity of Shakespeare. Novum Organum, and all the intellect you will find in Bacon, is of quite a secondary order—earthly material, poor in comparison with this. Amongst modern men, one finds, with strictness, almost nothing of the same rank. Goethe alone, since the days of Shakespeare, reminds one of it.”—Carlyle.

74 Shakespeare and Bacon. Two Opposite Kinds of Genius. In the Herald, September 26, 1874.

a—Shakespeare’s Blunders an Argument against the Baconians. Opinion of Prof. O’Leary, of Manhattan College.

b—The Internal Evidence of the Plays, by The Doctor.

Pro-Sh.

75 Who Wrote Shakespeare? In the Herald, September 27, 1874.

a—The answers of leading Corkonians to the Query.

b—A few objections answered—a novel theory refuted, by D.

c—The Shakespeare Controversy, an editorial.

Unc.

76 Shakespeare and Bacon. Contrast of the two Minds, by M. D. In the Herald, Sept. 28, 1874.

Pro-Sh.

77 Shakespeare and Bacon. In the Herald, October 5, 1874.

a—Intellectual Distinctions, as classified by McDermott.

b—The Literary Test, by S. N. Carvalho.

c—Shakespeare not a borrower, by B. J. A.

Pro-Sh.

78 Shakespeare or Bacon? In the Herald, October 11, 1874.

a—Opinion of Professor John S. Hart.

b—The Progressive Development of Shakespeare’s Education in the Plays, by Franklin.

c—One more Baconian heard from; letter from Index.

d—What the old actors thought, by David Pollock.

Unc.

79 The Shakespeare Controversy. An editorial article in the Herald, October 11, 1874.

Pro-Sh.

With this number, the Herald supposed the discussion in its columns closed (though, as it will be seen, there was one more article), and gave an editorial summary of its conclusions. Extract:

“Up to this time we have declined to interpolate our own opinion upon the authorship; but now, in closing the discussion, after yielding ample time and space to those who wished to take part in it, we must say that the weight of testimony is altogether against the claim made for Bacon. Nothing new has been advanced in behalf of the Holmes theory, while on the contrary, the internal evidence of the plays, and the facts of history, have been overwhelmingly shown to be in favor of Shakespeare as the author. * * * * We believe, in short, that nothing has been said in this debate to weaken our faith in Shakespeare, while much has been shown which strengthens it. William Shakespeare is, therefore, in our opinion, the author of the plays which in his own day, and ever since, have been attributed to him by universal consent, and the plea made for Bacon is of ‘such stuff as dreams are made on,’ a theory which has for its chief use to make the fame of Shakespeare more glorious.”

80 Shakespeare. In the Herald, October 19, 1874.

a—A letter to the editor of the Herald, from the writer of the Fraser article, [J. V. Prichard]? dated London, October 1, 1874.

b—A New Point in the Discussion, an editorial.

Unc.

The last of the Herald articles. The Fraser writer introduces several matters not within the scope of his first paper, such as the discovery of the Northumberland manuscripts, and the claim that Bacon was the author of Richard II, arising out of the conversation between Queen Elizabeth and Lord Bacon at the time of the Essex treason. The latter is answered by the Herald.

81 Shakespeare’s Centurie of Prayse, being materials for a history of opinion on Shakespeare and his works, culled from the writers of the first century after his rise. By C. M. Ingleby, LL.D. For the Editor. London: 1874. 8vo. pp. 362. (Second edition, for the New Shakespere Society, revised with many additions, by Lucy Toulmin Smith. London: 1879. Imp. 8vo. pp. 471.)

Unc.

There may be a question as to the propriety of inserting this title, but it is so often referred to, and is so important an authority in the investigation of the subject, that it seems to be justifiable.

“To my mind, there is no book printed that is a stronger argument against the Baconians than is Dr. Ingleby’s Centurie of Prayse. Although to prove that Shakespeare wrote the dramas attributed to him formed no part of the motive of its publication, yet the work does prove it, and most completely.”—Joseph Crosby.

82 The Tendency to Skepticism. A short editorial notice of the theory in Scribner’s Monthly, for January, 1875, p. 392.

Pro-Sh.

“Skepticism is the characteristic of the period, and the more mischief it accomplishes, the better pleased its votaries are. Opinions that have prevailed for centuries, and have received the sanction of the wisest and best, are especially obnoxious to them. * * * * To admit the Baconian theory of Shakespeare, except as an ingenious piece of pleasantry, demands a brain so addled with theory as to be incapable of literary judgment, or a capacity for credulity not given to mere commonplace mortals.”

83 Notes and Queries. London. Fifth Series.

a—From C. A. Ward, III, 32, January 9, 1875.

b—From H. S. Skipton, and Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], III, 193, March 6, 1875.

c—From C. A. Ward, III, 458, June 5, 1875.

d—From Jabez, IV, 55, July 17, 1875.

Unc.

84 Bacon versus Shakespere. A Plea for the Defendant. By Thomas D. King. Montreal, and Rouse’s Point, N. Y.: Lovell Printing and Publishing Company, 1875. 12mo. pp. 187.

Pro-Sh.

Mr. King’s book is an answer to Judge Holmes, and is intensely Shakespearian. He instances the testimony of Ben Jonson, Heminge, and Condell, in the folio of 1623, and impliedly that of Pembroke, Montgomery, and Southampton, who, if there was an untruth, must have been accessories to it. He also relies on other contemporary evidence, which he cites, of which we give only that of Francis Meres, in the Palladis Tamia (Wit’s Treasury), 1598.

“As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy witness his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love labors lost, his Love labours wonne, his Midsummer Nights dreame; & his Merchant of Venice: for Tragedy his Richard ii, Richard iii, Henry iv, King John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo & Juliet.”

We quote one paragraph:

“Read your Shakespeare, peruse and re-peruse him, at your fireside, in meditative silence apart from the company of theatrical representation; you will be astonished what a treasure his pages disclose of noble sentiment, of acute observation, of instructive reflections, of sage advice, of practical truth, and moral wisdom. Read the writings of Bacon for their true philosophy, read and compare these two great Elizabethan lights, and the more carefully and attentively you do so, the more firmly I am impressed with the belief that but a misguided and infatuated judgment can bring you to any other conclusion relative to Shakespeare’s authorship than that formed, and openly stated by Ben Jonson and Milton, whose testimony ought to be conclusive against the Baconian Theory.”

The author devotes considerable space to a denial of the claim to the poetic faculty in Bacon, which he illustrates by copious selections from Shakespeare, and from the well-known poetry of Bacon, the paraphrases of the Psalms. He claims that the writer of “Shakespeare” was of Warwickshire origin, giving instances of terms in that dialect used in the plays in proof. He also gives a list of ancient and modern authors, the philosophers, metaphysicians, etc., in one column, and the poets and dramatists in another, by way of comparison, and adds:

“Let any one read, even cursorily, the works of these philosophers, dramatists, and poets, and I feel certain that they will come to this conclusion, that Bacon never wrote the plays and poems of Shakespeare. Interchange of, or joint authorship, is quite as likely between Locke and Dryden, Newton and Addison, Blair and Cowper, etc., etc., as between Bacon and Shakespeare.”

(Mr. King is a resident of Montreal, and is an active member of its Shakespeare Society.)

Note—Another Montreal authority on this subject is Ven. Archdeacon William T. Leach, LL.D., of McGill College and University, who delivered one of the College lectures on Bacon and Shakespeare, November 13, 1879. His studies of these authors have induced him to believe in Bacon’s authorship of the works, and his lecture is a strong presentation of that theory. It has never been published.

85 The Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy. By E. O. Vaile. An article in Scribner’s Monthly, April, 1875. (See pages 743 to 754.)

Unc.

This is not only a fair history of the controversy, but a very complete and impartial summary of all the points at issue. It will be found interesting and useful to any one desiring information as to the arguments used in the discussion. It summarizes under numerical heads: Negative propositions against Shakespeare, 10; circumstantial points in favor of Bacon, 14; answers to the foregoing, favorable to Shakespeare, 16.

Of the many points made in this article, we lay it under contribution for two only. The first refers to such hints as have been gathered from contemporary literature containing, as is claimed, circumstantial evidence in favor of the Baconian theory. In the following extracts the author’s comments are omitted:

“In 1592, Greene published a satiric poem, A Groatsworth of Witte bought with a Million of Repentance. In it he warns his friends who spend their wits in play-making to seek other employment, “for there is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that with his Tyger’s heart, wrapt in a player’s hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum is, in his own conceyt, the only Shakescene in a Countrey.”

Writing to his friend, Mr. Tobie Matthew, about that time [1607-8], Bacon remarks: “I showed you some model, though at that time methought you were as willing to hear Julius Cæsar, as Queen Elizabeth commended.”

While Bacon is striving to gain a foothold with the new sovereign, James I., he writes to Master Davis, then going to meet the King, committing his interests at court to Master Davis’s faithful care and discretion, and closing the letter thus: “So desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue.”

To Mr. Tobie Matthew, Bacon was in the habit of sending his books as they came out. In a neat letter, “To the Lord Viscount St. Albans,” without date, Matthew acknowledges the “receipt of your great and noble token of favor of the 9th of April,” and appends the following P. S.: “The most prodigious wit that ever I knew of my nation, and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s name, though he be known by another.”

On an occasion Bacon enclosed a “recreation,” as he termed his lighter literary productions, to Tobie Matthew. Matthew, in a reply, without date or address, uses these suggestive words: “I will not promise to return you weight for weight, but measure for measure.”

The second point: We here gather from Mr. Vaile’s article a partial summary of the evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship, taken from the writings of his contemporaries:

“The earliest mention of Shakespeare by a contemporary is by Edmund Spenser, in 1591, in The Teares of the Muses. Complaint by Thalia, lines 205-210.

In 1592 appeared Kinde Hart’s Dreame, a poem of considerable interest and merit, by Henrie Chettle. From Chettle’s address to his readers, we learn that he was the editor of Greene’s posthumous work, A Groatsworth of Witte, before referred to. The quotation which has been made from this work, together with other allusions in it, seems to have given offense, at least to two authors of the time. In Chettle’s Address, the following passage occurs, referring to Shakespeare, as all critics agree:

“With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I neuer be; the other, whome at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I haue moderated the heat of liuing writers, and might haue vsed my owne discretion (especially in such a case) the author being dead, that I did not, I am as sorry, as if the originall fault had beene my fault, because myselfe haue seene his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he exclent in the qualitie he professes; besides, diuers of worship haue reported his vprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writting that approoues his art.”—Percy Society Publications, vol. v.

John Webster, in the preface to his play, The White Devil—1612—speaks thus:

“Detraction is the sworne friend to ignorance; for mine owne part, I haue euer truly cherisht my good opinion of other men’s worthy labours, especially of that full and haightned style of maister Chapman, * * * and lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy and copious industry of m. Shake-speare, m. Decker, and m. Heywood.”—John Webster’s Works. London: 1857, vol. ii.

Ben Jonson’s eulogy upon Shakespeare, first published in the folio of 1623, is well known. In his prose, the same author makes a long and affectionate reference to the friend of his youth. The following is a part: * * * “For I loved the man, and do honour his memory, on this side idolatry, as much as any. He was indeed honest and of an open and free nature; had an excellent phantasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility, that sometimes it was necessary that he should be stopped.”—Discoveries. Probably written in 1636.

A few more quotations, without doubt correct, are added, as given in Allibone’s Dictionary of Authors. Art. Shakespeare.

“As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to liue in Pythagoras; so the sweete wittie soule of Ouid liues in mellifluous hony-tongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his priuate friends. * * * *

As Epius Stolo said, the Muses would speak with Plautus tongue, if they would speak Latin; so I say the Muses would speak with Shakespeare’s fine filed phrase, if they would speak English.”—Francis Meres, Wit’s Treasury, 1598.

Mr. Vaile concludes:

“So far as this discussion attempts an explanation of the origin or existence of genius, it is certainly quite futile; and quite as unworthy is the attempt to adjust the mere honor of authorship between two individuals simply. But the question is by no means an unimportant one, whether genius has worked in this instance, by the use of means necessary to ordinary mortals, or whether its inspiration has been immediate and complete.”

(Mr. Vaile is a resident of Oak Park, Chicago, where he is connected with several educational publications.)

A concise statement of the more important contemporary allusions to Shakespeare, will be found in Mr. F. G. Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, pages 12-21.

86 Bacon’s Psalms. In the Old Cabinet, Scribner’s Monthly, April, 1875. (See pages 758-59.)

Pro-Sh.

This contains extracts from Bacon’s acknowledged verses—the seven versified psalms—by way of comparison with the poetry of Shakespeare. The psalms paraphrased are I, XII, XC, CIV, CXXVI, CXXXVII, and CXLIX.

“According to the editors of Bacon’s Works (Messrs. Spedding, Ellis, and Heath), ‘the only verses of Bacon’s making that have come down to us, and probably, with one or two slight exceptions, the only verses he ever attempted,’ were ‘the translation of certain Psalms into English verse.’ He wrote also a sonnet, meant, say the editors, ‘in some way or other to assist in sweetening the Queen’s temper toward the Earl of Essex; and it has either not been preserved at all, or not so as to be identified.’ Two other poems have been ascribed to him, although it is not absolutely certain that he wrote them. Really, then, the seven versified Psalms constitute all of Bacon’s poetry which may be said to be in evidence on the point of his poetic ability. * * * * For the curiosity of the thing, we transcribe the opening stanzas of Bacon’s translation of Psalm cxxxvii:

87 “Shakespeare’s Centurie of Prayse.” By Prof. Hiram Corson. In the Cornell Review (Cornell University Literary Magazine), Ithaca, New York, for May, 1875. 10 pages.

Pro-Sh.

A review of Dr. Ingleby’s book, from the standpoint of its value in proving the Shakespearian authorship.

“And when we look at the slim arguments that have been so painstakingly concocted against Shakespeare’s claims, and in favor of Lord Bacon’s, we are forced to attribute the remarkable dispute to one of two causes, or to them both, for they are intimately, if not inseparably, allied:

1. The iconoclastic tendency of the age; and,

2. The predominant analytic character of the thought of the age.”

88 The Bacon-Shakespeare Theory. By E. C. T. [Rev. Edward C. Towne]. Two articles in the Christian Register, Boston, for May 22, and 29, 1875. 1½ columns each.

Pro-Sh.

The first article treats of Delia Bacon, her monomania, and the causes which may have led to it; the second is a critical review of Judge Holmes.

(The author resides at Westboro’, Mass. Several other papers by him will be found noted hereafter.)

89 Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare. Notice in the Saturday Review, London, July 24, 1875.

Pro-Sh.

90 Holmes’s Authorship of Shakespeare. In the Civil Service Review, August 7, 1875.

Pro-Sh.

91 Shakespeare and Bacon. By G. S. [George Stronach, M.A.] In the Hornet, London, August 11, 1875.

a—Bacon and Shakespeare, by Scotus, in the same, August 18, 1875.

Anti-Sh.

The paper in the Hornet is a concise statement of the Baconian argument.

(Mr. Stronach is connected with the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. It is understood that he has in preparation a treatise sustaining the Baconian theory, which will be published at some future time.)

92 Bacon and Shakespeare. A series of communications in the Notes and Queries column of the Newcastle (England) Weekly Chronicle, in 1875, under the dates following: August 28; September 4, 11, 18, and 25; October 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; and November 6, 13, and 20.

Unc.

93 The Authorship of Shakespeare. By Nathaniel Holmes, with an Appendix of Additional Matters, including a notice of the recently discovered Northumberland MSS., with an introduction. Edition of 1876. (Appendix, pages 603 to 696.)

Anti-Sh.

As this was printed ten years later than the edition we have first titled (1866), and contains new matter, it is inserted here to preserve the chronological order.

In the introduction Judge Holmes gives a general review of the argument, and introduces a correspondence between Mr. James Spedding, the biographer of Bacon, and himself. Also, between Mr. Spedding and Mr. W. H. Smith.

The appendix, aside from the notices of the Northumberland MSS., is chiefly made up of cumulative evidence on the topics of the original edition. We give one passage from the introduction:

“I have not yet discovered one authentic fact which would necessitate the inference that William Shakespeare was the author of this poetry. The further facts of a historical kind now presented, while strongly pointing to Francis Bacon as the author, are not at all conclusive. Indeed, the extrinsic circumstances all together, though powerfully suggestive and convincing, can not be said to be absolutely conclusive of the matter. The strongest evidence lies in the comparison of the writings, and the demonstration (as I conceive) must rest at last, and chiefly, upon the essential identity, individuality, and oneness of the writer of this poetry and of Bacon’s works, as exhibited in a thorough critical comparison of the writings themselves. But, of course, where the evidence fails to convince, or carries no weight at all, or even seems to prove a difference rather than an identity, there is an end of the argument. Nevertheless, it is my belief that any one who will take the trouble to make that comparison, in an adequate manner, will not fail to be convinced of that identity.”

In Mr. Spedding’s letter, occupying six closely-printed pages, he says:

“If Shakespeare had no knowledge as a scholar or man of science, neither do the works attributed to him show traces of trained scholarship or scientific education. Given the faculties (which nature bestows as freely upon the poor as upon the rich), you will find that all the acquired knowledge, art, and dexterity which the Shakespearian plays imply, was easily attainable by a man who was laboring in his vocation, and had nothing else to do.”

“Among the parallelisms which you have collected with such industry to prove the identity of the two writers, I have not observed one in which I should not myself have inferred from the difference in style a difference of hand. Great writers, especially being contemporary, have many features in common; but if they are really great writers, they write naturally, and nature is always individual. I doubt if there are five lines together to be found in Bacon which could be mistaken for Shakespeare, or five lines in Shakespeare which could be mistaken for Bacon, by one who was familiar with the several styles and practiced in such observation.”

We insert here an extract from a review of Judge Holmes’s book in the Athenæum, London, of February 23, 1867, probably by the Editor, Mr. William Hepworth Dixon:

“Mr. Nathaniel Holmes is an American gentleman, residing in St. Louis, a long way from the manuscript papers, which can alone throw any new light upon the subject. He has mastered Miss Delia Bacon’s book; also the new edition of Lord Bacon’s works, and The Story of Lord Bacon’s Life, and with the help of a subtle intellect, he has so arranged the mass of evidence tending to separate two most important lives in English history, as to aid in confusing the perception of many persons. For our own part, we do not care to enter once again into the reasons which induced us to reject, in mass and detail, all the conjectures offered in support of Bacon’s authorship of Hamlet and Macbeth. When we had Miss Bacon’s works before us we gave our reasons fully; and as nothing new has been found in way of buttress to her argument, we may safely let the discussion lapse, which we do in thorough respect for Mr. Holmes, who, distant student though he be of English literary history, is well aware of what is going on in this country. He takes a perfectly noble and impartial view of Bacon’s conduct, both in his relations to Essex and the administration of justice. But we can not go forward with him in his theory of Bacon being the secret author of Shakespeare’s plays.”

94 L’Ideale in Letteratura. Letture fatte avanti al Regio Istituto Lombardo, dal membro effettivo, Dott. Antonio Buccellati, Milano, 1876. Pamphlet, pp. 144. (The Ideal in Literature. Lectures delivered before the Royal Lombard Institute, by the acting member, Dr. Antonio Buccellati.)

Unc.

A general reference to the subject on pages 74-77. It includes in a note an extract from a paper in the Memoriale Diplomatique, the date of which is not given.

95 Shakespeare from an American Point of View; including an inquiry as to his religious faith, and his knowledge of law, with the Baconian theory considered. By George Wilkes. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1877, 8vo. pp. 471. Second edition, 1881.

Pro-Sh.

It will be seen from the title of Mr. Wilkes’s book, that it is quite comprehensive—and his argument that the writer of the plays was a Catholic, and was not a trained lawyer, are either of them fatal, in his opinion, to the Baconian theory. He devotes several chapters, by way of illustration, to a comparison of the life, genius, and characteristics of Shakespeare and Bacon. He differs from Lord Campbell in his estimate of the “Legal Acquirements of Shakespeare,” and takes up “The Testimony of the Plays” (pages 81-419), reviewing them, as to the question of authorship, from both the religious and legal point of view. As to the latter, he says:

* * * “The author of the Shakespeare plays did not possess any great knowledge of the law; or, if he did, his dramatic writings do not show it. He exhibits, without doubt, a familiarity in law expressions, and applies them with a precision and a happiness of application in all cases, which apparently carries the idea that he may have served in an attorney’s office; but not one of them, nor do all of them together, mark anything higher than mere general principles and forms of practice, or such surface clack and knowledge as were within the mental reach of any clever scrivener or conveyancer’s clerk. On the contrary, whenever Shakespeare steps beyond the surface comprehension of the solicitor’s phraseology, and attempts to deal with the spirit and philosophy of law, he makes a lamentable failure. The Merchant of Venice, Comedy of Errors, Winter’s Tale, and Measure for Measure, contain conspicuous proofs of this deficiency.” * * *

An extract from the recapitulation:

“We may be told, at this stage, that such an extent of search and demonstration as I have devoted to these Baconian points is not necessary to dispose of a bubble which has never floated among the public with any amount of success; and we may be flippantly assured that the inexorable reasoning faculty of Time alone, would, of itself, dispel the fallacy; but such contemptuous treatment is not adequate to the treatment of a theory which has received the support of such minds as that of Lord Palmerston, and such scholars and critics as Judge Holmes and General B. F. Butler in America. Bubbles thus patronized must be entirely exploded, or they will be sure to reappear whenever the world has a sick or idle hour, and delusions find their opportunity to strike. Moreover, nothing is lost by our inquiries, after all, beyond a little time; and I doubt not all true admirers of our poet will agree that one new ray of light which may thus be thrown upon the character and history of Shakespeare, will justify octavos of discussion.”

The author embodies in his book the Euphonic or Musical Test, by Prof. Taverner, which is the subject of a separate title. Of this essay, Mr. Wilkes says:

“To the multitude, its proofs may appear less potent than some others I have advanced, but with scholars and rhetorical experts, the Euphonic test will probably be more fatal to the Baconian theory than any other.”

(The author is well known as the former editor of Wilkes’s Spirit of the Times.)

96 The Musical or Euphonic Test. The respective styles of Shakespeare and Bacon, judged by the laws of Elocutionary Analysis, and Melody of Speech. By Prof. J. W. Taverner. 1877.

Pro-Sh.

This essay is included in Mr. Wilkes’s book. See pages 424 to 461.

“As the handwriting of one man among thousands can be determined by experts, so no lengthy examples of style—the expression and language of any two authors of note, can fail to indicate the individual mind to which one or the other belongs. * * * But how much more comprehensive are the combinations that constitute the style, the language, the adornments, the illustrations, the figurative expression, the place of the emphasis, the form of the phrases, the source of the metaphors, the character of the similes; but our enumeration would become too long; then, finally, that emanation of the rhythm of the breathing, and of the pulse, and the endowments of the ear, that marshals all those forms and phrases in a certain order with reference to melody and cadence.”

“The outcome of the life-long process to which we have referred, by which the style of a writer is formed—that feature of it to which our treatment of this subject, for the present, relates—is the most subtle; for we have to investigate that of which the writer himself was, possibly, the most unconscious—that which, like his gait, or some other habit, has, perhaps, received no positive attention whatever. Yet, it may be held that nothing becomes more rigid and fixed than the mould and matrix in which his thoughts are ultimately fashioned and expressed. The modes of thinking would, in some instances, have to be identical, to produce identical melodies of speech.

“In Shakespeare’s prose we shall find that all this is marvelously free and varied, and that his blank verse conforms strictly to a certain set of chimes. In Bacon, besides Latin forms, we shall not lack examples of a certain sort of duplicates and triplicates, antithetic parallelisms, and harmonic or alternate phrases (and, to use a strong Baconianism), and the like.”

“Bacon, himself, gives testimony to the weight and value of such evidence, for he, himself, relates that Queen Elizabeth, being incensed with a certain book [Dr. Hayward’s], dedicated to my Lord of Essex, expressed an opinion that there was treason in it, and would not be persuaded that it was his writing whose name was to it; but that it had some more mischievous author, and said, with great indignation, that she would have him racked to produce his author. ‘I replied,’ says Bacon, ‘Nay, Madam, he is a doctor; never rack his person, but rack his style; let him have pen, ink, and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue the story where it breaketh off, and I will undertake, by collating the styles, to judge whether he were the author or no.’”

Prof. Taverner proceeds to illustrate his position by a comparison of extracts from the essays and the plays.

“It would be as easy to suppose, by these evidences, Bacon and Shelley to have been one and the same author, as that these several specimens of Shakespeare and of Bacon could proceed from one and the same mind.”

97 The Leopold Shakespeare. Edited by F. J. Furnivall. (See Notes, p. CXXIV, edition 1877.)

Pro-Sh.

“I doubt whether any such idiotic suggestion as this authorship of Shakespeare’s works by Bacon has ever been made before, or will ever be made again, with regard to either Bacon or Shakespeare. The tomfoolery of it is infinite.”

This note is expanded in the edition of 1882.

98 Is Sir Walter Raleigh the Author of Shakespeare’s Plays and Sonnets? By George S. Caldwell. Melbourne, Australia: Stillwell & Knight, 1877. Pamphlet, pp. 32.

Anti-Sh.

Mr. Caldwell answers his query in the affirmative. He is now engaged upon a new book in development of his theory. We give below an extract from a letter received from him referring to his new work:

“The greater portion of the book will be taken up by extracts from the History of the World, and from the plays. These extracts will show so complete an identification of opinions, principles, and peculiarities of thought and expression, as will, I am sanguine, carry conviction to the minds of every interested reader, that the plays must have been written by Raleigh. * * * * After five years’ consideration, I now say that the materials in my possession are sufficient to finally settle the controversy.”

(Mr. Caldwell is a resident of Melbourne, and understood to be in the British Postal Service.)

99 The Authorship of the Works Attributed to Shakespeare. (Chapter IV, part I, pages 38 to 72.) In Shakespeare: The Man and the Book. By C. M. Ingleby, M.A., LL.D. London: 1877.

Pro-Sh.

This paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature, January 22, 1868. See Transactions, Vol. IX, new series.

“The critic has the same interest in the works of Miss Delia Bacon, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Judge Holmes, as the physician has in morbid anatomy. He reads them, not so much for the light which they throw on the question of authorship, as for their interest as examples of wrongheadedness. It is not at all a matter of moment whether Bacon, Raleigh, or another be the favorite on whom the works are fathered, but it is instructive to discover by what plausible process the positive evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship (scanty as they are) are put out of court. As to Bacon, as first favorite, I suppose any one conversant with the life and authentic works of that powerful but unamiable character, must agree with Mr. Spedding’s judgment, that unless he be the author of “Shakespeare,” neither his life or his writings give us any assurance that he could excel as a dramatic poet. Of all men who have left their impress on the reign of the first maiden Queen, not one can be found who was so deficient in human sympathies as Lord Bacon. As for such a man portraying a woman in her natural simplicity, purity, and grace; as to his imagining and bodying forth in natural speech and action, such exquisite creations as Miranda, Perdita, Cordelia, Desdemona, Marina—the supposition is the height of absurdity. What, as it seems to me, has led astray the few writers who have set up a claim for Lord Bacon, is his admirable gift of language, scarcely inferior to Shakespeare himself. This almost unique endowment caused Bacon to manifest a kind of likeness to Shakespeare in matters into which the sympathies of the man and the training of the dramatic poet do not enter. Hence it is easy to cull from the works of these two great masters a considerable number of curious parallels. I have looked over the collections of Messrs. W. H. Smith and Holmes, and I must confess I am astonished; but my astonishment has not been provoked by the quantity or closeness of the resemblances adduced, but by the spectacle of educated men attempting to found such an edifice on such a foundation.”