Part 4

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

_c_--The Shakespeare Controversy, an editorial.

_Unc._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

_a_--Intellectual Distinctions, as classified by McDermott.

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

_a_--Opinion of Professor John S. Hart.

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

83 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.

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

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

We quote one paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Vaile concludes:

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

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

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

1. The iconoclastic tendency of the age; and,

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

_Pro-Sh._

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

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

_Anti-Sh._

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

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

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

_Unc._

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

_Anti-Sh._

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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