Chapter III: Part 3

“A curious point in history is that, while it devotes much space
to describe all the details about persons who would now be
forgotten but for Shakespeare, it leaves him unnoticed. So far as
I have read, Bacon, who is supposed to have known nearly every
thing of his age, does not mention Shakespeare. Sir Henry Wotton,
to whom we are so much indebted, does not name him, although he
survived Shakespeare twenty years. It is only common fairness to
state that Sir Henry also omits to mention Spenser, Ben Jonson,
Marlowe, Massinger, Beaumont and many others; so that Shakespeare
is only one among the many ‘myths’ of that generation, if
non-mention by Sir Henry proves that. Emerson’s explanation of
that is given in his own inimitable style: ‘No one suspected
he [Shakespeare] was the poet of the human race. * * * Their
genius failed them to find out the best head in the universe. Our
poet’s mask was impenetrable; you can not see the mountain near.’
Emerson further says: ‘For executive faculty, for creation,
Shakespeare is unique. No man can imagine it better. * * * He
clothes the creatures of his legend with form and sentiment, as
if they were people who lived under his roof.’”

104 ARTICLE “SHAKESPEARE.” In the _Dictionary of Authors_. By S. AUSTIN ALLIBONE. Philadelphia: 1878.

_Pro-Sh._

“SHAKESPEARE, THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS OF THE SONS OF MEN.--We have
earned the right, by hard labour, to assert that there is not in
the 1100 pages of Delia Bacon and Judge Holmes, the shadow of
the shade of an argument to support their wild and most absurd
hypothesis. Bacon was as little capable of writing ‘Shakespeare’s
Plays’ as any other man.”

“Within that circle, none durst walk but he.”

105 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In an Appendix to _Studies on the Text of Shakespeare_. By JOHN BULLOCH. London and Aberdeen: 1878, 8vo. (See pages 317-322.)

_Unc._

Mainly a review of the question, without an expression of opinion.

106 A CHAPTER OF COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY. 1561-1626. Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare. By JOHN BULLOCH. In an Appendix to _Studies on the Text of Shakespeare_. London and Aberdeen: 1878, 8vo. (See pages 323-328.)

_Unc._

A chronological history of the main facts in the lives of Bacon and Shakespeare, the dates of the appearance of their works, etc. It is very valuable in an examination of the historical side of the subject.

107 SHAKESPEARE ET LA THEORIE BACONIENNE. Par M. BERARD VARAGNAC. In the _Journal des Debats_, Paris, June 21, 1878. 4 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

Nominally a review of Wilkes. The writer, however, goes into the subject generally. His conclusions are obvious, even to one who is not proficient in the French language, from his final remark:

“_C’est pourquoi l’on nous permettra de penser que la theorie
Baconienne n’est autre chose que ce qu’ils appellent la-bas d’un
mot expressif non moins usite que la chose dans la patrie de_
Barnum--_un_ humbug.”

108 SHAKESPEARE AND THE BACONIAN THEORY. By M. BERARD VARAGNAC. In the _American Register_, Paris, July 6, 1878. 2½ columns.

_Pro-Sh._

A translation of the article in the _Journal des Debats_, above. (See Title 107.)

109 UN PROCES LITTERAIRE: BACON CONTRE SHAKESPEARE! By M. J. VILLEMAIN. In _L’Instruction Publique: Revue des Lettres, Science et Arts_, Paris. Two articles, August 31 and September 7, 1878. (A LITERARY SUIT: BACON AGAINST SHAKESPEARE.)

_Anti-Sh._

“To sum it all up, we may conclude thus: everything which there
is good in Shakespeare’s dramas comes from Bacon; everything
which there is bad in Bacon’s dramas comes from Shakespeare.”

110 NOTICE in _De Nederlandsche Spectator_. The Hague, Holland, October 12, 1878.

_Unc._

Unimportant--simply a short notice, occasioned by the French articles of M. Varagnac and M. Villemain, which will be found in the preceding titles.

111 LORD BACON AND THE PLAYS. Essay No. VII, in _Wit, Humor, and Shakespeare_. By JOHN WEISS. Boston: 1879. (See pages 247-269.)

_Pro-Sh._

Mr. WEISS, after taking strong ground against the Baconian position, concludes:

“It is not entirely just to say that the contributions of men
who favor the theory are specimens of literary futility. They
are frequently valuable to the scholar by throwing unexpected
side-lights upon the plays; they also furnish suggestions to
the interpreter. They have amassed a quantity of collateral
information of Shakespeare’s epoch, which the critic will
thankfully acknowledge when he uses it. The minute and laborious
research which Judge Holmes has expended upon his volume, the
literary, historical, and social parallelisms which he discloses,
the philosophy and style of thinking of Elizabeth’s age, put the
lover of Shakespeare under obligation.”

112 LORD BACON: DID HE WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A reply to Judge Holmes, Miss Delia BACON, and Mr. W. H. Smith. By CHARLES C. CATTELL. Birmingham: G. & J. H. Shipway, 1879. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.

_Pro-Sh._

“Shakespeare has been described as honest, open, gentle, free,
honorable, and amiable, while Bacon has been described as
ambitious, covetous, base, selfish, unamiable, and unscrupulous.
Now, taking these descriptions as a fair index of their souls,
which is the more likely to have portrayed the women of
Shakespeare’s plays?”

113 GREAT MEN’S VIEWS ON SHAKESPEARE. By CHARLES C. CATTELL, with an essay by Dr. Ingleby. Birmingham: 1879. 12mo. pp. 55, 68, 16, 14.

_Pro-Sh._

A collection of extracts from Dryden, Goethe, Lessing, the Schlegels, De Stael, Scott, Beatty, Coleridge, Irving, and many others, relating to Shakespeare; Dawson’s Lectures and Speeches on Shakespeare; and two of Mr. Cattell’s pamphlets--all bound in one volume.

114 THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. By APPLETON MORGAN. A series of four articles in _Appletons’ Journal_, New York.

_a_--The Shakespearean Myth, February, 1879, p. 112-126.

_b_--The Appeal to History, June, 1879, p. 481-497.

_c_--Extra Shakespearean Theories, I, June, 1880, p. 481-497.

_d_--Extra Shakespearean Theories, II, July, 1880, p. 14-35.

_Anti-Sh._

These were the first articles Mr. MORGAN published on the question. They were subsequently enlarged and reproduced in his book of the same title. (See 147.) As Mr. Morgan’s views are fully explained in the subsequent title, we do not refer to them here.

115 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. By WM. J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana, Literary World_, Boston, March 1, 1879. 1½ columns.

_Pro-Sh._

Mr. ROLFE, after a concise review of the subject, sums up: that the authorship was never questioned by Shakespeare’s contemporaries, who had every motive for, and opportunity of detecting such a fraud, nor for nearly three hundred years later; that the poems are unquestionable, and that there are striking similarities between them and the questioned plays; that Bacon’s acknowledged verses bear no comparison to those of Shakespeare; and that the plays came to an end at Shakespeare’s death, when Bacon had still ten years of literary leisure, with no danger of injuring his reputation by acknowledging or continuing them.

116 “SHAKESPEARE AND THE MUSICAL GLASSES.” By MYRON B. BENTON. In _Appletons’ Journal_, April, 1879. (See pages 336-344.)

_Pro-Sh._

An answer to Mr. Morgan’s first article in _Appletons’ Journal_:

“While denying with emphatic iteration that Shakespeare is the
true author, he [Mr. Morgan] would persuade us that the plays and
poems attributed to him are the composite work of an indefinite
number of minds, varying in all degrees of the scale of ability,
from the insight of a profound philosopher, and the scholarship
and culture of a chivalrous gentlemen, down to the level--down,
indeed, to the very ‘bottom-lands’ of a grade of imbecility
vague and appalling. * * * The genial Goldsmith must have had
a premonition of these latter-day enlightenments when he wrote
of ‘Shakespeare and the Musical Glasses.’ * * * Here was one of
his [Shakespeare’s] contemporaries, for instance, Lord Bacon,
whose acknowledged works are also voluminous. Is it possible
to believe that there was a common authorship to both? Each is
characterized by a strongly individualized style, as all writings
are that the world cares to read. Each has a flavor distinct
from the other. Yet, if Bacon be the author of both sets of
works, he must in one of them have assumed a style of composition
foreign to him--a thing impossible, even were there a motive
for such an undertaking. * * * Similarity, or even identity, of
ideas, or precepts, or axioms--any likeness of speculation or
philosophy--all these are nothing whatever. The human mind, at
the root, is everywhere the same. Counterparts appear constantly
in literature, even in widely-severed nations and ages. Such
parallels as are pointed out in Bacon and Shakespeare can be
discovered in almost any two writers; but of that individuality
that must permeate the work of any writer, in manner of
treatment, in style, there seem to be no traces in common.”

117 NOTICES of Sir PATRICK COLQUHOUN’S Essay on _The Authorship of Shakespeare_. In the London journals, as follows:

_a_--In the _Globe_, May 23, 1879.

_b_--In the _Daily Telegraph_, May 24, 1879.

_c_--In _Bell’s Weekly Messenger_, June 2, 1879.

_Unc._

Sir PATRICK COLQUHOUN’S paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature, London, May 21, 1879. It has never been printed. He holds Shakespeare “to have been a mere theatrical manager, who bought the plays of poor authors, and perhaps suggested certain buffooneries for the delectation of the gods,” etc. This essay has since been recast and considerably augmented; and it is probable that it may yet be published in book form.

118 THE SHAKESPEARE PLAYS, THE THEATRE, ETC. WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? By O. F. [O. FOLLETT, of Sandusky, O.] Printed for private circulation. Sandusky: May, 1879. Pamphlet, pp. 47.

_Anti-Sh._

“If, then, Shakespeare _did not_ write Shakespeare, who did? The
question is already answered. BUT ONE MAN COULD. Only one [Bacon]
was fully equipped for the task in its full proportions. * * *
It has been _“aut Cæsar aut nullus”_--Shakespeare or nothing.
Not a line, not a scrap, not a sentiment outside the dramas and
poems has been vouchsafed to us, as a test of style, or by which
to measure capacity. Without preparation, without drill, this
man is master of all learning, law, physic, theology, nay, of
state-craft as well. If Shakespeare proper was all this, then
Shakespeare the poet was a miracle, and may be worshiped--and
Stratford may well be his shrine.”

119 THE SO-CALLED SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. By F. R., Barrie. [FRANCIS RYE, of Barrie, Ontario, Canada.] In the _Canadian Monthly_ for July, 1879. (See pages 76-79.)

_Pro-Sh._

An answer to Mr. Morgan’s articles in _Appletons’ Journal_.

120 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? By HENRY G. ATKINSON, F.G.S. In the _Spiritualist_, London, July 4, 1879.

_Anti-Sh._

Mr. ATKINSON is an ardent Baconian. His writings on the subject consist principally of short articles in various periodicals, which will be found noted hereafter.

“It would be absurd to expect to find the same variety in
Bacon’s philosophical writings as in the plays, where we have
philosophy and poetry combined, together with wit, humor, and
every kind of character and turn of sentiment. But here is Ben
Jonson’s account of Bacon. Bacon’s prose, says Judge Holmes, is
Shakespearian poetry, and Shakespeare’s poetry is Baconian prose.
Jonson says: ‘There happened in my time _one_ noble speaker, who
was full of gravity in his speaking. His language, where he
could spare, or pass by a jest, was nobly censorious. No man ever
spoke more neatly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness,
less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but
consisted of his own graces. His hearers could not cough, or look
aside from him without loss. He commanded when he spoke, and had
his judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had their
affections more in his power. The fear of every man who heard him
was lest he should make an end.’ Here, then, we have related,
from one most capable of judging, those very qualities of mind
we should expect to find in the writer of the plays, but which
Shakespeare was never known to have exhibited at any time, or in
any place; and we have not a scrap of his play-writing existing,
or ever known to have existed, nor referred to in his will. Some
of his finest plays were not known to exist until seven years
after his death, in the collected folio of 1623.”

121 ON RENASCENCE DRAMA, OR HISTORY MADE VISIBLE. By WILLIAM THOMSON, F.R.C.S., F.L.S., Melbourne, Australia: Sands & McDougall, 1880. 8vo. pp. 359.

_Anti-Sh._

DR. THOMSON’S title is adopted from Bacon’s _History of Learning_: “Dramatic poetry is as history made visible; for it represents actions as if they were present, whereas history represents them as past.” He continues in this work the argument as to the political purpose of certain of the Shakespearian plays, which he classes under the style of the Renascence Drama; and, reasoning from that standpoint, claims the authorship for Bacon. The book commences:

“The political purpose of the Renascence Drama has never been
defined. And yet for a patriotic object the series of plays so
named were evidently written. The motive is avowed in prologue,
epilogue and induction; and everywhere throughout the works the
aim is obvious. You are required to

‘Think you see
The very persons of our noble story
As they were living.’”

The author reviews _The Tempest_, _Twelfth Night_, _Julius Cæsar_, _Hamlet_, _Othello_, and others of the plays, from his view as to the political motive of Bacon in producing them, interpreting them as allegories bearing on persons and events of the time. In his elucidation of _Twelfth Night_, he goes so far as to indicate “the persons represented in false names” for all the leading characters. A recapitulation of these may be interesting to the student of history, as well as the student of Shakespeare: _Duke Orsino_ is Sir Philip Sidney; _Sebastian_, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex; _Sir Toby Belch_, Sir Francis Knollys; _Sir Andrew Aguecheek_, the Earl of Leicester; _Malvolio_, Sir Walter Raleigh; _Fabian_, Sir Fulke Greville; _Feste, the clown_, Dick Tarleton; _Olivia_, Queen Elizabeth; _Viola_, Penelope Devereux; and _Maria_, Lettice Knollys.

A critic has said of Dr. Thomson’s argument: “If he has succeeded in anything, it is in unearthing a wealth of verbiage, which is more than proof against a powerful microscopic analysis. Whatever may be his object, he conceals it by his language.” An extract from an article in the _Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin (title 154), will give evidence of the scope of the book:

“He [Dr. Thomson] argues from the identity of the language in the
plays and Bacon’s works--from the difficulty of finding where
Shakespeare, who was all but totally uneducated, got all the
wondrous learning that the works attributed to him exhibit--from
the notorious fact of Bacon’s universal learning--and from facts
connected with the dates of the publication of the poems and
dramas, which can scarcely be reconciled with the incidents of
Shakespeare’s life, and which fit in admirably with the stages
of Bacon’s chequered career. Dr. Thomson argues also, with
considerable acumen and subtlety, from the inferences which the
allegorical and political interpretation of such plays as even
Hamlet and Macbeth require; and he argues to the same effect from
the sonnets, and from the non-dedication of the sonnets to the
Earl of Southampton in 1609, to whom in 1593 the poems of _Venus
and Adonis_ and _Lucrece_ were dedicated. This circumstance,
which is such a crux on the ordinary interpretation that
Shakespeare was the author of the sonnets, and that Southampton
was his loving patron, is easily explicable on being reminded
that in the interval between the appearance of the two sets of
poems, the Earl of Southampton, on his liberation from prison,
had become a deadly enemy of Bacon.”

122 “MR. HUDSON’S FOUR REASONS.” (See _Shakespeare: his Life, Art, and Character_. By Rev. H. N. HUDSON. Vol. I, p. 269, edition of 1880.)

_Pro-Sh._

* * * “It was Lord Bacon, not Shakespeare, who enjoyed so richly
the friendship and patronage of the generous Essex; and how he
requited the same is known much too well for his credit. I am not
unmindful that this may yield some comfort to those who would
persuade us that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Lord Bacon.
Upon this point I have just four things to say:

“_First_--Bacon’s requital of the Earl’s bounty was such a piece
of ingratitude as I can hardly conceive the author of _King Lear_
to have been guilty of.

“_Second_--The author of Shakespeare’s plays, whoever he may have
been, certainly was not a scholar; he had indeed something vastly
better than learning, but he had not that.

“_Third_--Shakespeare never philosophizes; Bacon never does
anything else.

“_Fourth_--Bacon’s mind, great as it was, might have been cut out
of Shakespeare’s without being missed.”

Noticing the above, Dr. Ingleby adds another reason:

“_Fifth_--Bacon excelled all writers of his day in prose; but the
very best of the verses attributed to him (not all his, by the
way) are fourth-rate; while Shakespeare’s verse is everywhere
incomparably better than his prose; and he thus excelled where
Bacon most faulted.”

123 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A controversy between H. G. ATKINSON, F.G.S., and Mr. CHARLES C. CATTELL. London: H. Cattell & Co., n. d. [1880]. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.

_Unc._

This consists of three papers on each side of the question, reprinted from the pages of the _Secular Review_, London.

124 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. A review of Holmes. In the _Southern Quarterly Review_, New Orleans, January, 1880. By the editor, DANIEL K. WHITAKER. (See pages 172-179.)

_Pro-Sh._

125 JUDGE HOLMES’S “PARALLELISMS” BETWEEN SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By WM. J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana, Literary World_, Boston, April 10, 1880. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

126 SHAKESPEARE. A letter from Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY, Zanesville, O. In the _Church Eclectic_, Utica, N. Y., November, 1880. (See pages 719-728.)

_Pro-Sh._

The paper of Mr. CROSBY was originally written as a private letter to Rev. Dr. James A. Bolles, who transmitted it to the _Eclectic_ for publication. It is quite comprehensive, occupying eight pages of the magazine, and is an answer to Mr. Morgan’s _Shakespearean Myth_ articles, and also to the other arguments against Shakespeare’s authorship.

“But our Shakespeare was _not_ an uneducated man; on the
contrary, he was, for the time, a man of letters. We know that
he received a fair grammar-school education, * * * and education
at those grammar-schools was very thorough in those days. After
he went to London, we soon hear of him in the best society;
he was a natural absorbent, and no doubt had, in addition to
the advantages of high-toned conversation, access to all such
books as the time supplied. It is a great error to speak of
Shakespeare, as many do, as an ‘inspired ignoramus.’ And then,
after all, it was not mere scholastic knowledge that Shakespeare
needed for his productions. Jonson had _this_, in an eminent
degree; and his dramas are, I think, only the worse for it.
Shakespeare knew enough to read Hall, and More, and Holinshead,
and North’s Plutarch for his history; and enough of the modern
languages to read Italian and other continental novels for the
sake of the plots--the dry-bones, on which he built the flesh
and blood of _life_ in his immortal works. The real books that
Shakespeare studied were the _Book of Mankind_ and the _Book of
Nature_, and these he knew by heart. He needed not a university
to teach him these. While his style shows frequently, by the
radical and exact senses in which he employs numerous words, that
he had a competent knowledge of the Latin language, it is in his
using the idiomatic powers of the English language, in their
highest perfection, that its force and beauty consist. Jonson’s
style, as a dramatic writer, is often marred, and enfeebled, and
spoilt, by his exuberant Latin quotations, and magniloquence, and
learned affectation; and that is why I say that Shakespeare’s
‘little Latin and less Greek’ stood him in better stead than all
the ponderous learning and classic conceits that weighted the
poetry of his rival.

* * * * *

“There is one argument that these theorists seem never to have
examined, viz: that deducible from Shakespeare’s _poems_ and
_sonnets_. These no one has ever disputed his authorship of.
That _cannot_ be disputed, for he published them himself, and
dedicated them to noblemen of the day, under his own name. And
yet can any intelligent person read these works, and not be
convinced that the same mind and hand produced them that produced
the dramas? There are not only similar expressions, but whole
lines, similes, metaphors, and turns of thought are constantly
recurring, the same in each. This, to my mind, is as strong an
argument as I could ask. A careful study of the poems and sonnets
is a great help to understanding many things in the plays: and
the fact that _one person wrote both_ is as undoubted and clear
to me as noonday.” * * * *

127 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? By R. C. C. [RICHARD COLAMA CLOSE]. In the _Victorian Review_, Melbourne, Australia, for November, 1880. (See pages 54-70.)

_Pro-Sh._

An answer to Dr. Thomson’s _Renascence Drama_.

* * * “There has been no single instance, from the earliest
historic times up to the present day, where the combination of a
Bacon and a Shakespeare, the impersonations of the highest talent
and the greatest genius, has found its centre in one man. It is
possible, but not more possible than a miracle. Few have ever
exceeded Bacon in the force, vigour, terseness, clearness, and
splendor of his prose. None has ever exceeded Shakespeare, either
as a writer of dramas or comedies. Bacon, as a prose writer,
stands in the midst of a goodly company. The most we can say
of Bacon is, that in this _genre_ he was _primus inter pares_.
Shakespeare, as a dramatic genius, stood in lonely grandeur. He
was first, and had no equals.”

(Mr. CLOSE is a barrister in Sydney, New South Wales.)

128 SHAKESPEARE’S BIOGRAPHY. Does it conform to the Author of the Plays? By “LANCER.” [O. C. STOUDER.] In the _Wittenberger Magazine_, Springfield, O., November, 1880. 2 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

129 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A reply to “Lancer.” By Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY. In the _Wittenberger_, December, 1880. 2 pages.

_Pro-Sh._

130 SHAKESPEARE: DID HE WRITE THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM? With notes on “_What Shakespeare Learnt at School_.” By CHARLES C. CATTELL. London: Henry Cattell & Co., n. d. [probably 1881]. Pamphlet, pp. 16.

_Pro-Sh._

“It seems desirable that, in a publication of this kind, some
reference should be made to the three articles by Prof. T. F.
Baynes, which appeared in 1879 and 1880, on _What Shakespeare
Learnt at School_. * * * That he could have been sent to one is
certain, for the school at Stratford-on-Avon was restored in
1553 by Edward. VI, and the constitution and management were the
same as other schools established at that period, and the course
of instruction is known by the records preserved of Rotherham
school, which gives a list of books generally used in the grammar
schools of the country. * * * At that time, children were sent to
the English side of the grammar school at the age of five, and
at seven they commenced the study of Latin, the regular course
taking about ten years; so that boys usually left school, for
work or for university study, at fifteen. * * * The articles
were published in _Fraser’s Magazine_ in 1879 and 1880, and,
to my mind, sufficiently explain how the youthful Bard of Avon
might lay up the treasures of learning deemed so essential in the
production of his immortal works--his possession of which has
been so often doubted, and in some instances positively denied to
him. How such a man, living in such a time, and at such a place,
could acquire the necessary classic knowledge, no longer remains
a mystery.”

131 CARLYLE’S OPINION. (See _Thomas Carlyle_, by MONCURE D. CONWAY. New York: 1881.)

_Pro-Sh._

Speaking of Carlyle, on page 122, Mr. CONWAY says:

“He was more patient in listening to Miss Bacon, also introduced
by Emerson, when she tried to persuade him that Shakespeare’s
plays were written by Lord Bacon. Carlyle never thought much
of the philosopher who had been unable to recognize such a
contemporary as Kepler; and his only reply to Miss Bacon was,
‘Lord Bacon could as easily have created this planet as he could
have written Hamlet.’ I have heard that when she had gone he
added, to a letter written to his friend in Concord, the brief
postscript, ‘Your woman’s mad.’

T. C.”

132 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE BACON’S WORKS? By Rev. JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE. In the _North American Review_ for February, 1881. (See pages 163-175.)

_Pro-Sh._

“When we ask whether it would have been easier for the author
of the philosophy to have composed the drama, or the dramatic
poet to have written the philosophy, the answer will depend upon
which is the greater of the two. The greater includes the less,
but the less can not include the greater. * * * Great as are the
thoughts of the _Novum Organum_, they are inferior to that world
of thought which is in the drama. We can easily conceive that
Shakespeare, having produced in his prime the wonders and glories
of the plays, should in his after leisure have developed the
leading ideas of the Baconian philosophy. But it is difficult to
imagine that Bacon, while devoting his main strength to politics,
to law, to philosophy, should have, as a mere pastime for his
leisure, produced in his idle moments the greatest intellectual
work ever done on earth.”

133 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? By BACONIAN. [WILLIAM W. FERRIER, of Angola, Ind.] A series of eight articles in February and March, 1881, in the Angola (Ind.) _Herald_. Dated February 9, 16, and 23; March 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30.

_Anti-Sh._

The writer gives all the main points in the controversy from the Baconian standpoint. In his introduction he says that “a noted Shakespearean doubter--Dr. Farmer--lived in the eighteenth century, and that still earlier than this, as men began to study the literature and lives of the Elizabethan period, difficulties arose in regard to harmonizing the book Shakespeare with the man Shakespeare.”

We quote, from the third paper, as to one point only:

“The mind that wrote Shakespeare was a mighty mind. But it
was one broadened and deepened, nurtured and cultured by the
learning and experience of ages. These plays tell of more
than mere genius. They tell of years of earnest study; of
patient investigation; of a genius that made available all the
concentrated resources of the times. Let us consider briefly
the works and minds of some prominent in the middle ages, and
find there, in this way, a consistency that is not in the life
and works of William Shakespeare. English literature, that had
originated in Caedmon, that had burst into full glory in Chaucer,
and with him had also passed away, met again in its beauty and
grandeur a glad welcome when Spenser, amid the blaze of the
magnificent court of Elizabeth, placed at her feet the _Faerie
Queene_. But Spenser’s life was a life leading to the production
of grand ideal poetry. His education, combined with natural
genius, had prepared him for it. * * * Early in the Christian
Renaissance, there originated, within prison walls, a book which
has the greatest hold, next to the Bible, upon the English
people. That book was the _Pilgrim’s Progress_. * * * Linked with
the name of the old prisoner of Bradford, this immortal book
has came down to us in its journey adown the centuries; and the
world that questions the authorship of Shakespeare, finds nothing
inharmonious or incongruous between the life of Bunyan and this
grand work. * * * Contemporary with Shakespeare was one known as
a ‘genuine literary leviathan.’ It was Ben Jonson, erudite in all
the classics, of whom it has been said, ‘he had so well entered
into and digested the Greek and Latin ideas, that they were
incorporated with his own.’ But Ben Jonson’s education made him
this. * * * The years of the Christian Renaissance brought forth
another work that the world will not let die. It is the immortal
epic of Milton--_Paradise Lost_. But England has known no more
erudite man than Milton; and whatever of profound knowledge there
is found in his works, may be readily accounted for by cause and
effect. * * * Thus, it may be seen, that from the works and lives
of such as Spenser, Bunyan, Jonson, and Milton, no argument can
be adduced in favor of William Shakespeare.”

134 DID BACON WRITE FLETCHER’S PLAYS? By WILLIAM J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana_, _Literary World_, Boston, February 12, 1881.

_Unc._

“Bacon _did_ write Fletcher’s Plays, for the Judge [Holmes]
proves it--just as he proves that he wrote Shakespeare’s plays.”

135 IS THERE ANY DOUBT AS TO THE AUTHORSHIP? In the _Harvard University Bulletin_, April 1, 1881.

_Unc._

A short list of the references for the use of students in debate.

136 “OUR CLUB.” SHAKESPEARE NIGHT, April 26, 1881. H. HOLL in the Chair. An address delivered by Mr. Holl, being in part an answer to Dr. Benj. W. Richardson. With letter to Dr. R. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 22.

_Pro-Sh._

The address of Dr. RICHARDSON’S, alluded to above, was delivered before “Our Club” (the original Hooks and Eyes, rechristened), at the annual Shakespeare dinner, in April, 1877. It has never been published. It seems, while expressing some doubts, to have opposed the Baconian hypothesis.

137 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IN ROMANCE AND REALITY. By WILLIAM THOMSON. Melbourne: Sands & McDougall, 1881. 8vo. pp. 95.

_Anti-Sh._

This is a continuation of the _Renascence Drama_, including an answer to the criticisms of that work, but of a more practical turn--devoted more to the historical than to the allegorical and political argument.

“Not only is Bacon’s name always linked with that of Shakespeare,
but no other name is ever so associated. No other author
unwittingly enters men’s thoughts along with the author of the
drama, except alone Bacon; and he is the only magician or creator
of the prevailing Baconian philosophy. Alluding to Shakespeare’s
forestalling Newton when making Cressida compare her heart to the
center of the earth, drawing all things to it, it is asked how
he knew what Newton was going to discover. But Voltaire long ago
showed where Bacon forestalled Newton. How, then, did he know
what Newton would discover? Either _both_ Bacon and Shakespeare
forestalled Newton on the great physical discovery, or one mind
did so in two different ways, at the same instant of time. * *
* When Bacon explained to King James how ‘bodies fall toward
the center of the earth,’ and ‘iron trembles under adamant,’
Shakespeare made Prince Troilus vow he would be true to Cressida,

‘As iron to adamant, as earth to the centre.’

While her love for him in return

‘Is as the very centre of the earth,
Drawing all things to it.’”

138 SHAKESPEARE--THE PLAYS AND POEMS LOGICALLY AND HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED. Addendum to “Who Wrote Shakespeare?” By O. F. [O. FOLLETT]. Sandusky, O.: May, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 12.

Anti-Sh.

A continuation of Mr. Follett’s first pamphlet.

139 WAS SHAKESPEARE A MYTH? By BROADBRIM. [J. H. WARWICK, Brooklyn, N. Y.] A series of three articles in the Angola (Ind.) _Republican_, May 25, June 8, and June 22, 1881.

_Pro-Sh._

The first two of these articles treat the subject, in the author’s words, “from the ground-work of fact and historical probability;” the concluding one invites attention to “the character of the age that produced Shakespeare,” with an analysis of “the character of those who have been instrumental in propagating the libels on his memory.”

140 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_. In the _Literary World_, Boston, of dates following:

_a_--Judge Holmes on Julius Cæsar, June 4, 1881.

_b_--New Champions of the Baconian Theory (Mrs. Windle and Dr. Thomson), November 5, 1881.

_c_--Morgan’s Shakespearean Myth, Dec. 3, 1881.

_Unc._

141 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? AN EXPOSITION OF THE GREAT CONTROVERSY. By E. W. TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake City, Utah, July, 1881. 13 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

“It is startlingly singular that directly Shakespeare is brought
down to the human plane, and considered there, whether as a
supreme poet, or a supreme metaphysician (both of which he was)
he became Bacon. Of all men of the Elizabethan age, and perhaps
of any age, Bacon is the only equivalent for Shakespeare. * * *
And it is something very like a hidden record, long concealed, of
the real identity of Shakespeare suddenly brought to light, that
the name of Bacon, once started, so nearly answers to the entire
mystery of Shakespeare, even before investigation of the proof
that he was the one who had lent to another his lion’s skin.
It was this very fact, indeed, which has started able authors
and critics to investigate this subject, and which inclines
multitudes to believe ‘there is something in it.’”

(Mr. TULLIDGE is the editor of the _Quarterly_, and a strong Baconian. Several lengthy articles from his pen will be found noted in this list.)

142 THE SWEET BARD OF AVON, and THE SHAKESPEAREAN QUESTION. By BACONIAN. [WILLIAM W. FERRIER.] Two articles in the Angola (Ind.) _Herald_, dated July 27, and August 5, 1881.

_Anti-Sh._

An answer to the “Broadbrim” articles.

143 ADDRESS TO THE NEW SHAKESPERE SOCIETY OF LONDON. Discovery of Lord Verulam’s undoubted authorship of the “Shakespere” Works. By Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Joseph Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1881. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 46.

_Anti-Sh._

The first of Mrs. WINDLE’S pamphlets. For an example of her special theories see title of the second pamphlet, No. 165.

144 SHAKESPEARE, NOT BACON. By J. S. [JAMES SMITH]. In the Daily _Argus_, Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. 3½ columns. (Reprinted in the Stratford-on-Avon _Herald_, November 4, and November 11, 1881.)

_Pro-Sh._

After citing contemporary authorities as to the authorship of _Venus and Adonis_, _The Rape of Lucrece_, and _The Passionate Pilgrim_, the writer says:

“I submit that Shakespeare’s authorship of the three poems
enumerated, is established by contemporary testimony sufficiently
strong to satisfy any court of justice in the world, albeit I
am not aware that his paternity of the _Sonnets_, or of _The
Lover’s Complaint_, has ever been seriously disputed. I shall
now proceed to show that the same hand which wrote the whole of
the before-mentioned works also produced the dramas. And I shall
rely upon the very same kind of evidence as that which has been
employed to sustain the fanciful and extravagant theory that
Bacon was the author of them. But though it will resemble it in
kind, it will be found to be, unless I am very much mistaken,
greater in volume and weightier in character than that which has
been so laboriously collected and so ingeniously set forth by Mr.
N. Holmes, Miss Delia Bacon, and by Mr. W. H. Smith.”

He then cites a long list of parallelisms between the poems and the plays, and peculiar words used in the same sense in each, to substantiate his position. “In his plays, Shakespeare naturally fell into the same forms of expression as those he has previously made use of in his poems, and occasionally repeated himself both in thought and word.”

(Mr. SMITH is a resident of Melbourne--an editorial writer on the _Argus_.)

145 BACON, NOT SHAKESPEARE. By W. T., in rejoinder to the _Shakespeare, not Bacon_, of J. S. [By Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON]. Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 16.

_Anti-Sh._

A portion of this only appears in an addenda to _Romance and Reality_.

“The bare fact that the dramas and poems are from the same hand
has never been doubted, but I affirm that _not_ Shakespeare
but Bacon wrote both. J. S. only compares Shakespeare with
Shakespeare, but he does not compare Shakespeare with Bacon,
as he necessarily must do before he can confute any inference
deduced from that comparison. * * * He, therefore, dare not allow
himself to become acquainted with the contents of my book, whose
syllogism is--

“Whoever wrote the _Sonnets_ wrote the _Plays_.
I show Bacon to have writ the _Sonnets_;
Therefore, Bacon also wrote the _Plays_.”

146 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION. By E. H. PLUMPTRE, D.D. In the _Spectator_, London, August 24, 1881. (Copied in _Good Literature_, New York, September 17, 1881.)

_Unc._

This does not refer to the Bacon-Shakespeare question proper, but the title is inserted as Dr. Thomson answered it from the standpoint of the authorship. (See title 156.)

147 THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. By APPLETON MORGAN, A.M., L.L.B., author of “The Law of Literature,” “Notes to Best’s Principles of Evidence,” etc., etc. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1881. 8vo. pp. 342.

_Anti-Sh._

This work is an enlargement of the four articles under the same title, appearing in _Appletons’ Journal_ in 1879 and 1880.

Mr. MORGAN adopts the editorial or proprietary theory. He gives a schedule of the difficulties connected with the question of the authorship, and a digest of the several theories framed to meet them. He states his reasons for rejecting all of the latter, and offers a new synthetic theory in their place, somewhat as follows:

“I. From contemporary evidence, recorded in law courts and public
offices, we are, perhaps, better informed of the _personnel_
of William Shakespeare, than of any other private gentleman of
Elizabeth’s reign.

“II. There can be no doubt that he came to London in great
poverty, and in a comparatively few years’ residence, was enabled
to retire with a fortune which--although variously estimated by
his friends and rivals--was certainly very large for those days.

“III. To have accumulated so large a fortune in so short a time
by literary labor would have been exceptional in any case, but
the mental equipment brought by William Shakespeare to London
does not seem to have been equal to such an accumulation in
his; it certainly was not equal to the _Venus and Adonis_, the
_Hamlet_, and the other masterpieces which began to crowd upon
each other--in none of which can any trace of Warwickshire
dialect or origin be found.

“IV. If, however, Shakespeare made his fortune in the management
of theatres (which became popular in London at this time, and
in which he met but indifferent competition), it is reasonable
to suppose that these plays, being exclusively secured by him,
and becoming popular through his stage handling, came to be, not
only the sources of his fortune, but identified and called by his
name; certainly, less unreasonable (however exceptional) than to
rest all this poetry, pathos, philosophy, and human experience
in the genius of a letterless rustic, with a reputation in
his native village for scapegrace escapades, gallantries, and
poaching expeditions, rather than for meditation, study, or
literary composition.

“V. But while claiming for Shakespeare a proprietary rather than
a productive title in the plays, Mr. Morgan is very far from
estimating him a dummy. ‘Surely it is a less violent supposition
that this funny Mr. Shakespeare, as he wrote out the parts in big
round hand, improved on or interpolated a palpable hit, a droll
speech, the last popular song; or sketched entire a role with
a name familiar to his boyish ear--the village butt or sot, or
justice of the peace, or why not some fellow-scapegrace of olden
times by Avon banks. He did it with a swift touch and mellow
humor that relieved and refreshed the stately speeches--making
the play all the more available.’ * * *

“VI. The only testimony really negativing this view is Ben
Jonson’s. But that this is mere mortuary eulogy--is anything
but the sort of evidence ‘we accept in our personal affairs,
our courts of justice, in matters in which we have anything
at stake, or any living interest’ (p. 131), and is, moreover,
perfectly disposed of by Jonson himself, in his _Discoveries_,
and conversations with Drummond, when he commends Shakespeare’s
fluency and industry, but omits all mention of him in his list of
eminent writers, poets, and thinkers of that age.

“Mr. Morgan disclaims any conjectures as to the authors of
the Shakespearean text. But while admitting that Bacon, or
even Raleigh, may have had a hand in them, insists that the
extant records of Elizabeth’s day (and what are extant are a
presumptive clue to such as have disappeared) point directly to
a proprietary, rather than any other description of interest, in
the plays and poems in William Shakespeare.”

We give a portion of the closing paragraph:

* * * “Having lost ‘our Shakespeare’ both to-day and forever, it
will doubtless remain--as it is--the question, ‘Who wrote the
Shakespearean dramas?’ The evidence is all in--the testimony
is all taken. Perhaps it is a secret that even Time will never
tell, that is hidden down in the crypt and sacristy of the
Past, whose seal shall never more be broken. In the wise land
of China it is said that where a man has deserved well of the
State, his countrymen honor, with houses and lands and gifts
and decorations, not himself, but his father and his mother.
Perhaps, learning a lesson from the Celestials, we might rear a
shaft to the fathers and mothers of the Immortality that wrote
the Book of Nature, the mighty book which ‘age can not wither,
nor custom stale,’ and whose infinite variety for three centuries
has been, and, until Time shall be no more, will be close to the
hearts of every age and cycle of men--household words for ever
and ever. The Book--thank heaven!--that nothing can divorce from
us.”

(Mr. APPLETON MORGAN, whose frequent contributions to this controversy will be found mentioned in this list, is a graduate of Racine College, Wisconsin, class of 1867. He is at present a resident of New York City--by profession, an attorney at law.)

148 WHO WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WAS. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE, of Washington. Two articles in the _Republic_, Washington, D. C., October 29 and November 5, 1881. 3 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

Mr. ADEE’S papers give the contemporary evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship.

149 THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE. In the _Republic_, Washington, D. C., November 12, 1881. 3 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

This article refers only incidentally to the authorship.

150 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” [By J. G. PYLE]. A review of Mr. Morgan’s book. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minnesota, November 15, 1881. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

“Such an addition as this volume to the evidence of the case
against Shakespeare, is a noteworthy event in the literary
world. * * * Mr. Morgan’s book, gathering up, in lawyer fashion,
the scattered threads of inconsistencies and improbabilities,
is a valuable and welcome addition to the evidence in this
controversy. * * * The questions raised long ago, and now
presented in form, make up an indictment which the Shakespearean
must break down by cogent explanations, or yield to the growing
belief that, whether the ‘myriad-minded’ Shakespeare be metaphor
or fact, he never wrote all that has come down the centuries as
his, to rank his name with the immortals.”

151 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. In the journals following:

_a_--Sandusky (O.) _Register_, November 15, 1881.

_b_--Pittsburgh _Telegraph_, November 15, 1881.

_c_--Cincinnati _Gazette_, November 15, 1881.

_d_--Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, November 19, 1881.

_e_--Sacramento (Cal.) _Record-Union_, Nov. 19, 1881.

_f_--Philadelphia _American_, November 26, 1881.

_Unc._

152 A BRIEF AGAINST SHAKESPEARE. In the _Tribune_, New York, November 25, 1881. 1 column.

_Pro-Sh._

A review of the _Myth_:

* * * “The presumption, for example, that Mr. Appleton Morgan is
the author of the book before us is so strong, so overwhelming,
that nobody living will entertain the thought of addressing
a question on that point to the publishers; and yet we have
absolutely no evidence of the fact, except the implied assertion
of the title-page; no more evidence, indeed--and no less--than
we have that Shakespeare wrote the plays that bear his name.
Three hundred years hence it will be as impossible to prove
that Mr. Morgan really wrote the book, as it is now to prove
that Shakespeare wrote the plays, and for some man of the
twenty-second century to argue that some other lawyer probably
wrote it, merely because there is no way of proving that the
alleged is the real authorship, will be no more illogical than
Mr. Morgan’s parallel argument in the Shakespeare case is.”

153 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A review of Mr. Morgan’s book, by N. H. [NATHANIEL HOLMES]. Printed in the St. Louis _Globe Democrat_, November 17, 1881. 1½ columns.

_Anti-Sh._

“We have to regret that the author’s ‘scope’ did not allow him
to bring his critical abilities to bear on a comparison of the
plays with the writings of Francis Bacon. Hidden down deep in
the crypt, a ‘Delian diver’ like him might possibly find the
key that would unlock the principal secret. Not that he appears
himself so much to controvert that possibility--it seems not
to have come within his historical and circumstantial point of
view. * * * The theory that manuscripts were brought to the
theatre by sundry authors, to be scissored and adapted by the
manager, strikes out at one stroke, or tacitly overlooks, nearly
all that has ever been peculiar (_sui generis_), extraordinary,
precious and wonderful in this work; * * * it leaves them open to
manifold contributors, as if such a thing as this Shakespearean
drama really is, however the case may have been with Homer, or
the psalms of David, were at all possible in that way; and we
are strongly inclined to think that this mode of creation of it,
though perhaps possible to some extent, may prove to be, on the
whole, as mythical as the man William himself.”

154 DR. THOMSON’S PAMPHLETS. A notice of two of the pamphlets, in the _Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin, November 23, 1881.

_Unc._

An extract from this will be found under title 121.

155 HISTORICAL ICONOCLASTS. What are we to believe? Joan of Arc, William Tell, Marshal Ney, Pocahontas, Powhatan, Captain Kidd, etc. gone! Is Shakespeare to follow? By JOHN W. BELL. In the Toledo (O.) _Blade_, December 4, 1881. 1½ columns.

_Anti-Sh._

The tenor of this article is sufficiently indicated by the head-lines given above.

156 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION, in reply to Dean PLUMPTRE. By W. T. [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON.] Melbourne, December 10, 1881. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 39.

_Anti-Sh._

Though Dean Plumptre’s paper did not refer to the question of the authorship, Dr. Thomson answers it from that standpoint.

157 SHAKESPEARE IN AMERIKA. EINE LITERARHISTORISCHE STUDIE. Von KARL KNORTZ. Berlin: Verlag von Theodor Hofmann. 1882. pp. 85. (SHAKESPEARE IN AMERICA. A LITERARY-HISTORICAL STUDY.)

_Pro-Sh._

This book, though printed in Berlin, is really an American work, as it was written in this country. Pages 29 to 41 are devoted to a review of the works on the authorship question. Mr. Knortz sums up his conclusions against the Baconian theory, and adds:

(_Translation._) “Yet this controversy did some good; it induced
the public to give more attention to the works of these two
Englishmen; but it especially promoted the study of Shakespeare.”

(KARL KNORTZ is well known as the author of several works on American literature, translations of American poetry, etc.--for the most part printed in Germany. He resides in New York.)

158 THE POLITICAL ALLEGORIES IN THE RENASCENCE DRAMA OF FRANCIS BACON. By WILLIAM THOMSON, F.R.C.S. Melbourne: Sands & McDougall, 1882. Pamphlet, pp. 46.

_Anti-Sh._

Dr. THOMSON here carries out his idea of the political purpose, alludes to the forthcoming _Promus_, and replies to his critics of the Australian press. He answers Dr. Stearns at considerable length, and recapitulates and expands his own arguments as to Bacon’s authorship of the Sonnets.

159 SPEDDING’S VINDICATION OF BACON. A review of “_Spedding’s Evenings with a Reviewer; or, Macaulay and Bacon_.” By R. M. THEOBALD. In the _Nonconformist and Independent_, London. Two articles, January 12, 1882; and January 26, 1882. 5 columns.

_Unc._

These papers contain a reference to the Northumberland manuscripts.

160 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES. Bacon’s Essex-Sonnet, and Thomson’s Renascence Drama. By Dr. C. M. INGLEBY. v. 62, January 28, 1882.

_Pro-Sh._

161 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH:

_a_--_Saturday Review_, London, January 28, 1882.

_b_--Milwaukee _Sentinel_, February 12, 1882.

_c_--Washington _Post_, April 24, 1882.

_d_--Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, July 22, 1882.

_Unc._

162 FRANCIS BACON AND SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. In the _Oracle_, London, February 4, 1882. 2 columns.

_Unc._

This is in answer to the request of L. J. M. for information, and gives, in a short form, the arguments (evidently condensed from Vaile’s paper in _Scribner_) used to support the anti-Shakespearian theory, with a list of the authorities.

163 QUERY 4275. In _Notes and Queries_ column, _Evening Transcript_, Boston, February 13, 1882.

_Unc._

It having been intimated that Delia Bacon was induced to commence her investigations through a fancied relationship to the family of Lord Bacon, this query asked for information on that point. The answers, five in number, give various references and authorities, but no definite answer to the question. The fact seems to be that no such consanguinity was ever claimed.

164 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, of dates following:

_a_--Letter of Appleton Morgan, with answer, February 25, 1882.

_b_--“The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature,” October 21, 1882.

_Unc._

165 REPORT TO THE BRITISH MUSEUM on behalf of the Annals of Great Britain and the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Discovery and opening of the cipher of Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, alike in his prose writings and the “Shakespere” dramas, proving him the author of the dramas. By Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Jos. Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1882. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 40.

_Anti-Sh._

Mrs. WINDLE’S second pamphlet. We would rather avoid any mention of this if it could be done with justice to the history of the discussion. The following extract from the article (title 179), on the author and her latest essay, in the San Francisco _Chronicle_ of August 20, 1882, will give an idea of the extraordinary unreason of this effusion:

“The text of this irrational essay seems to have been the passage
in Bacon’s _De Augmentis Scientiarum_ on Ciphers, and putting
this to the idea of allegory, she gets, as the result, the belief
that all of Shakspere’s (Bacon’s) plays are written in cipher.
The nature of that cipher is a puzzler, indeed; it is cabalistic,
it is bi-lateral, it has a Biblical aspect, it is prophetic,
it is under a spell, it is commodious, it is adroit, and it is
altogether the most extraordinary example of moonshine and vagary
that the curious could wish to puzzle over. The reader, however,
had best judge for himself by an example or two. The title of
every play has its explanatory catch. That of _Othello_ is:

A tale, oh! I tell, oh!
Oh, dell, oh! What wail, oh!
Oh, hill, oh! What willow!
What hell, oh! What will, oh!
At will, oh! At well, oh!
I dwell, oh!

“All the characters in the play have their attendant jingles.
_Desdemona_ goes ‘With a demon A, with a moan, ah!’ and means
the double tragedy of Bacon’s muse; and _Emilia_ stands with
‘I’m ill, you, I mill you,’ and refers to ‘the expression of
Bacon’s ill, continued in play after play, as milestones of
his life.’ All the characters are sphinxes and riddle-mongers;
they are ‘related cues’ to everything under the sun, and it all
means--nothing. Similar catches and symbols are repeated in all
the plays. _Titus Andronicus_ has:

Tie t’ us and drone accuse;
Tie t’ us and drown a curse;
Tie t’ us and drum the news.

“This play is Bacon’s judgment of his own case, since _Martius_
means ‘March you us,’ and refers to his service; _Publius_
means ‘Publish us,’ and refers to his fame, etc. As the work
goes on, even the plays are not adhered to, and Holy Writ and
Montaigne’s Essays come in for an equal share of ‘explanation.’
If by this time the value of Mrs. Windle’s discovery is not
apparent, it will need no further extracts to know that too close
an application to ‘a startling exemplification in philological
science’ has wrought its mischief and unsettled a mind which,
with proper use, might have produced something more valuable and
less pitiable than a Cipher.”

166 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES.

_a_--Bacon a poet, by Henry G. Atkinson, V, 205, March 18, 1882.

_b_--Answer to above, by Dr. Ingleby, V, 316, April 22, 1882.

_c_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 277, September 30, 1882.

_d_--From Este, VI, 416, November 18, 1882.

_e_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 492, December 16, 1882.

_Unc._

167 SHYLOCK’S CASE. By NATHANIEL HOLMES. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, Utah, April, 1882. 13 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

This is a review of _The Struggle for Law_, by Dr. Rudolph von Ihering, of Göttingen, who maintains that injustice was done to Shylock. Judge Holmes’s argument is that the writer of the Trial Act in the _Merchant of Venice_ was a skillful lawyer--in fact, Bacon himself.

168 “MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A notice of the book in the _Westminster Review_, London, April 1, 1882. 2 pages.

_Pro-Sh._

169 JUDGE HOLMES AND HIS GREAT SUBJECT--FRANCIS BACON. By E. W. TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, April, 1882. 8 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

170 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE LITERATURE. By W. H. W. [W. H. WYMAN]. In the Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, April 24, 1882. 5 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

A partial Bibliographical list (25 titles), with some account of Delia Bacon, and an outline of the origin, history, and arguments of the controversy.

171 THE BIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. By F. [EDWARD FILLEBROWN, Brookline, Mass.] In the Brookline _Chronicle_, May 27, 1882. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

172 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” By R. M. THEOBALD. In the _Nonconformist and Independent_, London, June 1, 1882. 2 columns.

_Anti-Sh._

A comprehensive and favorable review of the _Myth_: