Part 3

“She [Miss Bacon] had no notion of going to England to teach history; all she wanted to go for was to obtain proof of the truth of her theory, that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him, but that Lord Bacon did. * * * The lady whom she was visiting put her copy of his works out of sight, and never allowed her to converse with her on this, her favorite subject. We considered it dangerous for Miss Bacon to dwell on this fancy, and thought that, if indulged, it might become a monomania, which it subsequently did.”

* * * * *

“She suffered many privations [in London] during the time that she was writing her book. She lived on the poorest food, and was often without the means of having a fire in her chamber. She told me that she wrote a great part of her large octavo volume sitting up in bed, in order to keep warm.”

31 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. THIRD SERIES. From Q, with editorial answer, IX, 155, February 24, 1866.

_Unc._

32 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. By NATHANIEL HOLMES. New York: Hurd & Houghton, 1866, 12mo. pp. 601. Second edition, 1868. (Third edition, with appendix, referred to hereafter, 1876, pp. 696.)

_Anti-Sh._

Judge HOLMES is the apostle of Baconianism. His book, first published in 1866, has gone through several editions, and has been regarded as the text-book and authority for all controversialists on that side. Though largely reviewed and discussed, there has been but one book written directly in answer to it--that of Mr. King.

We can not do better than to give Judge Holmes’s theorem in his own language (hitherto unpublished):

“This work undertakes to demonstrate, not only that William Shakespeare did not, but that Francis Bacon did, write the plays and poems. It presents a critical view of the personal history of the two men, their education, learning, attainments, surroundings, and associates, the contemporaneousness of the writings in question, in prose and verse, an account of the earlier plays and editions, the spurious plays, and ‘the true original copies.’ It gives some evidence that Bacon was known to be the author by some of his contemporaries. It shows in what manner William Shakespeare came to have the reputation of being the writer. It exhibits a variety of facts and circumstances, which are strongly suggestive of Bacon as the real author. A comparison of the writings of contemporary authors in prose and verse, proves that no other writer of that age, but Bacon, can come into any competition for the authorship. It sifts out a chronological order of the production of the plays, and of the several writings of Bacon, ascertaining the exact dates, whenever possible, and shows that the more significant parallelisms run in the same order, and are of such a nature, both by their dates and their own character, as absolutely to preclude all possibility of borrowing, otherwise than as Bacon borrowed from himself. It is amply demonstrated that mere common usage, or the ordinary practice of writers, can furnish no satisfactory explanation of these parallelisms and identities. There is a continuous presentation of parallel or identical passages, throughout the work, with such commentary as was deemed necessary or advisable in order to bring out their full force and significance; and twenty pages of minor parallelisms are given in one body, without commentary.”

“It gives some extensive proofs that Bacon was a poet, and suggests some reasons for his concealment of his poetical authorship. There is some indication of the object and purpose the author had in view in writing these plays. It is shown that the tenor of their teaching is in keeping with Bacon’s ideas upon the subject treated in them. The latter half of the book presents more especially the parallelism in scientific and philosophical thought, with a view to show the identity of the plays and the writings of Bacon, in respect to their philosophy and standard of criticism; and in this there is an endeavor to show that the character and drift of the philosophy of Bacon (as well as that of the plays) was substantially identical with the realistic idealism of the more modern, as of the more ancient writers on the subject.”

“It is recognized that the evidence drawn from historical facts and biographical circumstances, are not in themselves alone entirely conclusive of the matter, however suggestive or significant as clearing the way for more decisive proofs, or as raising a high degree of probability; and it is conceded, that, in the absence of more direct evidence, the most decisive proof attainable is to be found in a critical and thorough comparison of the writings themselves, and that such a comparison will clearly establish the identity of the author as no other than Francis Bacon.”

We have been recently assured by Judge Holmes, that he has seen nothing in any new fact, criticism, or discussion of the subject, that has in the least degree shaken his convictions.

(Hon. NATHANIEL HOLMES is a graduate of Harvard University, in the class of 1837. Since 1839 he has practiced law in St. Louis for the greater part of the time, but was, from 1865 to 1868, Judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri, and from 1868 to 1872, a Professor of Law in the Law School of Harvard. He has now retired from professional life, and resides at Cambridge, Mass.)

33 NOTICE OF JUDGE HOLMES’S WORK. In _The Nation_, New York, March 29, 1866, p. 402.

_Pro-Sh._

34 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes’s _Authorship_ in the Brooklyn (N. Y.) _Daily Eagle_, October 24, 1866. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

35 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE? Review of Holmes’s _Authorship_ in the _Round Table_, New York, October 27, 1866. 4 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

36 HYPOTHESES OF SHAKESPEARIAN CRITICISM. In the _Home Journal_, New York, October 27, 1866. 3 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

37 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes, in the _Jewish Messenger_, New York, November 2, 1866. 1 column.

_Pro-Sh._

38 SHAKESPEARE. WAS HE HIMSELF OR SOMEBODY ELSE?

_a_--Article in the Springfield (Mass.) _Republican_, November 7, 1866. 2½ columns.

_b_--In same paper, a letter from its Boston correspondent, November 3, 1866.

_Pro-Sh._

39 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A communication from RICHARD J. HINTON, of Washington, D. C. In the _Round Table_, New York, Nov. 17, 1866. 3 columns.

_Anti-Sh._

Mr. Hinton writes this to call the attention of the public to the position taken by Mr. O’Connor in his _Harrington_ novel.

40 BACON VS. SHAKESPEARE. An article in review of Judge Holmes. In the New York _Methodist_, November 17, 1866. 1½ columns.

_Pro-Sh._

41 WAS LORD BACON AN IMPOSTOR? In _Fraser’s Magazine_, London, December, 1866.

_Unc._

There are incidental allusions to the authorship on pages 718, 721, 730, and 731. It was answered by Baron LIEBIG, in _Fraser_ of April, 1867, under the same title, without special reference to this question.

42 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. [By A. G. SEDGWICK.] In _North American Review_, January, 1867. 2½ pages.

_Pro-Sh._

43 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In Literary Notices, _Harper’s Magazine_, January, 1867, p. 263. ½ page.

_Pro-Sh._

44 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. A letter from JAMES H. HACKETT. In the _Evening Post_, New York, January 26, 1867. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

_Pro-Sh._

48 COMMUNICATIONS in the _Daily Gazette_, Birmingham, England.

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

_Unc._

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

_Unc._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

_Anti-Sh._

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

_Anti-Sh._

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

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

_a_--Letter from Hibernicus.

_b_--Did Bacon write Shakespeare?

_Pro-Sh._

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

_Anti-Sh._

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

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

59 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

_a_--Who wrote Bacon? by Franklin.

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

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

_d_--Shakespeare and Bacon, an editorial.

_Unc._

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

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

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

_a_--Views of Horace Howard Furness.

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

_c_--Editorial article.

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

_a_--Et tu, Brute? by T.

_b_--Bacon never claimed them, by Ylon.

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

_d_--A word for him, by Solferino.

_e_--Puzzling Facts, from the Boston _Post_.

_Unc._

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

_a_--Interview with Recorder Hackett.

_b_--A New View of Shakespeare.

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

_Unc._

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

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

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

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

_e_--The True Authorship Discovered, by Bloxon.

_f_--Another triumph, from the Indianapolis _Sentinel_.

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

_h_--Journalistic Enterprise, from the Milwaukee _News_.

_Unc._

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

_a_--Opinion of Prof. Hiram Corson.

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

_c_--Shakespeare and the Stage, an editorial.

_Unc._

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

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

_b_--Shakespeare’s Soliloquy.

_Unc._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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