Chapter II: Part 2

45 WAS BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE? Two articles by MARMONTEL, in the _Christian Observer and Presbyterian Witness_, Richmond, Va. The first dated February 7, 1867. 2 columns each.

_Pro-Sh._

46 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes in the _Athenæum_, London, February 23, 1867, page 249.

_Pro-Sh._

47 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. An article in review of Holmes, in the _Saturday Reader_, Montreal, Canada, April 6, 1867. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

48 COMMUNICATIONS in the _Daily Gazette_, Birmingham, England.

_a_--By T. H. P., May 27, 1867.

_b_--By William Henry Smith, July 1, 1867.

_c_--By T. H. P., July 1, 1867.

_Unc._

49 DELIA BACON. By SIDNEY E. HOLMES. [Mrs. SARAH E. HENSHAW.] In _The Advance_, Chicago, December 26, 1867. 1½ columns.

_Unc._

A tribute to the memory of Delia Bacon, including a mention of her theory, by a former friend and pupil.

“Delia Bacon was a woman of a genius rare and incomparable.
Wherever she went, there walked a queen in the realm of mind. To
converse with her was to be carried captive. The most ordinary
topic became fascinating when she dealt with it, for whatever
subject she touched, she invested with her own wonderful wealth
of thought and illustration, and association, and imagery, until
all else was forgotten in her magical converse.”

* * * * *

“Her theory of Shakespeare has been accepted by some able minds.
Had _she_ lived to advocate it, it is not too much to say that
it would have deeply impressed the literary world. But while
she was in the midst of her researches, that fine intellect,
overwrought and too highly sublimated, fell into confusion, and
henceforth was to be, as was that of the Hamlet which she had
so often analyzed, ‘like sweet bells jangled, out of tune, and
harsh.’ Thus discredit was thrown upon her favorite theory, and
a melancholy key afforded to some of her later experiences. ‘O!
What a noble mind was here o’erthrown!’ Alas! Alas! Who would
have thought that these words, so often read and dwelt upon in
her study of the great dramatist, were but the prophecy of her
own tragical end?”

50 DID WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? Chapter XIII, in _The Shakespeare Treasury of Wisdom and Knowledge_. By CHAS. W. STEARNS, M. D. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1869 and 1878. See pages 394-413.

_Pro-Sh._

Assuming that there is no possible question as to the authorship of the poems, Dr. Stearns shows the parallelisms in thought and expression between the poems and the plays, as conclusive evidence in favor of Shakespeare.

51 DID BACON WRITE SHAKESPEARE? An anonymous article in the New York _Clipper_, May 1, 1869. 1½ columns.

_Unc._

52 A CONFERENCE OF PLEASURE, Composed for some festive occasion about the year 1592. By FRANCIS BACON. Edited from a Manuscript belonging to the Duke of Northumberland. By JAMES SPEDDING. London: (Privately-printed) 1870. 4to pp. xxxi, 54.

_Pro-Sh._

This was edited by Mr. Spedding from a portion of the Northumberland MSS. referred to by Judge Holmes (see pages 657-682, edition of 1876). These MSS. were found in 1867, in a box of old papers, which had probably lain for nearly a century unopened, in the library of Northumberland House in London. With them was a MS. title-page, indicating that the paper book which it covered had once contained, in addition to the four speeches composing the Conference of Pleasure, several other of Bacon’s orations and essays. Also, _Richard II_, _Richard III_, _Asmund and Cornelia_, Thomas Nashe’s _Isle of Dogs_, and papers by other authors. Of these, only a part remained, when the document was discovered, the Shakespeare plays being amongst the missing. The MSS. were in bad condition, from fire and the ravages of time--the edges being badly burned, probably from a fire which occured in Northumberland House in 1780.

Accompanying Mr. Spedding’s book is a fac-simile of this MS. title-page, and it is on this that the interest turns. It shows, in addition to the original table of contents, a mass of scribblings, written all over the sheet, containing a variety of names, phrases, quotations, idly and carelessly written, apparently by some copyist or clerk. Amongst these scribblings occurs the name of _Frauncis Bacon_ several times, and that of _William Shakespeare_ eight or nine times repeated. As to its date, Mr. Spedding says: “All I can say is that I find nothing, either in these later scribblings, or what remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Elizabeth.” Further, that he finds no traces of the handwriting of Bacon.

The reference to this question is to be found in the introduction, pages xxii-xxv.

Mr. Spedding discovers nothing in these MSS. to disturb his belief in the Shakespearian authorship, and regards it as a simple coincidence that the productions of Shakespeare and Bacon should be copied in the same book, and their names scribbled on the title-page. “At the present time,” he says, “if the waste leaf on which a law-stationer’s apprentice tries his pens were examined, I should expect to find on it the name of the poet, novelist, dramatic author, or actor of the day, mixed with snatches of the last new song,” etc. * * * “And that is exactly the sort of thing we have here.” Judge Holmes, however, ventures the suggestion that they may have been made in Bacon’s own study, by his own amanuensis; that this fact would account for the two names being scribbled on the title-leaf by one in the secret; and that Bacon himself may have destroyed the missing Shakespeare plays before his death, by way of suppressing the evidence of his authorship.

These MSS. are especially interesting from the fact that if the scribblings are of a date contemporary with Shakespeare and Bacon, it is believed to be the only place where their names have been found mentioned together in anything written in that age.

53 NOTICE OF HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP. In the Minneapolis (Minn.) _Tribune_, of March 23, 1870. 1 column.

_Unc._

This article refers to a lecture delivered in Minneapolis in the winter of 1872-73, by Hon. IGNATIUS DONNELLY, of Minnesota, taking the position that the pro-Bacon argument was a strong one, but not conclusive; in short, that the verdict must be the Scotch one, “not proven.” It is understood that Mr. Donnelly is now engaged upon a work, in which, after further thought and study of the question, he takes the ground that Bacon was the author of both the plays and poems. It is expected that it will be published soon.

54 THE BACONIAN ORIGIN OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS, being some facts and arguments going to show that the dramatic works imputed to William Shakespeare were not, and could not have been, written by him, but were the production of Lord Bacon. By Rev. A. B. BRADFORD, of Enon, Pa. A lecture, printed in the _Golden Age_, May 30, 1874. Also, in the _Argus and Radical_, Beaver, Pa., December 29, 1875. 6 columns.

_Anti-Sh._

The author is a strong Baconian. He follows mainly the same line of argument as Judge Holmes.

55 SHAKESPEARE AND LORD BACON. By “COLLEY CIBBER.” [JAMES REES]. A series of six articles in the _Sunday Mercury_, Philadelphia, for June 7, 14, 21, and 28; and July 5 and 12, 1874. 9 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

The writer takes for his motto: “Mingle no matter of doubtful with the simplicity of truth,” from Ben Jonson’s _Discoveries_. The articles cover the whole range of the subject.

56 AUTHENTICITY OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. By “GALLERY CRITIC.” A series of twelve articles in the _Sunday Republic_, Philadelphia, for June 28; July 5, 12, 19, and 26; August 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; September 6 and 20, 1874. 20 columns.

_Anti-Sh._

Written in answer to “Colley Cibber” above, and fully as comprehensive. The author is unknown.

57 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. Two short notices in the _American Bibliopolist_, New York, for July and August, 1874.

_a_--Letter from Hibernicus.

_b_--Did Bacon write Shakespeare?

_Pro-Sh._

58 WHO WROTE “SHAKESPERE?” By J. V. P. [J. V. PRICHARD]? In _Fraser’s Magazine_, London, August, 1874. (Reproduced in _Littell’s Living Age_, October, 1874). 10 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

This is a noted article in the controversy. On it were founded the series of opinions, interviews, etc., appearing soon after in the New York _Herald_, and frequent reference to it will be found in the writings on the subject. The article itself is devoted mainly to a very full and complete summary of Judge Holmes’s book, with many extracts and references.

The name of the writer has not generally been known. Mr. Wilkes, in his book, speaks of the paper as an “exceedingly ingenious article, written by a young American,” whom he met in London at the time of the publication; but does not give his name. We have sufficient reason, however, for crediting it to Mr. J. V. Prichard.

59 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.

_a_--From C. A. Ward, II, 161, August 29, 1874.

_b_--From Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], II, 246, Sept. 26, 1874.

_c_--From H. S. Skipton, II, 350, Oct. 31, 1874.

_Unc._

60 SHAKESPEARE--AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In the New York _Herald_, September 6, 1874.

_a_--Letter from London, embodying a copy of the “J. V. P.” article in _Fraser’s Magazine_.

_b_--Did Bacon write Shakespeare’s Plays? an editorial article.

_Unc._

The commencement of the interesting series of articles--communications, interviews, editorials, etc.--appearing in the _Herald_ during September and October, which will be found in subsequent titles. It has not been thought necessary to add to them many notes or explanations, as the head-lines have been liberally copied, and serve to explain their general tenor.

61 WAS SHAKESPEARE A DUMMY? Opinions of Live Dramatic Authorities on the subject. The Press and Public taking up the discussion. Baconians rather rare. In the _Herald_, Sept. 8, 1874.

_a_--Who wrote Bacon? by Franklin.

_b_--Shakespeare as a Stage Manager, from the Brooklyn _Eagle_.

_c_--Let Shakespeare Alone, from the Philadelphia _Press_.

_d_--Shakespeare and Bacon, an editorial.

_Unc._

This article also gives interviews with Dion Boucicault, Howard Paul, Bret Harte, Richard Grant White, Nym Crinkle [A. C. Wheeler], and Lester Wallack. It is proper to say that Mr. White disavows the interview.

62 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? Commentators, Quidnuncs, and Annotators. In the _Herald_, September 9, 1874.

_a_--Views of men who have studied the subject.

_b_--The Elizabethan Era, by A. M.

_c_--Letters from “Old Punch Writer” and “Garrick.”

_Unc._

This issue comprises interviews with John Brougham, A. Oakey Hall, E. C. Stedman, and Mayor Havemeyer. Mr. Hall gives the opinions, also, of William E. Burton, James T. Brady, and “Falstaff” Hackett.

63 SHAKESPEARE. Explanations as to why the authenticity of the plays are doubted. The origin of the Baconian theory. In the _Herald_, September 10, 1874.

_a_--Views of Horace Howard Furness.

_b_--Bacon did not write Shakespeare, by R. Davey.

_c_--Editorial article.

_Pro-Sh._

64 A SHAKESPEAREAN MARE’S NEST. In New York _Times_, September 10, 1874.

_a_--The Intellectual Department of the _Herald_, etc., in Philadelphia _Evening Bulletin_, September 8, 1874.

_b_--The Hogs Again. In Philadelphia _Press_, September 7, 1874.

_Pro-Sh._

All of these are editorials, and devoted mainly to the humorous disparagement of the _Herald_ articles.

“The voice of the interviewer is still heard in the land. * *
* His mind is racked as to the authenticity of Shakespeare’s
works. * * * The great absurdity of the fancy or notion (for it
does not attain to the dignity of a theory), is that, starting
from the point that it is incredible to believe that Shakespeare
could have written his plays, so astonishing are their evidences
of knowledge, and of mental power, it adds these plays to
the wonderful offspring of Bacon’s mind, thus seeking to set
aside one fact assumed to be monstrously incredible by setting
up another, still more monstrous and still more incredible.
Shakespeare is impossible, but Bacon _plus_ Shakespeare is
possible!”--_Daily Times._

“The intellectual department of the New York _Herald_ has begun
to devote its energies to the settlement of the authorship of
Shakespeare’s plays, and in pursuance of its purpose it has
obtained the opinions of several eminent citizens of New York
upon the subject. A feeling of sadness, perhaps of gloom, will
overspread the world when the fact becomes public that the
person known as ‘Nym Crinkle’ has expressed the conviction that
Shakespeare did not write the dramas in question. * * * * In the
meantime, while these giant minds in New York are wrestling with
the great subject, the vast multitude of us sit here in the outer
darkness, unable to scale the intellectual heights reached by
Crinkle and the rest, but waiting with nervous anxiety the result
of their deliberations.”--_Evening Bulletin._

65 SHADOWY SHAKESPEARE. A graphic interview with the disembodied Bard. He admits being a Boucicault. Lord Bacon’s wraith refuses to tell his secret. In the _Herald_, September 11, 1874.

_a_--Opinions of Judge Pierrepont, John E. Owens, and Daniel Dougherty.

_b_--Shakespeare a spirit medium. By J. B. Burgess.

_c_--Did Shakespeare write Bacon? By J. E. T.

_d_--A Poser from Scotia. By Th. Ainslie.

_Unc._

This contains an alleged interview with the spirit of Shakespeare, through Foster, the medium, with the result as above. Bacon was also assumed to be present, but “would not talk.”

66 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? In the _Herald_, September 12, 1874.

_a_--Et tu, Brute? by T.

_b_--Bacon never claimed them, by Ylon.

_c_--Sir Walter Scott’s idea, by Hibernicus.

_d_--A word for him, by Solferino.

_e_--Puzzling Facts, from the Boston _Post_.

_Unc._

67 SHAKESPEARE VS. BACON. A JUDICIAL LUMINARY SUMS UP THE CHARGES. In the _Herald_, September 13, 1874.

_a_--Interview with Recorder Hackett.

_b_--A New View of Shakespeare.

_c_--The Value of the Shakespearian Discussion, an editorial.

_Unc._

68 THE SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY. In the _Herald_, September 14, 1874.

_a_--Comparison of the Events of Shakespeare’s and Bacon’s Lives, by Addison B. Burk.

_b_--No one person ever wrote them, by R. S. G.

_c_--Bacon’s learning a point against his authorship, by T. L. W.

_Unc._

69 AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the Oakland (Cal.) _Daily Transcript_, September 15, 1874. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

70 SHAKESPEARE’S AUTHORSHIP. In the _Herald_, September 19, 1874.

_a_--Views of Henry Ward Beecher on the new Criticisms of the Baconian School.

_b_--Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, by C. G. G.

_c_--A Question for the Baconians, by W. V.

_d_--Bacon’s Lifetime--Pursuit of Philosophy and Politics Irreconcilable with the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays, by J. E. Tuel.

_e_--The True Authorship Discovered, by Bloxon.

_f_--Another triumph, from the Indianapolis _Sentinel_.

_g_--Shakespeare. Who is he? from the Lebanon (Pa.) _Courier_.

_h_--Journalistic Enterprise, from the Milwaukee _News_.

_Unc._

71 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. THE RELATIONS OF SHAKESPEARE TO THE MODERN STAGE. The Great Authors Contrasted and Reviewed. In the _Herald_, September 20, 1874.

_a_--Opinion of Prof. Hiram Corson.

_b_--Interview with L. Clarke Davis, of the Philadelphia _Inquirer_.

_c_--Shakespeare and the Stage, an editorial.

_Unc._

72 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. In the _Herald_, September 21, 1874.

_a_--Did Shakespeare write the Novum Organum? by S.

_b_--Shakespeare’s Soliloquy.

_Unc._

73 CARLYLE ON SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By AMICUS. In the _Herald_, September 25, 1874.

_Pro-Sh._

The writer calls attention to Mr. Carlyle’s views, in _Heroes and Hero Worship_--Lecture III.

“It is unexampled, I think, the calm, creative perspicacity of
Shakespeare. _Novum Organum_, and all the intellect you will find
in Bacon, is of quite a secondary order--earthly material, poor
in comparison with this. Amongst modern men, one finds, with
strictness, almost nothing of the same rank. Goethe alone, since
the days of Shakespeare, reminds one of it.”--_Carlyle._

74 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. TWO OPPOSITE KINDS OF GENIUS. In the _Herald_, September 26, 1874.

_a_--Shakespeare’s Blunders an Argument against the Baconians. Opinion of Prof. O’Leary, of Manhattan College.

_b_--The Internal Evidence of the Plays, by The Doctor.

_Pro-Sh._

75 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In the _Herald_, September 27, 1874.

_a_--The answers of leading Corkonians to the Query.

_b_--A few objections answered--a novel theory refuted, by D.

_c_--The Shakespeare Controversy, an editorial.

_Unc._

76 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. CONTRAST OF THE TWO MINDS, by M. D. In the _Herald_, Sept. 28, 1874.

_Pro-Sh._

77 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. In the _Herald_, October 5, 1874.

_a_--Intellectual Distinctions, as classified by McDermott.

_b_--The Literary Test, by S. N. Carvalho.

_c_--Shakespeare not a borrower, by B. J. A.

_Pro-Sh._

78 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? In the _Herald_, October 11, 1874.

_a_--Opinion of Professor John S. Hart.

_b_--The Progressive Development of Shakespeare’s Education in the Plays, by Franklin.

_c_--One more Baconian heard from; letter from Index.

_d_--What the old actors thought, by David Pollock.

_Unc._

79 THE SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY. An editorial article in the _Herald_, October 11, 1874.

_Pro-Sh._

With this number, the _Herald_ supposed the discussion in its columns closed (though, as it will be seen, there was one more article), and gave an editorial summary of its conclusions. Extract:

“Up to this time we have declined to interpolate our own opinion
upon the authorship; but now, in closing the discussion, after
yielding ample time and space to those who wished to take part
in it, we must say that the weight of testimony is altogether
against the claim made for Bacon. Nothing new has been advanced
in behalf of the Holmes theory, while on the contrary, the
internal evidence of the plays, and the facts of history, have
been overwhelmingly shown to be in favor of Shakespeare as the
author. * * * * We believe, in short, that nothing has been said
in this debate to weaken our faith in Shakespeare, while much
has been shown which strengthens it. William Shakespeare is,
therefore, in our opinion, the author of the plays which in his
own day, and ever since, have been attributed to him by universal
consent, and the plea made for Bacon is of ‘such stuff as dreams
are made on,’ a theory which has for its chief use to make the
fame of Shakespeare more glorious.”

80 SHAKESPEARE. In the _Herald_, October 19, 1874.

_a_--A letter to the editor of the _Herald_, from the writer of the _Fraser_ article, [J. V. PRICHARD]? dated London, October 1, 1874.

_b_--A New Point in the Discussion, an editorial.

_Unc._

The last of the _Herald_ articles. The _Fraser_ writer introduces several matters not within the scope of his first paper, such as the discovery of the Northumberland manuscripts, and the claim that Bacon was the author of _Richard II_, arising out of the conversation between Queen Elizabeth and Lord Bacon at the time of the Essex treason. The latter is answered by the _Herald_.

81 SHAKESPEARE’S CENTURIE OF PRAYSE, being materials for a history of opinion on Shakespeare and his works, culled from the writers of the first century after his rise. By C. M. INGLEBY, LL.D. For the Editor. London: 1874. 8vo. pp. 362. (Second edition, for the New Shakespere Society, revised with many additions, by LUCY TOULMIN SMITH. London: 1879. Imp. 8vo. pp. 471.)

_Unc._

There may be a question as to the propriety of inserting this title, but it is so often referred to, and is so important an authority in the investigation of the subject, that it seems to be justifiable.

“To my mind, there is no book printed that is a stronger argument
against the Baconians than is Dr. Ingleby’s _Centurie of Prayse_.
Although to prove that Shakespeare wrote the dramas attributed to
him formed no part of the motive of its publication, yet the work
_does prove it_, and most completely.”--JOSEPH CROSBY.

82 THE TENDENCY TO SKEPTICISM. A short editorial notice of the theory in _Scribner’s Monthly_, for January, 1875, p. 392.

_Pro-Sh._

“Skepticism is the characteristic of the period, and the more
mischief it accomplishes, the better pleased its votaries are.
Opinions that have prevailed for centuries, and have received
the sanction of the wisest and best, are especially obnoxious
to them. * * * * To admit the Baconian theory of Shakespeare,
except as an ingenious piece of pleasantry, demands a brain so
addled with theory as to be incapable of literary judgment, or a
capacity for credulity not given to mere commonplace mortals.”

83 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.

_a_--From C. A. Ward, III, 32, January 9, 1875.

_b_--From H. S. Skipton, and Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], III, 193, March 6, 1875.

_c_--From C. A. Ward, III, 458, June 5, 1875.

_d_--From Jabez, IV, 55, July 17, 1875.

_Unc._

84 BACON _versus_ SHAKESPERE. A Plea for the Defendant. By THOMAS D. KING. Montreal, and Rouse’s Point, N. Y.: Lovell Printing and Publishing Company, 1875. 12mo. pp. 187.

_Pro-Sh._

Mr. KING’S book is an answer to Judge Holmes, and is intensely Shakespearian. He instances the testimony of Ben Jonson, Heminge, and Condell, in the folio of 1623, and impliedly that of Pembroke, Montgomery, and Southampton, who, if there was an untruth, must have been accessories to it. He also relies on other contemporary evidence, which he cites, of which we give only that of Francis Meres, in the _Palladis Tamia_ (Wit’s Treasury), 1598.

“As _Plautus_ and _Seneca_ are accounted the best for Comedy
and Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among the English
is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy
witness his _Gentlemen of Verona_, his _Errors_, his _Love labors
lost_, his _Love labours wonne_, his _Midsummer Nights dreame_; &
his _Merchant of Venice_: for Tragedy his _Richard ii_, _Richard
iii_, _Henry iv_, _King John_, _Titus Andronicus_, and his _Romeo
& Juliet_.”

We quote one paragraph:

“Read your Shakespeare, peruse and re-peruse him, at your
fireside, in meditative silence apart from the company of
_theatrical_ representation; you will be astonished what a
treasure his pages disclose of noble sentiment, of acute
observation, of instructive reflections, of sage advice, of
practical truth, and moral wisdom. Read the writings of Bacon
for their true philosophy, read and compare these two great
Elizabethan lights, and the more carefully and attentively you
do so, the more firmly I am impressed with the belief that but
a misguided and infatuated judgment can bring you to any other
conclusion relative to Shakespeare’s authorship than that formed,
and openly stated by Ben Jonson and Milton, whose testimony ought
to be conclusive against the _Baconian Theory_.”

The author devotes considerable space to a denial of the claim to the poetic faculty in Bacon, which he illustrates by copious selections from Shakespeare, and from the well-known poetry of Bacon, the paraphrases of the Psalms. He claims that the writer of “Shakespeare” was of Warwickshire origin, giving instances of terms in that dialect used in the plays in proof. He also gives a list of ancient and modern authors, the philosophers, metaphysicians, etc., in one column, and the poets and dramatists in another, by way of comparison, and adds:

“Let any one read, even cursorily, the works of these
philosophers, dramatists, and poets, and I feel certain that they
will come to this conclusion, that _Bacon never wrote the plays
and poems of Shakespeare_. Interchange of, or joint authorship,
is quite as likely between Locke and Dryden, Newton and Addison,
Blair and Cowper, etc., etc., as between Bacon and Shakespeare.”

(Mr. KING is a resident of Montreal, and is an active member of its Shakespeare Society.)

NOTE--Another Montreal authority on this subject is Ven. Archdeacon WILLIAM T. LEACH, LL.D., of McGill College and University, who delivered one of the College lectures on _Bacon and Shakespeare_, November 13, 1879. His studies of these authors have induced him to believe in Bacon’s authorship of the works, and his lecture is a strong presentation of that theory. It has never been published.

85 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. By E. O. VAILE. An article in _Scribner’s Monthly_, April, 1875. (See pages 743 to 754.)

_Unc._

This is not only a fair history of the controversy, but a very complete and impartial summary of all the points at issue. It will be found interesting and useful to any one desiring information as to the arguments used in the discussion. It summarizes under numerical heads: Negative propositions against Shakespeare, 10; circumstantial points in favor of Bacon, 14; answers to the foregoing, favorable to Shakespeare, 16.

Of the many points made in this article, we lay it under contribution for two only. The first refers to such hints as have been gathered from contemporary literature containing, as is claimed, circumstantial evidence in favor of the Baconian theory. In the following extracts the author’s comments are omitted:

“In 1592, Greene published a satiric poem, _A Groatsworth of
Witte bought with a Million of Repentance_. In it he warns
his friends who spend their wits in play-making to seek other
employment, “for there is an upstart crow beautified with our
feathers, that with his Tyger’s heart, wrapt in a player’s hyde,
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the
best of you; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum is, in his
own conceyt, the only Shakescene in a Countrey.”

Writing to his friend, Mr. Tobie Matthew, about that time
[1607-8], Bacon remarks: “I showed you some model, though at that
time methought you were as willing to hear Julius Cæsar, as Queen
Elizabeth commended.”

While Bacon is striving to gain a foothold with the new
sovereign, James I., he writes to Master Davis, then going to
meet the King, committing his interests at court to Master
Davis’s faithful care and discretion, and closing the letter
thus: “So desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue.”

To Mr. Tobie Matthew, Bacon was in the habit of sending his books
as they came out. In a neat letter, “To the Lord Viscount St.
Albans,” without date, Matthew acknowledges the “receipt of your
great and noble token of favor of the 9th of April,” and appends
the following P. S.: “The most prodigious wit that ever I knew
of my nation, and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s
name, though he be known by another.”

On an occasion Bacon enclosed a “recreation,” as he termed his
lighter literary productions, to Tobie Matthew. Matthew, in a
reply, without date or address, uses these suggestive words: “I
will not promise to return you weight for weight, but measure for
measure.”

The second point: We here gather from Mr. Vaile’s article a partial summary of the evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship, taken from the writings of his contemporaries:

“The earliest mention of Shakespeare by a contemporary is by
Edmund Spenser, in 1591, in _The Teares of the Muses_. Complaint
by Thalia, lines 205-210.

And he, the man whom Nature selfe had made
To mock herselfe, and Truth to imitate,
With kindly counter under mimic shade,
Our pleasant Willy, Ah! is dead of late:
With whom all ioy and iolly meriment
Is also deaded, and in dolour drent.

In 1592 appeared _Kinde Hart’s Dreame_, a poem of considerable
interest and merit, by Henrie Chettle. From Chettle’s address
to his readers, we learn that he was the editor of Greene’s
posthumous work, _A Groatsworth of Witte_, before referred to.
The quotation which has been made from this work, together with
other allusions in it, seems to have given offense, at least to
two authors of the time. In Chettle’s _Address_, the following
passage occurs, referring to Shakespeare, as all critics agree:

“With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and
with one of them I care not if I neuer be; the other, whome
at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had,
for that as I haue moderated the heat of liuing writers, and
might haue vsed my owne discretion (especially in such a case)
the author being dead, that I did not, I am as sorry, as if
the originall fault had beene my fault, because myselfe haue
seene his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he exclent in the
qualitie he professes; besides, diuers of worship haue reported
his vprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his
facetious grace in writting that approoues his art.”--_Percy
Society Publications, vol. v._

John Webster, in the preface to his play, _The White
Devil_--1612--speaks thus:

“Detraction is the sworne friend to ignorance; for mine owne
part, I haue euer truly cherisht my good opinion of other men’s
worthy labours, especially of that full and haightned style of
maister Chapman, * * * and lastly (without wrong last to be
named), the right happy and copious industry of m. Shake-speare,
m. Decker, and m. Heywood.”--_John Webster’s Works. London: 1857,
vol. ii._

Ben Jonson’s eulogy upon Shakespeare, first published in the
folio of 1623, is well known. In his prose, the same author makes
a long and affectionate reference to the friend of his youth. The
following is a part: * * * “For I loved the man, and do honour
his memory, on this side idolatry, as much as any. He was indeed
honest and of an open and free nature; had an excellent phantasy,
brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with
that facility, that sometimes it was necessary that he should be
stopped.”--_Discoveries. Probably written in 1636._

A few more quotations, without doubt correct, are added, as given
in Allibone’s _Dictionary of Authors_. _Art._ Shakespeare.

“As the soule of _Euphorbus_ was thought to liue in _Pythagoras_;
so the sweete wittie soule of _Ouid_ liues in mellifluous
hony-tongued _Shakespeare_, witnes his _Venus_ and _Adonis_, his
_Lucrece_, his sugred Sonnets among his priuate friends. * * * *

As _Epius Stolo_ said, the Muses would speak with _Plautus_
tongue, if they would speak Latin; so I say the Muses would speak
with _Shakespeare’s_ fine filed phrase, if they would speak
English.”--_Francis Meres, Wit’s Treasury, 1598._

And Shakespeare, thou whose hony-flowing vaine
(Pleasing the world) thy praises doth obtaine
Whose _Venus_ and whose _Lucrece_ (sweete and chaste)
Thy name in fame’s immortal booke have plac’t,
Live ever you; at least, in fame live ever!
Well may the bodye die, but fame dies never.
--_Richard Barnefeild_, _Poems in Divers Humors_, 1598.

TO OUR ENGLISH TERENCE, MR. WILLIAM SHAKE-SPERE.

Some say, good Will, which I in sport do sing,
Hadst thou not plaid some _Kingly_ parts in sport,
Thou hadst been a companion for a King,
And beene King among the meaner sort.
--_Sir John Davies_ in his _Scourge of Folly_, 1611-14.

Mr. Vaile concludes:

“So far as this discussion attempts an explanation of the origin
or existence of genius, it is certainly quite futile; and quite
as unworthy is the attempt to adjust the mere honor of authorship
between two individuals simply. But the question is by no means
an unimportant one, whether genius has worked in this instance,
by the use of means necessary to ordinary mortals, or whether its
inspiration has been immediate and complete.”

(Mr. VAILE is a resident of Oak Park, Chicago, where he is connected with several educational publications.)

A concise statement of the more important contemporary allusions to Shakespeare, will be found in Mr. F. G. Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, pages 12-21.

86 BACON’S PSALMS. In the Old Cabinet, _Scribner’s Monthly_, April, 1875. (See pages 758-59.)

_Pro-Sh._

This contains extracts from Bacon’s acknowledged verses--the seven versified psalms--by way of comparison with the poetry of Shakespeare. The psalms paraphrased are I, XII, XC, CIV, CXXVI, CXXXVII, and CXLIX.

“According to the editors of Bacon’s Works (Messrs. Spedding,
Ellis, and Heath), ‘the only verses of Bacon’s making that have
come down to us, and probably, with one or two slight exceptions,
the only verses he ever attempted,’ were ‘the translation of
certain Psalms into English verse.’ He wrote also a sonnet,
meant, say the editors, ‘in some way or other to assist in
sweetening the Queen’s temper toward the Earl of Essex; and
it has either not been preserved at all, or not so as to be
identified.’ Two other poems have been ascribed to him, although
it is not absolutely certain that he wrote them. Really, then,
the seven versified Psalms constitute all of Bacon’s poetry which
may be said to be in evidence on the point of his poetic ability.
* * * * For the curiosity of the thing, we transcribe the opening
stanzas of Bacon’s translation of Psalm cxxxvii:

When as we sat, all sad and desolate,
By Babylon upon the river’s side,
Eas’d from the tasks which in our captive state
We were enforced daily to abide,
Our harps we had brought with us to the field,
Some solace to our heavy souls to yield.

But soon we found we fail’d of our account,
For when our minds some freedom did obtain,
Straightways the memory of Sion Mount
Did cause afresh our wounds to bleed again;
So that with present griefs, and future fears,
Our eyes burst forth into a stream of tears.

As for our harps, since sorrow struck them dumb,
We hang’d them on the willow-trees were near;
Yet did our cruel masters to us come,
Asking of us some Hebrew songs to hear;
Taunting us rather in our misery,
Than much delighting in our melody.”

87 “SHAKESPEARE’S CENTURIE OF PRAYSE.” By Prof. HIRAM CORSON. In the _Cornell Review_ (Cornell University Literary Magazine), Ithaca, New York, for May, 1875. 10 pages.

_Pro-Sh._

A review of Dr. Ingleby’s book, from the standpoint of its value in proving the Shakespearian authorship.

“And when we look at the slim arguments that have been so
painstakingly concocted against Shakespeare’s claims, and in
favor of Lord Bacon’s, we are forced to attribute the remarkable
dispute to one of two causes, or to them both, for they are
intimately, if not inseparably, allied:

1. The iconoclastic tendency of the age; and,

2. The predominant analytic character of the thought of the age.”

88 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE THEORY. By E. C. T. [Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE]. Two articles in the _Christian Register_, Boston, for May 22, and 29, 1875. 1½ columns each.

_Pro-Sh._

The first article treats of Delia Bacon, her monomania, and the causes which may have led to it; the second is a critical review of Judge Holmes.

(The author resides at Westboro’, Mass. Several other papers by him will be found noted hereafter.)

89 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. Notice in the _Saturday Review_, London, July 24, 1875.

_Pro-Sh._

90 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the _Civil Service Review_, August 7, 1875.

_Pro-Sh._

91 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By G. S. [GEORGE STRONACH, M.A.] In the _Hornet_, London, August 11, 1875.

_a_--Bacon and Shakespeare, by Scotus, in the same, August 18, 1875.

_Anti-Sh._

The paper in the _Hornet_ is a concise statement of the Baconian argument.

(Mr. STRONACH is connected with the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. It is understood that he has in preparation a treatise sustaining the Baconian theory, which will be published at some future time.)

92 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. A series of communications in the _Notes and Queries_ column of the Newcastle (England) _Weekly Chronicle_, in 1875, under the dates following: August 28; September 4, 11, 18, and 25; October 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; and November 6, 13, and 20.

_Unc._

93 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. BY NATHANIEL HOLMES, WITH AN APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL MATTERS, including a notice of the recently discovered Northumberland MSS., with an introduction. Edition of 1876. (Appendix, pages 603 to 696.)

_Anti-Sh._

As this was printed ten years later than the edition we have first titled (1866), and contains new matter, it is inserted here to preserve the chronological order.

In the introduction Judge Holmes gives a general review of the argument, and introduces a correspondence between Mr. James Spedding, the biographer of Bacon, and himself. Also, between Mr. Spedding and Mr. W. H. Smith.

The appendix, aside from the notices of the Northumberland MSS., is chiefly made up of cumulative evidence on the topics of the original edition. We give one passage from the introduction:

“I have not yet discovered one authentic fact which would
necessitate the inference that William Shakespeare was the
author of this poetry. The further facts of a historical kind
now presented, while strongly pointing to Francis Bacon as
the author, are not at all conclusive. Indeed, the extrinsic
circumstances all together, though powerfully suggestive and
convincing, can not be said to be absolutely conclusive of the
matter. The strongest evidence lies in the comparison of the
writings, and the demonstration (as I conceive) must rest at
last, and chiefly, upon the essential identity, individuality,
and oneness of the writer of this poetry and of Bacon’s works,
as exhibited in a thorough critical comparison of the writings
themselves. But, of course, where the evidence fails to convince,
or carries no weight at all, or even seems to prove a difference
rather than an identity, there is an end of the argument.
Nevertheless, it is my belief that any one who will take the
trouble to make that comparison, in an adequate manner, will not
fail to be convinced of that identity.”

In Mr. Spedding’s letter, occupying six closely-printed pages, he says:

“If Shakespeare had no knowledge as a scholar or man of science,
neither do the works attributed to him show traces of trained
scholarship or scientific education. Given the _faculties_ (which
nature bestows as freely upon the poor as upon the rich), you
will find that all the acquired knowledge, art, and dexterity
which the Shakespearian plays imply, was easily attainable by a
man who was laboring in his vocation, and had nothing else to do.”

* * * * *

“Among the parallelisms which you have collected with such
industry to prove the identity of the two writers, I have not
observed one in which I should not myself have inferred from
the difference in style a difference of hand. Great writers,
especially being contemporary, have many features in common;
but if they are really great writers, they write naturally,
and nature is always individual. I doubt if there are five
lines together to be found in Bacon which could be mistaken for
Shakespeare, or five lines in Shakespeare which could be mistaken
for Bacon, by one who was familiar with the several styles and
practiced in such observation.”

We insert here an extract from a review of Judge Holmes’s book in the _Athenæum_, London, of February 23, 1867, probably by the Editor, Mr. WILLIAM HEPWORTH DIXON:

“Mr. Nathaniel Holmes is an American gentleman, residing in St.
Louis, a long way from the manuscript papers, which can alone
throw any new light upon the subject. He has mastered Miss Delia
Bacon’s book; also the new edition of Lord Bacon’s works, and
The Story of Lord Bacon’s Life, and with the help of a subtle
intellect, he has so arranged the mass of evidence tending to
separate two most important lives in English history, as to aid
in confusing the perception of many persons. For our own part, we
do not care to enter once again into the reasons which induced
us to reject, in mass and detail, all the conjectures offered
in support of Bacon’s authorship of Hamlet and Macbeth. When
we had Miss Bacon’s works before us we gave our reasons fully;
and as nothing new has been found in way of buttress to her
argument, we may safely let the discussion lapse, which we do in
thorough respect for Mr. Holmes, who, distant student though he
be of English literary history, is well aware of what is going
on in this country. He takes a perfectly noble and impartial
view of Bacon’s conduct, both in his relations to Essex and the
administration of justice. But we can not go forward with him
in his theory of Bacon being the secret author of Shakespeare’s
plays.”

94 L’IDEALE IN LETTERATURA. Letture fatte avanti al Regio Istituto Lombardo, dal membro effettivo, Dott. ANTONIO BUCCELLATI, Milano, 1876. Pamphlet, pp. 144. (THE IDEAL IN LITERATURE. Lectures delivered before the Royal Lombard Institute, by the acting member, Dr. Antonio Buccellati.)

_Unc._

A general reference to the subject on pages 74-77. It includes in a note an extract from a paper in the _Memoriale Diplomatique_, the date of which is not given.

95 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW; including an inquiry as to his religious faith, and his knowledge of law, with the Baconian theory considered. By GEORGE WILKES. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1877, 8vo. pp. 471. Second edition, 1881.

_Pro-Sh._

It will be seen from the title of Mr. Wilkes’s book, that it is quite comprehensive--and his argument that the writer of the plays was a Catholic, and was not a trained lawyer, are either of them fatal, in his opinion, to the Baconian theory. He devotes several chapters, by way of illustration, to a comparison of the life, genius, and characteristics of Shakespeare and Bacon. He differs from Lord Campbell in his estimate of the “Legal Acquirements of Shakespeare,” and takes up “The Testimony of the Plays” (pages 81-419), reviewing them, as to the question of authorship, from both the religious and legal point of view. As to the latter, he says:

* * * “The author of the Shakespeare plays did not possess any
great knowledge of the law; or, if he did, his dramatic writings
do not show it. He exhibits, without doubt, a familiarity in law
expressions, and applies them with a precision and a happiness
of application in all cases, which apparently carries the idea
that he may have served in an attorney’s office; but not one of
them, nor do all of them together, mark anything higher than
mere general principles and forms of practice, or such surface
clack and knowledge as were within the mental reach of any clever
scrivener or conveyancer’s clerk. On the contrary, whenever
Shakespeare steps beyond the surface comprehension of the
solicitor’s phraseology, and attempts to deal with the spirit and
philosophy of law, he makes a lamentable failure. The _Merchant
of Venice_, _Comedy of Errors_, _Winter’s Tale_, and _Measure for
Measure_, contain conspicuous proofs of this deficiency.” * * *

An extract from the recapitulation:

“We may be told, at this stage, that such an extent of search and
demonstration as I have devoted to these Baconian points is not
necessary to dispose of a bubble which has never floated among
the public with any amount of success; and we may be flippantly
assured that the inexorable reasoning faculty of Time alone,
would, of itself, dispel the fallacy; but such contemptuous
treatment is not adequate to the treatment of a theory which has
received the support of such minds as that of Lord Palmerston,
and such scholars and critics as Judge Holmes and General B.
F. Butler in America. Bubbles thus patronized must be entirely
exploded, or they will be sure to reappear whenever the world
has a sick or idle hour, and delusions find their opportunity
to strike. Moreover, nothing is lost by our inquiries, after
all, beyond a little time; and I doubt not all true admirers of
our poet will agree that one new ray of light which may thus
be thrown upon the character and history of Shakespeare, will
justify octavos of discussion.”

The author embodies in his book the Euphonic or Musical Test, by Prof. Taverner, which is the subject of a separate title. Of this essay, Mr. Wilkes says:

“To the multitude, its proofs may appear less potent than some
others I have advanced, but with scholars and rhetorical experts,
the Euphonic test will probably be more fatal to the Baconian
theory than any other.”

(The author is well known as the former editor of _Wilkes’s Spirit of the Times_.)

96 THE MUSICAL OR EUPHONIC TEST. The respective styles of Shakespeare and Bacon, judged by the laws of Elocutionary Analysis, and Melody of Speech. By Prof. J. W. TAVERNER. 1877.

_Pro-Sh._

This essay is included in Mr. Wilkes’s book. See pages 424 to 461.

“As the handwriting of one man among thousands can be determined
by experts, so no lengthy examples of style--the expression and
language of any two authors of note, can fail to indicate the
individual mind to which one or the other belongs. * * * But how
much more comprehensive are the combinations that constitute
the style, the language, the adornments, the illustrations,
the figurative expression, the place of the emphasis, the form
of the phrases, the source of the metaphors, the character of
the similes; but our enumeration would become too long; then,
finally, that emanation of the rhythm of the breathing, and of
the pulse, and the endowments of the ear, that marshals all those
forms and phrases in a certain order with reference to melody and
cadence.”

* * * * *

“The outcome of the life-long process to which we have referred,
by which the style of a writer is formed--_that_ feature of it to
which our treatment of this subject, for the present, relates--is
the most subtle; for we have to investigate that of which the
writer himself was, possibly, the most unconscious--that which,
like his gait, or some other habit, has, perhaps, received no
_positive_ attention whatever. Yet, it may be held that nothing
becomes more rigid and fixed than the mould and matrix in which
his thoughts are ultimately fashioned and expressed. The modes
of thinking would, in some instances, have to be identical, to
produce identical melodies of speech.

“In Shakespeare’s prose we shall find that all this is
marvelously free and varied, and that his blank verse conforms
strictly to a certain set of chimes. In Bacon, besides Latin
forms, we shall not lack examples of a certain sort of
duplicates and triplicates, antithetic parallelisms, and harmonic
or alternate phrases (and, to use a strong Baconianism), _and the
like_.”

* * * * *

“Bacon, himself, gives testimony to the weight and value of such
evidence, for he, himself, relates that Queen Elizabeth, being
incensed with a certain book [Dr. Hayward’s], dedicated to my
Lord of Essex, expressed an opinion that there was treason in it,
and would not be persuaded that it was his writing whose name was
to it; but that it had some more mischievous author, and said,
with great indignation, that she would have him racked to produce
his author. ‘I replied,’ says Bacon, ‘Nay, Madam, he is a doctor;
never rack his person, but rack his style; let him have pen, ink,
and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue the
story where it breaketh off, and I will undertake, by collating
the styles, to judge whether he were the author or no.’”

Prof. Taverner proceeds to illustrate his position by a comparison of extracts from the essays and the plays.

“It would be as easy to suppose, by these evidences, Bacon and
Shelley to have been one and the same author, as that these
several specimens of Shakespeare and of Bacon could proceed from
one and the same mind.”

97 THE LEOPOLD SHAKESPEARE. Edited by F. J. FURNIVALL. (See Notes, p. CXXIV, edition 1877.)

_Pro-Sh._

“I doubt whether any such idiotic suggestion as this authorship
of Shakespeare’s works by Bacon has ever been made before,
or will ever be made again, with regard to either Bacon or
Shakespeare. The tomfoolery of it is infinite.”

This note is expanded in the edition of 1882.

98 IS SIR WALTER RALEIGH THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS AND SONNETS? By GEORGE S. CALDWELL. Melbourne, Australia: Stillwell & Knight, 1877. Pamphlet, pp. 32.

_Anti-Sh._

Mr. Caldwell answers his query in the affirmative. He is now engaged upon a new book in development of his theory. We give below an extract from a letter received from him referring to his new work:

“The greater portion of the book will be taken up by extracts
from the History of the World, and from the plays. These extracts
will show so complete an identification of opinions, principles,
and peculiarities of thought and expression, as will, I am
sanguine, carry conviction to the minds of every interested
reader, that the plays must have been written by Raleigh. * * * *
After five years’ consideration, I now say that the materials in
my possession are sufficient to finally settle the controversy.”

(Mr. CALDWELL is a resident of Melbourne, and understood to be in the British Postal Service.)

99 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO SHAKESPEARE. (Chapter IV, part I, pages 38 to 72.) In _Shakespeare: The Man and the Book_. By C. M. INGLEBY, M.A., LL.D. London: 1877.

_Pro-Sh._

This paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature, January 22, 1868. See Transactions, Vol. IX, new series.

“The critic has the same interest in the works of Miss Delia
Bacon, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Judge Holmes, as the physician has in
morbid anatomy. He reads them, not so much for the light which
they throw on the question of authorship, as for their interest
as examples of wrongheadedness. It is not at all a matter of
moment whether Bacon, Raleigh, or another be the favorite on whom
the works are fathered, but it is instructive to discover by
what plausible process the positive evidences of Shakespeare’s
authorship (scanty as they are) are put out of court. As to
Bacon, as first favorite, I suppose any one conversant with
the life and authentic works of that powerful but unamiable
character, must agree with Mr. Spedding’s judgment, that unless
he be the author of “Shakespeare,” neither his life or his
writings give us any assurance that he could excel as a dramatic
poet. Of all men who have left their impress on the reign of the
first maiden Queen, not one can be found who was so deficient
in human sympathies as Lord Bacon. As for such a man portraying
a woman in her natural simplicity, purity, and grace; as to his
imagining and bodying forth in natural speech and action, such
exquisite creations as Miranda, Perdita, Cordelia, Desdemona,
Marina--the supposition is the height of absurdity. What, as it
seems to me, has led astray the few writers who have set up a
claim for Lord Bacon, is his admirable gift of language, scarcely
inferior to Shakespeare himself. This almost unique endowment
caused Bacon to manifest a kind of likeness to Shakespeare in
matters into which the sympathies of the man and the training of
the dramatic poet do not enter. Hence it is easy to cull from the
works of these two great masters a considerable number of curious
parallels. I have looked over the collections of Messrs. W. H.
Smith and Holmes, and I must confess I am astonished; but my
astonishment has not been provoked by the quantity or closeness
of the resemblances adduced, but by the spectacle of educated men
attempting to found such an edifice on such a foundation.”

100 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.

_a_--From Jabez [DR. INGLEBY], VII, 55, January 20, 1877.

_b_--From R. P. Hampton Roberts, VII, 234, March 24, 1877.

_Unc._

101 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW. A review of Wilkes’s book in the _Catholic World_, New York, for June, 1877. (Pages 422-428.)

_Unc._

This review refers only slightly to the authorship, the question mainly discussed being Mr. Wilkes’s views regarding the Catholicism of Shakespeare.

102 THE POLITICAL PURPOSE OF THE RENASCENCE DRAMA. The Key to the Argument. By CERIMON [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON], Melbourne, Sidney and Adelaide: George Robertson, 1878. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 57.

_Anti-Sh._

The first of the several pamphlets and books by Dr. Thomson, which will be found distributed through this list. A fair illustration of his manner of treating the plays--as to the Political Purpose--may be found in the paragraph following, relating to _Hamlet_:

“When the King in the play asks if there is ‘no offence in’t,’ he
but repeats Queen Elizabeth’s query, put, in her palace, about
another treasonable entertainment, of which Bacon had, at that
very time, to allay her well-grounded suspicions. She feared the
disloyalty of one whom he endeavored to reconcile and become her
loyal servant. ‘She had good opinion that there was treason in
it.’ Readers of history know the allusion.”

The allusion, of course, is to the affair of the Essex treason--Dr. Hayward’s book, the “_First Yeare of King Henry the Fourth_”--and the play of Richard II. For this, see Holmes, p. 96, 97, and 135; in appendix, Spedding’s letter to Holmes, p. 617; Holmes to Spedding, p. 619.

(Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON, at the time these works were written, was a practicing physician at Melbourne, Australia. He was evidently a fine scholar, and an intense Baconian. He died during the past year, at the age of 63. We quote from a private letter from Melbourne: “The Baconian theory of Shakespeare’s writings was an intense hobby with him, and even the day before he died, he sent for some books on the subject--the ruling passion strong in death. * * * He was ever ready to put on the literary war-paint, and raised up numerous enemies thereby.”)

103 SHAKESPEARE. WAS HE A MYTH? OR, WHAT DID HE WRITE? By CHARLES COCKBILL CATTELL. London: Charles Watts, n. d. [1878]. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.

_Pro-Sh._

The first of a series of pamphlets, which will be found cited hereafter, all combating the Baconian theory. We extract one paragraph: