Part 1

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Three or four asterisks in a quotation indicates omitted text.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

--OF THE--

BACON-SHAKESPEARE

CONTROVERSY,

--WITH--

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

BY W. H. WYMAN.

“Shikspur! Shikspur! Who wrote it?” Miss KITTY, in _High Life Below Stairs_.

CINCINNATI: PETER G. THOMSON, 1884.

COPYRIGHTED, 1884, BY W. H. WYMAN.

PREFACE.

In July, 1882, the compiler of this work issued a small privately-printed _Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature_, including all the titles then ascertained--63 in number. Since that time, additional titles and interesting material have so accumulated that he has thought proper to present this volume--the work, or amusement of leisure evenings--believing that the discussion has reached a point that entitles it to as complete a Bibliography as can be made. While personally entertaining no doubts as to Shakespeare’s authorship, he believes that the discussion has its compensating features in inciting a study of the Shakespearian dramas, and of the works as well of the dramatists and philosophers--in fact, the literary history--of the Elizabethan age. It is, perhaps, due to the various theorists that the ground-work of their opinions be known, and it is due no less to the memory of William Shakespeare that these adverse theories, and the arguments in answer, shall be so presented as to enable any one, who wishes to investigate the question, to form an intelligent opinion for himself.

As to the Bibliography, so far as titles are concerned, no pains have been spared to make it complete. It is believed to contain a list of all the books, pamphlets, and magazine articles on the question, as well as a large proportion of the reviews, the more important newspaper articles, etc. Of the latter, a few may be included that are unimportant--as it has been difficult to decide just where to draw the line--but the intention has been to include nothing, except some collateral matters of special interest, that is not of some use in the formation of an opinion.

While the endeavor has been to embody in some part of it, in a general way, all the main points of the discussion, this work does not pretend to be a complete reflex of all the arguments or the evidence adduced. It is simply a list of the titles, to which are added such brief memoranda as will give the main facts in regard to this literature, and something as to its authors. By the notes and extracts, an effort has been made to relieve the tediousness of a dry Bibliography. Where extracts are given, such have usually been chosen as were thought to embody some interesting feature, or a hint of the argument--these to be distributed so evenly as to leave no doubts of a bibliographical impartiality. In short, the aim has been to point out to those who desire this information just where it may be found. In common with one of the writers, who has adopted an expression of Lord Bacon’s: “We have only taken upon us to ring a bell, to call other wits together, which is the meanest office.”

And as to the extracts, an apology is doubtless due to the writers. It may well be appalling to the author of a book or an article, bristling with telling arguments and eloquent passages, to find here a quotation wrenched from its appropriate context, embodying only a single idea, and that, perhaps, the one he values least--or, possibly, none at all. The compiler admits all this in advance, with the single remark that he has made no attempt--it being simply impossible within the limits of this work--to do any sort of justice to the various productions, many of them learned, ingenious, and cultured.

The compilation and arrangement has not been without its difficulties. With such a varied mass of material--many of the articles being without any proper titles, it has been impossible to follow an exact Bibliographical formula. Though crude in this respect, it is hoped that it has been so arranged as to be intelligible. The titles have been placed chronologically as best calculated to show the history and progress of the discussion, thus rendering it necessary to divide a few, such as _Notes and Queries_, which would more properly come together. As it has been found impracticable to give a full explanation of many of the titles, the general tenor of each has been thus indicated:

FOR SHAKESPEARE, _Pro-Sh._ AGAINST SHAKESPEARE, _Anti-Sh._ UNCLASSIFIED, _Unc._

the last including all articles which for any reason can not be classed as For or Against.

A recapitulation of some of the main features of the Bibliography may be interesting:

Of the 255 titles, there are, For Shakespeare, 117; Against Shakespeare, 73; Unclassified, 65. In addition to the above, there are about 100 sub-titles, of more or less importance, represented by _a_, _b_, _c_, etc.

As to nationality, the origin of the articles (titles) may be classed as follows: American, 161; English, 69; Australian, 10; Scotch, 4; Canadian, 3; German, 2; French, 2; Italy, Holland, Ireland, and India, 1 each.

Taken chronologically, there appeared in 1848, 1; 1852, 1; 1853, 1; 1856, 9; 1857, 11; 1860, 2; 1862, 1; 1863, 2; 1865, 1; 1866, 12; 1867, 8; 1869, 2; 1870, 2; 1874, 28; 1875, 11; 1876, 2; 1877, 7; 1878, 9; 1879, 10; 1880, 9; 1881, 27; 1882, 30; 1883, 61; 1884, to date, 8. This can not, of course, be relied upon as giving more than an approximate idea of the relative progress of the controversy, as the titling of articles--especially those of minor importance--has been much more practicable in the later years.

There has been ample opportunity for an examination of these works. Of the 255 titles, copies of 249 are in the library of the compiler. The titles lacking are 48, 92, 109, 117; also, the articles under 151 and 161 in part.

In explanation of the different ways of spelling Shakespeare, Shakespearian, etc., in these pages, it is proper to say that the intention has been to follow, in all titles and extracts, the methods adopted by the various writers.

The compiler tenders his acknowledgments to many friends and correspondents for information and assistance, in all cases courteously furnished. An additional favor will be conferred by further information as to any errors or omitted titles.

It will be seen by a reference to the notes, that not less than five new works are foreshadowed, some of which will be published. Evidently the discussion is not ended. The subject is one that appeals too strongly to the iconoclastic spirit of the age for that. It is likely to afford as endless a theme as the authorship of Junius, or the personality of Homer. If the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas is not _now_ settled, in that sense it never will be settled, for it is not, in its very nature, susceptible of such proof as will satisfy everybody. And though the world may always hold to its faith in William Shakespeare, none the less will there always be doubters.

W. H. W.

WALNUT HILLS, CINCINNATI, April 10th, 1884.

BACON-SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 THE ANCIENT LETHE. In _The Romance of Yachting; Voyage the First_. By JOSEPH C. HART, author of “Miriam Coffin,” etc. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1848; 12mo. pp. 332. (See pages 207-243).

_Anti-Sh._

The first known publication questioning the right of Shakespeare to the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas.

COL. HART’S article seems to have been overlooked, and not brought to the notice of those who were interested in the question, until it was used by the compiler of this work as the first title in _The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature_, of which this is an extension. Up to that time, the article in _Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal_ (see next title), seems to have been accepted by all the authorities as the first mention. _The Romance of Yachting_ is a gossipy account of a voyage to Spain, in a merchant ship, in which are interwoven discussions of various topics in a free and easy style. This chapter is supposed to be written on the banks of the Guadalete--the ancient Lethe. Hence the title.

“Alas, Shakespeare! Lethe is upon thee! But if it drown thee, it will give up and work the resurrection of _better men and more worthy_. Thou hast had thy century; they are about having theirs.”

* * * * *

“He was not the mate of the literary characters of his day, and none knew it better than himself. It is a fraud upon the world to thrust his surreptitious fame upon us. He had none that was worthy of being transmitted. The enquiry will be, _who were the able literary men who wrote the dramas imputed to him_? The plays themselves, or rather a small portion of them, will live as long as English literature is regarded as worth pursuit. The _authorship_ of the plays is no otherwise material to us, than as a matter of curiosity, and to enable us to render exact justice; but they should not be assigned to Shakespeare alone, if at all.”

The author contrasts Shakespeare with the other Elizabethan writers. He argues that the facts known in the life of Shakespeare, so far as they are known, are incompatible with the authorship, and takes up the plays in review, claiming that he had very little part in them. He suggests no other author.

(Col. Hart was a lawyer, journalist, and yachtsman--residing in, and well-known in New York, especially from 1832 to 1850--the friend and associate of Willis, Poe, Park Benjamin, Col. Porter, of _The Spirit_, etc. He was a Colonel in the National Guard. During his later years he was U. S. Consul lo Santa Cruz de Teneriffe, and died there in 1855, in his 57th year. A private letter concerning him says: “He was quite proud of writing that chapter as to Shakespeare, and declared that in time his views must become accepted.”)

2 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? An article in _Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal_, August 7, 1852.

_Anti-Sh._

The author of this is unknown. The article was for a long time accepted as “the first mention.” It is moderate in tone, contrasting the commonplace life of Shakespeare with his works, and suggests that he may have “kept a poet.”

“May not William Shakespeare--the cautious, calculating man, careless of fame, and intent only on money-making--have found, in some furtherest garret, overlooking the silent highway of the Thames, some pale, wasted student, with a brow as ample and lofty as his own, who had written the _Wars of the Roses_, and who, with eyes of genius gleaming through despair, was about, like Chatterton, to spend his last copper coin upon some cheap and speedy mode of death? What was to hinder William Shakespeare from reading, appreciating, and purchasing these dramas, and thereafter keeping his poet as Mrs. Packwood did?”

* * * * *

“Well, reader, how like you our hypothesis? We confess we do not like it ourselves; but we humbly think it is, at least, as plausible as most of what is contained in the many bulky volumes written to connect the man, William Shakespeare, with the poet of _Hamlet_. We repeat, there is nothing recorded in his every-day life that connects the two, except the simple fact of his selling the poems and realizing the proceeds, and their being afterwards published with his name attached; and the statements of Ben Jonson, which, however, are quite compatible with his being in the secret.”

The writer opens his article with an allusion to Miss Kitty’s “SHIKSPUR! WHO WROTE IT?” in _High Life Below Stairs_. To explain this allusion: This farce, with the query so frequently alluded to in this controversy, was written by the Rev. James Townley, and first acted in Drury Lane in 1759. The _dramatis personæ_ in the following dialogue are servants, who hold high carnival in the absence of the owners of the mansion, all, except Kitty, assuming the titles of their respective masters and mistresses:

“LADY BAB-- * * * I never read but one book.

KITTY--What is it your ladyship is so fond of?

LADY BAB--Shikspur. Did you never read Shikspur?

SIR HARRY--I never heard of it.

KITTY--Shikspur! Shikspur! Who wrote it? No, I never read Shikspur.

LADY BAB--Then you have an immense pleasure to come.

DUKE--Shikspur! Who wrote it?

SIR HARRY--Who wrote it? Why, Ben Jonson.

DUKE--Oh, I remember, it was Kolly Kibber.

KITTY--Well, then, I’ll read it over one afternoon or other.”

3 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIRST SERIES.

_a_--From Theta, Vol. VIII, p. 438, November 5, 1853.

_b_--Answer by C, Vol. X, p. 106, August 15, 1854.

_Unc._

Unimportant, except as the commencement of the series of articles running through Notes and Queries, which will be found hereafter arranged in chronological order.

4 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND HIS PLAYS. An Inquiry Concerning Them. By DELIA BACON. In _Putnam’s Monthly_, January, 1856, pages 1-19.

_Anti-Sh._

Miss BACON was the first writer who connected Lord Bacon with the authorship of the Shakespearian dramas, and in this article she first suggests it--not directly, but rather by inference. It was written during her stay in England (at St. Albans), and was the real commencement of the “Bacon-Shakespeare” controversy. As this was before her mind became so completely clouded by her intense thought on the subject, it is much clearer in its style than her subsequent book. In it she draws the contrast between the known facts in the life of Shakespeare, and the magnificence of the dramas that bear his name.

“Shall this crowning literary product of that great epoch, wherein these new ages have their beginning, vividly arranged in its choicest refinements, flashing everywhere on the surface with its costliest wit, crowded everywhere with its subtlest scholasticisms, betraying, on every page, its broadest, freshest range of experience, its most varied culture, its profoundest insight, its boldest grasp of comprehension--shall this crowning result of so many preceding ages of growth and culture, with its essential, and now probable connection with the new scientific movement of the time from which it issues, be able to conceal from us, much longer, its history?--shall we be able to accept in explanation of it, much longer, the story of the Stratford poacher?”

(DELIA BACON was born in Tallmadge, Ohio, February 2, 1811. She was the daughter of Rev. David Bacon, one of the early Western missionaries, and sister of the late Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon. She was educated at Miss Catherine E. Beecher’s school, in Hartford, and is described as a woman of rare intellect and attainments. Her profession was that of a teacher and lecturer--the first woman, Mrs. Farrar says, whom she had ever known to speak in public. At this time, she resided in Boston. Having conceived the idea of the Baconian authorship, she became a monomaniac on the subject. Visiting England, in 1853, in search of proofs for her theory, she spent five years there, first at St. Albans, where she supposed Bacon to have written the plays; then at London, where she wrote _The Philosophy of Shakespeare Unfolded_; and subsequently at Stratford-on-Avon. Here, after the publication and non-success of her book, she lost her reason wholly and entirely. She was returned to her friends in Hartford, in April, 1858, and died there September 2, 1859.)

5 REVIEW OF DELIA BACON’S ARTICLE in _Putnam’s Monthly_. In the _Athenæum_, London, July 26, 1856, p. 108.

_Pro-Sh._

“The process by which Shakespeare is reduced to nothing is certainly startling. Take away all the evidences of the poet’s supreme intellect--refuse him the witness of his works--and it is, of course, very easy to say the poor player was unequal to his mighty task. But the same process could reduce Bacon from a great law-giver in the empire of thought, to a corrupt lawyer and base flatterer in the Court of King James. Take the facts which stand apart from his intellectual action--erect the idea of man upon them--and it will be as easy to raise a theory that not Bacon but Shakespeare wrote the _Essays_ and _Novum Organum_.”

6 WAS LORD BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A letter to Lord ELLESMERE. By WILLIAM HENRY SMITH. Pamphlet. Printed for private circulation. London: September, 1856. (This was reproduced in _Littell’s Living Age_, November, 1856. 4 pages in _Littell_).

_Anti-Sh._

This was addressed to the Earl of Ellesmere, as the late President of the Shakespeare Society. It takes strong grounds in favor of the Baconian authorship.

A question of precedence as to the Baconian advocacy arose between Mr. Smith and Miss Bacon’s friends. HAWTHORNE in his preface to Miss Bacon’s book animadverted upon Mr. Smith for “taking to himself this lady’s theory,” resulting in the correspondence published in Smith’s book. In his letter Mr. Smith claimed that he had never seen Miss Bacon’s _Putnam’s Monthly_ article until after his pamphlet was published, and also that he had held these opinions for twenty years previously. But as Miss Bacon’s article was published eight months previous to his pamphlet, and reviewed in the _Athenæum_ in the meantime, his want of knowledge was certainly very singular, and the precedence must be awarded to her.

(Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, who still resides in London, was the first English Baconian. He not only wrote, but lectured on the subject. During the past fifteen years, we find nothing from his pen, but from recent advices we infer that his interest in the question is unabated, and that he may yet be heard from.)

7 WAS LORD BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS?

_a_--In the _Literary Gazette_, London, Sept. 6, 1856.

_b_--In the same, Oct. 18, 1856.

_Pro-Sh._

Both articles are notices of Smith’s Ellesmere pamphlet--the latter a comprehensive review. Towards its close, the writer recapitulates the contemporary evidence, and adds:

“Now, before Mr. Smith proceeds to take possession of the plays in the name of Lord Bacon, he should show his right to dispossess the occupying tenant. This can be done only by overturning the mass of evidence, upon the faith of which the whole world has hitherto believed Shakespeare, if we may so express it, to be the author of his own works. When Mr. Smith shall have done this, and proved that Greene, Chettle, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and the rest, and the traditions, to boot, as thick as leaves in Vallambrosa, are one and all unworthy of credit, he shall then be in a position to assert Lord Bacon’s claim--but not one moment sooner.”

8 REVIEW OF SMITH’S LETTER TO LORD ELLESMERE. In the _Athenæum_, London, Sept. 13, 1856, p. 1133.

_Pro-Sh._

“Of course--as our readers have seen--we reject altogether the theory of an extra authorship of Shakespeare’s plays; and on any idle day of the year, should we ever find one, we will undertake to prove, just as plausibly as Mr. Smith here proves the authorship of _Lear_ and _Hamlet_ to belong to Bacon, that Shakespeare composed the _Instauration_ and wrote the Essays.”

9 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SECOND SERIES.

_a_--From A. Hopper, II, 267, Oct. 4, 1856.

_b_--Review of Ellesmere letter, II, 320, Oct. 18, 1856.

_c_--From Vox, II, 369, Nov. 8, 1856.

_d_--From W. H. S. [Smith] II, 503, Dec. 27, 1856.

_e_--From R. Slocomb, II, 504, Dec. 27, 1856.

_Unc._

10 SHAKESPEARE AND LORD BACON. In the _Illustrated London News_, October 25, 1856. 1 column.

_Unc._

An account of a lecture by Wm. Henry Smith, at the Beethoven Rooms, Harley street, London.

11 ON THE ART OF CAVILLING. “All is humbug.” In _Blackwood’s Magazine_, Edinburgh, November, 1856. 15 pages.

_Pro-Sh._

An answer to Smith’s Ellesmere letter.

“It proves an unlimited power of credulity among the class [the cavillers] to which its writer belongs, and throws some light upon that extraordinary mental process by which men of a crotchety turn of mind can set up pure unreason in the face of plain truth; but it proves nothing whatever about Francis Bacon, nor throws the smallest glimmer of illumination on those mysterious productions called Shakespeare’s Plays.”

12 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. “A little chink may let in much light.” Anonymous. [By DR. C. M. INGLEBY.] In _Illustrated London News_, Dec. 6, 1856, p. 577.

_Pro-Sh._

In this DR. INGLEBY summarizes the arguments of Smith in the Ellesmere letter, and comprehensively answers them.

13 I WON’T HAVE BACON. A communication by JOHN BULL. In _Illustrated London News_, January 10, 1857.

_Pro-Sh._

“I won’t have Bacon. I will have my own cherished “Will.” I have borne a great deal, and never changed my faith. I have seen him chipped, mauled, befribbled, and overdone. I have seen upholsterers and classic managers cloud his genius in fustian and explanations. I have heard shouts against his anachronisms, and anathemas against his want of the unities and his knowledge of Greek; but never thought an Englishman and a Smith would try to prove that he was a swindler--a thief--a jackdaw, and died in the odor of sanctity, the pilferer of Bacon. * * * * I know the pestilent vapor will pass away, and the steady glories of Will. Shakespeare break forth again; but in the meantime we shiver under a passing cloud.”

14 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. Letter from WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, on the Psalms translated by Bacon. In the _Athenæum_, London, January 24, 1857, p. 122.

_Anti-Sh._

MR. SMITH claims that these translations show the poetic faculty in Bacon. “His mind was so essentially poetical, that it was as great a constraint to him to write prose, as to spare, or pass by a jest.”

15 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE NOT AN IMPOSTOR. By an English Critic. [GEO. H. TOWNSEND.] London and New York: G. Routledge & Co., 1857, 12mo. pp. 122.

_Pro-Sh._

The especial purpose of this book is to answer Smith’s Ellesmere letter, which the author criticises severely, but it takes in the question in its fullest scope. His preface aptly describes it:

“The author has endeavored to collect within the compass of a small volume the historical documents and the testimonies of the poet’s contemporaries, by which the claim of William Shakespeare to the authorship of the six-and-thirty plays, published in the folio edition of 1623, is clearly established. His title is confirmed by such a mass of evidence, that many readers, who have not investigated the matter, will wonder how it could have been called in question.”

The author gives a summary of Smith’s argument (copied from _Notes and Queries_), and answers it as follows:

“He contends: 1. That the character of Shakespeare, as sketched by Pope, is the exact biography of Bacon. 2. That Bacon possessed dramatic talent to a high degree, and could, according to his biographers, assume the most different characters, and speak the language proper to each, with a facility that was perfectly natural. 3. That he wrote and assisted at bal-masques, and was an intimate friend of Lord Southampton, the alleged patron of Shakespeare. 4. That the first folio of 1623 was not published till Bacon had been driven to private life, and had leisure to revise his literary works; and that as he was obliged to raise money by almost any means, it is at least probable that he did so by writing plays. 5. That Shakespeare was a man of business rather than poetry, and acknowledged his poems and sonnets, but never laid claim to the plays.”