by literary labor would have been exceptional in any case, but
the mental equipment brought by William Shakespeare to London
does not seem to have been equal to such an accumulation in
his; it certainly was not equal to the _Venus and Adonis_, the
_Hamlet_, and the other masterpieces which began to crowd upon
each other--in none of which can any trace of Warwickshire
dialect or origin be found.
“IV. If, however, Shakespeare made his fortune in the management
of theatres (which became popular in London at this time, and
in which he met but indifferent competition), it is reasonable
to suppose that these plays, being exclusively secured by him,
and becoming popular through his stage handling, came to be, not
only the sources of his fortune, but identified and called by his
name; certainly, less unreasonable (however exceptional) than to
rest all this poetry, pathos, philosophy, and human experience
in the genius of a letterless rustic, with a reputation in
his native village for scapegrace escapades, gallantries, and
poaching expeditions, rather than for meditation, study, or
literary composition.
“V. But while claiming for Shakespeare a proprietary rather than
a productive title in the plays, Mr. Morgan is very far from
estimating him a dummy. ‘Surely it is a less violent supposition
that this funny Mr. Shakespeare, as he wrote out the parts in big
round hand, improved on or interpolated a palpable hit, a droll
speech, the last popular song; or sketched entire a role with
a name familiar to his boyish ear--the village butt or sot, or
justice of the peace, or why not some fellow-scapegrace of olden
times by Avon banks. He did it with a swift touch and mellow
humor that relieved and refreshed the stately speeches--making
the play all the more available.’ * * *
“VI. The only testimony really negativing this view is Ben
Jonson’s. But that this is mere mortuary eulogy--is anything
but the sort of evidence ‘we accept in our personal affairs,
our courts of justice, in matters in which we have anything
at stake, or any living interest’ (p. 131), and is, moreover,
perfectly disposed of by Jonson himself, in his _Discoveries_,
and conversations with Drummond, when he commends Shakespeare’s
fluency and industry, but omits all mention of him in his list of
eminent writers, poets, and thinkers of that age.
“Mr. Morgan disclaims any conjectures as to the authors of
the Shakespearean text. But while admitting that Bacon, or
even Raleigh, may have had a hand in them, insists that the
extant records of Elizabeth’s day (and what are extant are a
presumptive clue to such as have disappeared) point directly to
a proprietary, rather than any other description of interest, in
the plays and poems in William Shakespeare.”
We give a portion of the closing paragraph:
* * * “Having lost ‘our Shakespeare’ both to-day and forever, it
will doubtless remain--as it is--the question, ‘Who wrote the
Shakespearean dramas?’ The evidence is all in--the testimony
is all taken. Perhaps it is a secret that even Time will never
tell, that is hidden down in the crypt and sacristy of the
Past, whose seal shall never more be broken. In the wise land
of China it is said that where a man has deserved well of the
State, his countrymen honor, with houses and lands and gifts
and decorations, not himself, but his father and his mother.
Perhaps, learning a lesson from the Celestials, we might rear a
shaft to the fathers and mothers of the Immortality that wrote
the Book of Nature, the mighty book which ‘age can not wither,
nor custom stale,’ and whose infinite variety for three centuries
has been, and, until Time shall be no more, will be close to the
hearts of every age and cycle of men--household words for ever
and ever. The Book--thank heaven!--that nothing can divorce from
us.”
(Mr. APPLETON MORGAN, whose frequent contributions to this
controversy will be found mentioned in this list, is a graduate of
Racine College, Wisconsin, class of 1867. He is at present a resident
of New York City--by profession, an attorney at law.)
148 WHO WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WAS. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE, of Washington.
Two articles in the _Republic_, Washington, D. C., October 29 and
November 5, 1881. 3 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. ADEE’S papers give the contemporary evidences of Shakespeare’s
authorship.
149 THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE. In the
_Republic_, Washington, D. C., November 12, 1881. 3 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
This article refers only incidentally to the authorship.
150 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” [By J. G. PYLE]. A review of Mr.
Morgan’s book. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minnesota, November
15, 1881. 1 column.
_Anti-Sh._
“Such an addition as this volume to the evidence of the case
against Shakespeare, is a noteworthy event in the literary
world. * * * Mr. Morgan’s book, gathering up, in lawyer fashion,
the scattered threads of inconsistencies and improbabilities,
is a valuable and welcome addition to the evidence in this
controversy. * * * The questions raised long ago, and now
presented in form, make up an indictment which the Shakespearean
must break down by cogent explanations, or yield to the growing
belief that, whether the ‘myriad-minded’ Shakespeare be metaphor
or fact, he never wrote all that has come down the centuries as
his, to rank his name with the immortals.”
151 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. In the
journals following:
_a_--Sandusky (O.) _Register_, November 15, 1881.
_b_--Pittsburgh _Telegraph_, November 15, 1881.
_c_--Cincinnati _Gazette_, November 15, 1881.
_d_--Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, November 19, 1881.
_e_--Sacramento (Cal.) _Record-Union_, Nov. 19, 1881.
_f_--Philadelphia _American_, November 26, 1881.
_Unc._
152 A BRIEF AGAINST SHAKESPEARE. In the _Tribune_, New York, November
25, 1881. 1 column.
_Pro-Sh._
A review of the _Myth_:
* * * “The presumption, for example, that Mr. Appleton Morgan is
the author of the book before us is so strong, so overwhelming,
that nobody living will entertain the thought of addressing
a question on that point to the publishers; and yet we have
absolutely no evidence of the fact, except the implied assertion
of the title-page; no more evidence, indeed--and no less--than
we have that Shakespeare wrote the plays that bear his name.
Three hundred years hence it will be as impossible to prove
that Mr. Morgan really wrote the book, as it is now to prove
that Shakespeare wrote the plays, and for some man of the
twenty-second century to argue that some other lawyer probably
wrote it, merely because there is no way of proving that the
alleged is the real authorship, will be no more illogical than
Mr. Morgan’s parallel argument in the Shakespeare case is.”
153 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A review of Mr. Morgan’s book, by N.
H. [NATHANIEL HOLMES]. Printed in the St. Louis _Globe Democrat_,
November 17, 1881. 1½ columns.
_Anti-Sh._
“We have to regret that the author’s ‘scope’ did not allow him
to bring his critical abilities to bear on a comparison of the
plays with the writings of Francis Bacon. Hidden down deep in
the crypt, a ‘Delian diver’ like him might possibly find the
key that would unlock the principal secret. Not that he appears
himself so much to controvert that possibility--it seems not
to have come within his historical and circumstantial point of
view. * * * The theory that manuscripts were brought to the
theatre by sundry authors, to be scissored and adapted by the
manager, strikes out at one stroke, or tacitly overlooks, nearly
all that has ever been peculiar (_sui generis_), extraordinary,
precious and wonderful in this work; * * * it leaves them open to
manifold contributors, as if such a thing as this Shakespearean
drama really is, however the case may have been with Homer, or
the psalms of David, were at all possible in that way; and we
are strongly inclined to think that this mode of creation of it,
though perhaps possible to some extent, may prove to be, on the
whole, as mythical as the man William himself.”
154 DR. THOMSON’S PAMPHLETS. A notice of two of the pamphlets, in the
_Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin, November 23, 1881.
_Unc._
An extract from this will be found under title 121.
155 HISTORICAL ICONOCLASTS. What are we to believe? Joan of Arc,
William Tell, Marshal Ney, Pocahontas, Powhatan, Captain Kidd, etc.
gone! Is Shakespeare to follow? By JOHN W. BELL. In the Toledo (O.)
_Blade_, December 4, 1881. 1½ columns.
_Anti-Sh._
The tenor of this article is sufficiently indicated by the head-lines
given above.
156 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION, in reply to Dean PLUMPTRE.
By W. T. [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON.] Melbourne, December 10, 1881.
Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 39.
_Anti-Sh._
Though Dean Plumptre’s paper did not refer to the question of the
authorship, Dr. Thomson answers it from that standpoint.
157 SHAKESPEARE IN AMERIKA. EINE LITERARHISTORISCHE STUDIE. Von
KARL KNORTZ. Berlin: Verlag von Theodor Hofmann. 1882. pp. 85.
(SHAKESPEARE IN AMERICA. A LITERARY-HISTORICAL STUDY.)
_Pro-Sh._
This book, though printed in Berlin, is really an American work,
as it was written in this country. Pages 29 to 41 are devoted to a
review of the works on the authorship question. Mr. Knortz sums up
his conclusions against the Baconian theory, and adds:
(_Translation._) “Yet this controversy did some good; it induced
the public to give more attention to the works of these two
Englishmen; but it especially promoted the study of Shakespeare.”
(KARL KNORTZ is well known as the author of several works on American
literature, translations of American poetry, etc.--for the most part
printed in Germany. He resides in New York.)
158 THE POLITICAL ALLEGORIES IN THE RENASCENCE DRAMA OF FRANCIS
BACON. By WILLIAM THOMSON, F.R.C.S. Melbourne: Sands & McDougall,
1882. Pamphlet, pp. 46.
_Anti-Sh._
Dr. THOMSON here carries out his idea of the political purpose,
alludes to the forthcoming _Promus_, and replies to his critics
of the Australian press. He answers Dr. Stearns at considerable
length, and recapitulates and expands his own arguments as to Bacon’s
authorship of the Sonnets.
159 SPEDDING’S VINDICATION OF BACON. A review of “_Spedding’s
Evenings with a Reviewer; or, Macaulay and Bacon_.” By R. M.
THEOBALD. In the _Nonconformist and Independent_, London. Two
articles, January 12, 1882; and January 26, 1882. 5 columns.
_Unc._
These papers contain a reference to the Northumberland manuscripts.
160 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES. Bacon’s Essex-Sonnet,
and Thomson’s Renascence Drama. By Dr. C. M. INGLEBY. v. 62, January
28, 1882.
_Pro-Sh._
161 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH:
_a_--_Saturday Review_, London, January 28, 1882.
_b_--Milwaukee _Sentinel_, February 12, 1882.
_c_--Washington _Post_, April 24, 1882.
_d_--Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, July 22, 1882.
_Unc._
162 FRANCIS BACON AND SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. In the _Oracle_, London,
February 4, 1882. 2 columns.
_Unc._
This is in answer to the request of L. J. M. for information, and
gives, in a short form, the arguments (evidently condensed from
Vaile’s paper in _Scribner_) used to support the anti-Shakespearian
theory, with a list of the authorities.
163 QUERY 4275. In _Notes and Queries_ column, _Evening Transcript_,
Boston, February 13, 1882.
_Unc._
It having been intimated that Delia Bacon was induced to commence her
investigations through a fancied relationship to the family of Lord
Bacon, this query asked for information on that point. The answers,
five in number, give various references and authorities, but no
definite answer to the question. The fact seems to be that no such
consanguinity was ever claimed.
164 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, of
dates following:
_a_--Letter of Appleton Morgan, with answer, February 25, 1882.
_b_--“The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature,” October
21, 1882.
_Unc._
165 REPORT TO THE BRITISH MUSEUM on behalf of the Annals of Great
Britain and the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Discovery and
opening of the cipher of Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, alike in his
prose writings and the “Shakespere” dramas, proving him the author
of the dramas. By Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Jos.
Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1882. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet,
pp. 40.
_Anti-Sh._
Mrs. WINDLE’S second pamphlet. We would rather avoid any mention
of this if it could be done with justice to the history of the
discussion. The following extract from the article (title 179), on
the author and her latest essay, in the San Francisco _Chronicle_ of
August 20, 1882, will give an idea of the extraordinary unreason of
this effusion:
“The text of this irrational essay seems to have been the passage
in Bacon’s _De Augmentis Scientiarum_ on Ciphers, and putting
this to the idea of allegory, she gets, as the result, the belief
that all of Shakspere’s (Bacon’s) plays are written in cipher.
The nature of that cipher is a puzzler, indeed; it is cabalistic,
it is bi-lateral, it has a Biblical aspect, it is prophetic,
it is under a spell, it is commodious, it is adroit, and it is
altogether the most extraordinary example of moonshine and vagary
that the curious could wish to puzzle over. The reader, however,
had best judge for himself by an example or two. The title of
every play has its explanatory catch. That of _Othello_ is:
A tale, oh! I tell, oh!
Oh, dell, oh! What wail, oh!
Oh, hill, oh! What willow!
What hell, oh! What will, oh!
At will, oh! At well, oh!
I dwell, oh!
“All the characters in the play have their attendant jingles.
_Desdemona_ goes ‘With a demon A, with a moan, ah!’ and means
the double tragedy of Bacon’s muse; and _Emilia_ stands with
‘I’m ill, you, I mill you,’ and refers to ‘the expression of
Bacon’s ill, continued in play after play, as milestones of
his life.’ All the characters are sphinxes and riddle-mongers;
they are ‘related cues’ to everything under the sun, and it all
means--nothing. Similar catches and symbols are repeated in all
the plays. _Titus Andronicus_ has:
Tie t’ us and drone accuse;
Tie t’ us and drown a curse;
Tie t’ us and drum the news.
“This play is Bacon’s judgment of his own case, since _Martius_
means ‘March you us,’ and refers to his service; _Publius_
means ‘Publish us,’ and refers to his fame, etc. As the work
goes on, even the plays are not adhered to, and Holy Writ and
Montaigne’s Essays come in for an equal share of ‘explanation.’
If by this time the value of Mrs. Windle’s discovery is not
apparent, it will need no further extracts to know that too close
an application to ‘a startling exemplification in philological
science’ has wrought its mischief and unsettled a mind which,
with proper use, might have produced something more valuable and
less pitiable than a Cipher.”
166 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES.
_a_--Bacon a poet, by Henry G. Atkinson, V, 205, March 18, 1882.
_b_--Answer to above, by Dr. Ingleby, V, 316, April 22, 1882.
_c_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 277, September 30, 1882.
_d_--From Este, VI, 416, November 18, 1882.
_e_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 492, December 16, 1882.
_Unc._
167 SHYLOCK’S CASE. By NATHANIEL HOLMES. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly
Magazine_, Salt Lake, Utah, April, 1882. 13 pages.
_Anti-Sh._
This is a review of _The Struggle for Law_, by Dr. Rudolph von
Ihering, of Göttingen, who maintains that injustice was done to
Shylock. Judge Holmes’s argument is that the writer of the Trial Act
in the _Merchant of Venice_ was a skillful lawyer--in fact, Bacon
himself.
168 “MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A notice of the book in the
_Westminster Review_, London, April 1, 1882. 2 pages.
_Pro-Sh._
169 JUDGE HOLMES AND HIS GREAT SUBJECT--FRANCIS BACON. By E. W.
TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, April, 1882.
8 pages.
_Anti-Sh._
170 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE LITERATURE. By W. H. W. [W. H. WYMAN]. In
the Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, April 24, 1882. 5 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
A partial Bibliographical list (25 titles), with some account of
Delia Bacon, and an outline of the origin, history, and arguments of
the controversy.
171 THE BIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. By F. [EDWARD FILLEBROWN,
Brookline, Mass.] In the Brookline _Chronicle_, May 27, 1882. 1
column.
_Anti-Sh._
172 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” By R. M. THEOBALD. In the
_Nonconformist and Independent_, London, June 1, 1882. 2 columns.
_Anti-Sh._
A comprehensive and favorable review of the _Myth_:
“It is intended to prove that the author of Shakespeare, being a
scholar, a courtier, a lawyer, master of all the knowledge and
science of his age, could not have been a rustic adventurer,
ill-educated, untraveled, unfamiliar with court life, busy in
making money, and with no time for self-culture. Mr. Morgan is
unable to believe this amazing paradox, and accordingly rejects
it.”
173 THE GENIUS AND METHODS OF SHAKESPEARE. By E. W. TULLIDGE. In
_Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, Utah, July, 1882. 12
pages.
_Anti-Sh._
174 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” Notice of Morgan’s book in the _British
Quarterly Review_, London, July 1, 1882.
_Pro-Sh._
175 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE LITERATURE. Compiled by W.
H. WYMAN. 8vo. pp. 8. Cincinnati, July 1, 1882. 63 titles.
_Unc._
This was privately-printed, and contained all the ascertained titles
up to the time of issue. The present Bibliography is an extension of
it.
176 SHAKESPEARE, BACON AND CHRISTIANITY. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the
_Philosophic Inquirer_, Madras, India, July 2, 1882. 1 column.
_Anti-Sh._
177 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE HIS OWN WORKS? An editorial article in the
Oshkosh (Wis.) _Northwestern_, July 17, 1882.
_Pro-Sh._
The Editor, Gen. T. S. ALLEN, calls attention to a lecture by the
late Hon. GEORGE B. SMITH, of Madison, Wisconsin, delivered at
Chicago, Madison, and other places a few years since. Mr. Smith’s
lecture was never printed. It was a forcible presentation of the
Baconian theory.
178 AN ANTI-SHAKESPEAREAN PLEA. By J. W. B. [JOHN W. BELL]. In the
Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, July 22, 1882. 1 column.
_Anti-Sh._
Occasioned by the Bibliographical article and summary in the same
paper, April 24, 1882.
179 THE BACON CIPHER. The ruin it wrought on a strong intellect. A
strange discovery in Literature. In the San Francisco _Chronicle_,
August 20, 1882. (Copied in the Cincinnati _Enquirer_, Sept. 19,
1882.) 1½ columns.
_Unc._
This article refers to Mrs. Windle and her writings. An extract from
it will be found in connection with Mrs. W.’s second pamphlet (title
165).
180 QUERY 4929. In _Notes and Queries_ column of the _Evening
Transcript_, Boston.
_a_--Query as to merits of the question, August 21, 1882.
_b_--Answers to above, September 24, 1882.
_Unc._
181 BACON AS A MAN OF LETTERS. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the _Secular
Review_, London, September 23, 1882. 1 column.
_Anti-Sh._
182 NOTICE of the bibliography of the discussion, in the
_Bibliographer_, London, October 22, 1882, page 151.
_Pro-Sh._
After mentioning the early authorities, the editor says: “but before
this we believe an Englishman lectured to such people as would listen
to him on his theory that Shakespeare’s plays were written by the
monks.”
183 SHAKESPEARE, BACON AND FREE THOUGHT. By HENRY G. ATKINSON, in the
_National Reformer_, London, October 22, 1882.
_Anti-Sh._
184 SOME SHAKESPEAREAN COMMENTATORS. By APPLETON MORGAN. Cincinnati:
Robert Clarke & Co., 1882. Fifty copies printed for sale. Pamphlet,
12mo. pp. 44.
_Anti-Sh._
This pamphlet is a general answer by Mr. MORGAN to the criticisms of
the _Shakespearean Myth_. The following extract from a summary of it
will indicate some of the points made by the author:
“So far from being new-fangled, a doubt as to _what were_
Shakespeare’s plays and poems is as old as the first folio
itself; that the name was often pirated, and the piracies often
detected; that there was a statute in Elizabeth’s day that would
have operated to forbid the publication of plays without being
first editorially scrutinized; that these plays must have had an
editor or editors, as well as an author or authors; and that if
produced anonymously, it was much more likely that they should
pass by their editors’ then by their authors’ names. Further,
that instead of laying this question at rest, the labors of
the Shakespeareans are only emphasizing it, and adding to its
difficulty.”
The Milwaukee _Sentinel_ (title 202) has this in its summary:
“In the present treatise Mr. Morgan simply recapitulates some of
his previous statements; touches at some length on the general
absurdity of Edmond Malone; discusses the views of Wm. J. Rolfe,
James Freeman Clarke, Henry N. Hudson, and Dr. Ingleby; and
finally proceeds to review several disagreeable reviewers, each
one of whom, Mr. Morgan intimates, through a very pithy quotation
from Huxley, ‘acquired his knowledge from the book he judges--as
the Abyssinian is said to provide himself with steaks from the ox
who carries him.’”
185 THE ABSURDITY OF THE THEORY THAT LORD BACON WROTE THE PLAYS OF
SHAKESPEARE. By J. WILSON ROSS. In _Modern Thought_, London, for
December, 1882. 4 pages.
_Pro-Sh._
186 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the
_National Reformer_, London, December 31, 1882.
_Anti-Sh._
187 THE PROMUS OF FORMULARIES AND ELEGANCIES (being Private Notes,
_circ._ 1594, hitherto unpublished) by Francis Bacon, illustrated and
elucidated by passages from Shakespeare. By Mrs. HENRY POTT. With
preface by E. A. ABBOTT, D.D., Head Master of the City of London
School, 1883. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin
& Co. (with fac-simile sheet of Promus). 8vo. pp. 628.
_Anti-Sh._
This book is the latest important contribution to the Baconian theory.
The MSS. known as the _Promus_ form a part of the Harleian Collection
in the British Museum, and have never before been published. They
consist of fifty sheets or folios, nearly all in the handwriting of
Bacon, containing 1655 different entries or memorandums. The whole
seems to have been kept by Bacon as a sort of commonplace book,
in which he entered at different times brief forms of expression,
phrases, proverbs, verses from the Bible; and quotations from Seneca,
Horace, Virgil, Erasmus, and many other writers. These are in various
languages--English, French, Italian, etc. As to the use of this
collection, we give Mrs. Pott’s explanation:
“The _Promus_, then, was Bacon’s shop or storehouse, from which
he would draw forth things new and old--turning, twisting,
expanding, modifying, changing them, with that ‘nimbleness’
of mind, that ‘aptness to perceive analogies,’ which he notes
as being necessary to the inventor of aphorisms, and which,
elsewhere, he speaks of decidedly, though modestly, as gifts with
which he felt himself to be specially endowed.
“It was a storehouse also of pithy and suggestive sayings, of
new, graceful, or quaint terms of expression, of repartee, with
bright ideas jotted down as they occurred, and which were to
reappear, ‘made-up,’ variegated, intensified, and indefinitely
multiplied, as they radiated from that wonderful ‘brayne cut with
many facets.’”
Mrs. Pott believes that Bacon prepared these notes for use in his
literary works, and she elaborates her theory that Bacon wrote
“Shakespeare” by taking up in review the whole of the 1655 entries,
and citing, by the thousand, what she claims to be parallel thoughts
and passages in the plays. To prove that the forms of expression
used in the _Promus_ are not contained in contemporary or precedent
literature, the author gives, in an appendix, a list of upwards of
five thousand works which she has examined for that purpose and in
which she claims they are almost unknown.