several matters not within the scope of his first paper, such as
the discovery of the Northumberland manuscripts, and the claim that
Bacon was the author of _Richard II_, arising out of the conversation
between Queen Elizabeth and Lord Bacon at the time of the Essex
treason. The latter is answered by the _Herald_.
81 SHAKESPEARE’S CENTURIE OF PRAYSE, being materials for a history of
opinion on Shakespeare and his works, culled from the writers of the
first century after his rise. By C. M. INGLEBY, LL.D. For the Editor.
London: 1874. 8vo. pp. 362. (Second edition, for the New Shakespere
Society, revised with many additions, by LUCY TOULMIN SMITH. London:
1879. Imp. 8vo. pp. 471.)
_Unc._
There may be a question as to the propriety of inserting this title,
but it is so often referred to, and is so important an authority in
the investigation of the subject, that it seems to be justifiable.
“To my mind, there is no book printed that is a stronger argument
against the Baconians than is Dr. Ingleby’s _Centurie of Prayse_.
Although to prove that Shakespeare wrote the dramas attributed to
him formed no part of the motive of its publication, yet the work
_does prove it_, and most completely.”--JOSEPH CROSBY.
82 THE TENDENCY TO SKEPTICISM. A short editorial notice of the theory
in _Scribner’s Monthly_, for January, 1875, p. 392.
_Pro-Sh._
“Skepticism is the characteristic of the period, and the more
mischief it accomplishes, the better pleased its votaries are.
Opinions that have prevailed for centuries, and have received
the sanction of the wisest and best, are especially obnoxious
to them. * * * * To admit the Baconian theory of Shakespeare,
except as an ingenious piece of pleasantry, demands a brain so
addled with theory as to be incapable of literary judgment, or a
capacity for credulity not given to mere commonplace mortals.”
83 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.
_a_--From C. A. Ward, III, 32, January 9, 1875.
_b_--From H. S. Skipton, and Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], III, 193, March 6,
1875.
_c_--From C. A. Ward, III, 458, June 5, 1875.
_d_--From Jabez, IV, 55, July 17, 1875.
_Unc._
84 BACON _versus_ SHAKESPERE. A Plea for the Defendant. By THOMAS
D. KING. Montreal, and Rouse’s Point, N. Y.: Lovell Printing and
Publishing Company, 1875. 12mo. pp. 187.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. KING’S book is an answer to Judge Holmes, and is intensely
Shakespearian. He instances the testimony of Ben Jonson, Heminge,
and Condell, in the folio of 1623, and impliedly that of Pembroke,
Montgomery, and Southampton, who, if there was an untruth, must
have been accessories to it. He also relies on other contemporary
evidence, which he cites, of which we give only that of Francis
Meres, in the _Palladis Tamia_ (Wit’s Treasury), 1598.
“As _Plautus_ and _Seneca_ are accounted the best for Comedy
and Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among the English
is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy
witness his _Gentlemen of Verona_, his _Errors_, his _Love labors
lost_, his _Love labours wonne_, his _Midsummer Nights dreame_; &
his _Merchant of Venice_: for Tragedy his _Richard ii_, _Richard
iii_, _Henry iv_, _King John_, _Titus Andronicus_, and his _Romeo
& Juliet_.”
We quote one paragraph:
“Read your Shakespeare, peruse and re-peruse him, at your
fireside, in meditative silence apart from the company of
_theatrical_ representation; you will be astonished what a
treasure his pages disclose of noble sentiment, of acute
observation, of instructive reflections, of sage advice, of
practical truth, and moral wisdom. Read the writings of Bacon
for their true philosophy, read and compare these two great
Elizabethan lights, and the more carefully and attentively you
do so, the more firmly I am impressed with the belief that but
a misguided and infatuated judgment can bring you to any other
conclusion relative to Shakespeare’s authorship than that formed,
and openly stated by Ben Jonson and Milton, whose testimony ought
to be conclusive against the _Baconian Theory_.”
The author devotes considerable space to a denial of the claim
to the poetic faculty in Bacon, which he illustrates by copious
selections from Shakespeare, and from the well-known poetry of
Bacon, the paraphrases of the Psalms. He claims that the writer of
“Shakespeare” was of Warwickshire origin, giving instances of terms
in that dialect used in the plays in proof. He also gives a list of
ancient and modern authors, the philosophers, metaphysicians, etc.,
in one column, and the poets and dramatists in another, by way of
comparison, and adds:
“Let any one read, even cursorily, the works of these
philosophers, dramatists, and poets, and I feel certain that they
will come to this conclusion, that _Bacon never wrote the plays
and poems of Shakespeare_. Interchange of, or joint authorship,
is quite as likely between Locke and Dryden, Newton and Addison,
Blair and Cowper, etc., etc., as between Bacon and Shakespeare.”
(Mr. KING is a resident of Montreal, and is an active member of its
Shakespeare Society.)
NOTE--Another Montreal authority on this subject is Ven. Archdeacon
WILLIAM T. LEACH, LL.D., of McGill College and University, who
delivered one of the College lectures on _Bacon and Shakespeare_,
November 13, 1879. His studies of these authors have induced him to
believe in Bacon’s authorship of the works, and his lecture is a
strong presentation of that theory. It has never been published.
85 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. By E. O. VAILE. An article in
_Scribner’s Monthly_, April, 1875. (See pages 743 to 754.)
_Unc._
This is not only a fair history of the controversy, but a very
complete and impartial summary of all the points at issue. It will be
found interesting and useful to any one desiring information as to
the arguments used in the discussion. It summarizes under numerical
heads: Negative propositions against Shakespeare, 10; circumstantial
points in favor of Bacon, 14; answers to the foregoing, favorable to
Shakespeare, 16.
Of the many points made in this article, we lay it under contribution
for two only. The first refers to such hints as have been
gathered from contemporary literature containing, as is claimed,
circumstantial evidence in favor of the Baconian theory. In the
following extracts the author’s comments are omitted:
“In 1592, Greene published a satiric poem, _A Groatsworth of
Witte bought with a Million of Repentance_. In it he warns
his friends who spend their wits in play-making to seek other
employment, “for there is an upstart crow beautified with our
feathers, that with his Tyger’s heart, wrapt in a player’s hyde,
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the
best of you; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum is, in his
own conceyt, the only Shakescene in a Countrey.”
Writing to his friend, Mr. Tobie Matthew, about that time
[1607-8], Bacon remarks: “I showed you some model, though at that
time methought you were as willing to hear Julius Cæsar, as Queen
Elizabeth commended.”
While Bacon is striving to gain a foothold with the new
sovereign, James I., he writes to Master Davis, then going to
meet the King, committing his interests at court to Master
Davis’s faithful care and discretion, and closing the letter
thus: “So desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue.”
To Mr. Tobie Matthew, Bacon was in the habit of sending his books
as they came out. In a neat letter, “To the Lord Viscount St.
Albans,” without date, Matthew acknowledges the “receipt of your
great and noble token of favor of the 9th of April,” and appends
the following P. S.: “The most prodigious wit that ever I knew
of my nation, and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s
name, though he be known by another.”
On an occasion Bacon enclosed a “recreation,” as he termed his
lighter literary productions, to Tobie Matthew. Matthew, in a
reply, without date or address, uses these suggestive words: “I
will not promise to return you weight for weight, but measure for
measure.”
The second point: We here gather from Mr. Vaile’s article a partial
summary of the evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship, taken from the
writings of his contemporaries:
“The earliest mention of Shakespeare by a contemporary is by
Edmund Spenser, in 1591, in _The Teares of the Muses_. Complaint
by Thalia, lines 205-210.
And he, the man whom Nature selfe had made
To mock herselfe, and Truth to imitate,
With kindly counter under mimic shade,
Our pleasant Willy, Ah! is dead of late:
With whom all ioy and iolly meriment
Is also deaded, and in dolour drent.
In 1592 appeared _Kinde Hart’s Dreame_, a poem of considerable
interest and merit, by Henrie Chettle. From Chettle’s address
to his readers, we learn that he was the editor of Greene’s
posthumous work, _A Groatsworth of Witte_, before referred to.
The quotation which has been made from this work, together with
other allusions in it, seems to have given offense, at least to
two authors of the time. In Chettle’s _Address_, the following
passage occurs, referring to Shakespeare, as all critics agree:
“With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and
with one of them I care not if I neuer be; the other, whome
at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had,
for that as I haue moderated the heat of liuing writers, and
might haue vsed my owne discretion (especially in such a case)
the author being dead, that I did not, I am as sorry, as if
the originall fault had beene my fault, because myselfe haue
seene his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he exclent in the
qualitie he professes; besides, diuers of worship haue reported
his vprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his
facetious grace in writting that approoues his art.”--_Percy
Society Publications, vol. v._
John Webster, in the preface to his play, _The White
Devil_--1612--speaks thus:
“Detraction is the sworne friend to ignorance; for mine owne
part, I haue euer truly cherisht my good opinion of other men’s
worthy labours, especially of that full and haightned style of
maister Chapman, * * * and lastly (without wrong last to be
named), the right happy and copious industry of m. Shake-speare,
m. Decker, and m. Heywood.”--_John Webster’s Works. London: 1857,
vol. ii._
Ben Jonson’s eulogy upon Shakespeare, first published in the
folio of 1623, is well known. In his prose, the same author makes
a long and affectionate reference to the friend of his youth. The
following is a part: * * * “For I loved the man, and do honour
his memory, on this side idolatry, as much as any. He was indeed
honest and of an open and free nature; had an excellent phantasy,
brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with
that facility, that sometimes it was necessary that he should be
stopped.”--_Discoveries. Probably written in 1636._
A few more quotations, without doubt correct, are added, as given
in Allibone’s _Dictionary of Authors_. _Art._ Shakespeare.
“As the soule of _Euphorbus_ was thought to liue in _Pythagoras_;
so the sweete wittie soule of _Ouid_ liues in mellifluous
hony-tongued _Shakespeare_, witnes his _Venus_ and _Adonis_, his
_Lucrece_, his sugred Sonnets among his priuate friends. * * * *
As _Epius Stolo_ said, the Muses would speak with _Plautus_
tongue, if they would speak Latin; so I say the Muses would speak
with _Shakespeare’s_ fine filed phrase, if they would speak
English.”--_Francis Meres, Wit’s Treasury, 1598._
And Shakespeare, thou whose hony-flowing vaine
(Pleasing the world) thy praises doth obtaine
Whose _Venus_ and whose _Lucrece_ (sweete and chaste)
Thy name in fame’s immortal booke have plac’t,
Live ever you; at least, in fame live ever!
Well may the bodye die, but fame dies never.
--_Richard Barnefeild_, _Poems in Divers Humors_, 1598.
TO OUR ENGLISH TERENCE, MR. WILLIAM SHAKE-SPERE.
Some say, good Will, which I in sport do sing,
Hadst thou not plaid some _Kingly_ parts in sport,
Thou hadst been a companion for a King,
And beene King among the meaner sort.
--_Sir John Davies_ in his _Scourge of Folly_, 1611-14.
Mr. Vaile concludes:
“So far as this discussion attempts an explanation of the origin
or existence of genius, it is certainly quite futile; and quite
as unworthy is the attempt to adjust the mere honor of authorship
between two individuals simply. But the question is by no means
an unimportant one, whether genius has worked in this instance,
by the use of means necessary to ordinary mortals, or whether its
inspiration has been immediate and complete.”
(Mr. VAILE is a resident of Oak Park, Chicago, where he is connected
with several educational publications.)
A concise statement of the more important contemporary allusions to
Shakespeare, will be found in Mr. F. G. Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual,
pages 12-21.
86 BACON’S PSALMS. In the Old Cabinet, _Scribner’s Monthly_, April,
1875. (See pages 758-59.)
_Pro-Sh._
This contains extracts from Bacon’s acknowledged verses--the
seven versified psalms--by way of comparison with the poetry of
Shakespeare. The psalms paraphrased are I, XII, XC, CIV, CXXVI,
CXXXVII, and CXLIX.
“According to the editors of Bacon’s Works (Messrs. Spedding,
Ellis, and Heath), ‘the only verses of Bacon’s making that have
come down to us, and probably, with one or two slight exceptions,
the only verses he ever attempted,’ were ‘the translation of
certain Psalms into English verse.’ He wrote also a sonnet,
meant, say the editors, ‘in some way or other to assist in
sweetening the Queen’s temper toward the Earl of Essex; and
it has either not been preserved at all, or not so as to be
identified.’ Two other poems have been ascribed to him, although
it is not absolutely certain that he wrote them. Really, then,
the seven versified Psalms constitute all of Bacon’s poetry which
may be said to be in evidence on the point of his poetic ability.
* * * * For the curiosity of the thing, we transcribe the opening
stanzas of Bacon’s translation of Psalm cxxxvii:
When as we sat, all sad and desolate,
By Babylon upon the river’s side,
Eas’d from the tasks which in our captive state
We were enforced daily to abide,
Our harps we had brought with us to the field,
Some solace to our heavy souls to yield.
But soon we found we fail’d of our account,
For when our minds some freedom did obtain,
Straightways the memory of Sion Mount
Did cause afresh our wounds to bleed again;
So that with present griefs, and future fears,
Our eyes burst forth into a stream of tears.
As for our harps, since sorrow struck them dumb,
We hang’d them on the willow-trees were near;
Yet did our cruel masters to us come,
Asking of us some Hebrew songs to hear;
Taunting us rather in our misery,
Than much delighting in our melody.”
87 “SHAKESPEARE’S CENTURIE OF PRAYSE.” By Prof. HIRAM CORSON. In the
_Cornell Review_ (Cornell University Literary Magazine), Ithaca, New
York, for May, 1875. 10 pages.
_Pro-Sh._
A review of Dr. Ingleby’s book, from the standpoint of its value in
proving the Shakespearian authorship.
“And when we look at the slim arguments that have been so
painstakingly concocted against Shakespeare’s claims, and in
favor of Lord Bacon’s, we are forced to attribute the remarkable
dispute to one of two causes, or to them both, for they are
intimately, if not inseparably, allied:
1. The iconoclastic tendency of the age; and,
2. The predominant analytic character of the thought of the age.”
88 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE THEORY. By E. C. T. [Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE].
Two articles in the _Christian Register_, Boston, for May 22, and 29,
1875. 1½ columns each.
_Pro-Sh._
The first article treats of Delia Bacon, her monomania, and the
causes which may have led to it; the second is a critical review of
Judge Holmes.
(The author resides at Westboro’, Mass. Several other papers by him
will be found noted hereafter.)
89 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. Notice in the _Saturday
Review_, London, July 24, 1875.
_Pro-Sh._
90 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the _Civil Service Review_,
August 7, 1875.
_Pro-Sh._
91 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By G. S. [GEORGE STRONACH, M.A.] In the
_Hornet_, London, August 11, 1875.
_a_--Bacon and Shakespeare, by Scotus, in the same, August 18, 1875.
_Anti-Sh._
The paper in the _Hornet_ is a concise statement of the Baconian
argument.
(Mr. STRONACH is connected with the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. It
is understood that he has in preparation a treatise sustaining the
Baconian theory, which will be published at some future time.)
92 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. A series of communications in the _Notes
and Queries_ column of the Newcastle (England) _Weekly Chronicle_, in
1875, under the dates following: August 28; September 4, 11, 18, and
25; October 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; and November 6, 13, and 20.
_Unc._
93 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. BY NATHANIEL HOLMES, WITH AN
APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL MATTERS, including a notice of the recently
discovered Northumberland MSS., with an introduction. Edition of
1876. (Appendix, pages 603 to 696.)
_Anti-Sh._
As this was printed ten years later than the edition we have first
titled (1866), and contains new matter, it is inserted here to
preserve the chronological order.
In the introduction Judge Holmes gives a general review of the
argument, and introduces a correspondence between Mr. James Spedding,
the biographer of Bacon, and himself. Also, between Mr. Spedding and
Mr. W. H. Smith.
The appendix, aside from the notices of the Northumberland MSS., is
chiefly made up of cumulative evidence on the topics of the original
edition. We give one passage from the introduction:
“I have not yet discovered one authentic fact which would
necessitate the inference that William Shakespeare was the
author of this poetry. The further facts of a historical kind
now presented, while strongly pointing to Francis Bacon as
the author, are not at all conclusive. Indeed, the extrinsic
circumstances all together, though powerfully suggestive and
convincing, can not be said to be absolutely conclusive of the
matter. The strongest evidence lies in the comparison of the
writings, and the demonstration (as I conceive) must rest at
last, and chiefly, upon the essential identity, individuality,
and oneness of the writer of this poetry and of Bacon’s works,
as exhibited in a thorough critical comparison of the writings
themselves. But, of course, where the evidence fails to convince,
or carries no weight at all, or even seems to prove a difference
rather than an identity, there is an end of the argument.
Nevertheless, it is my belief that any one who will take the
trouble to make that comparison, in an adequate manner, will not
fail to be convinced of that identity.”
In Mr. Spedding’s letter, occupying six closely-printed pages, he
says:
“If Shakespeare had no knowledge as a scholar or man of science,
neither do the works attributed to him show traces of trained
scholarship or scientific education. Given the _faculties_ (which
nature bestows as freely upon the poor as upon the rich), you
will find that all the acquired knowledge, art, and dexterity
which the Shakespearian plays imply, was easily attainable by a
man who was laboring in his vocation, and had nothing else to do.”
* * * * *
“Among the parallelisms which you have collected with such
industry to prove the identity of the two writers, I have not
observed one in which I should not myself have inferred from
the difference in style a difference of hand. Great writers,
especially being contemporary, have many features in common;
but if they are really great writers, they write naturally,
and nature is always individual. I doubt if there are five
lines together to be found in Bacon which could be mistaken for
Shakespeare, or five lines in Shakespeare which could be mistaken
for Bacon, by one who was familiar with the several styles and
practiced in such observation.”
We insert here an extract from a review of Judge Holmes’s book in the
_Athenæum_, London, of February 23, 1867, probably by the Editor, Mr.
WILLIAM HEPWORTH DIXON:
“Mr. Nathaniel Holmes is an American gentleman, residing in St.
Louis, a long way from the manuscript papers, which can alone
throw any new light upon the subject. He has mastered Miss Delia
Bacon’s book; also the new edition of Lord Bacon’s works, and
The Story of Lord Bacon’s Life, and with the help of a subtle
intellect, he has so arranged the mass of evidence tending to
separate two most important lives in English history, as to aid
in confusing the perception of many persons. For our own part, we
do not care to enter once again into the reasons which induced
us to reject, in mass and detail, all the conjectures offered
in support of Bacon’s authorship of Hamlet and Macbeth. When
we had Miss Bacon’s works before us we gave our reasons fully;
and as nothing new has been found in way of buttress to her
argument, we may safely let the discussion lapse, which we do in
thorough respect for Mr. Holmes, who, distant student though he
be of English literary history, is well aware of what is going
on in this country. He takes a perfectly noble and impartial
view of Bacon’s conduct, both in his relations to Essex and the
administration of justice. But we can not go forward with him
in his theory of Bacon being the secret author of Shakespeare’s
plays.”
94 L’IDEALE IN LETTERATURA. Letture fatte avanti al Regio Istituto
Lombardo, dal membro effettivo, Dott. ANTONIO BUCCELLATI, Milano,
1876. Pamphlet, pp. 144. (THE IDEAL IN LITERATURE. Lectures delivered
before the Royal Lombard Institute, by the acting member, Dr. Antonio
Buccellati.)
_Unc._
A general reference to the subject on pages 74-77. It includes in a
note an extract from a paper in the _Memoriale Diplomatique_, the
date of which is not given.
95 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW; including an inquiry
as to his religious faith, and his knowledge of law, with the
Baconian theory considered. By GEORGE WILKES. New York: D. Appleton &
Co., 1877, 8vo. pp. 471. Second edition, 1881.
_Pro-Sh._
It will be seen from the title of Mr. Wilkes’s book, that it is quite
comprehensive--and his argument that the writer of the plays was a
Catholic, and was not a trained lawyer, are either of them fatal,
in his opinion, to the Baconian theory. He devotes several chapters,
by way of illustration, to a comparison of the life, genius, and
characteristics of Shakespeare and Bacon. He differs from Lord
Campbell in his estimate of the “Legal Acquirements of Shakespeare,”
and takes up “The Testimony of the Plays” (pages 81-419), reviewing
them, as to the question of authorship, from both the religious and
legal point of view. As to the latter, he says:
* * * “The author of the Shakespeare plays did not possess any
great knowledge of the law; or, if he did, his dramatic writings
do not show it. He exhibits, without doubt, a familiarity in law
expressions, and applies them with a precision and a happiness
of application in all cases, which apparently carries the idea
that he may have served in an attorney’s office; but not one of
them, nor do all of them together, mark anything higher than
mere general principles and forms of practice, or such surface
clack and knowledge as were within the mental reach of any clever
scrivener or conveyancer’s clerk. On the contrary, whenever
Shakespeare steps beyond the surface comprehension of the
solicitor’s phraseology, and attempts to deal with the spirit and
philosophy of law, he makes a lamentable failure. The _Merchant
of Venice_, _Comedy of Errors_, _Winter’s Tale_, and _Measure for
Measure_, contain conspicuous proofs of this deficiency.” * * *
An extract from the recapitulation: