demonstration as I have devoted to these Baconian points is not
necessary to dispose of a bubble which has never floated among
the public with any amount of success; and we may be flippantly
assured that the inexorable reasoning faculty of Time alone,
would, of itself, dispel the fallacy; but such contemptuous
treatment is not adequate to the treatment of a theory which has
received the support of such minds as that of Lord Palmerston,
and such scholars and critics as Judge Holmes and General B.
F. Butler in America. Bubbles thus patronized must be entirely
exploded, or they will be sure to reappear whenever the world
has a sick or idle hour, and delusions find their opportunity
to strike. Moreover, nothing is lost by our inquiries, after
all, beyond a little time; and I doubt not all true admirers of
our poet will agree that one new ray of light which may thus
be thrown upon the character and history of Shakespeare, will
justify octavos of discussion.”
The author embodies in his book the Euphonic or Musical Test, by
Prof. Taverner, which is the subject of a separate title. Of this
essay, Mr. Wilkes says:
“To the multitude, its proofs may appear less potent than some
others I have advanced, but with scholars and rhetorical experts,
the Euphonic test will probably be more fatal to the Baconian
theory than any other.”
(The author is well known as the former editor of _Wilkes’s Spirit of
the Times_.)
96 THE MUSICAL OR EUPHONIC TEST. The respective styles of Shakespeare
and Bacon, judged by the laws of Elocutionary Analysis, and Melody of
Speech. By Prof. J. W. TAVERNER. 1877.
_Pro-Sh._
This essay is included in Mr. Wilkes’s book. See pages 424 to 461.
“As the handwriting of one man among thousands can be determined
by experts, so no lengthy examples of style--the expression and
language of any two authors of note, can fail to indicate the
individual mind to which one or the other belongs. * * * But how
much more comprehensive are the combinations that constitute
the style, the language, the adornments, the illustrations,
the figurative expression, the place of the emphasis, the form
of the phrases, the source of the metaphors, the character of
the similes; but our enumeration would become too long; then,
finally, that emanation of the rhythm of the breathing, and of
the pulse, and the endowments of the ear, that marshals all those
forms and phrases in a certain order with reference to melody and
cadence.”
* * * * *
“The outcome of the life-long process to which we have referred,
by which the style of a writer is formed--_that_ feature of it to
which our treatment of this subject, for the present, relates--is
the most subtle; for we have to investigate that of which the
writer himself was, possibly, the most unconscious--that which,
like his gait, or some other habit, has, perhaps, received no
_positive_ attention whatever. Yet, it may be held that nothing
becomes more rigid and fixed than the mould and matrix in which
his thoughts are ultimately fashioned and expressed. The modes
of thinking would, in some instances, have to be identical, to
produce identical melodies of speech.
“In Shakespeare’s prose we shall find that all this is
marvelously free and varied, and that his blank verse conforms
strictly to a certain set of chimes. In Bacon, besides Latin
forms, we shall not lack examples of a certain sort of
duplicates and triplicates, antithetic parallelisms, and harmonic
or alternate phrases (and, to use a strong Baconianism), _and the
like_.”
* * * * *
“Bacon, himself, gives testimony to the weight and value of such
evidence, for he, himself, relates that Queen Elizabeth, being
incensed with a certain book [Dr. Hayward’s], dedicated to my
Lord of Essex, expressed an opinion that there was treason in it,
and would not be persuaded that it was his writing whose name was
to it; but that it had some more mischievous author, and said,
with great indignation, that she would have him racked to produce
his author. ‘I replied,’ says Bacon, ‘Nay, Madam, he is a doctor;
never rack his person, but rack his style; let him have pen, ink,
and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue the
story where it breaketh off, and I will undertake, by collating
the styles, to judge whether he were the author or no.’”
Prof. Taverner proceeds to illustrate his position by a comparison of
extracts from the essays and the plays.
“It would be as easy to suppose, by these evidences, Bacon and
Shelley to have been one and the same author, as that these
several specimens of Shakespeare and of Bacon could proceed from
one and the same mind.”
97 THE LEOPOLD SHAKESPEARE. Edited by F. J. FURNIVALL. (See Notes, p.
CXXIV, edition 1877.)
_Pro-Sh._
“I doubt whether any such idiotic suggestion as this authorship
of Shakespeare’s works by Bacon has ever been made before,
or will ever be made again, with regard to either Bacon or
Shakespeare. The tomfoolery of it is infinite.”
This note is expanded in the edition of 1882.
98 IS SIR WALTER RALEIGH THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS AND
SONNETS? By GEORGE S. CALDWELL. Melbourne, Australia: Stillwell &
Knight, 1877. Pamphlet, pp. 32.
_Anti-Sh._
Mr. Caldwell answers his query in the affirmative. He is now engaged
upon a new book in development of his theory. We give below an
extract from a letter received from him referring to his new work:
“The greater portion of the book will be taken up by extracts
from the History of the World, and from the plays. These extracts
will show so complete an identification of opinions, principles,
and peculiarities of thought and expression, as will, I am
sanguine, carry conviction to the minds of every interested
reader, that the plays must have been written by Raleigh. * * * *
After five years’ consideration, I now say that the materials in
my possession are sufficient to finally settle the controversy.”
(Mr. CALDWELL is a resident of Melbourne, and understood to be in the
British Postal Service.)
99 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO SHAKESPEARE. (Chapter
IV, part I, pages 38 to 72.) In _Shakespeare: The Man and the Book_.
By C. M. INGLEBY, M.A., LL.D. London: 1877.
_Pro-Sh._
This paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature, January
22, 1868. See Transactions, Vol. IX, new series.
“The critic has the same interest in the works of Miss Delia
Bacon, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Judge Holmes, as the physician has in
morbid anatomy. He reads them, not so much for the light which
they throw on the question of authorship, as for their interest
as examples of wrongheadedness. It is not at all a matter of
moment whether Bacon, Raleigh, or another be the favorite on whom
the works are fathered, but it is instructive to discover by
what plausible process the positive evidences of Shakespeare’s
authorship (scanty as they are) are put out of court. As to
Bacon, as first favorite, I suppose any one conversant with
the life and authentic works of that powerful but unamiable
character, must agree with Mr. Spedding’s judgment, that unless
he be the author of “Shakespeare,” neither his life or his
writings give us any assurance that he could excel as a dramatic
poet. Of all men who have left their impress on the reign of the
first maiden Queen, not one can be found who was so deficient
in human sympathies as Lord Bacon. As for such a man portraying
a woman in her natural simplicity, purity, and grace; as to his
imagining and bodying forth in natural speech and action, such
exquisite creations as Miranda, Perdita, Cordelia, Desdemona,
Marina--the supposition is the height of absurdity. What, as it
seems to me, has led astray the few writers who have set up a
claim for Lord Bacon, is his admirable gift of language, scarcely
inferior to Shakespeare himself. This almost unique endowment
caused Bacon to manifest a kind of likeness to Shakespeare in
matters into which the sympathies of the man and the training of
the dramatic poet do not enter. Hence it is easy to cull from the
works of these two great masters a considerable number of curious
parallels. I have looked over the collections of Messrs. W. H.
Smith and Holmes, and I must confess I am astonished; but my
astonishment has not been provoked by the quantity or closeness
of the resemblances adduced, but by the spectacle of educated men
attempting to found such an edifice on such a foundation.”
100 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.
_a_--From Jabez [DR. INGLEBY], VII, 55, January 20, 1877.
_b_--From R. P. Hampton Roberts, VII, 234, March 24, 1877.
_Unc._
101 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW. A review of Wilkes’s
book in the _Catholic World_, New York, for June, 1877. (Pages
422-428.)
_Unc._
This review refers only slightly to the authorship, the question
mainly discussed being Mr. Wilkes’s views regarding the Catholicism
of Shakespeare.
102 THE POLITICAL PURPOSE OF THE RENASCENCE DRAMA. The Key to the
Argument. By CERIMON [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON], Melbourne, Sidney and
Adelaide: George Robertson, 1878. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 57.
_Anti-Sh._
The first of the several pamphlets and books by Dr. Thomson, which
will be found distributed through this list. A fair illustration of
his manner of treating the plays--as to the Political Purpose--may be
found in the paragraph following, relating to _Hamlet_:
“When the King in the play asks if there is ‘no offence in’t,’ he
but repeats Queen Elizabeth’s query, put, in her palace, about
another treasonable entertainment, of which Bacon had, at that
very time, to allay her well-grounded suspicions. She feared the
disloyalty of one whom he endeavored to reconcile and become her
loyal servant. ‘She had good opinion that there was treason in
it.’ Readers of history know the allusion.”
The allusion, of course, is to the affair of the Essex treason--Dr.
Hayward’s book, the “_First Yeare of King Henry the Fourth_”--and
the play of Richard II. For this, see Holmes, p. 96, 97, and 135; in
appendix, Spedding’s letter to Holmes, p. 617; Holmes to Spedding, p.
619.
(Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON, at the time these works were written, was a
practicing physician at Melbourne, Australia. He was evidently a fine
scholar, and an intense Baconian. He died during the past year, at
the age of 63. We quote from a private letter from Melbourne: “The
Baconian theory of Shakespeare’s writings was an intense hobby with
him, and even the day before he died, he sent for some books on the
subject--the ruling passion strong in death. * * * He was ever ready
to put on the literary war-paint, and raised up numerous enemies
thereby.”)
103 SHAKESPEARE. WAS HE A MYTH? OR, WHAT DID HE WRITE? By CHARLES
COCKBILL CATTELL. London: Charles Watts, n. d. [1878]. Pamphlet,
12mo. pp. 16.
_Pro-Sh._
The first of a series of pamphlets, which will be found cited
hereafter, all combating the Baconian theory. We extract one
paragraph:
“A curious point in history is that, while it devotes much space
to describe all the details about persons who would now be
forgotten but for Shakespeare, it leaves him unnoticed. So far as
I have read, Bacon, who is supposed to have known nearly every
thing of his age, does not mention Shakespeare. Sir Henry Wotton,
to whom we are so much indebted, does not name him, although he
survived Shakespeare twenty years. It is only common fairness to
state that Sir Henry also omits to mention Spenser, Ben Jonson,
Marlowe, Massinger, Beaumont and many others; so that Shakespeare
is only one among the many ‘myths’ of that generation, if
non-mention by Sir Henry proves that. Emerson’s explanation of
that is given in his own inimitable style: ‘No one suspected
he [Shakespeare] was the poet of the human race. * * * Their
genius failed them to find out the best head in the universe. Our
poet’s mask was impenetrable; you can not see the mountain near.’
Emerson further says: ‘For executive faculty, for creation,
Shakespeare is unique. No man can imagine it better. * * * He
clothes the creatures of his legend with form and sentiment, as
if they were people who lived under his roof.’”
104 ARTICLE “SHAKESPEARE.” In the _Dictionary of Authors_. By S.
AUSTIN ALLIBONE. Philadelphia: 1878.
_Pro-Sh._
“SHAKESPEARE, THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS OF THE SONS OF MEN.--We have
earned the right, by hard labour, to assert that there is not in
the 1100 pages of Delia Bacon and Judge Holmes, the shadow of
the shade of an argument to support their wild and most absurd
hypothesis. Bacon was as little capable of writing ‘Shakespeare’s
Plays’ as any other man.”
“Within that circle, none durst walk but he.”
105 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In an Appendix to _Studies on the Text of
Shakespeare_. By JOHN BULLOCH. London and Aberdeen: 1878, 8vo. (See
pages 317-322.)
_Unc._
Mainly a review of the question, without an expression of opinion.
106 A CHAPTER OF COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY. 1561-1626. Francis Bacon and
William Shakespeare. By JOHN BULLOCH. In an Appendix to _Studies on
the Text of Shakespeare_. London and Aberdeen: 1878, 8vo. (See pages
323-328.)
_Unc._
A chronological history of the main facts in the lives of Bacon and
Shakespeare, the dates of the appearance of their works, etc. It is
very valuable in an examination of the historical side of the subject.
107 SHAKESPEARE ET LA THEORIE BACONIENNE. Par M. BERARD VARAGNAC. In
the _Journal des Debats_, Paris, June 21, 1878. 4 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
Nominally a review of Wilkes. The writer, however, goes into the
subject generally. His conclusions are obvious, even to one who is
not proficient in the French language, from his final remark:
“_C’est pourquoi l’on nous permettra de penser que la theorie
Baconienne n’est autre chose que ce qu’ils appellent la-bas d’un
mot expressif non moins usite que la chose dans la patrie de_
Barnum--_un_ humbug.”
108 SHAKESPEARE AND THE BACONIAN THEORY. By M. BERARD VARAGNAC. In
the _American Register_, Paris, July 6, 1878. 2½ columns.
_Pro-Sh._
A translation of the article in the _Journal des Debats_, above. (See
Title 107.)
109 UN PROCES LITTERAIRE: BACON CONTRE SHAKESPEARE! By M. J.
VILLEMAIN. In _L’Instruction Publique: Revue des Lettres, Science
et Arts_, Paris. Two articles, August 31 and September 7, 1878. (A
LITERARY SUIT: BACON AGAINST SHAKESPEARE.)
_Anti-Sh._
“To sum it all up, we may conclude thus: everything which there
is good in Shakespeare’s dramas comes from Bacon; everything
which there is bad in Bacon’s dramas comes from Shakespeare.”
110 NOTICE in _De Nederlandsche Spectator_. The Hague, Holland,
October 12, 1878.
_Unc._
Unimportant--simply a short notice, occasioned by the French articles
of M. Varagnac and M. Villemain, which will be found in the preceding
titles.
111 LORD BACON AND THE PLAYS. Essay No. VII, in _Wit, Humor, and
Shakespeare_. By JOHN WEISS. Boston: 1879. (See pages 247-269.)
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. WEISS, after taking strong ground against the Baconian position,
concludes:
“It is not entirely just to say that the contributions of men
who favor the theory are specimens of literary futility. They
are frequently valuable to the scholar by throwing unexpected
side-lights upon the plays; they also furnish suggestions to
the interpreter. They have amassed a quantity of collateral
information of Shakespeare’s epoch, which the critic will
thankfully acknowledge when he uses it. The minute and laborious
research which Judge Holmes has expended upon his volume, the
literary, historical, and social parallelisms which he discloses,
the philosophy and style of thinking of Elizabeth’s age, put the
lover of Shakespeare under obligation.”
112 LORD BACON: DID HE WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A reply to Judge
Holmes, Miss Delia BACON, and Mr. W. H. Smith. By CHARLES C. CATTELL.
Birmingham: G. & J. H. Shipway, 1879. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.
_Pro-Sh._
“Shakespeare has been described as honest, open, gentle, free,
honorable, and amiable, while Bacon has been described as
ambitious, covetous, base, selfish, unamiable, and unscrupulous.
Now, taking these descriptions as a fair index of their souls,
which is the more likely to have portrayed the women of
Shakespeare’s plays?”
113 GREAT MEN’S VIEWS ON SHAKESPEARE. By CHARLES C. CATTELL, with an
essay by Dr. Ingleby. Birmingham: 1879. 12mo. pp. 55, 68, 16, 14.
_Pro-Sh._
A collection of extracts from Dryden, Goethe, Lessing, the Schlegels,
De Stael, Scott, Beatty, Coleridge, Irving, and many others, relating
to Shakespeare; Dawson’s Lectures and Speeches on Shakespeare; and
two of Mr. Cattell’s pamphlets--all bound in one volume.
114 THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. By APPLETON MORGAN. A series of four
articles in _Appletons’ Journal_, New York.
_a_--The Shakespearean Myth, February, 1879, p. 112-126.
_b_--The Appeal to History, June, 1879, p. 481-497.
_c_--Extra Shakespearean Theories, I, June, 1880, p. 481-497.
_d_--Extra Shakespearean Theories, II, July, 1880, p. 14-35.
_Anti-Sh._
These were the first articles Mr. MORGAN published on the question.
They were subsequently enlarged and reproduced in his book of the
same title. (See 147.) As Mr. Morgan’s views are fully explained in
the subsequent title, we do not refer to them here.
115 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. By WM. J. ROLFE. In
_Shakespeariana, Literary World_, Boston, March 1, 1879. 1½ columns.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. ROLFE, after a concise review of the subject, sums up: that the
authorship was never questioned by Shakespeare’s contemporaries,
who had every motive for, and opportunity of detecting such a
fraud, nor for nearly three hundred years later; that the poems are
unquestionable, and that there are striking similarities between them
and the questioned plays; that Bacon’s acknowledged verses bear no
comparison to those of Shakespeare; and that the plays came to an end
at Shakespeare’s death, when Bacon had still ten years of literary
leisure, with no danger of injuring his reputation by acknowledging
or continuing them.
116 “SHAKESPEARE AND THE MUSICAL GLASSES.” By MYRON B. BENTON. In
_Appletons’ Journal_, April, 1879. (See pages 336-344.)
_Pro-Sh._
An answer to Mr. Morgan’s first article in _Appletons’ Journal_:
“While denying with emphatic iteration that Shakespeare is the
true author, he [Mr. Morgan] would persuade us that the plays and
poems attributed to him are the composite work of an indefinite
number of minds, varying in all degrees of the scale of ability,
from the insight of a profound philosopher, and the scholarship
and culture of a chivalrous gentlemen, down to the level--down,
indeed, to the very ‘bottom-lands’ of a grade of imbecility
vague and appalling. * * * The genial Goldsmith must have had
a premonition of these latter-day enlightenments when he wrote
of ‘Shakespeare and the Musical Glasses.’ * * * Here was one of
his [Shakespeare’s] contemporaries, for instance, Lord Bacon,
whose acknowledged works are also voluminous. Is it possible
to believe that there was a common authorship to both? Each is
characterized by a strongly individualized style, as all writings
are that the world cares to read. Each has a flavor distinct
from the other. Yet, if Bacon be the author of both sets of
works, he must in one of them have assumed a style of composition
foreign to him--a thing impossible, even were there a motive
for such an undertaking. * * * Similarity, or even identity, of
ideas, or precepts, or axioms--any likeness of speculation or
philosophy--all these are nothing whatever. The human mind, at
the root, is everywhere the same. Counterparts appear constantly
in literature, even in widely-severed nations and ages. Such
parallels as are pointed out in Bacon and Shakespeare can be
discovered in almost any two writers; but of that individuality
that must permeate the work of any writer, in manner of
treatment, in style, there seem to be no traces in common.”
117 NOTICES of Sir PATRICK COLQUHOUN’S Essay on _The Authorship of
Shakespeare_. In the London journals, as follows:
_a_--In the _Globe_, May 23, 1879.
_b_--In the _Daily Telegraph_, May 24, 1879.
_c_--In _Bell’s Weekly Messenger_, June 2, 1879.
_Unc._
Sir PATRICK COLQUHOUN’S paper was read before the Royal Society of
Literature, London, May 21, 1879. It has never been printed. He holds
Shakespeare “to have been a mere theatrical manager, who bought the
plays of poor authors, and perhaps suggested certain buffooneries for
the delectation of the gods,” etc. This essay has since been recast
and considerably augmented; and it is probable that it may yet be
published in book form.
118 THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS, THE THEATRE, ETC. WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE?
By O. F. [O. FOLLETT, of Sandusky, O.] Printed for private
circulation. Sandusky: May, 1879. Pamphlet, pp. 47.
_Anti-Sh._
“If, then, Shakespeare _did not_ write Shakespeare, who did? The
question is already answered. BUT ONE MAN COULD. Only one [Bacon]
was fully equipped for the task in its full proportions. * * *
It has been _“aut Cæsar aut nullus”_--Shakespeare or nothing.
Not a line, not a scrap, not a sentiment outside the dramas and
poems has been vouchsafed to us, as a test of style, or by which
to measure capacity. Without preparation, without drill, this
man is master of all learning, law, physic, theology, nay, of
state-craft as well. If Shakespeare proper was all this, then
Shakespeare the poet was a miracle, and may be worshiped--and
Stratford may well be his shrine.”
119 THE SO-CALLED SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. By F. R., Barrie. [FRANCIS RYE,
of Barrie, Ontario, Canada.] In the _Canadian Monthly_ for July,
1879. (See pages 76-79.)
_Pro-Sh._
An answer to Mr. Morgan’s articles in _Appletons’ Journal_.
120 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? By HENRY G. ATKINSON, F.G.S. In
the _Spiritualist_, London, July 4, 1879.
_Anti-Sh._
Mr. ATKINSON is an ardent Baconian. His writings on the subject
consist principally of short articles in various periodicals, which
will be found noted hereafter.
“It would be absurd to expect to find the same variety in
Bacon’s philosophical writings as in the plays, where we have
philosophy and poetry combined, together with wit, humor, and
every kind of character and turn of sentiment. But here is Ben
Jonson’s account of Bacon. Bacon’s prose, says Judge Holmes, is
Shakespearian poetry, and Shakespeare’s poetry is Baconian prose.
Jonson says: ‘There happened in my time _one_ noble speaker, who
was full of gravity in his speaking. His language, where he
could spare, or pass by a jest, was nobly censorious. No man ever
spoke more neatly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness,
less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but
consisted of his own graces. His hearers could not cough, or look
aside from him without loss. He commanded when he spoke, and had
his judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had their
affections more in his power. The fear of every man who heard him
was lest he should make an end.’ Here, then, we have related,
from one most capable of judging, those very qualities of mind
we should expect to find in the writer of the plays, but which
Shakespeare was never known to have exhibited at any time, or in
any place; and we have not a scrap of his play-writing existing,
or ever known to have existed, nor referred to in his will. Some
of his finest plays were not known to exist until seven years
after his death, in the collected folio of 1623.”
121 ON RENASCENCE DRAMA, OR HISTORY MADE VISIBLE. By WILLIAM THOMSON,
F.R.C.S., F.L.S., Melbourne, Australia: Sands & McDougall, 1880. 8vo.
pp. 359.
_Anti-Sh._
DR. THOMSON’S title is adopted from Bacon’s _History of Learning_:
“Dramatic poetry is as history made visible; for it represents
actions as if they were present, whereas history represents them as
past.” He continues in this work the argument as to the political
purpose of certain of the Shakespearian plays, which he classes
under the style of the Renascence Drama; and, reasoning from that
standpoint, claims the authorship for Bacon. The book commences:
“The political purpose of the Renascence Drama has never been
defined. And yet for a patriotic object the series of plays so
named were evidently written. The motive is avowed in prologue,
epilogue and induction; and everywhere throughout the works the
aim is obvious. You are required to
‘Think you see
The very persons of our noble story
As they were living.’”