resemblances which have been noted between the writings of Bacon
and Shakespeare is afforded by the supposition that these authors
may have studied the same sciences, learned the same languages,
read the same books, frequented the same sort of society. To
satisfy the requirements of such a hypothesis, it will be
necessary further to admit that from their scientific studies
these two men derived identically the same theories; from their
knowledge of languages the same proverbs, turns of expression,
and peculiar use of words; that they preferred and chiefly quoted
the same books in the Bible and the same authors; and last, not
least, that they derived from their education and surroundings
the same tastes and the same antipathies, and from their
learning, in whatever way it was acquired, the same opinions and
the same subtle thoughts.
* * * * *
“We should almost have to bring ourselves to believe that Bacon
took notes for the use of Shakespeare, since in the _Promus_
may be found several hundred notes of which no trace has been
discovered in the acknowledged writings of Bacon, or of any
contemporary writer but Shakespeare, but which are more or less
clearly reproduced in the plays, and sometimes in the Sonnets.
“Such things, it must be owned, pass all ordinary powers of
belief, and the comparison of points such as those which
have been hinted at impress the mind with a firm conviction
that Francis Bacon, and he alone, wrote all the plays and
sonnets which are attributed to Shakespeare, and that William
Shakespeare was merely the able and jovial manager, who, being
supported by some of Bacon’s rich and gay friends (such as Lord
Southampton and Lord Pembroke), furnished the theatre for the due
representation of the plays, which were thus produced by Will.
Shakespeare, and thenceforward called by his name.”
(Mrs. POTT resides in London. This book, to which she has devoted
many years of labor, is, we believe, her only literary work. But
it is understood that she has another work in preparation, devoted
to the historical side of the question, which will probably appear
within a few months, under the title of “_Francis Bacon, Poet,
Philosopher, and Dramatist_.”)
188 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, of
dates following:
_a_--Letter from Appleton Morgan, Jan. 13, 1883.
_b_--Bacon’s _Promus_, January 27, 1883.
_Unc._
189 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? The New Evidences from the Harleian
Collection. In the _Advertiser_, Boston, January 13, 1883. (Copied in
the _Tribune_, Chicago, January 20, 1883.) 1½ columns.
_Unc._
190 THE PROMUS, etc. [By RICHARD J. HINTON]. In the _Gazette_,
Washington, D. C., January 14, 1883. 1 column.
_Anti-Sh._
A mention of the _Promus_, with a sketch of Mr. O’Connor’s
“Harrington” theories, and some reminiscences of Delia Bacon.
191 BACON’S NOTES IN SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. In the _World_, New York,
Jan. 15, 1883. 1½ columns.
_Pro-Sh._
A review of the _Promus_:
“Mrs. Pott has really made the most important, because it is the
most direct and scientific, contribution to the Baconian side of
the controversy, but her book does little to confirm any theory
except the theory that great minds think alike.”
192 BACON-SHAKESPEARE. By Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE. A series of three
articles in the Boston _Evening Transcript_, January 19, 23, and 25,
1883. 3 columns each.
_Pro-Sh._
In these papers are comprised a very complete general review of the
whole subject; an account of the various theories and the books
containing them; and a comparison of the intellect, character and
writings of Bacon and Shakespeare. A short extract as to style:
“Bacon’s style is stiff and weighty, where Shakespeare’s is
free and light. Bacon is classical, while Shakespeare is
natural. Bacon has always the same formal mode of expression,
his own mode only, even if he tries to write dialogues and to
represent characters; while Shakespeare easily introduces a
high variety--always, too, in character. The hand that wrote
the plays could easily have imitated Bacon, but there is not a
page of Shakespeare which Bacon could have written. The style of
Shakespeare is as impossible to Bacon as violets to a pumpkin
vine, or tea roses to a prize cabbage. The one was the most
prosaic of classical writers, a Latinist more than an English
writer; while the other was as thoroughly English as he was
perfectly poetical.”
193 THE NEW LITERARY CONUNDRUM. Was it Shakespeare or Bacon? The
Story the Plays tell. A letter in the New York correspondence of the
_Evening Post_, Hartford, Conn., January 20, 1883. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
194 A MINUTE AMONG THE AMENITIES. (_Ad finem_). By WILLIAM THOMSON,
Garnoch, South Yarra, Melbourne, Feb. 1, 1883. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 24.
_Anti-Sh._
The _amenities_ in this are undiscoverable. Dr. THOMSON, in his
peculiar style, answers his critics of the _Leader_, the _Argus_,
the _Academy_ and the _Australasian_, claiming that he was denied a
hearing in those periodicals, and forced to reply in a pamphlet. His
_ad finem_ was prophetic, as it was his last work.
195 A NEW SHAKESPERIAN COMMENTARY. Review of the _Promus_. In the
_Saturday Review_, London, February 3, 1883. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
“It appears that, having been engaged for many years in proving
‘from internal evidence Bacon’s authorship of the plays known
as Shakespeare’s,’ Mrs. Pott’s attention was called to these
manuscripts by some remarks made by Mr. Spedding in his edition
of Bacon’s works. These remarks led Mrs. Pott to suppose that
a further examination might produce corroborative evidence of
the points she was laboring to establish. This hope has been
fulfilled, she considers, ‘to a degree beyond expectation,’ and
the notes, she adds, ‘whatever may be the views taken of the
commentary upon them, possess in themselves a value which must be
recognized by all the students of language.’ * * * That she has
been instrumental in producing an extremely interesting volume,
as everything must be interesting that contributes in any way to
our knowledge of such a man as Bacon, we allow, and for so much,
as we have said, we tender her our most hearty thanks; but that
its publication tends in any way to establish her theory--of the
theory itself it is quite unnecessary to speak--we do no less
heartily deny.”
196 THE PROMUS OF FORMULARIES AND ELEGANCIES. A review in the
_Athenæum_, London, February 3, 1883. 3 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
197 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. An article on the _Promus_ from the
_Courant_, Hartford, February 7, 1883. (Copied in the _Record_,
Philadelphia, February 12, 1883.) 1 column.
_Unc._
198 WAS LORD BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A communication
in the _Sun_, New York, copied in the _Tribune_, Denver, Colorado,
February 17, 1883.
_Unc._
199 BACON’S PROMUS. By A. A. A. [Hon. ALVEY A. ADEE, of Washington,
D. C.] In the _Republic_, Washington, February 17, 1883. 8 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
A very complete and comprehensive _critique_ of the _Promus_. Mr.
Adee thinks the work valuable to the philologist rather than as a
confirmation of the Baconian theory. “The lovers of the works,”
he says, “which, to adopt a favorite phrase of the Baconians, ‘go
about’ under the name of Shakespeare, owe a debt of gratitude to
this untiring delver in a new and rich mine of virgin ore for her
painstaking contribution to the general knowledge.” He takes up
in review a large number of the _Promus_ entries; questions the
correctness of many of Mrs. Pott’s citations, and differs from her
entirely as to their value as parallelisms in proving the Baconian
authorship.
“A critical, and above all, impartial and unbiased revision of
this work, with the single aim of selecting only such passages
of the Poet’s work as shall, by their context and their true
spirit and intent, be found to present unquestionable analogy
with the _Promus_ entries, would give invaluable aid to the
earnest student. It would not be venturesome to assert that,
in such a case, the 4404 parallelisms discerned by Mrs. Pott
would shrink to a much more manageable number. Nor would it be
hazardous to surmise that a like impartial re-reading of the
six thousand works through which Mrs. Pott has labored in vain
would be rewarded with the discovery of analogies which have
escaped her toilsome scrutiny. It would, perhaps, be unkind to
hint that, while the most distant allusions and constructions
found in the Poet’s canon have been seized upon, nothing short
of practical identity would seem to have been admitted in the
case of parallelisms between the _Promus_ and other precedent
or contemporary writings. But an impression that this is the
Darwinian law of selection which has governed the survival of the
fittest phrases for the purpose in hand, must inevitably grow on
the unprejudiced mind of the reader.
* * * * *
“Of making books, or rather of Mrs. Pott’s manner of making
books, there is no end. Given commonplace texts, time, patience,
the power of reaching conclusions ‘by sudden flight,’ and a
Concordance--and ‘’tis as easy as lying.’ As honest Touchstone
says: ‘I’ll rhyme you so eight years together, dinners
and suppers and sleeping hours excepted; it is the right
butter-women’s rank to market.’
“Still, Mrs. Pott’s book is a step in the right direction, and
serves a good turn. It may not instantly convince the world
that Bacon wrote Shakespeare, or even that Shakespeare wrote
the _Promus_, as Dr. Abbott seems to insinuate, but the insight
it gives into structural peculiarities and turns of speech
is well-nigh priceless. * * * As regards the analogies and
parallelisms sought to be shown, the kindest course is to say as
little as possible about them.”
200 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. Judge Holmes gives his reasons for
believing Bacon was Shakespeare. And Father Higgins, S. J., gives his
for thinking Shakespeare was himself. In the _Republican_, St. Louis,
Feb. 17, 1883. 1 column.
_Unc._
An account of two interviews, called out by the publication of
the _Promus_. The first is with Judge Holmes, who claims that
the received accounts of Shakespeare’s life do not warrant the
supposition of his authorship, and continues:
“To this is opposed the supposition that the plays were written
by one [Bacon] whose mind was well disciplined from early
infancy, whose life was spent in the prosecution of the deepest
and most important studies known to man, with results of the
greatest magnitude produced in whatever path his genius may have
chosen for itself to tread. He was surrounded by influences the
most cultured, and those most likely to give him insight into
the lives of the great, which is so prominent a feature in the
plays which give rise to the controversy; and yet he possessed,
from the positions of trust which he held, every opportunity
for looking into and examining the motives for action, even
amongst the most lowly. In the plays as we have them there occur
numberless passages, referring to classical authors, the Latin,
the Greek, the Italian, the German, the French and the Spanish,
and these references are not such as could be learned from
translation, for many of those found in these plays are there for
the first time expressed in the English language. Is it at all
likely one of whom Ben Jonson wrote that he knew ‘little Latin
and less Greek,’ could by any possibility have picked up in his
rather shambling career, the familiarity with these authors which
the plays set forth?”
* * * * *
Rev. Father Higgins, of the St. Louis University, takes the opposite
view. We give one point only:
“There is another objection to the Baconian claim which is of
much weight. The author of the dramas was either a Catholic or
one whose early mind had been imbued with Catholic ideas. If
there be any one religion which is supported by the plays it
is the Catholic faith. You remember the passage in _Hamlet_
concerning the time in which the mass is celebrated, and in other
places he refers pointedly to a purgatory. If Lord Bacon wrote
the plays these passages could never have occurred, since his
position in regard to the events which were happening at that
time, and which had already happened, would have made him anxious
to blot out all remembrances of the customs of the religion which
was in such disfavor at the court. Shakespeare may not have been
a Catholic, though there are other things which point to his so
being, but at least in the position which he held he would have
had no reasons such as existed in Bacon’s mind for trampling out
traditions, which he has only fastened more closely in men’s
minds, and has done so in a very beautiful manner.”
201 GAMMON OF BACON. In the London _Punch_, February 17, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
Occasioned by the publication of the _Promus_:
“SCENE--Lord Bacon’s library. Bacon recumbent and meditating as
usual (‘_Sic Sedebat_’), in his arm-chair.
BACON--The proof of the pudding lieth in the eating and
experiment, and not in the supposition or imagination thereof.
(_A gentle tap at the door._) Come in! (_Enter_ SHAKESPEARE.)
What, WILL! Thou art right welcome. Sit thee down, WILL.
(SHAKESPEARE _sits_.) And now, how doth business at the Globe?
How goeth our _Hamlet_?
SHAKESPEARE--Indifferent well, my Lord.
BACON--Why, so. Playest thou the _Ghost_ still?
SHAKESPEARE--Aye, my good Lord, even yet, at times, so please you.
BACON--It pleases me well. Talk of your _Ghost_, doth the Ghost
at the G. continue to walk as he ought?
SHAKESPEARE--Punctually, my Lord, in good sooth, every Saturday
night.
BACON--Good. I will therefore thank thee to hand me over the
balance of our little account.
SHAKESPEARE--I shall, my Lord, incontinently. Meanwhile, so
please your Lordship, I must become yet further your Lordship’s
debtor for the wealth, I mean the workmanship, of your wit. My
Lord, Her Majesty the Queen did last night come to see _Henry the
Fourth_. After the play she called me to her presence, and did
declare her pleasure that I should produce her a piece, with a
part for _Falstaff_, and therein present _Falstaff_ in love.
BACON--How didst thou answer her?
SHAKESPEARE--In your Lordship’s own words--‘I shall in all my
best obey you, Madam.’
BACON--And what then said she?
SHAKESPEARE--Straightway capped your line, my Lord, saying, ‘Why
’tis a loving and a fair reply.’
BACON--Long live the Queen! But, _Falstaff_ in love! A most
inconceivable suggestion and unimaginable fancy of Her Most
Gracious Majesty’s, in respect both of love and of _Falstaff_.
SHAKESPEARE--But how, then, my Lord, may we in anywise manage to
perform her Royal command?
BACON--About my brains! Methinks I seem to spy some glimmer of a
way. A gross fat man fallen into the conceit that some fair dame
is enamoured of him, lured on to make love to her after his own
fashion. _Falstaff_ in love _c’y pres_, as we say at Westminster.
SHAKESPEARE--That would serve, my Lord.
BACON--_Falstaff_ thereto befooled, moreover, by the contrivance
of some merry women. Merry? Ha! So! Why, certainly it seems to
myself that all this hath passed through my mind before--as we
do sometimes feel. I must have dreamt of writing such a play.
Methinks I even recollect the name on’t. Merry! Yea, marry,
quotha--_Merry Wives of Windsor_.
SHAKESPEARE--A title passing good, my Lord, and a taking. Truly,
a happy thought.--Let me pray your Lordship about it presently.
BACON--Marry and shall, with all the expedition I may. As soon as
possible, I’ll send it to thy playhouse.
SHAKESPEARE--A thousand thanks, my Lord.
BACON--In the meantime, I prithee forget not that small balance.
SHAKESPEARE--Trust me, my Lord.
BACON--Needs must I until thou render me the needful.
SHAKESPEARE--Your Lordship shall be straightway satisfied. I
humbly take my leave.” [_Exit_ SHAKESPEARE.]
202 SHAKESPEAREAN CONTROVERSY. Appleton Morgan’s Valiant Fight with
the Shakespeareans. In the _Sentinel_, Milwaukee, February 18, 1883.
1 column.
_Anti-Sh._
203 SHAKESPEAREAN PARALLELS. By A. A. A. [Hon. ALVEY A. ADEE]. In the
_Republic_, Washington, February 24, 1883. 5 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
In this article, apropos of the “parallelisms” of Judge Holmes and
Mrs. Pott, the writer says:
“Theorists such as these appear to lose sight of the circumstance
that, in the limitless mines of human knowledge, there are ideas
so simple and trite in themselves, so natural to all minds, that
their recurrence in varying setting, through successive ages, is
a foregone conclusion.”
The writer takes the _Imitation of Christ_, by Thomas-a-Kempis (the
first translation into English being printed by Wynkyn de Worde in
1502) as an illustration, and finds many striking analogies and
parallelisms with the plays of Shakespeare, a few of which he gives.
He adds that “treated as Dr. Holmes has treated Bacon’s works, the
alleged identities may be made almost countless.” We quote from the
concluding paragraphs:
“It is a relief to lay down the cap and bells, and cast the
cocks’-comb truncheon aside, and look for a moral to point
this idle tale. What is it? Simply this, that the fount of
commonplace is inexhaustible from generation to generation, and
that whosoever dippeth therein, whether with a golden goblet
or a pipkin of common clay, whether he be a Thomas-a-Kempis, a
Shakespeare, or a Tupper, brings up, after all, but triteness
and commonplace. What wonder, then, that parallels abound in the
writings of all times?
* * * * *
“And yet it must be confessed that to many readers, whose reason
cannot penetrate the mere mask of words and discern behind it the
mystery of style, the soul that fills the form with the breath
of supremest life, this analysis by parallels may be misleading,
even to a sense of partial conviction. To such can only be said,
in the words of the ever-living Poet:
“O place, O form!
How often dost thou with thy case, thy habit,
Wrench awe from fools, and tie the wiser souls
To thy false meaning.”
(_Measure for Measure, II, iv, 12._)”
204 TO CERTAIN THEORISTS. A sonnet. By W. L. SHOEMAKER. In
_Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, February 24, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. SHOEMAKER’S sonnet is the only poetry yet discovered in this
prosaic controversy:
“Still must I hear the noise of those who claim
That Shakespeare was not Shakespeare, but was Bacon!--
Seeking from him by whom the stage was shaken
With mightiest buskin, to filch all his fame.
O bats and owls, how impotent your aim!
How purblind, by a little _Promus_ taken,
Drowsing yourselves to think the world to waken,
To exalt the courtier, and the player to shame!
Our “Star of Poets” did not Jonson know,
And praise in lines that well your prate confute,
And put your feminine theories to scorn?
Yea; spite of Greene and every later foe,
His shade serene smiles at the senseless bruit--
Greatest in drama of all souls yet born.”
205 SHAKESPEARE’S GEHEIMNISZ UND BACON’S PROMUS. In the _Allgemeine
Zeitung_, Stuttgart and Munchen: March 1, 1883. 4 columns.
_Anti-Sh._
The first German article. A translation of this title will be found
below.
206 SHAKESPEARE’S SECRET AND BACON’S “PROMUS.” An article in the
_Allgemeine Zeitung_ of March 1, 1883. Translated from the German,
and printed by special request. Price three pence. H. Wills, Printer,
Loughborough, England. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 12.
_Anti-Sh._
This article is anonymous. It is nominally a review of the _Promus_,
but discusses the question generally, and is most vehemently Baconian
throughout:
“In the eyes of the masses [in England] Shakespeare passes for a
supernatural being. He who doubts of his divinity is guilty of
high treason, or even of blasphemy.
“Such prejudice is unknown in America. There it has long
been accepted as an acknowledged fact that Bacon wrote the
Shakespearean dramas.”
207 SHAKESPEARE _v._ BACON. A review of the _Promus_ in the
_Spectator_, London, March 3, 1883. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
208 DR. EDWIN A. ABBOTT, MRS. HENRY POTT, AND LORD BACON. In the _St.
James’s Gazette_, London, March 10, 1883. 1 page.
_Pro-Sh._
209 MRS. POTT ON SHAKESPEARE’S WOMEN. In _Shakespeariana_, in the
_Literary World_, Boston, March 10, 1883.
_a_--Note from A. A. A. [Adee] on the _Promus_.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. ROLFE takes issue with Mrs. Pott as to her opinions of
Shakespeare’s women, and quotes from a foot-note on page 479 of the
_Promus_:
“From the entries which referred to women we see that Bacon
formed very unfavorable views regarding them, views which
unhappy passages in his own life probably tended to confirm. The
Shakespeare Plays seem to exhibit the same unfavorable sentiments
of their author. There are 130 female personages in the Plays,
and the characters of these seem to be easily divisible into six
classes:
“1. Furies or viragoes, such as Tamora, Queen Margaret, Goneril,
Regan, and even Lady Macbeth in the dark side of her character.
“2. Shrews and sharp-tongued women, as Katherine, Constance, and
many others, when they are represented as angry.
“3. Gossiping and untrustworthy women, as most of the maids,
hostesses, etc., and as Percy insinuates that he considers his
wife to be.
“4. Fickle, faithless, and artful--a disposition which seems
assumed throughout the Plays to be the normal condition of
womanhood.
“5. Thoroughly immoral, as Cleopatra, Phrynia, Timandra, Bianca.
“6. Gentle, simple, and colorless, as Hero, Olivia, Ophelia,
Cordelia, etc.
“Noteworthy exceptions, which exhibit more exalted and truer
pictures of good and noble women, are the characters of Isabella,
of Volumnia, and of Katherine of Arragon; but these are not
sufficient to do away with the impression that, on the whole, the
author of the Plays had but a poor opinion of women; that love he
regarded as youthful passion, marriage as a doubtful happiness.”
It will be noticed that Mrs. Pott omits to classify Imogen, Rosalind,
Desdemona, Juliet, Portia, Viola, Miranda, and others.
In answer, Mr. Rolfe quotes from Charles Cowden-Clarke, “who is one
of the most sympathetic and appreciative of critics (partly, no
doubt, because Mary Cowden-Clarke was his wife and fellow-worker):”
“Of all the writers that ever existed, no one ought to stand so
high in the love and gratitude of women as he. He has indeed been
their champion, their laureate, their brother, their friend. * *
* He has asserted their prerogative, as intellectual creatures,
to be the companions (in the best sense), the advisers, the
friends, the equals of men. He has endowed them with the true
spirit of Christianity and brotherly love, enduring all things,
forgiving all things, hoping all things; and it is no less
remarkable that, with a prodigality of generosity, he has not
unfrequently placed the heroes in his stories at a disadvantage
with them.”
Cowden-Clarke proceeds to illustrate this by Hero and Claudio in
_Much Ado_ (the play he is discussing at the time), and quotes
also, in confirmation of the statement, the characters of Bertram
in _All’s Well_, of Posthumus in _Cymbeline_, of Leontes in the
_Winter’s Tale_, and of Proteus in the _Two Gentlemen of Verona_.
He adds:
“All these characters not only appear at a disadvantage by,
but they are unworthy of the women with whom they are united.
Shakespeare has himself made the Duke in _Twelfth Night_ say:
However we do praise ourselves,
Our fancies are more giddy and unfirm,
More longing, wavering, sooner lost and worn,
Than women’s are.
A remarkable confession that for a man! Therefore Shakespeare
is the writer, above all others, whom women should most take to
their hearts; for it may be said to have been mainly through
his influence that their claims in society were acknowledged in
England, when throughout the civilized world their position was
that of mere domestic drudges.”
210 THE PROMUS, etc. A review in the _Tribune_, New York, March 11,
1883. 1¼ columns.
_Pro-Sh._