_Hamlet_, _Othello_, and others of the plays, from his view as to
the political motive of Bacon in producing them, interpreting them
as allegories bearing on persons and events of the time. In his
elucidation of _Twelfth Night_, he goes so far as to indicate “the
persons represented in false names” for all the leading characters.
A recapitulation of these may be interesting to the student of
history, as well as the student of Shakespeare: _Duke Orsino_ is
Sir Philip Sidney; _Sebastian_, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex;
_Sir Toby Belch_, Sir Francis Knollys; _Sir Andrew Aguecheek_, the
Earl of Leicester; _Malvolio_, Sir Walter Raleigh; _Fabian_, Sir
Fulke Greville; _Feste, the clown_, Dick Tarleton; _Olivia_, Queen
Elizabeth; _Viola_, Penelope Devereux; and _Maria_, Lettice Knollys.
A critic has said of Dr. Thomson’s argument: “If he has succeeded in
anything, it is in unearthing a wealth of verbiage, which is more
than proof against a powerful microscopic analysis. Whatever may
be his object, he conceals it by his language.” An extract from an
article in the _Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin (title 154), will give
evidence of the scope of the book:
“He [Dr. Thomson] argues from the identity of the language in the
plays and Bacon’s works--from the difficulty of finding where
Shakespeare, who was all but totally uneducated, got all the
wondrous learning that the works attributed to him exhibit--from
the notorious fact of Bacon’s universal learning--and from facts
connected with the dates of the publication of the poems and
dramas, which can scarcely be reconciled with the incidents of
Shakespeare’s life, and which fit in admirably with the stages
of Bacon’s chequered career. Dr. Thomson argues also, with
considerable acumen and subtlety, from the inferences which the
allegorical and political interpretation of such plays as even
Hamlet and Macbeth require; and he argues to the same effect from
the sonnets, and from the non-dedication of the sonnets to the
Earl of Southampton in 1609, to whom in 1593 the poems of _Venus
and Adonis_ and _Lucrece_ were dedicated. This circumstance,
which is such a crux on the ordinary interpretation that
Shakespeare was the author of the sonnets, and that Southampton
was his loving patron, is easily explicable on being reminded
that in the interval between the appearance of the two sets of
poems, the Earl of Southampton, on his liberation from prison,
had become a deadly enemy of Bacon.”
122 “MR. HUDSON’S FOUR REASONS.” (See _Shakespeare: his Life, Art,
and Character_. By Rev. H. N. HUDSON. Vol. I, p. 269, edition of
1880.)
_Pro-Sh._
* * * “It was Lord Bacon, not Shakespeare, who enjoyed so richly
the friendship and patronage of the generous Essex; and how he
requited the same is known much too well for his credit. I am not
unmindful that this may yield some comfort to those who would
persuade us that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Lord Bacon.
Upon this point I have just four things to say:
“_First_--Bacon’s requital of the Earl’s bounty was such a piece
of ingratitude as I can hardly conceive the author of _King Lear_
to have been guilty of.
“_Second_--The author of Shakespeare’s plays, whoever he may have
been, certainly was not a scholar; he had indeed something vastly
better than learning, but he had not that.
“_Third_--Shakespeare never philosophizes; Bacon never does
anything else.
“_Fourth_--Bacon’s mind, great as it was, might have been cut out
of Shakespeare’s without being missed.”
Noticing the above, Dr. Ingleby adds another reason:
“_Fifth_--Bacon excelled all writers of his day in prose; but the
very best of the verses attributed to him (not all his, by the
way) are fourth-rate; while Shakespeare’s verse is everywhere
incomparably better than his prose; and he thus excelled where
Bacon most faulted.”
123 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A controversy between H. G.
ATKINSON, F.G.S., and Mr. CHARLES C. CATTELL. London: H. Cattell &
Co., n. d. [1880]. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.
_Unc._
This consists of three papers on each side of the question, reprinted
from the pages of the _Secular Review_, London.
124 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. A review of Holmes. In
the _Southern Quarterly Review_, New Orleans, January, 1880. By the
editor, DANIEL K. WHITAKER. (See pages 172-179.)
_Pro-Sh._
125 JUDGE HOLMES’S “PARALLELISMS” BETWEEN SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By
WM. J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana, Literary World_, Boston, April 10,
1880. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
126 SHAKESPEARE. A letter from Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY, Zanesville, O.
In the _Church Eclectic_, Utica, N. Y., November, 1880. (See pages
719-728.)
_Pro-Sh._
The paper of Mr. CROSBY was originally written as a private letter
to Rev. Dr. James A. Bolles, who transmitted it to the _Eclectic_
for publication. It is quite comprehensive, occupying eight pages of
the magazine, and is an answer to Mr. Morgan’s _Shakespearean Myth_
articles, and also to the other arguments against Shakespeare’s
authorship.
“But our Shakespeare was _not_ an uneducated man; on the
contrary, he was, for the time, a man of letters. We know that
he received a fair grammar-school education, * * * and education
at those grammar-schools was very thorough in those days. After
he went to London, we soon hear of him in the best society;
he was a natural absorbent, and no doubt had, in addition to
the advantages of high-toned conversation, access to all such
books as the time supplied. It is a great error to speak of
Shakespeare, as many do, as an ‘inspired ignoramus.’ And then,
after all, it was not mere scholastic knowledge that Shakespeare
needed for his productions. Jonson had _this_, in an eminent
degree; and his dramas are, I think, only the worse for it.
Shakespeare knew enough to read Hall, and More, and Holinshead,
and North’s Plutarch for his history; and enough of the modern
languages to read Italian and other continental novels for the
sake of the plots--the dry-bones, on which he built the flesh
and blood of _life_ in his immortal works. The real books that
Shakespeare studied were the _Book of Mankind_ and the _Book of
Nature_, and these he knew by heart. He needed not a university
to teach him these. While his style shows frequently, by the
radical and exact senses in which he employs numerous words, that
he had a competent knowledge of the Latin language, it is in his
using the idiomatic powers of the English language, in their
highest perfection, that its force and beauty consist. Jonson’s
style, as a dramatic writer, is often marred, and enfeebled, and
spoilt, by his exuberant Latin quotations, and magniloquence, and
learned affectation; and that is why I say that Shakespeare’s
‘little Latin and less Greek’ stood him in better stead than all
the ponderous learning and classic conceits that weighted the
poetry of his rival.
* * * * *
“There is one argument that these theorists seem never to have
examined, viz: that deducible from Shakespeare’s _poems_ and
_sonnets_. These no one has ever disputed his authorship of.
That _cannot_ be disputed, for he published them himself, and
dedicated them to noblemen of the day, under his own name. And
yet can any intelligent person read these works, and not be
convinced that the same mind and hand produced them that produced
the dramas? There are not only similar expressions, but whole
lines, similes, metaphors, and turns of thought are constantly
recurring, the same in each. This, to my mind, is as strong an
argument as I could ask. A careful study of the poems and sonnets
is a great help to understanding many things in the plays: and
the fact that _one person wrote both_ is as undoubted and clear
to me as noonday.” * * * *
127 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? By R. C. C. [RICHARD COLAMA CLOSE]. In the
_Victorian Review_, Melbourne, Australia, for November, 1880. (See
pages 54-70.)
_Pro-Sh._
An answer to Dr. Thomson’s _Renascence Drama_.
* * * “There has been no single instance, from the earliest
historic times up to the present day, where the combination of a
Bacon and a Shakespeare, the impersonations of the highest talent
and the greatest genius, has found its centre in one man. It is
possible, but not more possible than a miracle. Few have ever
exceeded Bacon in the force, vigour, terseness, clearness, and
splendor of his prose. None has ever exceeded Shakespeare, either
as a writer of dramas or comedies. Bacon, as a prose writer,
stands in the midst of a goodly company. The most we can say
of Bacon is, that in this _genre_ he was _primus inter pares_.
Shakespeare, as a dramatic genius, stood in lonely grandeur. He
was first, and had no equals.”
(Mr. CLOSE is a barrister in Sydney, New South Wales.)
128 SHAKESPEARE’S BIOGRAPHY. Does it conform to the Author of the
Plays? By “LANCER.” [O. C. STOUDER.] In the _Wittenberger Magazine_,
Springfield, O., November, 1880. 2 pages.
_Anti-Sh._
129 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A reply to “Lancer.” By Mr. JOSEPH
CROSBY. In the _Wittenberger_, December, 1880. 2 pages.
_Pro-Sh._
130 SHAKESPEARE: DID HE WRITE THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM? With notes
on “_What Shakespeare Learnt at School_.” By CHARLES C. CATTELL.
London: Henry Cattell & Co., n. d. [probably 1881]. Pamphlet, pp. 16.
_Pro-Sh._
“It seems desirable that, in a publication of this kind, some
reference should be made to the three articles by Prof. T. F.
Baynes, which appeared in 1879 and 1880, on _What Shakespeare
Learnt at School_. * * * That he could have been sent to one is
certain, for the school at Stratford-on-Avon was restored in
1553 by Edward. VI, and the constitution and management were the
same as other schools established at that period, and the course
of instruction is known by the records preserved of Rotherham
school, which gives a list of books generally used in the grammar
schools of the country. * * * At that time, children were sent to
the English side of the grammar school at the age of five, and
at seven they commenced the study of Latin, the regular course
taking about ten years; so that boys usually left school, for
work or for university study, at fifteen. * * * The articles
were published in _Fraser’s Magazine_ in 1879 and 1880, and,
to my mind, sufficiently explain how the youthful Bard of Avon
might lay up the treasures of learning deemed so essential in the
production of his immortal works--his possession of which has
been so often doubted, and in some instances positively denied to
him. How such a man, living in such a time, and at such a place,
could acquire the necessary classic knowledge, no longer remains
a mystery.”
131 CARLYLE’S OPINION. (See _Thomas Carlyle_, by MONCURE D. CONWAY.
New York: 1881.)
_Pro-Sh._
Speaking of Carlyle, on page 122, Mr. CONWAY says:
“He was more patient in listening to Miss Bacon, also introduced
by Emerson, when she tried to persuade him that Shakespeare’s
plays were written by Lord Bacon. Carlyle never thought much
of the philosopher who had been unable to recognize such a
contemporary as Kepler; and his only reply to Miss Bacon was,
‘Lord Bacon could as easily have created this planet as he could
have written Hamlet.’ I have heard that when she had gone he
added, to a letter written to his friend in Concord, the brief
postscript, ‘Your woman’s mad.’
T. C.”
132 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE BACON’S WORKS? By Rev. JAMES FREEMAN
CLARKE. In the _North American Review_ for February, 1881. (See pages
163-175.)
_Pro-Sh._
“When we ask whether it would have been easier for the author
of the philosophy to have composed the drama, or the dramatic
poet to have written the philosophy, the answer will depend upon
which is the greater of the two. The greater includes the less,
but the less can not include the greater. * * * Great as are the
thoughts of the _Novum Organum_, they are inferior to that world
of thought which is in the drama. We can easily conceive that
Shakespeare, having produced in his prime the wonders and glories
of the plays, should in his after leisure have developed the
leading ideas of the Baconian philosophy. But it is difficult to
imagine that Bacon, while devoting his main strength to politics,
to law, to philosophy, should have, as a mere pastime for his
leisure, produced in his idle moments the greatest intellectual
work ever done on earth.”
133 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? By BACONIAN. [WILLIAM W. FERRIER, of
Angola, Ind.] A series of eight articles in February and March, 1881,
in the Angola (Ind.) _Herald_. Dated February 9, 16, and 23; March 2,
9, 16, 23, and 30.
_Anti-Sh._
The writer gives all the main points in the controversy from the
Baconian standpoint. In his introduction he says that “a noted
Shakespearean doubter--Dr. Farmer--lived in the eighteenth century,
and that still earlier than this, as men began to study the
literature and lives of the Elizabethan period, difficulties arose in
regard to harmonizing the book Shakespeare with the man Shakespeare.”
We quote, from the third paper, as to one point only:
“The mind that wrote Shakespeare was a mighty mind. But it
was one broadened and deepened, nurtured and cultured by the
learning and experience of ages. These plays tell of more
than mere genius. They tell of years of earnest study; of
patient investigation; of a genius that made available all the
concentrated resources of the times. Let us consider briefly
the works and minds of some prominent in the middle ages, and
find there, in this way, a consistency that is not in the life
and works of William Shakespeare. English literature, that had
originated in Caedmon, that had burst into full glory in Chaucer,
and with him had also passed away, met again in its beauty and
grandeur a glad welcome when Spenser, amid the blaze of the
magnificent court of Elizabeth, placed at her feet the _Faerie
Queene_. But Spenser’s life was a life leading to the production
of grand ideal poetry. His education, combined with natural
genius, had prepared him for it. * * * Early in the Christian
Renaissance, there originated, within prison walls, a book which
has the greatest hold, next to the Bible, upon the English
people. That book was the _Pilgrim’s Progress_. * * * Linked with
the name of the old prisoner of Bradford, this immortal book
has came down to us in its journey adown the centuries; and the
world that questions the authorship of Shakespeare, finds nothing
inharmonious or incongruous between the life of Bunyan and this
grand work. * * * Contemporary with Shakespeare was one known as
a ‘genuine literary leviathan.’ It was Ben Jonson, erudite in all
the classics, of whom it has been said, ‘he had so well entered
into and digested the Greek and Latin ideas, that they were
incorporated with his own.’ But Ben Jonson’s education made him
this. * * * The years of the Christian Renaissance brought forth
another work that the world will not let die. It is the immortal
epic of Milton--_Paradise Lost_. But England has known no more
erudite man than Milton; and whatever of profound knowledge there
is found in his works, may be readily accounted for by cause and
effect. * * * Thus, it may be seen, that from the works and lives
of such as Spenser, Bunyan, Jonson, and Milton, no argument can
be adduced in favor of William Shakespeare.”
134 DID BACON WRITE FLETCHER’S PLAYS? By WILLIAM J. ROLFE. In
_Shakespeariana_, _Literary World_, Boston, February 12, 1881.
_Unc._
“Bacon _did_ write Fletcher’s Plays, for the Judge [Holmes]
proves it--just as he proves that he wrote Shakespeare’s plays.”
135 IS THERE ANY DOUBT AS TO THE AUTHORSHIP? In the _Harvard
University Bulletin_, April 1, 1881.
_Unc._
A short list of the references for the use of students in debate.
136 “OUR CLUB.” SHAKESPEARE NIGHT, April 26, 1881. H. HOLL in the
Chair. An address delivered by Mr. Holl, being in part an answer to
Dr. Benj. W. Richardson. With letter to Dr. R. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 22.
_Pro-Sh._
The address of Dr. RICHARDSON’S, alluded to above, was delivered
before “Our Club” (the original Hooks and Eyes, rechristened), at
the annual Shakespeare dinner, in April, 1877. It has never been
published. It seems, while expressing some doubts, to have opposed
the Baconian hypothesis.
137 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IN ROMANCE AND REALITY. By WILLIAM THOMSON.
Melbourne: Sands & McDougall, 1881. 8vo. pp. 95.
_Anti-Sh._
This is a continuation of the _Renascence Drama_, including an answer
to the criticisms of that work, but of a more practical turn--devoted
more to the historical than to the allegorical and political argument.
“Not only is Bacon’s name always linked with that of Shakespeare,
but no other name is ever so associated. No other author
unwittingly enters men’s thoughts along with the author of the
drama, except alone Bacon; and he is the only magician or creator
of the prevailing Baconian philosophy. Alluding to Shakespeare’s
forestalling Newton when making Cressida compare her heart to the
center of the earth, drawing all things to it, it is asked how
he knew what Newton was going to discover. But Voltaire long ago
showed where Bacon forestalled Newton. How, then, did he know
what Newton would discover? Either _both_ Bacon and Shakespeare
forestalled Newton on the great physical discovery, or one mind
did so in two different ways, at the same instant of time. * *
* When Bacon explained to King James how ‘bodies fall toward
the center of the earth,’ and ‘iron trembles under adamant,’
Shakespeare made Prince Troilus vow he would be true to Cressida,
‘As iron to adamant, as earth to the centre.’
While her love for him in return
‘Is as the very centre of the earth,
Drawing all things to it.’”
138 SHAKESPEARE--THE PLAYS AND POEMS LOGICALLY AND HISTORICALLY
CONSIDERED. Addendum to “Who Wrote Shakespeare?” By O. F. [O.
FOLLETT]. Sandusky, O.: May, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 12.
Anti-Sh.
A continuation of Mr. Follett’s first pamphlet.
139 WAS SHAKESPEARE A MYTH? By BROADBRIM. [J. H. WARWICK, Brooklyn,
N. Y.] A series of three articles in the Angola (Ind.) _Republican_,
May 25, June 8, and June 22, 1881.
_Pro-Sh._
The first two of these articles treat the subject, in the author’s
words, “from the ground-work of fact and historical probability;” the
concluding one invites attention to “the character of the age that
produced Shakespeare,” with an analysis of “the character of those
who have been instrumental in propagating the libels on his memory.”
140 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_. In the _Literary World_, Boston, of
dates following:
_a_--Judge Holmes on Julius Cæsar, June 4, 1881.
_b_--New Champions of the Baconian Theory (Mrs. Windle and Dr.
Thomson), November 5, 1881.
_c_--Morgan’s Shakespearean Myth, Dec. 3, 1881.
_Unc._
141 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? AN EXPOSITION OF THE GREAT CONTROVERSY. By
E. W. TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake City,
Utah, July, 1881. 13 pages.
_Anti-Sh._
“It is startlingly singular that directly Shakespeare is brought
down to the human plane, and considered there, whether as a
supreme poet, or a supreme metaphysician (both of which he was)
he became Bacon. Of all men of the Elizabethan age, and perhaps
of any age, Bacon is the only equivalent for Shakespeare. * * *
And it is something very like a hidden record, long concealed, of
the real identity of Shakespeare suddenly brought to light, that
the name of Bacon, once started, so nearly answers to the entire
mystery of Shakespeare, even before investigation of the proof
that he was the one who had lent to another his lion’s skin.
It was this very fact, indeed, which has started able authors
and critics to investigate this subject, and which inclines
multitudes to believe ‘there is something in it.’”
(Mr. TULLIDGE is the editor of the _Quarterly_, and a strong
Baconian. Several lengthy articles from his pen will be found noted
in this list.)
142 THE SWEET BARD OF AVON, and THE SHAKESPEAREAN QUESTION. By
BACONIAN. [WILLIAM W. FERRIER.] Two articles in the Angola (Ind.)
_Herald_, dated July 27, and August 5, 1881.
_Anti-Sh._
An answer to the “Broadbrim” articles.
143 ADDRESS TO THE NEW SHAKESPERE SOCIETY OF LONDON. Discovery of
Lord Verulam’s undoubted authorship of the “Shakespere” Works. By
Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Joseph Winterburn & Co.,
Printers, 1881. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 46.
_Anti-Sh._
The first of Mrs. WINDLE’S pamphlets. For an example of her special
theories see title of the second pamphlet, No. 165.
144 SHAKESPEARE, NOT BACON. By J. S. [JAMES SMITH]. In the Daily
_Argus_, Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. 3½ columns.
(Reprinted in the Stratford-on-Avon _Herald_, November 4, and
November 11, 1881.)
_Pro-Sh._
After citing contemporary authorities as to the authorship of _Venus
and Adonis_, _The Rape of Lucrece_, and _The Passionate Pilgrim_, the
writer says:
“I submit that Shakespeare’s authorship of the three poems
enumerated, is established by contemporary testimony sufficiently
strong to satisfy any court of justice in the world, albeit I
am not aware that his paternity of the _Sonnets_, or of _The
Lover’s Complaint_, has ever been seriously disputed. I shall
now proceed to show that the same hand which wrote the whole of
the before-mentioned works also produced the dramas. And I shall
rely upon the very same kind of evidence as that which has been
employed to sustain the fanciful and extravagant theory that
Bacon was the author of them. But though it will resemble it in
kind, it will be found to be, unless I am very much mistaken,
greater in volume and weightier in character than that which has
been so laboriously collected and so ingeniously set forth by Mr.
N. Holmes, Miss Delia Bacon, and by Mr. W. H. Smith.”
He then cites a long list of parallelisms between the poems and
the plays, and peculiar words used in the same sense in each, to
substantiate his position. “In his plays, Shakespeare naturally fell
into the same forms of expression as those he has previously made use
of in his poems, and occasionally repeated himself both in thought
and word.”
(Mr. SMITH is a resident of Melbourne--an editorial writer on the
_Argus_.)
145 BACON, NOT SHAKESPEARE. By W. T., in rejoinder to the
_Shakespeare, not Bacon_, of J. S. [By Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON].
Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 16.
_Anti-Sh._
A portion of this only appears in an addenda to _Romance and Reality_.
“The bare fact that the dramas and poems are from the same hand
has never been doubted, but I affirm that _not_ Shakespeare
but Bacon wrote both. J. S. only compares Shakespeare with
Shakespeare, but he does not compare Shakespeare with Bacon,
as he necessarily must do before he can confute any inference
deduced from that comparison. * * * He, therefore, dare not allow
himself to become acquainted with the contents of my book, whose
syllogism is--
“Whoever wrote the _Sonnets_ wrote the _Plays_.
I show Bacon to have writ the _Sonnets_;
Therefore, Bacon also wrote the _Plays_.”
146 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION. By E. H. PLUMPTRE, D.D.
In the _Spectator_, London, August 24, 1881. (Copied in _Good
Literature_, New York, September 17, 1881.)
_Unc._
This does not refer to the Bacon-Shakespeare question proper, but the
title is inserted as Dr. Thomson answered it from the standpoint of
the authorship. (See title 156.)
147 THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE. By APPLETON MORGAN, A.M., L.L.B., author of “The Law of
Literature,” “Notes to Best’s Principles of Evidence,” etc., etc.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1881. 8vo. pp. 342.
_Anti-Sh._
This work is an enlargement of the four articles under the same
title, appearing in _Appletons’ Journal_ in 1879 and 1880.
Mr. MORGAN adopts the editorial or proprietary theory. He gives a
schedule of the difficulties connected with the question of the
authorship, and a digest of the several theories framed to meet them.
He states his reasons for rejecting all of the latter, and offers a
new synthetic theory in their place, somewhat as follows:
“I. From contemporary evidence, recorded in law courts and public
offices, we are, perhaps, better informed of the _personnel_
of William Shakespeare, than of any other private gentleman of
Elizabeth’s reign.
“II. There can be no doubt that he came to London in great
poverty, and in a comparatively few years’ residence, was enabled
to retire with a fortune which--although variously estimated by
his friends and rivals--was certainly very large for those days.