Part 7

“It is startlingly singular that directly Shakespeare is brought down to the human plane, and considered there, whether as a supreme poet, or a supreme metaphysician (both of which he was) he became Bacon. Of all men of the Elizabethan age, and perhaps of any age, Bacon is the only equivalent for Shakespeare. * * * And it is something very like a hidden record, long concealed, of the real identity of Shakespeare suddenly brought to light, that the name of Bacon, once started, so nearly answers to the entire mystery of Shakespeare, even before investigation of the proof that he was the one who had lent to another his lion’s skin. It was this very fact, indeed, which has started able authors and critics to investigate this subject, and which inclines multitudes to believe ‘there is something in it.’”

(Mr. TULLIDGE is the editor of the _Quarterly_, and a strong Baconian. Several lengthy articles from his pen will be found noted in this list.)

142 THE SWEET BARD OF AVON, and THE SHAKESPEAREAN QUESTION. By BACONIAN. [WILLIAM W. FERRIER.] Two articles in the Angola (Ind.) _Herald_, dated July 27, and August 5, 1881.

_Anti-Sh._

An answer to the “Broadbrim” articles.

143 ADDRESS TO THE NEW SHAKESPERE SOCIETY OF LONDON. Discovery of Lord Verulam’s undoubted authorship of the “Shakespere” Works. By Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Joseph Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1881. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 46.

_Anti-Sh._

The first of Mrs. WINDLE’S pamphlets. For an example of her special theories see title of the second pamphlet, No. 165.

144 SHAKESPEARE, NOT BACON. By J. S. [JAMES SMITH]. In the Daily _Argus_, Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. 3½ columns. (Reprinted in the Stratford-on-Avon _Herald_, November 4, and November 11, 1881.)

_Pro-Sh._

After citing contemporary authorities as to the authorship of _Venus and Adonis_, _The Rape of Lucrece_, and _The Passionate Pilgrim_, the writer says:

“I submit that Shakespeare’s authorship of the three poems enumerated, is established by contemporary testimony sufficiently strong to satisfy any court of justice in the world, albeit I am not aware that his paternity of the _Sonnets_, or of _The Lover’s Complaint_, has ever been seriously disputed. I shall now proceed to show that the same hand which wrote the whole of the before-mentioned works also produced the dramas. And I shall rely upon the very same kind of evidence as that which has been employed to sustain the fanciful and extravagant theory that Bacon was the author of them. But though it will resemble it in kind, it will be found to be, unless I am very much mistaken, greater in volume and weightier in character than that which has been so laboriously collected and so ingeniously set forth by Mr. N. Holmes, Miss Delia Bacon, and by Mr. W. H. Smith.”

He then cites a long list of parallelisms between the poems and the plays, and peculiar words used in the same sense in each, to substantiate his position. “In his plays, Shakespeare naturally fell into the same forms of expression as those he has previously made use of in his poems, and occasionally repeated himself both in thought and word.”

(Mr. SMITH is a resident of Melbourne--an editorial writer on the _Argus_.)

145 BACON, NOT SHAKESPEARE. By W. T., in rejoinder to the _Shakespeare, not Bacon_, of J. S. [By Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON]. Melbourne, Australia, August 20, 1881. Pamphlet, pp. 16.

_Anti-Sh._

A portion of this only appears in an addenda to _Romance and Reality_.

“The bare fact that the dramas and poems are from the same hand has never been doubted, but I affirm that _not_ Shakespeare but Bacon wrote both. J. S. only compares Shakespeare with Shakespeare, but he does not compare Shakespeare with Bacon, as he necessarily must do before he can confute any inference deduced from that comparison. * * * He, therefore, dare not allow himself to become acquainted with the contents of my book, whose syllogism is--

“Whoever wrote the _Sonnets_ wrote the _Plays_. I show Bacon to have writ the _Sonnets_; Therefore, Bacon also wrote the _Plays_.”

146 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION. By E. H. PLUMPTRE, D.D. In the _Spectator_, London, August 24, 1881. (Copied in _Good Literature_, New York, September 17, 1881.)

_Unc._

This does not refer to the Bacon-Shakespeare question proper, but the title is inserted as Dr. Thomson answered it from the standpoint of the authorship. (See title 156.)

147 THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. By APPLETON MORGAN, A.M., L.L.B., author of “The Law of Literature,” “Notes to Best’s Principles of Evidence,” etc., etc. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1881. 8vo. pp. 342.

_Anti-Sh._

This work is an enlargement of the four articles under the same title, appearing in _Appletons’ Journal_ in 1879 and 1880.

Mr. MORGAN adopts the editorial or proprietary theory. He gives a schedule of the difficulties connected with the question of the authorship, and a digest of the several theories framed to meet them. He states his reasons for rejecting all of the latter, and offers a new synthetic theory in their place, somewhat as follows:

“I. From contemporary evidence, recorded in law courts and public offices, we are, perhaps, better informed of the _personnel_ of William Shakespeare, than of any other private gentleman of Elizabeth’s reign.

“II. There can be no doubt that he came to London in great poverty, and in a comparatively few years’ residence, was enabled to retire with a fortune which--although variously estimated by his friends and rivals--was certainly very large for those days.

“III. To have accumulated so large a fortune in so short a time by literary labor would have been exceptional in any case, but the mental equipment brought by William Shakespeare to London does not seem to have been equal to such an accumulation in his; it certainly was not equal to the _Venus and Adonis_, the _Hamlet_, and the other masterpieces which began to crowd upon each other--in none of which can any trace of Warwickshire dialect or origin be found.

“IV. If, however, Shakespeare made his fortune in the management of theatres (which became popular in London at this time, and in which he met but indifferent competition), it is reasonable to suppose that these plays, being exclusively secured by him, and becoming popular through his stage handling, came to be, not only the sources of his fortune, but identified and called by his name; certainly, less unreasonable (however exceptional) than to rest all this poetry, pathos, philosophy, and human experience in the genius of a letterless rustic, with a reputation in his native village for scapegrace escapades, gallantries, and poaching expeditions, rather than for meditation, study, or literary composition.

“V. But while claiming for Shakespeare a proprietary rather than a productive title in the plays, Mr. Morgan is very far from estimating him a dummy. ‘Surely it is a less violent supposition that this funny Mr. Shakespeare, as he wrote out the parts in big round hand, improved on or interpolated a palpable hit, a droll speech, the last popular song; or sketched entire a role with a name familiar to his boyish ear--the village butt or sot, or justice of the peace, or why not some fellow-scapegrace of olden times by Avon banks. He did it with a swift touch and mellow humor that relieved and refreshed the stately speeches--making the play all the more available.’ * * *

“VI. The only testimony really negativing this view is Ben Jonson’s. But that this is mere mortuary eulogy--is anything but the sort of evidence ‘we accept in our personal affairs, our courts of justice, in matters in which we have anything at stake, or any living interest’ (p. 131), and is, moreover, perfectly disposed of by Jonson himself, in his _Discoveries_, and conversations with Drummond, when he commends Shakespeare’s fluency and industry, but omits all mention of him in his list of eminent writers, poets, and thinkers of that age.

“Mr. Morgan disclaims any conjectures as to the authors of the Shakespearean text. But while admitting that Bacon, or even Raleigh, may have had a hand in them, insists that the extant records of Elizabeth’s day (and what are extant are a presumptive clue to such as have disappeared) point directly to a proprietary, rather than any other description of interest, in the plays and poems in William Shakespeare.”

We give a portion of the closing paragraph:

* * * “Having lost ‘our Shakespeare’ both to-day and forever, it will doubtless remain--as it is--the question, ‘Who wrote the Shakespearean dramas?’ The evidence is all in--the testimony is all taken. Perhaps it is a secret that even Time will never tell, that is hidden down in the crypt and sacristy of the Past, whose seal shall never more be broken. In the wise land of China it is said that where a man has deserved well of the State, his countrymen honor, with houses and lands and gifts and decorations, not himself, but his father and his mother. Perhaps, learning a lesson from the Celestials, we might rear a shaft to the fathers and mothers of the Immortality that wrote the Book of Nature, the mighty book which ‘age can not wither, nor custom stale,’ and whose infinite variety for three centuries has been, and, until Time shall be no more, will be close to the hearts of every age and cycle of men--household words for ever and ever. The Book--thank heaven!--that nothing can divorce from us.”

(Mr. APPLETON MORGAN, whose frequent contributions to this controversy will be found mentioned in this list, is a graduate of Racine College, Wisconsin, class of 1867. He is at present a resident of New York City--by profession, an attorney at law.)

148 WHO WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WAS. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE, of Washington. Two articles in the _Republic_, Washington, D. C., October 29 and November 5, 1881. 3 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

Mr. ADEE’S papers give the contemporary evidences of Shakespeare’s authorship.

149 THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. By DAVID GRAHAM ADEE. In the _Republic_, Washington, D. C., November 12, 1881. 3 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

This article refers only incidentally to the authorship.

150 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” [By J. G. PYLE]. A review of Mr. Morgan’s book. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minnesota, November 15, 1881. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

“Such an addition as this volume to the evidence of the case against Shakespeare, is a noteworthy event in the literary world. * * * Mr. Morgan’s book, gathering up, in lawyer fashion, the scattered threads of inconsistencies and improbabilities, is a valuable and welcome addition to the evidence in this controversy. * * * The questions raised long ago, and now presented in form, make up an indictment which the Shakespearean must break down by cogent explanations, or yield to the growing belief that, whether the ‘myriad-minded’ Shakespeare be metaphor or fact, he never wrote all that has come down the centuries as his, to rank his name with the immortals.”

151 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH. In the journals following:

_a_--Sandusky (O.) _Register_, November 15, 1881.

_b_--Pittsburgh _Telegraph_, November 15, 1881.

_c_--Cincinnati _Gazette_, November 15, 1881.

_d_--Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, November 19, 1881.

_e_--Sacramento (Cal.) _Record-Union_, Nov. 19, 1881.

_f_--Philadelphia _American_, November 26, 1881.

_Unc._

152 A BRIEF AGAINST SHAKESPEARE. In the _Tribune_, New York, November 25, 1881. 1 column.

_Pro-Sh._

A review of the _Myth_:

* * * “The presumption, for example, that Mr. Appleton Morgan is the author of the book before us is so strong, so overwhelming, that nobody living will entertain the thought of addressing a question on that point to the publishers; and yet we have absolutely no evidence of the fact, except the implied assertion of the title-page; no more evidence, indeed--and no less--than we have that Shakespeare wrote the plays that bear his name. Three hundred years hence it will be as impossible to prove that Mr. Morgan really wrote the book, as it is now to prove that Shakespeare wrote the plays, and for some man of the twenty-second century to argue that some other lawyer probably wrote it, merely because there is no way of proving that the alleged is the real authorship, will be no more illogical than Mr. Morgan’s parallel argument in the Shakespeare case is.”

153 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A review of Mr. Morgan’s book, by N. H. [NATHANIEL HOLMES]. Printed in the St. Louis _Globe Democrat_, November 17, 1881. 1½ columns.

_Anti-Sh._

“We have to regret that the author’s ‘scope’ did not allow him to bring his critical abilities to bear on a comparison of the plays with the writings of Francis Bacon. Hidden down deep in the crypt, a ‘Delian diver’ like him might possibly find the key that would unlock the principal secret. Not that he appears himself so much to controvert that possibility--it seems not to have come within his historical and circumstantial point of view. * * * The theory that manuscripts were brought to the theatre by sundry authors, to be scissored and adapted by the manager, strikes out at one stroke, or tacitly overlooks, nearly all that has ever been peculiar (_sui generis_), extraordinary, precious and wonderful in this work; * * * it leaves them open to manifold contributors, as if such a thing as this Shakespearean drama really is, however the case may have been with Homer, or the psalms of David, were at all possible in that way; and we are strongly inclined to think that this mode of creation of it, though perhaps possible to some extent, may prove to be, on the whole, as mythical as the man William himself.”

154 DR. THOMSON’S PAMPHLETS. A notice of two of the pamphlets, in the _Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin, November 23, 1881.

_Unc._

An extract from this will be found under title 121.

155 HISTORICAL ICONOCLASTS. What are we to believe? Joan of Arc, William Tell, Marshal Ney, Pocahontas, Powhatan, Captain Kidd, etc. gone! Is Shakespeare to follow? By JOHN W. BELL. In the Toledo (O.) _Blade_, December 4, 1881. 1½ columns.

_Anti-Sh._

The tenor of this article is sufficiently indicated by the head-lines given above.

156 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE ON VIVISECTION, in reply to Dean PLUMPTRE. By W. T. [Dr. WILLIAM THOMSON.] Melbourne, December 10, 1881. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 39.

_Anti-Sh._

Though Dean Plumptre’s paper did not refer to the question of the authorship, Dr. Thomson answers it from that standpoint.

157 SHAKESPEARE IN AMERIKA. EINE LITERARHISTORISCHE STUDIE. Von KARL KNORTZ. Berlin: Verlag von Theodor Hofmann. 1882. pp. 85. (SHAKESPEARE IN AMERICA. A LITERARY-HISTORICAL STUDY.)

_Pro-Sh._

This book, though printed in Berlin, is really an American work, as it was written in this country. Pages 29 to 41 are devoted to a review of the works on the authorship question. Mr. Knortz sums up his conclusions against the Baconian theory, and adds:

(_Translation._) “Yet this controversy did some good; it induced the public to give more attention to the works of these two Englishmen; but it especially promoted the study of Shakespeare.”

(KARL KNORTZ is well known as the author of several works on American literature, translations of American poetry, etc.--for the most part printed in Germany. He resides in New York.)

158 THE POLITICAL ALLEGORIES IN THE RENASCENCE DRAMA OF FRANCIS BACON. By WILLIAM THOMSON, F.R.C.S. Melbourne: Sands & McDougall, 1882. Pamphlet, pp. 46.

_Anti-Sh._

Dr. THOMSON here carries out his idea of the political purpose, alludes to the forthcoming _Promus_, and replies to his critics of the Australian press. He answers Dr. Stearns at considerable length, and recapitulates and expands his own arguments as to Bacon’s authorship of the Sonnets.

159 SPEDDING’S VINDICATION OF BACON. A review of “_Spedding’s Evenings with a Reviewer; or, Macaulay and Bacon_.” By R. M. THEOBALD. In the _Nonconformist and Independent_, London. Two articles, January 12, 1882; and January 26, 1882. 5 columns.

_Unc._

These papers contain a reference to the Northumberland manuscripts.

160 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES. Bacon’s Essex-Sonnet, and Thomson’s Renascence Drama. By Dr. C. M. INGLEBY. v. 62, January 28, 1882.

_Pro-Sh._

161 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH:

_a_--_Saturday Review_, London, January 28, 1882.

_b_--Milwaukee _Sentinel_, February 12, 1882.

_c_--Washington _Post_, April 24, 1882.

_d_--Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, July 22, 1882.

_Unc._

162 FRANCIS BACON AND SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. In the _Oracle_, London, February 4, 1882. 2 columns.

_Unc._

This is in answer to the request of L. J. M. for information, and gives, in a short form, the arguments (evidently condensed from Vaile’s paper in _Scribner_) used to support the anti-Shakespearian theory, with a list of the authorities.

163 QUERY 4275. In _Notes and Queries_ column, _Evening Transcript_, Boston, February 13, 1882.

_Unc._

It having been intimated that Delia Bacon was induced to commence her investigations through a fancied relationship to the family of Lord Bacon, this query asked for information on that point. The answers, five in number, give various references and authorities, but no definite answer to the question. The fact seems to be that no such consanguinity was ever claimed.

164 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, of dates following:

_a_--Letter of Appleton Morgan, with answer, February 25, 1882.

_b_--“The Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Literature,” October 21, 1882.

_Unc._

165 REPORT TO THE BRITISH MUSEUM on behalf of the Annals of Great Britain and the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Discovery and opening of the cipher of Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, alike in his prose writings and the “Shakespere” dramas, proving him the author of the dramas. By Mrs. C. F. ASHMEAD WINDLE. San Francisco: Jos. Winterburn & Co., Printers, 1882. (Printed for the author.) Pamphlet, pp. 40.

_Anti-Sh._

Mrs. WINDLE’S second pamphlet. We would rather avoid any mention of this if it could be done with justice to the history of the discussion. The following extract from the article (title 179), on the author and her latest essay, in the San Francisco _Chronicle_ of August 20, 1882, will give an idea of the extraordinary unreason of this effusion:

“The text of this irrational essay seems to have been the passage in Bacon’s _De Augmentis Scientiarum_ on Ciphers, and putting this to the idea of allegory, she gets, as the result, the belief that all of Shakspere’s (Bacon’s) plays are written in cipher. The nature of that cipher is a puzzler, indeed; it is cabalistic, it is bi-lateral, it has a Biblical aspect, it is prophetic, it is under a spell, it is commodious, it is adroit, and it is altogether the most extraordinary example of moonshine and vagary that the curious could wish to puzzle over. The reader, however, had best judge for himself by an example or two. The title of every play has its explanatory catch. That of _Othello_ is:

A tale, oh! I tell, oh! Oh, dell, oh! What wail, oh! Oh, hill, oh! What willow! What hell, oh! What will, oh! At will, oh! At well, oh! I dwell, oh!

“All the characters in the play have their attendant jingles. _Desdemona_ goes ‘With a demon A, with a moan, ah!’ and means the double tragedy of Bacon’s muse; and _Emilia_ stands with ‘I’m ill, you, I mill you,’ and refers to ‘the expression of Bacon’s ill, continued in play after play, as milestones of his life.’ All the characters are sphinxes and riddle-mongers; they are ‘related cues’ to everything under the sun, and it all means--nothing. Similar catches and symbols are repeated in all the plays. _Titus Andronicus_ has:

Tie t’ us and drone accuse; Tie t’ us and drown a curse; Tie t’ us and drum the news.

“This play is Bacon’s judgment of his own case, since _Martius_ means ‘March you us,’ and refers to his service; _Publius_ means ‘Publish us,’ and refers to his fame, etc. As the work goes on, even the plays are not adhered to, and Holy Writ and Montaigne’s Essays come in for an equal share of ‘explanation.’ If by this time the value of Mrs. Windle’s discovery is not apparent, it will need no further extracts to know that too close an application to ‘a startling exemplification in philological science’ has wrought its mischief and unsettled a mind which, with proper use, might have produced something more valuable and less pitiable than a Cipher.”

166 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. SIXTH SERIES.

_a_--Bacon a poet, by Henry G. Atkinson, V, 205, March 18, 1882.

_b_--Answer to above, by Dr. Ingleby, V, 316, April 22, 1882.

_c_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 277, September 30, 1882.

_d_--From Este, VI, 416, November 18, 1882.

_e_--From Dr. Ingleby, VI, 492, December 16, 1882.

_Unc._

167 SHYLOCK’S CASE. By NATHANIEL HOLMES. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, Utah, April, 1882. 13 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

This is a review of _The Struggle for Law_, by Dr. Rudolph von Ihering, of Göttingen, who maintains that injustice was done to Shylock. Judge Holmes’s argument is that the writer of the Trial Act in the _Merchant of Venice_ was a skillful lawyer--in fact, Bacon himself.

168 “MORGAN’S SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” A notice of the book in the _Westminster Review_, London, April 1, 1882. 2 pages.

_Pro-Sh._

169 JUDGE HOLMES AND HIS GREAT SUBJECT--FRANCIS BACON. By E. W. TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, April, 1882. 8 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

170 THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE LITERATURE. By W. H. W. [W. H. WYMAN]. In the Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, April 24, 1882. 5 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

A partial Bibliographical list (25 titles), with some account of Delia Bacon, and an outline of the origin, history, and arguments of the controversy.

171 THE BIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. By F. [EDWARD FILLEBROWN, Brookline, Mass.] In the Brookline _Chronicle_, May 27, 1882. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

172 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” By R. M. THEOBALD. In the _Nonconformist and Independent_, London, June 1, 1882. 2 columns.

_Anti-Sh._

A comprehensive and favorable review of the _Myth_:

“It is intended to prove that the author of Shakespeare, being a scholar, a courtier, a lawyer, master of all the knowledge and science of his age, could not have been a rustic adventurer, ill-educated, untraveled, unfamiliar with court life, busy in making money, and with no time for self-culture. Mr. Morgan is unable to believe this amazing paradox, and accordingly rejects it.”

173 THE GENIUS AND METHODS OF SHAKESPEARE. By E. W. TULLIDGE. In _Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine_, Salt Lake, Utah, July, 1882. 12 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

174 “THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH.” Notice of Morgan’s book in the _British Quarterly Review_, London, July 1, 1882.

_Pro-Sh._

175 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE LITERATURE. Compiled by W. H. WYMAN. 8vo. pp. 8. Cincinnati, July 1, 1882. 63 titles.

_Unc._

This was privately-printed, and contained all the ascertained titles up to the time of issue. The present Bibliography is an extension of it.

176 SHAKESPEARE, BACON AND CHRISTIANITY. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the _Philosophic Inquirer_, Madras, India, July 2, 1882. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

177 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE HIS OWN WORKS? An editorial article in the Oshkosh (Wis.) _Northwestern_, July 17, 1882.

_Pro-Sh._