Part 5

“Mr. Nathaniel Holmes is an American gentleman, residing in St. Louis, a long way from the manuscript papers, which can alone throw any new light upon the subject. He has mastered Miss Delia Bacon’s book; also the new edition of Lord Bacon’s works, and The Story of Lord Bacon’s Life, and with the help of a subtle intellect, he has so arranged the mass of evidence tending to separate two most important lives in English history, as to aid in confusing the perception of many persons. For our own part, we do not care to enter once again into the reasons which induced us to reject, in mass and detail, all the conjectures offered in support of Bacon’s authorship of Hamlet and Macbeth. When we had Miss Bacon’s works before us we gave our reasons fully; and as nothing new has been found in way of buttress to her argument, we may safely let the discussion lapse, which we do in thorough respect for Mr. Holmes, who, distant student though he be of English literary history, is well aware of what is going on in this country. He takes a perfectly noble and impartial view of Bacon’s conduct, both in his relations to Essex and the administration of justice. But we can not go forward with him in his theory of Bacon being the secret author of Shakespeare’s plays.”

94 L’IDEALE IN LETTERATURA. Letture fatte avanti al Regio Istituto Lombardo, dal membro effettivo, Dott. ANTONIO BUCCELLATI, Milano, 1876. Pamphlet, pp. 144. (THE IDEAL IN LITERATURE. Lectures delivered before the Royal Lombard Institute, by the acting member, Dr. Antonio Buccellati.)

_Unc._

A general reference to the subject on pages 74-77. It includes in a note an extract from a paper in the _Memoriale Diplomatique_, the date of which is not given.

95 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW; including an inquiry as to his religious faith, and his knowledge of law, with the Baconian theory considered. By GEORGE WILKES. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1877, 8vo. pp. 471. Second edition, 1881.

_Pro-Sh._

It will be seen from the title of Mr. Wilkes’s book, that it is quite comprehensive--and his argument that the writer of the plays was a Catholic, and was not a trained lawyer, are either of them fatal, in his opinion, to the Baconian theory. He devotes several chapters, by way of illustration, to a comparison of the life, genius, and characteristics of Shakespeare and Bacon. He differs from Lord Campbell in his estimate of the “Legal Acquirements of Shakespeare,” and takes up “The Testimony of the Plays” (pages 81-419), reviewing them, as to the question of authorship, from both the religious and legal point of view. As to the latter, he says:

* * * “The author of the Shakespeare plays did not possess any great knowledge of the law; or, if he did, his dramatic writings do not show it. He exhibits, without doubt, a familiarity in law expressions, and applies them with a precision and a happiness of application in all cases, which apparently carries the idea that he may have served in an attorney’s office; but not one of them, nor do all of them together, mark anything higher than mere general principles and forms of practice, or such surface clack and knowledge as were within the mental reach of any clever scrivener or conveyancer’s clerk. On the contrary, whenever Shakespeare steps beyond the surface comprehension of the solicitor’s phraseology, and attempts to deal with the spirit and philosophy of law, he makes a lamentable failure. The _Merchant of Venice_, _Comedy of Errors_, _Winter’s Tale_, and _Measure for Measure_, contain conspicuous proofs of this deficiency.” * * *

An extract from the recapitulation:

“We may be told, at this stage, that such an extent of search and demonstration as I have devoted to these Baconian points is not necessary to dispose of a bubble which has never floated among the public with any amount of success; and we may be flippantly assured that the inexorable reasoning faculty of Time alone, would, of itself, dispel the fallacy; but such contemptuous treatment is not adequate to the treatment of a theory which has received the support of such minds as that of Lord Palmerston, and such scholars and critics as Judge Holmes and General B. F. Butler in America. Bubbles thus patronized must be entirely exploded, or they will be sure to reappear whenever the world has a sick or idle hour, and delusions find their opportunity to strike. Moreover, nothing is lost by our inquiries, after all, beyond a little time; and I doubt not all true admirers of our poet will agree that one new ray of light which may thus be thrown upon the character and history of Shakespeare, will justify octavos of discussion.”

The author embodies in his book the Euphonic or Musical Test, by Prof. Taverner, which is the subject of a separate title. Of this essay, Mr. Wilkes says:

“To the multitude, its proofs may appear less potent than some others I have advanced, but with scholars and rhetorical experts, the Euphonic test will probably be more fatal to the Baconian theory than any other.”

(The author is well known as the former editor of _Wilkes’s Spirit of the Times_.)

96 THE MUSICAL OR EUPHONIC TEST. The respective styles of Shakespeare and Bacon, judged by the laws of Elocutionary Analysis, and Melody of Speech. By Prof. J. W. TAVERNER. 1877.

_Pro-Sh._

This essay is included in Mr. Wilkes’s book. See pages 424 to 461.

“As the handwriting of one man among thousands can be determined by experts, so no lengthy examples of style--the expression and language of any two authors of note, can fail to indicate the individual mind to which one or the other belongs. * * * But how much more comprehensive are the combinations that constitute the style, the language, the adornments, the illustrations, the figurative expression, the place of the emphasis, the form of the phrases, the source of the metaphors, the character of the similes; but our enumeration would become too long; then, finally, that emanation of the rhythm of the breathing, and of the pulse, and the endowments of the ear, that marshals all those forms and phrases in a certain order with reference to melody and cadence.”

* * * * *

“The outcome of the life-long process to which we have referred, by which the style of a writer is formed--_that_ feature of it to which our treatment of this subject, for the present, relates--is the most subtle; for we have to investigate that of which the writer himself was, possibly, the most unconscious--that which, like his gait, or some other habit, has, perhaps, received no _positive_ attention whatever. Yet, it may be held that nothing becomes more rigid and fixed than the mould and matrix in which his thoughts are ultimately fashioned and expressed. The modes of thinking would, in some instances, have to be identical, to produce identical melodies of speech.

“In Shakespeare’s prose we shall find that all this is marvelously free and varied, and that his blank verse conforms strictly to a certain set of chimes. In Bacon, besides Latin forms, we shall not lack examples of a certain sort of duplicates and triplicates, antithetic parallelisms, and harmonic or alternate phrases (and, to use a strong Baconianism), _and the like_.”

* * * * *

“Bacon, himself, gives testimony to the weight and value of such evidence, for he, himself, relates that Queen Elizabeth, being incensed with a certain book [Dr. Hayward’s], dedicated to my Lord of Essex, expressed an opinion that there was treason in it, and would not be persuaded that it was his writing whose name was to it; but that it had some more mischievous author, and said, with great indignation, that she would have him racked to produce his author. ‘I replied,’ says Bacon, ‘Nay, Madam, he is a doctor; never rack his person, but rack his style; let him have pen, ink, and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue the story where it breaketh off, and I will undertake, by collating the styles, to judge whether he were the author or no.’”

Prof. Taverner proceeds to illustrate his position by a comparison of extracts from the essays and the plays.

“It would be as easy to suppose, by these evidences, Bacon and Shelley to have been one and the same author, as that these several specimens of Shakespeare and of Bacon could proceed from one and the same mind.”

97 THE LEOPOLD SHAKESPEARE. Edited by F. J. FURNIVALL. (See Notes, p. CXXIV, edition 1877.)

_Pro-Sh._

“I doubt whether any such idiotic suggestion as this authorship of Shakespeare’s works by Bacon has ever been made before, or will ever be made again, with regard to either Bacon or Shakespeare. The tomfoolery of it is infinite.”

This note is expanded in the edition of 1882.

98 IS SIR WALTER RALEIGH THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS AND SONNETS? By GEORGE S. CALDWELL. Melbourne, Australia: Stillwell & Knight, 1877. Pamphlet, pp. 32.

_Anti-Sh._

Mr. Caldwell answers his query in the affirmative. He is now engaged upon a new book in development of his theory. We give below an extract from a letter received from him referring to his new work:

“The greater portion of the book will be taken up by extracts from the History of the World, and from the plays. These extracts will show so complete an identification of opinions, principles, and peculiarities of thought and expression, as will, I am sanguine, carry conviction to the minds of every interested reader, that the plays must have been written by Raleigh. * * * * After five years’ consideration, I now say that the materials in my possession are sufficient to finally settle the controversy.”

(Mr. CALDWELL is a resident of Melbourne, and understood to be in the British Postal Service.)

99 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO SHAKESPEARE. (Chapter IV, part I, pages 38 to 72.) In _Shakespeare: The Man and the Book_. By C. M. INGLEBY, M.A., LL.D. London: 1877.

_Pro-Sh._

This paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature, January 22, 1868. See Transactions, Vol. IX, new series.

“The critic has the same interest in the works of Miss Delia Bacon, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Judge Holmes, as the physician has in morbid anatomy. He reads them, not so much for the light which they throw on the question of authorship, as for their interest as examples of wrongheadedness. It is not at all a matter of moment whether Bacon, Raleigh, or another be the favorite on whom the works are fathered, but it is instructive to discover by what plausible process the positive evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship (scanty as they are) are put out of court. As to Bacon, as first favorite, I suppose any one conversant with the life and authentic works of that powerful but unamiable character, must agree with Mr. Spedding’s judgment, that unless he be the author of “Shakespeare,” neither his life or his writings give us any assurance that he could excel as a dramatic poet. Of all men who have left their impress on the reign of the first maiden Queen, not one can be found who was so deficient in human sympathies as Lord Bacon. As for such a man portraying a woman in her natural simplicity, purity, and grace; as to his imagining and bodying forth in natural speech and action, such exquisite creations as Miranda, Perdita, Cordelia, Desdemona, Marina--the supposition is the height of absurdity. What, as it seems to me, has led astray the few writers who have set up a claim for Lord Bacon, is his admirable gift of language, scarcely inferior to Shakespeare himself. This almost unique endowment caused Bacon to manifest a kind of likeness to Shakespeare in matters into which the sympathies of the man and the training of the dramatic poet do not enter. Hence it is easy to cull from the works of these two great masters a considerable number of curious parallels. I have looked over the collections of Messrs. W. H. Smith and Holmes, and I must confess I am astonished; but my astonishment has not been provoked by the quantity or closeness of the resemblances adduced, but by the spectacle of educated men attempting to found such an edifice on such a foundation.”

100 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.

_a_--From Jabez [DR. INGLEBY], VII, 55, January 20, 1877.

_b_--From R. P. Hampton Roberts, VII, 234, March 24, 1877.

_Unc._

101 SHAKESPEARE FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW. A review of Wilkes’s book in the _Catholic World_, New York, for June, 1877. (Pages 422-428.)

_Unc._

This review refers only slightly to the authorship, the question mainly discussed being Mr. Wilkes’s views regarding the Catholicism of Shakespeare.

102 THE POLITICAL PURPOSE OF THE RENASCENCE DRAMA. The Key to the Argument. By CERIMON [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON], Melbourne, Sidney and Adelaide: George Robertson, 1878. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 57.

_Anti-Sh._

The first of the several pamphlets and books by Dr. Thomson, which will be found distributed through this list. A fair illustration of his manner of treating the plays--as to the Political Purpose--may be found in the paragraph following, relating to _Hamlet_:

“When the King in the play asks if there is ‘no offence in’t,’ he but repeats Queen Elizabeth’s query, put, in her palace, about another treasonable entertainment, of which Bacon had, at that very time, to allay her well-grounded suspicions. She feared the disloyalty of one whom he endeavored to reconcile and become her loyal servant. ‘She had good opinion that there was treason in it.’ Readers of history know the allusion.”

The allusion, of course, is to the affair of the Essex treason--Dr. Hayward’s book, the “_First Yeare of King Henry the Fourth_”--and the play of Richard II. For this, see Holmes, p. 96, 97, and 135; in appendix, Spedding’s letter to Holmes, p. 617; Holmes to Spedding, p. 619.

(Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON, at the time these works were written, was a practicing physician at Melbourne, Australia. He was evidently a fine scholar, and an intense Baconian. He died during the past year, at the age of 63. We quote from a private letter from Melbourne: “The Baconian theory of Shakespeare’s writings was an intense hobby with him, and even the day before he died, he sent for some books on the subject--the ruling passion strong in death. * * * He was ever ready to put on the literary war-paint, and raised up numerous enemies thereby.”)

103 SHAKESPEARE. WAS HE A MYTH? OR, WHAT DID HE WRITE? By CHARLES COCKBILL CATTELL. London: Charles Watts, n. d. [1878]. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 16.

_Pro-Sh._

The first of a series of pamphlets, which will be found cited hereafter, all combating the Baconian theory. We extract one paragraph:

“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.”