Chapter V: Part 5

243 THE SONNETS OF SHAKESPEARE. WHEN, TO WHOM, AND BY WHOM WRITTEN. By ANTIQUARY. (Reprinted from the _Truth Seeker_, New York, of August 18, 1883.) Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 12.

_Anti-Sh._

The author gives the dedication of the Sonnets:

“To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. H. all
happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our ever-living
poet | wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting forth
| T. T.”

The American Cyclopedia says:

“To whom they were written, and in whose person [T. T.] is among
the most difficult of unsolved literary problems. * * * Who this
‘onlie begetter’ was, no man has yet been able satisfactorily to
show.”

The writer discusses the various theories on this subject. His conclusions may be summed up in the following extract:

“All the internal and external evidence points to the year 1590
as the date, Francis Bacon as the writer, and the Earl of Essex
as the person addressed.”

244 MR. MORGAN AND SHAKESPEARE. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, August 19, 1883, introducing a letter from Appleton Morgan. 1½ columns.

_Anti-Sh._

This refers mainly to Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, which (Mr. Morgan claims) proves that “many hands and many brains were concerned in composing the works we call Shakespeare.”

245 THE GOUT CLUB DISCUSSES THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the _Tribune_, Denver, Col., October 14, 1883. 3 columns.

_Unc._

What is here called the Gout Club of Denver, consists of a few congenial spirits who meet socially and discuss various subjects in an informal way. In this article various gentlemen are credited with opinions and speeches on the question. The colloquists consist of Col. Ward H. Lamon, Col. J. B. Belford, Judge Ward, Col. Craig, Major Carson, Col. Dormer, and Judge Steck.

Reference is made in this discussion to an article, _Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Henry VIII?_ by J. S. [JAMES SPEDDING], in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for August, 1850, as the earliest mention of a doubt as to the authorship. (The date is erroneously given as February, 1852.) That article, however, does not raise the general question of the authorship, but simply claims to discover the hand of Fletcher in a portion of this play, as a co-worker with Shakespeare.

246 THE OFFER TO THE NEW SHAKESPERE SOCIETY. In the _Academy_, London, November 24, 1883.

_Unc._

The “curiosities” of this literature would be incomplete without the following:

“Mr. Furnivall, as director of the New Shakespere Society, has
received an amusing letter from New South Wales. A gentleman
there has, after seven years’ search, discovered, not only the
well-known historical character who wrote all Shakespeare’s plays
and poems, but the very month and spot in which eleven of the
plays were written, and the probable date and locality in which
the rest were composed, the author’s object in writing them,
and the historical characters and events meant by the dramatic
ones; further, that one character was interpolated, and one
entire play was written by the author after Shakespeare’s death.
This antipodean discoverer can also now date and explain all
the Sonnets except four (123, 124, 144, 146), and those ‘will
be explained on a future occasion.’ He knows who ‘Mr. W. H.,’
the begetter of the Sonnets, was, and all the persons to whom
they were addressed; and he can show that our royal family is
descended from Perdita. So certain is the researcher of the
value of his discoveries that he offers to come to London and
unfold his secrets to the New Shakespere Society, if only they
will guarantee him the payment of £30,000 in case he can convince
the majority of them of the truth of his discoveries. A letter
from the Premier of New South Wales attests the high standing and
sanity of the discoverer.”

247 NOTES ON JULIUS CÆSAR. By WM. J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana_ (the new Shakespearian monthly. New York: Leonard Scott Publishing Co.), for December, 1883.

_Pro-Sh._

A part only of the article refers to this subject:

“The closeness with which the dramatist follows Plutarch in
Julius Cæsar and the other Roman plays has been noted by the
commentators generally. * * * Even the blunders of Plutarch,
or of his copyists or editors (as _Decius Brutus_ for _Decimus
Brutus_, _Calphurnia_ for _Calpurnia_, and the like), are
literally reproduced in the play. To my mind this is proof
positive that Bacon did not write it. He was too good a scholar
to follow blindly the translation of a translation, repeating
errors which a scholar would neither make himself nor fail to
detect in another; and he was too independent to adopt the views
of any one authority without comparing them with others that were
equally well known to him.”

248 LAWYER OR NO LAWYER. Letter from APPLETON MORGAN. In _Shakespeariana_, New York, for January, 1884.

_Anti-Sh._

Mr. Morgan argues from the “grave-digger travesty” in _Hamlet_, and the trial scene in the _Merchant of Venice_, that “William Shakespeare was neither a lawyer nor a lawyer’s clerk.”

“It is wicked to peep and botanize over the magnificent and
matchless poetry of that matchless trial scene. But if it is
worth while to find out who wrote that magnificent and matchless
poetry, these questions ought not to be stifled.”

249 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE? By Prof. J. H. GILMORE. In the _Standard_, Chicago, January 31, 1884. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

“The plays do not evince _learning_, but _genius_. They are
especially deficient in that refinement which springs from
thorough culture, and which Bacon pre-eminently possessed.
Indeed, as insisted by Dowden, the whole habit and spirit of
Bacon’s mind and the mind of Shakespeare were different.”

The comparison of Shakespeare and Bacon alluded to above will be found in DOWDEN’S _Shakespeare: His Mind and Art_, pages 16, 17.

250 “WHO WAS HOLOFERNES?” By Mrs. HENRY POTT. In _Shakespeariana_, New York, for February, 1884. 2 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

This was occasioned by an article of Mr. Henry Hooper’s, in _Shakespeariana_, for December, 1883, under the same title, intimating that Shakespeare had Lord Bacon in his mind as the model for _Holofernes_, the pedantic schoolmaster in _Love’s Labor Lost_. Mrs. Pott believes that the character of _Holofernes_ was drawn by Bacon himself as an example of “pedantic and wordy affectations,” and quotes from his works to sustain her opinion.

251 THE LAW IN SHAKESPEARE. By C. K. DAVIS. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1884. 12mo. pp. 303.

_Pro-Sh._

An index of Legal Terms and References in the plays, with an introduction (pages 3-59) devoted to the Baconian theory in part.

“And now comes some one and says that here is more proof that
Shakespeare is a mere _alias_ for Bacon. It is difficult to touch
or let alone this vagary with any patience. One is inclined to
protest simply in the words of Shakespeare’s epitaph:

Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare
To digg the dust encloased heare,

and pass on, deeming all secure against a desecration worse than
that which the poet cursed.

* * * * *

“Charles I. was sixteen years of age when Shakespeare died.
Bacon dedicated to him his history of Henry VII. Shakespeare in
Macbeth nobly magnified the House of Stuart by a prophecy of its
perpetuity. The works of Shakespeare were the closet companion of
Charles, who was reproached for this by Milton, at a time when
the fierce zealots of rebellion had come to look upon the drama
as sinful. Falkland was Charles’s councilor, and it is from him
that we have respecting Caliban, the first critical estimate
extant of any character in Shakespeare. And yet from prince,
king, courtier, poet, or scholar, we hear no hint which can give
this modern theory the slightest support.”

252 DAVIS’S “THE LAW IN SHAKESPEARE.” Two articles in the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, February 24, 1884. [By APPLETON MORGAN].

_a_--Review of the book. 2½ columns.

_b_--Gov. Davis on Shakespeare. ½ column.

_Anti-Sh._

The following is the conclusion of the last named article:

“Gov. Davis has added a notable contribution to the material
accumulating to answer this question, if answered it ever is to
be. The Baconians will, perhaps, accuse him of unprofessional
conduct in moving to cross off the roll of Shakespearean
possibilities the name of a great lawyer and Lord Chancellor.
But they will find their consolation in the fact that here
is an entirely new arsenal for carrying on their warfare.
For nobody has ever so unmistakably shown the lawyer in the
plays before. In fact, Gov. Davis will thus find his peace all
around. Shakespeareans will purr him for his heavy blows at the
Baconians; Baconians will secretly approve him for building
better than he knew when he traced an aristocratic lawyer in
every Shakespearean line; and the neutral student will add the
book to his Shakespeariana, among the fresh rather than the
stale matter, with pleasure and thanksgiving. No Minnesotian
will fail to feel honored that one of our most distinguished
fellow-citizens has, for the first time, drawn from the history
of Francis Bacon, if not from that of William Shakespeare, an
almost insuperable and insurmountable reason why Francis Bacon,
at least, could not have been William Himself.”

253 THE BACONIAN THEORY. Review of the _Promus_, in the _Times_, New York, Feb. 25, 1884. 1 column.

_Pro-Sh._

“In publishing this _Promus_, Mrs. Pott has not only failed to
prove that Bacon wrote Shakespeare’s plays, but she has gone
a long way toward proving that Bacon could not possibly have
written them. It is inconceivable that a poet in keeping a note
book of phrases, etc., to be used in his finished work, should
not frequently write out in the glow of creation, whole passages,
or, at least, consecutive lines of verse, to be afterward
incorporated in his poem. Let any one compare, for instance,
Hawthorne’s note book with his tales and romances. He will find
entire pages transferred almost bodily from the former into the
latter. He will find scores of metaphors, similes, reflections,
outlines for stories, descriptions, incidents, etc., the
language of which is reproduced, in great part literally, in the
completed works of the romancer. There is no such resemblance
to be detected anywhere between the fragmentary jottings in the
_Promus_ and the text of Shakespeare’s plays. On the other hand,
there are in the _Promus_ numbers of quotations and sentences
which Bacon did use in his acknowledged writings, and in such
cases the language is almost always identical, and any one
familiar with the Essays, _e. g._ will recognize the source of
many sayings that have struck his mind.”

254 SHAKESPEARE AS A FOREIGN LINGUIST. By Prof. JAMES A. HARRISON. In _Shakespeariana_, New York, for March, 1884.

_Pro-Sh._

This paper merely refers to the authorship in this suggestive question:

“If Bacon had been the author of these plays, would he not have
strewn them with innumerable Latinisms?”

255 WHOSE SONNETS? By APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Manhattan_, New York, May, 1884. 8 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

“Either these Sonnets are those mentioned as circulating among
Shakespeare’s private friends prior to 1598, or they are not.
If they are, they are as doubtfully his as is the rest of the
literary matter given by Meres, so far as we know. If they are
not, then they have no claim to be called Shakespeare’s except
from the fact that his name was put on the title pages of three
books of verses, among which verses they appeared.”

INDEX TO TITLES.

In this index is included, not only the writers, but others who
are mentioned as having expressed opinions. Where initials or
assumed names are used, and the name of the writer is not known,
the articles are indexed only to the magazine or other serial in
which they appeared. References are to Title numbers, not pages.

ABBOTT, Dr. EDWIN A., 187.

_Academy_, London, 246.

ADEE, ALVEY A., 199, 203, 209, 215, 225.

ADEE, DAVID GRAHAM, 148, 149.

_Advance_, Chicago, 49.

_Advertiser_, Boston, 189.

AINSLIE, TH., 65.

ALLEN, T. S., 177.

_Allgemeine Zeitung_, Stuttgart, 205, 206.

ALLIBONE, S. AUSTIN, 104.

_American_, Philadelphia, 151.

_American Register_, Paris, 108.

_Appletons’ Journal_, N. Y., 114, 116.

_Argus and Radical_, Beaver, Pa., 54.

_Argus_, Melbourne, 144.

_Athenæum_, London, 5, 8, 14, 16, 18, 22, 46, 196.

ATKINSON, HENRY G., 120, 123, 166, 176, 181, 183, 186.

_Atlantic Monthly_, Boston, 27, 217.

BACON, Miss DELIA, 4, 17.

BEECHER, HENRY WARD, 70.

BELFORD, J. B., 245.

BELL, JOHN W., 155, 178, 240.

_Bell’s Weekly Messenger_, London, 117.

BENTON, MYRON B., 116.

_Bibliographer_, London, 182.

_Bibliopolist (American)_, N. Y., 57.

_Blackwood’s Magazine_, Edinburgh, 11.

_Blade_, Toledo, O., 155.

BOHN, HENRY G., 28.

_Boston Public Library Bulletin_, 216.

BOUCICAULT, DION, 61.

BRADFORD, Rev. A. B., 54.

BRADY, JAMES T., 62.

BRALEY, A. B., 233.

_British Quarterly Review_, London, 174.

BROUGHAM, JOHN, 62.

BUCCELLATI, Prof. ANTONIO, 94.

BUCKTON, T. J., 26.

_Bulletin_, Philadelphia, 64.

BULLOCH, JOHN, 105, 106.

BURGESS, J. B., 65.

BURK, ADDISON B., 68.

BURTON, WILLIAM E., 62.

BUTLER, Gen. B. F., 95.

CALDWELL, GEORGE S., 98.

CALKINS, E. A., 214.

_Canadian Monthly_, Toronto, 119.

CARLYLE, THOMAS, 73, 131.

CARSON, Major, 245.

CARVALHO, S. N., 77.

_Catholic World_, New York, 101.

CATTELL, CHARLES C., 103, 112, 113, 123, 130.

_Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal_, 2.

_Christian Observer_, Richmond, 45.

_Christian Register_, Boston, 88.

_Chronicle_, Brookline, Mass., 171.

_Chronicle_, Newcastle, Eng., 92.

_Chronicle_, San Francisco, 165, 179.

_Church Eclectic_, Utica, N. Y., 126, 232.

_Civil Service Review_, 90.

CLARKE, Rev. J. FREEMAN, 132.

_Clipper_, New York, 51.

CLOSE, RICHARD COLAMA, 127.

COLQUHOUN, Sir PATRICK, 117.

_Commercial Gazette_, Cincinnati, 229, 234, 240.

_Commonwealth_, Boston, 218.

CONWAY, MONCURE D., 131, 234.

_Cornell Review_, Ithaca, N. Y., 87.

CORSON, Prof. HIRAM, 71, 87.

_Courant_, Hartford, Conn., 197.

_Courier_, Lebanon, Pa., 70.

CRAIG, Col., 245.

CROSBY, JOSEPH, 81, 126, 129, 231.

DAVEY, R., 63.

DAVIS, C. K., 251.

DAVIS, L. CLARKE, 71.

DIXON, WILLIAM HEPWORTH, 93.

DONNELLY, IGNATIUS, 53.

DORMER, Col., 245.

DOUGHERTY, DANIEL, 65.

_Eagle_, Brooklyn, 34, 61.

ENGEL, Dr. EDUARD, 236.

_Enquirer_, Cincinnati, 179.

_Evening Post_, New York, 44.

FARRAR, Mrs. JOHN, 30.

FERRIER, WILLIAM W., 133, 142.

FILLEBROWN, EDWARD, 171, 218.

FOLLETT, O., 118, 138, 220.

_Fraser’s Magazine_, London, 29, 41, 58.

_Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin, 121, 154.

FURNESS, HORACE HOWARD, 63.

FURNIVALL, F. J., 97.

_Gazette_, Birmingham, Eng., 48.

_Gazette_, Cincinnati, 151.

_Gazette_, Washington, 190.

GILMORE, J. H., 249.

_Globe Democrat_, St. Louis, 153.

_Globe_, London, 117.

_Golden Age_, 54.

_Good Literature_, New York, 146.

HACKETT, JAMES H., 44, 62.

HACKETT, Recorder, 67.

HALL, A. OAKEY, 62.

_Harper’s Magazine_, New York, 43.

HARRISON, Prof. JAMES A., 254.

HART, Prof. JOHN S., 78.

HART, JOSEPH C., 1.

HARTE, BRET, 61.

_Harvard University Bulletin_, 135.

HAWTHORNE, NATHANIEL, 6, 17, 22, 24, 27.

HENSHAW, Mrs. SARAH E., 49.

_Herald_, Angola, Ind., 133, 142.

_Herald_, New York, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80.

_Herald_, Stratford-on-Avon, 144.

HIGGINS, Rev. Father, 200.

HINTON, RICHARD J., 39, 190.

HOLL, H., 136.

HOLMES, NATHANIEL, 32, 93, 153, 167, 200.

_Home Journal_, New York, 36.

HOOPER, HENRY, 229, 250.

HOPPER, A., 9.

_Hornet_, London, 91.

HUDSON, Rev. HENRY N., 122.

_Illustrated London News_, 10, 12, 13.

INGLEBY, Dr. C. M., 12, 59, 81, 83, 99, 100, 122, 160, 166, 237,
242.

_Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, 151.

_Jewish Messenger_, New York, 37.

_Journal des Debats_, Paris, 107.

KING, THOMAS D., 84.

KNORTZ, KARL, 157.

LAMON, WARD H., 245.

LEACH, Rev. WILLIAM T., 84.

LEIGHTON, WILLIAM, JR., 230.

LELAND, T. C., 214.

_L’Instruction Publique_, Paris, 109.

_Literary Gazette_, London, 7, 16, 19.

_Literary World_, Boston, 115, 125, 134, 140, 164, 188, 204, 209,
225, 237.

_Littell’s Living Age_, Boston, 6, 58.

_Mail_, Birmingham, Eng., 227.

_Manhattan_, New York, 255.

_Memoriale Diplomatique_, Paris, 94.

_Mercury_, Leeds, Eng., 221.

_Mercury (Sunday)_, Philadelphia, 55.

_Methodist_, New York, 40.

_Modern Thought_, London, 185.

MORGAN, APPLETON, 114, 147, 164, 184, 188, 213, 219, 222, 228, 232,
244, 248, 252, 255.

_Morning Journal_, Cincinnati, 223.

_Nation_, New York, 33, 211.

_National Reformer_, London, 183, 186.

_National Review_, London, 20.

_Nederlandsche Spectator_, The Hague, 110.

_News_, Milwaukee, 70.

_Nonconformist and Independent_, London, 159, 172.

_North American Review_, Boston and New York, 23, 42, 132.

_Northwestern_, Oshkosh, Wis., 177.

_Notes and Queries_, London, 3, 9, 26, 31, 59, 83, 100, 160, 166.

O’CONNOR, WILLIAM D., 24, 241.

O’LEARY, Prof., 74.

_Oracle_, London, 162.

OWENS, JOHN E., 65.

_Pall Mall Gazette_, London, 224.

PALMERSTON, Lord, 29, 95.

_Philosophic Inquirer_, Madras, India, 176.

PIERREPONT, EDWARDS, 65.

_Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, 150, 212, 213, 222, 239, 244, 252.

PLUMPTRE, Rev. E. H., 146.

POLLOCK, DAVID, 78.

_Post_, Boston, 66, 219.

_Post (Evening)_, Hartford, Conn., 193.

_Post_, Washington, 161.

POTT, Mrs. HENRY, 187, 239, 250.

_Press_, Philadelphia, 61, 64.

PRICHARD, J. V., 58, 80.

PRIOR, Sir JAMES, 25.

_Punch_, London, 201.

_Putnam’s Monthly_, New York, 5.

PYLE, J. G., 150, 212.

_Record_, Philadelphia, 197.

_Record-Union_, Sacramento, Cal., 151.

REES, JAMES, 55.

_Register_, Sandusky, O., 151, 220.

_Register_, Wheeling, W. Va., 230, 231.

_Republic (Sunday)_, Philadelphia, 56.

_Republic_, Washington, 148, 149, 199, 203, 215, 228.

_Republican_, Angola, Ind., 139, 238.

_Republican_, Springfield, Mass., 38.

_Republican_, St. Louis, 72, 200.

RICHARDSON, Dr. B. W., 136.

ROBERTS, R. P. HAMPTON, 100.

ROBINSON, W. S., 38.

ROLFE, WILLIAM J., 115, 125, 134, 209, 225, 247.

ROSS, J. WILSON, 185.

_Round Table_, New York, 35, 39.

RYE, FRANCIS, 119.

_Saturday Reader_, Montreal, 47.

_Saturday Review_, London, 89, 161, 195.

_Scribner’s Monthly_, New York, 82, 85, 86.

_Secular Review_, London, 123, 181.

SEDGWICK, A. G., 42.

_Sentinel_, Indianapolis, 70.

_Sentinel_, Milwaukee, 161, 184, 202.

SHACKFORD, Rev. C. C., 23.

_Shakespeariana_, New York, 247, 248, 250, 254.

SHOEMAKER, W. L., 204.

SKIPTON, H. S., 59, 83.

SLOCOMB, R., 9.

SMITH, GEORGE B., 177.

SMITH, JAMES, 144.

SMITH, LUCY TOULMIN, 81.

SMITH, WILLIAM HENRY, 6, 9, 14, 21, 22, 48.

_Southern Quarterly Review_, New Orleans, 124.

_Spectator_, London, 146, 207.

SPEDDING, JAMES, 52, 93, 245.

_Spiritualist_, London, 120.

_Standard_, Chicago, 249.

_State Journal_, Madison, Wis., 161, 170, 178.

STEARNS, CHAS. W., 50.

STECK, Judge, 245.

STEDMAN, E. C., 62.

STOUDER, O. C., 128.

_St. James’s Gazette_, London, 208.

STRONACH, GEORGE, 91.

_Sun_, New York, 198.

TAVERNER, Prof. J. W., 96.

_Telegraph_, London, 117.

_Telegraph (Sunday)_, Milwaukee, 214, 233.

_Telegraph_, Pittsburg, 151.

THEOBALD, R. M., 159, 172.

THOMSON, Dr. WILLIAM, 102, 121, 137, 145, 156, 158, 194.

_Times_, New York, 64, 253.

_Times-Star_, Cincinnati, 235.

TIMMINS, SAM., 227.

TOWNE, Rev. EDWARD C., 88, 192, 226.

TOWNSEND, GEO. H., 15.

_Transcript (Evening)_, Boston, 163, 180, 192, 226.

_Transcript_, Oakland, Cal., 69.

_Tribune_, Chicago, 189.

_Tribune_, Denver, Col., 198, 245.

_Tribune_, Minneapolis, Minn., 53.

_Tribune_, New York, 152, 210.

_Truth Seeker_, New York, 243.

TUEL, J. E., 70.

TULLIDGE, E. W., 141, 169, 173.

_Tullidge’s Quarterly_, Salt Lake, Utah, 141, 167, 169, 173.

VAILE, E. O., 85.

VARAGNAC, BERARD, 107, 108.

_Victorian Review_, Melbourne, 127.

VILLEMAIN, M. J., 109.

WALLACK, LESTER, 61.

WARD, C. A., 59, 83.

WARD, Judge, 245.

WARWICK, J. H., 139.

WEISS, JOHN, 111.

_Westminster Review_, London, 168.

WHEELER, A. C., 61.

WHITAKER, DANIEL K., 124.

WHITE, RICHARD GRANT, 61, 217.

WILKES, GEORGE, 58, 95.

WINDLE, Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD, 143, 165.

_Wittenberger Magazine_, Springfield, O., 128, 129.

WOODHULL, JOSEPH A., 238.

_World_, New York, 191.

WYMAN, W. H., 170, 175, 214.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.

Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg 30: ‘Chistian Observer’ replaced by ‘Christian Observer’.
Pg 44: ‘methaphysicians, etc.’ replaced by ‘metaphysicians, etc.’.
Pg 45: ‘a Milliion of’ replaced by ‘a Million of’.
Pg 51: ‘Skakespearian plays’ replaced by ‘Shakespearian plays’.
Pg 86: ‘amazing parodox’ replaced by ‘amazing paradox’.
Pg 105: ‘an extact from’ replaced by ‘an extract from’.
Pg 110: ‘the fadd of’ replaced by ‘the fad of’.