Promus memorandums, and of the passages which are produced in
illustration and elucidation of them; we have read every word
that the authoress has written in support of her theory; we
have done so, we are sure, in a candid spirit, but we have to
say, as the result of our examination, that we have not found
an instance, not one, in which a passage in the plays is shown
to have its origin in the Promus. The method of elucidating the
Promus by ‘Shakespeare’ seems to have been to fix upon the most
salient word in one of Bacon’s notes, and then to take up Mrs.
Cowden-Clarke’s Concordance to Shakespeare, and find by its aid
passages in which that word occurs, or more rarely a phrase which
expresses in some modified or related form the idea conveyed by
the Promus word or phrase. The result is a display of a word
or a phrase on one side and several like words or phrases on
the other; but of any necessary connection between them, of any
inkling of a growth of the latter from the former, there is an
utter and total absence.”
211 THE PROMUS, etc. A review in the _Nation_, New York, March 15,
1883. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
212 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. An editorial article. [By J. G.
PYLE]. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minn., March 25, 1883. 1
column.
_Anti-Sh._
A notice of the _Promus_, introducing Morgan’s review.
“While there can be no doubt that the editress has carried her
comparisons to the last degree of attenuation, and has discovered
resemblances where there is nothing but the recurrence of a
single unimportant word in the Promus and in the Plays on which
to stand, yet, when these instances are eliminated, there remains
a body of coincidences which cannot be dismissed with a cool
assumption of superiority to all modern ‘vagaries,’ and which
will require some more coherent explanation than the article by
Richard Grant White in the last _Atlantic_.”
213 A REVIEW OF BACON’S PROMUS. BY APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Pioneer
Press_, St. Paul, Minn. Part I, March 25, 1883; Part II, April 1,
1883. 5 columns.
_Anti-Sh._
In this paper, besides going into a general review of the subject,
Mr. Morgan gives a summary, under twelve heads, of the _Net Results
of the Promus_, at the conclusion of which he says:
“Now which existing anti-Shakespearean theory does the evidence
of this Promus most clearly corroborate? There are four of these
theories, all of which have many parts in common, but no two of
which are exactly alike, viz:
“1. That Bacon and the rest of a coterie of political
philosophers and moralists wrote in Hermetic or cryptographical
compositions a philosophy for ‘the next ages’ which they dared
not promulgate in Elizabeth’s reign (Miss Delia Bacon’s theory).
“2. That Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare (the Baconian theory).
“3. That the coterie (perhaps the same as that Miss Bacon
suggested) wrote the plays to amuse themselves--and induced
William Shakespeare to father them for a consideration (the New
theory).
“4. That whoever wrote them, William Shakespeare was stage editor
only of the plays (the Editorial theory).
“It seems to us that the new evidence offered by the Promus
marshals itself, with the least violence, on the side of either
Theory 2 or Theory 4, and, as between these latter, most
naturally on the side of Theory 4.”
214 THE AUTHORSHIP OF MISS BACON’S BOOK. In the _Sunday Telegraph_,
Milwaukee, Wis. Three articles of dates following:
_Unc._
_a_--AN ODD LITERARY SENSATION. [Editorial, by Col. E. A. CALKINS].
March 25, 1883.
“Miss Bacon, as she alleged to be the case with Shakespeare,
was not the author of her own book. It was written throughout
by T. C. Leland, then a stenographic reporter on the New York
_Tribune_. * * * Mr. Leland stated to literary gentlemen with
whom he became acquainted at Madison [in 1853] that he was
engaged in this labor, and had partly completed Miss Bacon’s
work. * * * He did not claim to be more than her mere amanuensis,
though in fact he was something more, as he furnished the forms
of expression which Miss Bacon employed while transferring her
views to paper.”
_b_--MISS DELIA BACON. Letter from W. H. W. [W. H. WYMAN]. April 8,
1883.
“Doubtless there would be a poetic or retributive justice in
denying to Delia Bacon the authorship of her own book, but,
unfortunately for this theory, I cannot see how it can have
the slightest foundation in fact. * * * [References are given
to Mrs. Farrar’s _Recollections_, and to Hawthorne’s _Preface_
to Miss Bacon’s work.] * * * These extracts show conclusively
that neither of her works on this subject were written in this
country, nor until some years after the reported conversations;
and even that in England she could have had no assistance is
clear, from the fact that she was alone, and it was with the
utmost difficulty that she sustained herself during that time.
* * * I do not call your attention to these misapprehensions
because I have any belief in Delia Bacon’s theories, but simply
that justice may be done to the memory of a woman whose sad fate
has caused her to be greatly misunderstood.”
_c_--LETTER FROM T. C. LELAND, dated New York, August 22, 1883;
printed September 9, 1883.
“I think it was in the late fall of 1852, or perhaps it was
December, I was engaged to report some lectures delivered in this
city by Miss Delia Bacon, on the Art and Culture of Egypt and
other ancient nations. Though she was a very ready, fluent, and,
at times, eloquent speaker, yet when she came to take up her pen
she wrote slowly and with difficulty. She expressed a wish one
day that I should help her in this respect. I suggested that,
if she could dictate to me, an audience of one, as fluently and
happily as she did to an audience of hundreds, she would be a
perfect success. We agreed to make the experiment, but, on trial,
she found that an amanuensis was practically somewhat better,
but not much, than a pen. There was, on trial, one advantage;
that occasionally she would have inspired moments and a spurt
of thought and rapid utterances; and these gushes I could take
down and save, which otherwise she could not have traced rapidly
enough on paper, and would have lost. * * * But in all this I
played the part, simply and only, of an amanuensis, putting down
her words conscientiously without any change or amendment of
mine. My short-hand notes were translated into long-hand copy
just as she delivered the words, and handed to her. I suppose
that these notes were the basis, in whole or in part--probably a
larger part--of her subsequent book.”
215 BACON’S PROMUS AGAIN. By A. A. A. [ADEE]. In the _Republic_,
Washington, March 31, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
216 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON QUESTION. A Bibliographical list of the
works on the subject in the Boston Public Library. In the _Bulletin_
of the Library for April, 1883. 38 titles.
_Unc._
217 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE. By RICHARD GRANT WHITE. In the
_Atlantic Monthly_ for April, 1883. (See pages 507-521.)
_Pro-Sh._
In this paper, Mr. White expresses his personal indifference as to
whether Bacon, Shakespeare, or anybody else is to be credited with
the authorship, as it “affects in no way the value or interest of
the plays;” he gives a very complete and unfavorable review of the
_Promus_, occupying ten pages; instances the sonnets, as impossible
to have been written by Bacon, who did not therefore write the plays;
and makes a brilliant comparison between Bacon and Shakespeare,
showing “the unlikeness of Bacon’s mind and of his style to those
of the writer of the plays.” The following is an extract from the
concluding paragraph:
“As to treating the question seriously, that is not to be done
by men of common sense and moderate knowledge of the subject. *
* * It is as certain that William Shakespeare wrote (after the
theatrical fashion, and under the theatrical conditions of his
day) the plays that bear his name, as it is that Francis Bacon
wrote the Novum Organum, the Advancement of Learning, and the
Essays. The notion that Bacon also wrote Titus Andronicus, The
Comedy of Errors, Hamlet, King Lear, and Othello, is not worth
five minutes’ consideration by any reasonable creature.”
218 RICHARD GRANT WHITE and “THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE.” By F.
[EDWARD FILLEBROWN]. In the _Commonwealth_, Boston, March 31, 1883. 1
column.
_Anti-Sh._
219 “THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE.” Letter of APPLETON MORGAN in the
_Post_, Boston, April 2, 1883. ¼ column.
_Anti-Sh._
220 “THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CRAZE” of Richard Grant White. By O. F.
[O. FOLLETT]. In the _Register_, Sandusky, O., April 5, 1883. 1
column.
_Anti-Sh._
221 THE PROMUS, etc. A notice of the book in the _Mercury_, Leeds,
England, April 11, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
222 SHAKESPEARE’S SCHOOLING, WITH SOME LIGHT AS TO THE ELIZABETHAN
BOY. Letter from APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul,
Minn., April 15, 1883. ½ column.
_Anti-Sh._
A dissertation on the insufficiency of the schools in Shakespeare’s
day. In illustration of this, Mr. Morgan quotes schoolmaster Evans
and his pupil William, in _Merry Wives of Windsor_, Act IV, Scene 1.
223 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE THEORY. In the _Morning Journal_,
Cincinnati, April 16, 1883. 1 column.
_Pro-Sh._
224 SHAKESPEARIAN CIRCLE-SQUARING. A criticism of the _Promus_, in
the _Pall Mall Gazette_, London, April 20, 1883. 1½ columns.
_Pro-Sh._
225 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston,
April 21, 1883.
_a_--Cleopatra’s “Billiards.” Note from Hon. A. A. Adee, with remarks
by the Editor.
_b_--Mr. Grant White on Bacon and Shakespeare.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. ADEE calls attention to the fact that the often quoted (but
disputed) anachronism in _Antony and Cleopatra_--where _Cleopatra_
says to her attendant, _Charmian_, “let’s to billiards”--was
doubtless obtained from Chapman, who uses the word “billiards”
similarly in his _Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, printed ten years
before _Antony and Cleopatra_, was written. As to the anachronisms
generally, Mr. Rolfe says:
* * * “If, to preserve his incognito, Bacon had refrained from
any parade of his scholarship, and had even put occasional
anachronisms into the mouths of his characters, we cannot
imagine him showing the habitual ignorance in such matters that
Shakespeare does. He could never have made Coriolanus talk of
‘graves in the holy church-yard,’ or Menenius, in the same
play, of ‘Galen’--‘an anachronism of near 650 years,’ as Dr.
Grey called it--or Mark Antony, of coming to ‘bury’ Cæsar, and
the like. These frequent and free-and-easy blunders, so utterly
inconsistent with the scholarly habit of mind, are of themselves
a sufficient refutation of the theory that ‘Bacon wrote
Shakespeare.’”
226 SHAKESPEARE. By Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE. Two articles in the
_Evening Transcript_, Boston. I, April 28, 1883; II, August 3, 1883.
3 columns each.
_Pro-Sh._
These articles are devoted principally to the life, genius, and
character of Shakespeare as disproving the Baconian theory.
227 “OUR SHAKESPEARE CLUB.” Remarks of SAM. TIMMINS, Chairman. In the
_Daily Mail_, Birmingham, England, April 24, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. TIMMINS presided at the annual dinner of the club on the
birth-day of Shakespeare, at the Plow and Harrow Hotel, Birmingham,
and made the opening address, opposing all the anti-Shakespearian
theories.
228 “BACON’S PROMUS.” Two letters of APPLETON MORGAN of this title.
In the _Republic_, Washington, April 28, and March 24, 1883.
_Anti-Sh._
229 SHAKESPEARE AS A MYTH. By HENRY HOOPER. In the _Commercial
Gazette_, Cincinnati, April 29, 1883. 3 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
Occasioned by Morgan’s _Shakespearean Myth_, to which it is a reply.
“If Shakespeare alone wrote these plays, then it is the greatest
miracle on record, says Mr. Morgan. If it be a miracle for one,
it would be a combination of miracles for ten, or even two,
to compose _Hamlet_ or _Othello_. * * * The joint composition
theory is as improbable and impossible as it would be for an
orchestra to invent a Symphony of Beethoven. You might just as
well say that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is the joint work of a
number of musicians, viz: that the violin players composed the
string parts, the reed players the flute and oboe parts, and the
trombones and double basses their scores. This is not more absurd
than the theory that a pale student, a needy scholar, a ready
writer, an actor and a stage manager produced _Twelfth Night_ and
_King Lear_.”
230 WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE? Address by Mr. WILLIAM LEIGHTON, JR., at the
Shakespeare Club Banquet, Wheeling, W. Va., April 23, 1883. In the
_Sunday Register_, Wheeling, April 29, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
In Mr. LEIGHTON’S address the authorship is only incidentally
referred to.
“Genius is the touch of God’s hand, an inspiration that comes
not out of any college, but is evoked from the soul by its own
tendencies and aspirations; and, so born, can only be fostered
into healthy maturity by unremitting labor. The attempt to take
from Shakespeare’s brow the laurel crown of the most glorious of
bards is a vain effort to rob a dead man of well-earned honors;
and why? Because a yeoman must not presume to stand above a
nobleman; or a poet, who has not been to college, dare to mount
the winged steed. But Shakespeare’s honors can not be taken from
him by idle sophistry or arbitrary dogmatism; he has entrenched
himself in the hearts of his countrymen, and his position is
impregnable.”
231 WHO IS SHAKESPEARE? Address by Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY, at the
Shakespeare Club Banquet, Wheeling, W. Va., as above. In the _Sunday
Register_, Wheeling, April 29, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
Mr. CROSBY--whose views will be found under title 126--devotes a
portion only of this address to the authorship.
232 LETTER FROM APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Church Eclectic_, Utica, N.
Y., for May, 1883. 3 pages.
_Anti-Sh._
A reply to the letter of Mr. Crosby’s in the same magazine for
November, 1880. We quote one point only:
“I am sure I can refer the writer to at least half a score of
authorities which will agree that the tuition in provincial
grammar-schools of the Sixteenth Century was simply ridiculous,
and a travesty; a little of A, B, C, and Lily’s Accidence, and
a good deal of birch; and that however it made boys truants, it
hardly graduated ‘men of letters.’”
233 BOSH ABOUT BACON. By A. B. B. [A. B. BRALEY, Madison, Wis.] In
the _Sunday Telegraph_, Milwaukee, Wis., May 20, 1883, 1½ columns.
Also, THE BACON CRANKS. Evidence of Shakespeare’s Contemporaries. In
the same paper, June 10, 1883. 1½ columns.
_Pro-Sh._
234 SHAKESPEARE AT HOME. Letter from M. D. C. [MONCURE D. CONWAY],
from Stratford-on-Avon, April 21, 1883. In the _Commercial Gazette_,
Cincinnati, May 26, 1883. 2 columns.
_Unc._
An interesting letter from Mr. Conway on the occasion of one of the
commemorative celebrations at Stratford.
Referring to Delia Bacon’s book:
* * * “Perhaps there never was such a monument of wasted
ability. There is hardly anything in it of a negative character,
very little that shows apprehension of the real points in the
Shakespearean traditions that tempt skepticism. Her book dwells
on the affirmation that Bacon wrote the plays; that may easily be
answered by any one who will turn from a page of Shakespeare to
one of Bacon, which, to most people, is turning from a winged to
an earth-bound genius. But the incidental theory that Shakespeare
did _not_ write these plays, though at present the fad of a few,
is not unlikely to acquire large proportions in the future. Such
is the inevitable doom of every set of traditions that have not
been subjected to severe skeptical criticism.
* * * * *
“For the back-ground of miracle is always present--namely, that
the village lad, son of a man who could not write his name, wrote
all these mighty works, died at the age of fifty-three, and yet
left no manuscript, no records, so that not even his birth-day is
known.
“Yet here are the works. Somebody wrote them. Or it would be
truer to say that somebody recognized the great world-histories
and legends, exhumed them, covered them with flesh and blood, and
breathed into them the breath of life. For here we are enjoying
them, and finding amid all these creations the presence of a
central mind, however inapprehensible.”
235 WHO WROTE JULIUS CÆSAR? By H. I. In the _Times-Star_, Cincinnati,
May 29, 1883. 2 columns.
_Anti-Sh._
The writer takes the occasion of the Cincinnati Dramatic Festival to
make this inquiry:
“The Dramatic Festival of this city was inaugurated by the
production, at immense cost and great splendor, of the play
of Julius Cæsar. It must have been ‘indeed an oasis’--with
McCullough and Murdoch, Barrett, Louis James, and Miss Forsyth
in the fore-front, five hundred Roman citizens and soldiers in
perfect drill--a spectacle this to have gladdened with happy
moisture the eyes, could they have seen it, of--the--author. Who
was he?”
The writer professes his belief that the author was Francis Bacon,
and advances a claim of parallel thoughts, etc., between the plays
and the _Advancement of Learning_ in support of his opinion.
236 HAT FRANCIS BACON DIE DRAMEN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S GESCHRIEBEN?
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der geistigen Verirrungen. Von Dr. EDUARD
ENGEL, Leipzig, 1883. (DID FRANCIS BACON WRITE WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S
PLAYS? A contribution to the history of Intellectual Errors.)
Pamphlet, pp. 43.
_Pro-Sh._
Dr. ENGEL takes for his text Mrs. Pott’s _Promus_, and this pamphlet
is in answer to that work, and to the favorable notice of it
appearing in the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ (see titles 205 and 206), which
he ascribes to ‘Herr V.’ He strongly opposes all anti-Shakespearian
theories.
“It would be deplorable, and would contradict all the
history of the world’s literature, if Lord Bacon had written
Shakespeare’s plays. It would be deplorable--and this decides
the matter--because it would then be shown, for the first time
in the history of mankind, that a poetical genius of the highest
sublimity, and a character of the lowest baseness, could exist in
one and the same man.”
Dr. Engel closes his essay with a quotation from Herder:
“I have in my mind an immense figure of a man, sitting high on a
rocky summit; at his feet, storm, tempest, and the raging of the
sea; but his head in the beams of heaven. This is Shakespeare.
Only, with this addition, that far below, at the foot of his
rocky throne, are murmuring crowds, who expound, preserve,
condemn, defend, worship, slander, over-rate, and abuse him--and
of all this he hears nothing.”
237 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. In _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary
World_, Boston, June 2, 1883.
_Pro-Sh._
The editor introduces in this article an extract from a letter
received by Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY from “one of the most learned and
philosophical of living Shakespearian critics.” The writer of the
letter [Dr. INGLEBY, of England] says, after expressing his dissent
from the opinions of those who believe that it is immaterial whether
the plays were written by Shakespeare or Bacon:
“And I cannot without concern witness the crazy efforts of these
would-be critics to separate what history has joined together,
and to make over the better half of Shakespeare’s fame to a man,
not only immeasurably his inferior, but of a totally different
order of mind. * * * I have read, studied, and written upon
Francis Bacon, and seem to myself to know the man well; as well
as I know Shakespeare, through his works. I do not hesitate to
say that Bacon’s strength lay in his Analysis: he was a most
acute and sagacious critic of the past, and moreover knew the
needs of man, and in what direction those needs could be met,
and to some extent satisfied. But this made him a tremendous
Apollyon--a destructive force of the greatest, the most momentous
character. He succeeded as a destroyer, but when he attempted to
construct, he made a conspicuous failure. * * * Such a man write
Shakespeare! It is really not worth five minutes’ discussion.”
238 ABOUT SHAKESPEARE. By JOSEPH A. WOODHULL. In the _Republican_,
Angola, Ind., June 27, 1883. 1½ columns.
_Pro-Sh._
239 A BIT OF THE BACONIAN THEORY. A letter from CONSTANCE M. POTT.
[Mrs. HENRY POTT.] In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minn., July 15,
1883. 1 column.
_Anti-Sh._
This letter is mainly a description of St. Albans, the residence
of Lord Bacon, with its historical associations and its objects of
archæological interest, as compared with Stratford-on-Avon, and what
R. Grant White calls its “museum of doubtful relics and gimcracks.”
240 WILLIAM DONE FOR. By JOHN W. BELL. In the _Commercial Gazette_,
July 21, 1883. ½ column.
_Anti-Sh._
An answer to Mr. Hooper’s article (title 229) in same paper.
241 Mr. O’CONNOR’S LETTER. In BUCKE’S life of _Walt Whitman_.
Philadelphia, August, 1883. (See pages 88 to 93.)
_Anti-Sh._
This is an introductory letter by William D. O’Connor to his _Good
Grey Poet_, printed in the appendix to the above work.
“The main scope and purpose of the Shakespeare drama are
definitely given by Lord Bacon in connection with his assertion
that the compilation of the natural history of the human passions
is the first duty of philosophy, and that it is particularly
the province of poetry. In this connection he describes the
Shakespearean work perfectly. Therein, he says, ‘we may find
painted forth, with great life, how passions are kindled and
incited; how pacified and refrained; and how again contained
from act and further degree; how they disclose themselves; how
they work; how they vary; how they gather and fortify; how they
are inwrapped, one within another; and how they do fight and
encounter one with another; and other the like particulars.’
‘That is to say,’ remarks Dr. Kuno Fischer, quoting this passage:
‘Bacon desires nothing less than a natural history of the
passions; _the very thing_ that Shakespeare has produced.’
* * * * *
“The only supreme tyrant is ignorance. If I sought to express the
Shakespeare drama in the image of a person, I would not choose
the eidolon of any feudal emperor. My choice would be a man like
Francis Bacon, * * * wise with all the lore of all the ages, the
companion and counsellor of princes, the familiar of gypsies,
and tinkers, and sailors as well; deep-eyed, with long insight
into the minds of men of every degree; master of multiform
experiences; traveled, elegant, courtly, august, intrepid, loyal,
gentle, compassionate, sorrowful, beautiful; clothed, from
fondness for sumptuous apparel, in purple three-piled velvet,
rich laces, and the hat with plumes, yet loving--another anecdote
tells of him--to ride with bared head, in the warm and perfumed
rains of spring, that he might feel upon him, he said, the
universal spirit of the world.”
242 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE EXHUMATION QUESTION. By Dr. C. M. INGLEBY.
In _Shakespeare’s Bones_. London: Trübner & Co., 1883. 4to. pp. 48.
_Unc._
This Bibliography is appended to Dr. INGLEBY’S book, and is pertinent
to this question only in its references to an exhumation as likely to
set at rest the theories (Miss Bacon’s, for instance) as to documents
being deposited in the tomb of Shakespeare.
243 THE SONNETS OF SHAKESPEARE. WHEN, TO WHOM, AND BY WHOM WRITTEN.
By ANTIQUARY. (Reprinted from the _Truth Seeker_, New York, of August
18, 1883.) Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 12.
_Anti-Sh._
The author gives the dedication of the Sonnets:
“To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. H. all
happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our ever-living
poet | wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting forth
| T. T.”
The American Cyclopedia says:
“To whom they were written, and in whose person [T. T.] is among
the most difficult of unsolved literary problems. * * * Who this
‘onlie begetter’ was, no man has yet been able satisfactorily to
show.”
The writer discusses the various theories on this subject. His
conclusions may be summed up in the following extract:
“All the internal and external evidence points to the year 1590
as the date, Francis Bacon as the writer, and the Earl of Essex
as the person addressed.”
244 MR. MORGAN AND SHAKESPEARE. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul,
August 19, 1883, introducing a letter from Appleton Morgan. 1½
columns.
_Anti-Sh._
This refers mainly to Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, which (Mr. Morgan
claims) proves that “many hands and many brains were concerned in
composing the works we call Shakespeare.”
245 THE GOUT CLUB DISCUSSES THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the
_Tribune_, Denver, Col., October 14, 1883. 3 columns.
_Unc._
What is here called the Gout Club of Denver, consists of a few
congenial spirits who meet socially and discuss various subjects in
an informal way. In this article various gentlemen are credited with
opinions and speeches on the question. The colloquists consist of
Col. Ward H. Lamon, Col. J. B. Belford, Judge Ward, Col. Craig, Major
Carson, Col. Dormer, and Judge Steck.